aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Apr 19, 2010 13:33:33 GMT -8
Jumping around a little bit here...
Things that have helped me define my belief that fetuses are little human beings are:
1. DNA - DNA is a very good descriptor of species and individual human beings. Each little fetus has it's own DNA it isn't the Mother's or the Father's it has a unique set of it's own, and it is growing and developing according to it's DNA guidelines, and the nutrients it receives from it's mother/surrogate mother (fetus implantation)
2. A fetus cannot live without its mother/surrogate (unless special circumstances; test-tube babies etc.) Also, a 1yr old child cannot live without someone caring for it (not able to live on its own). Also, many handicapped people of all ages cannot live without someone caring for them. Yet, it is not legal or ethical to kill them.
3. A fetus is not the same as a 1 year old developmentally, and a 1 yr old isn't the same as a 35yr old. I am not the same as I was at 5yrs old, but it is my opinion that it is important to respect human life and development at whatever stage/metamorphosis. It is really special to see it's beauty at all stages as well.
4. I think that people do have the choice to make many moral decisions on their own.
Even if something is illegal, people still have the ability to do it, and can make that choice. Therefore, making something illegal doesn't mean you can't chose to do it, it just means you have consequences (and possibly those will forestall some people from making mistakes). Laws are a form of describing a society, all laws are a form of moral judgment. I particularly like laws that (try to) protect the helpless.
5. I also care about women who do have abortions. They do not have an easy time of it. The wonderful thing about God is that he loves everyone and through Jesus' sacrifice, does not hold our past against us. If we completely give up our life to Him, we will find a much better one. He wants us to be close with Him and will help us grow, and take care of us no matter what stage we are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 19, 2010 20:50:08 GMT -8
Great points, Aimee!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 7, 2010 11:24:29 GMT -8
In what way is the principle of my argument depending on the question of whether the fetus is my own to-be child or someone elses? The answer I gave you above applies 1:1: The murder of a pregnant woman is single homicide of special severity in my opinion. And what if the woman is not killed? What if it were a woman who had been carrying a baby only to have to baby killed through some vicious means by another person. What if the woman was stabbed, kicked in the stomach killing only the child? Would that be murder or assault? Following the same line of argumenmtation I used before, it can't be murder. I would classify it as grievous bodily harm of the woman. I would also classify it that way if the woman wasn't stabbed but "merely" kicked in the belly and the fetus died. Until the fetus is viable without the mother, it is a part of her body. Killing that part of her body without her agreement is like destroying one of her kidneys. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 7, 2010 12:24:15 GMT -8
How can you establish, with certainty, this is the case? Children that are born premature are considered nothing less than human. I don't see how there is a difference between a 32 week infant who is still with the mother and one who was born premature. The independent awareness and sensitivities between the two are no different. Why would the value of the life within the mother be less than that of child born, when they are at the same level of development?
Lets change the scenario. What if it were and adult who was on life support after undergoing some form of illness or injury, and according to all the doctors the likelihood of survival is good, But I decide to destroy the equipment that is keep this person alive and in turn the person dies. Based on your view the value of the person being kept alive is determined by that persons ability to maintain their life independently. Therefore I could only be guilty of damaging equipment not the life for which it was sustaining, due to the fact that it had no life independent of the equipment.
To me it matters little whether someone is able to live with or without the support of another person. It only important question in my mind is whether there is human life, and if so the life of the fetus is just as important, if not more so, than the life of a full grown adult.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 8, 2010 3:35:10 GMT -8
Why would the value of the life within the mother be less than that of child born, when they are at the same level of development? Isn't that exactly my line of reasoning?  I argued that once a fetus reached that point of development from which on it can theoretically be removed from the mother (even premature) without dying it has to be considered of the same worth as any other human, even if it hasn't been born yet. The deliberate killing of such a fetus is murder in my opinion. No disagreement here. But a fetus who is not yet viable without the mother obviously isn't at the same level of development as a born child or a fetus that is about to be born in five minutes. That doesn't mean it is worthless and may be killed just like that. It only means this kind of killing can't be murder. Lets change the scenario. What if it were and adult who was on life support after undergoing some form of illness or injury, and according to all the doctors the likelihood of survival is good, But I decide to destroy the equipment that is keep this person alive and in turn the person dies. Based on your view the value of the person being kept alive is determined by that persons ability to maintain their life independently. Therefore I could only be guilty of damaging equipment not the life for which it was sustaining, due to the fact that it had no life independent of the equipment. No, you are transferring (and somewhat modifying) a statement I made about the beginning of life to the end of life. That's erroneous. Thus far we have debated where humanness begins, not where it ends. That's a totally different story. The scenario you described is murder in my opinion. The difference is, that the unfinished fetus is not a person and has hence no personality rights while the born human is a person and remains a person until his death. This reasoning is in a way resembling St. Augustine's view, who argued that "a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (...)." " This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder."* Cross the word soul in the first instance and replace it by person in the second and that's where I stand. In the end, the semantics matter little. Human, murder, person, soul... what it really comes down to for me is that killing this is nowhere near as grave as killing this or even this. *Source: www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on May 8, 2010 9:46:31 GMT -8
No one has the ability to determine when a soul is created. Robin's argument is pretty compelling in my opinion and I think it's being danced around a little. At least we agree it's bad for fetuses to be killed, but if we don't equate it with serious consequences, the fetus will continue to be killed....I hope we agree it is being "killed" because no one can deny the heartbeat. Here's a picture of what a 12 week old baby looks like. Pretty darn human to me. Attachments:12 week baby.doc.jpg (26.5 KB)
|
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 8, 2010 15:28:10 GMT -8
I have children and I never for a moment considered abortion-but I cannot see where I have the power to stop anyone else from having one. Neither I nor the law has the right to tell another person that they must allow a fetus to use their organs for 9 months even if they don't want to. Think of all of the objections you would have against forced abortions (but it's her body, her decision-you can't tell people how many children they should have-you can't allow the law to invade people's body like that) and they almost all apply in reverse.
If a fetus no longer needs the mother's organs to survive then I think they should be removed (so we're not making the mother allow the use of her organs against her will) but not aborted (so we're not violating the fetus's right to life). However before viability it would just be cruel to remove a living (and in my opinion conscious) fetus to protect the mother's right to personal autonomy so I support abortion as an alternative to suffering.
I think the real solution is to change our attitudes. I have seen first hand the stigma that still surrounds young mothers to this day and I know that the stigma, combined with a lack of support, is often why women (or young girls) abort. I think that as Christians we should not treat teen/unwed/poor mothers as pariahs to be preached and ostracized into repenting for her sin of creating a beautiful baby, but rather as a welcome member of the community-who we are willing to help and support judgment-free. I have worked with women and seen this work first hand. So many are moved not by the force of our judgment or reprimands, but by the compassion and service we offer in the name of Christ...and since that is all we can do from a legal standpoint we might as well get to doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on May 8, 2010 17:40:26 GMT -8
What if a family doesn't want to allow the use of their money to support their children anymore? We can't force them against their will and they should be able to terminate them....seriously.
This is ridiculous and when someone chooses sex, it is for the purpose of pleasure but it is also for the purpose of making people. When people choose sex, they have to know that they might be entering into big responsibility--making a kid that they have to sacrafice for (share organs with, share money with, share time with, etc.). We cannot choose.....except to have sex or not.
This argument is relevant. Having sex is about potentially getting pregnant and responsibility starts at that moment…..when people choose sex. Making humans involves a ton of sacrifice…..beginning with the woman sacrificing her body, then everyone sacrificing their time, money, house, agenda, etc. If people want sex, they better be prepared to have a baby because it might happen. People want to have all pleasures and erase all responsibility. This is a false reality and it hurts people.
Yes, people should help the young, single moms and dads.
|
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 8, 2010 21:36:20 GMT -8
What if a family doesn't want to allow the use of their money to support their children anymore? We can't force them against their will and they should be able to terminate them....seriously. People can terminate their parental rights at any time they choose-that's why foster homes exist. The decision to donate the use of your organs can ONLY be consciously made. You are making a moral argument against abortion, which is fine on a moral level, but we cannot legally force Christian morals on other people. On a practical level you must allow the mother the opportunity to allow or deny the fetus access to her organs, because the government cannot dictate the use or non use of her body. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 9, 2010 4:41:26 GMT -8
No one has the ability to determine when a soul is created. However, St. Augustine shows us that the Church itself flip-flopped (several times) on the question of abortion. The case isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. I don't believe in the existence of souls anyway, that's why I said cross it. Robin's argument is pretty compelling in my opinion and I think it's being danced around a little. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you say I have avoided his argument? Please elaborate. I personally think I haven't, I just think the presented view doesn't resonate with me. Bummer. But yours is a legitimate way to look at things. I'll give you that. By the way, haven't we already agreed to disagree? Or was that just me? ;D At least we agree it's bad for fetuses to be killed, but if we don't equate it with serious consequences, the fetus will continue to be killed....I hope we agree it is being "killed" because no one can deny the heartbeat. As I said before, we agree that it is being killed. (The ever repeated heartbeat argument hasn't got a lot of force though in my opinion. A heartbeat is ultimately an electric impuls causing a muscular contraction. Attach a corpse to a machine and it will have a heartbeat again. But that doesn't mean it is alive, does it? Remove the corpse from the machine and the heartbeat is gone. Remove the 12 week old fetus from the mother and the same thing happens. I think there is no getting around the fact that there's a qualitative difference between a fully developped fetus, that is viable without the body of the mother, and a fetus still in the making) As for the question of the serious consequences: I've argued earlier in this thread that I don't think legal consequences will reduce the numbers of abortions significantly. Just like the prohibition of alcohol didn't really reduce the consumption and just like the penalization of doping in sports didn't stop athletes from doing it. Prohibition isn't getting to the root of the problem. This is a matter of rational choice: Simple cost-benefit-calculations. Introducing heavy penalties for abortions increases the cost, sure. But only if you get caught! The demand for abortions will remain the same and if there is demand, there is going to be offer as well. That is the crux. A black market will rise and organized crime is likely to be the benefitter. The real solution comes from within and I'm very much in agreement with deus ex machina when she says we have to change our attitudes. I do believe that the capitalist spirit combined with the social revolutions of the late 60s and the century old progress of individualism has brought about a societal ethos that is at it's core hostile towards families, pregnant women and babies. At least that's the impression I get where I live. Let me explain: I have the feeling that today the biggest means of social reckognition is success. Especially financial and professional success. In an environment of global competition, only economic growth counts. Women have become an indispensible part of the gross national product yet the structure of working life has done little to integrate family wishes into the system. Total productivity and hence total availability is the request. A woman, who openly and honestly tells in a job interview, that she is planning to have kids soon, won't get the job, it's as simple as that (perhaps the U.S. are more advanced here), because the boss (understandably) is seeking continuation and wants to be able to make long term planning, which is impossible if a baby-wish is floating around the place. If you keep your plans to yourself and present the boss with a fait accompli you are likely to earn incomprehension and disapproval to the point of blame. This may not be the case for all kinds of jobs and all bosses, but it certainly is a widespread social reality for many women and men (who won't drop out because of pregnancy but because of paternity leave). The consequence of this structure within an ever individualistic society is that many women put career first. While stay-at-home-mums were highly respected in the past, today such women have to justify themselves and have consequently become rare. This is the social premise a pregnant women finds itself in. What we have to do, is increase the perceived benefit of having children. We can't undo the structures that led to individualism, but we can help to make pregnancy become desirable again. Families deserve respect. They are not throttleing the economy but are the backbone of it (technically speaking, reproducing economical success requires the reproduction of the persons who are responsible for this success)! The upgrading of the worth of the family should not throw us back into the 50's where a womans place was behind the oven. There is no need to take away the professional selfdetermination of anyone. But we have to create a climate in which it is also okay for men to take care of children. We have to create professional structures in which babies aren't tolerated but welcome and young couples encouraged to go that way. Where pregnancy is good news, abortion is hardly an option. Such a change of attitude is much more effective than simply prohibiting abortion. On the legal side, I think pregnant women who want to abort should be forced to consult a religiously neutral institution trying to persuade them to keep the baby. Without such a certificate, no doctor should be allowed to see it through. Women who would refrain from an abortion merely because it is illegal can be persuaded through different means as well. I think that anti-abortionists often underestimate the desperation of women who seek an abortion. Many of those women think there is no other solution but might be convinced of the opposite. There's always a solution. Is anyone still reading this? |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on May 9, 2010 15:47:26 GMT -8
The decision to have sex (and possibly get pregnant) can ONLY be consciously made and consequences come (fetus formed) that people cannot just skip over and terminate. The moment a person consents to sex, they are consenting to possibly sharing their organs if they get pregnant. Choosing to have sex is a responsibility just like any other one that people take on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 9, 2010 18:11:56 GMT -8
moritz wrote:
That's debatable. Most sources I read say it was mildly successful, some say it did reduce the amount of people drinking alcohol by up to 25% (which is a significant difference), and other sources say it increased the amount consumed! Anyway, I don't think you can really use this to bolster your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 9, 2010 20:36:25 GMT -8
The decision to have sex (and possibly get pregnant) can ONLY be consciously made and consequences come (fetus formed) that people cannot just skip over and terminate. The moment a person consents to sex, they are consenting to possibly sharing their organs if they get pregnant. Choosing to have sex is a responsibility just like any other one that people take on. Morally, sure. Legally-no. You cannot apply implied consent laws to organ donation. That's why if you get into an accident they cannot take your organs unless you have a donor symbol on your license or have a copy of your advanced directive logged at the hospital. Organ donation must be explicitly and specifically agreed to. |
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 9, 2010 21:32:37 GMT -8
moritz wrote: That's debatable. Most sources I read say it was mildly successful, some say it did reduce the amount of people drinking alcohol by up to 25% (which is a significant difference), and other sources say it increased the amount consumed! Anyway, I don't think you can really use this to bolster your argument. Proof that legality does not effect the number of abortions in any significant way (but although legality does in fact impact the safety of abortions): Current data from around the world: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/Historical proof that during the US history abortion rates have remained roughly the same whether it was legal or not can be found in: Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America (http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Hearth-Nineteenth-Century-America-Studies/dp/0807842257) where it studies the effect of law on family matters including child birth, contraception, and abortion. The only conclusive thing that has been determined across the board is that widely available, easy to use, contraception decreases the abortion rate significantly. The most convincing proof of this would be the Netherlands, which has legal abortion on demand until 21 weeks, but also has the world's lowest abortion rate. This has been proven to be because of a wide use of contraception-most young people report using at least two methods of contraception with every sexual encounter. |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on May 9, 2010 23:07:08 GMT -8
So women should consciously know that when they consent to take their clothes off and have intercourse, they are consenting to organ sharing with a possible human fetus. And men likewise, should know when they consent to have sex with a woman, they are consenting to sharing their resources (and hopefully love) with a possible fetus. Sex = responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 9, 2010 23:22:09 GMT -8
Carrie: The decision to have sex (and possibly get pregnant) can ONLY be consciously made and consequences come (fetus formed) that people cannot just skip over and terminate. The moment a person consents to sex, they are consenting to possibly sharing their organs if they get pregnant. Choosing to have sex is a responsibility just like any other one that people take on. I'm basically in agreement with you about this. It bothers me as well that many people want the pleasure and reject the responsibilities. A follow-up question arises though: what about rape? Raped women obviously didn't agree to have sex and to take the risk of having to share their organs. What do you make of that?
Josh:
That's debatable. Most sources I read say it was mildly successful, some say it did reduce the amount of people drinking alcohol by up to 25% (which is a significant difference), and other sources say it increased the amount consumed! Anyway, I don't think you can really use this to bolster your argument. The sources I read mostly say that the effect of prohibition was at best minimal in terms of decreasing the consumption of alcohol yet with the sideeffect of an unwanted yet massive strenghening of organized crime. But this sideargument is only distracting from the core of the matter: Not the legal status is the problem but the demand for abortion! Even if the prohibition (of alcohol) example didn't apply, I think there are millions of examples backing my point. And instead of focussing on the quality of the examples, I'd like you to consider the substantial argument I'm making, namely that a change of attitude has more prospect of success. Does that seem plausible to you? Do you believe outlawing abortion is getting to the root of the problem?* *Note that I know you want abortion outlawed even if it didn't stop a single person from aborting. We've already talked about that. I know it is crime in your opinion. So my question for you is not: should abortion be outlawed but (I repeat): do you believe outlawing abortion will solve the problem? Deus ex machina:Morally, sure. Legally-no. You cannot apply implied consent laws to organ donation. That's why if you get into an accident they cannot take your organs unless you have a donor symbol on your license or have a copy of your advanced directive logged at the hospital. Organ donation must be explicitly and specifically agreed to. Good point! Proof that legality does not effect the number of abortions in any significant way (but although legality does in fact impact the safety of abortions): Current data from around the world: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/Historical proof that during the US history abortion rates have remained roughly the same whether it was legal or not can be found in: Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America (http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Hearth-Nineteenth-Century-America-Studies/dp/0807842257) where it studies the effect of law on family matters including child birth, contraception, and abortion. The only conclusive thing that has been determined across the board is that widely available, easy to use, contraception decreases the abortion rate significantly. The most convincing proof of this would be the Netherlands, which has legal abortion on demand until 21 weeks, but also has the world's lowest abortion rate. This has been proven to be because of a wide use of contraception-most young people report using at least two methods of contraception with every sexual encounter. Thanks for the data! I'm fully in agreement with your conclusion. The problem of abortion can be tackled on many fronts. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies has to be a (perhaps the) major focus. Changing attitudes towards pregnancy is another promising focus in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 10, 2010 6:51:26 GMT -8
Our legally code is based on a moral standard. Laws are not arbitrary. I don't see how you can separate the two. If it can be established that the fetus within the mother is in fact its own independent life, it is natural to say that society has a moral obligation to extend basic human rights even to that person.
|
|
