quote: It's easy if you believe the word of God is still being revealed and written today
Sure, but then you'd have to believe that parts of the Five Books of Moses are false. Which sorta makes it not matter what you think of Exodus.
Anyway, my point is that there is scripture that could plausibly be interpreted as pro-choice. If one makes a monolithic statement that, "The Bible says X." then only one counterexample is needed to disprove it. And in this case, there are several plausible counter-examples.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first article is the worst example of misusing 'science' I have ever seen. Most of the 'facts' are specious to say the least, others are blatantly wrong. I do not support abortion in general, but I think it would be difficult to support that belief solely by looking at biological facts.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
For pro-lifers - WHY do you take this stance? At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point at which an embryo should be considered a human being entitled to legal protections is thoroughly arbitrary, but should probably be tied to things like brain activity and the possibility of independent life outside the womb. It's for this reason that I'm reluctantly okay with abortion in the first trimester, since there's absolutely no possibility that the fetus is self-aware or engaging in conscious thought prior to that time. I'm not a big fan of using the semi-arbitrary guideline of "three months good, four months bad," but I also recognize that any legal yardstick of that sort will be inexact -- and also recognize that the social cost of no available abortions is probably larger than the social cost of a number of aborted babies who never even had the opportunity to realize they existed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson - You may be right, but what's the deal with being "reluctantly" okay with it? Does anyone think there's a possability that human life begins at conception?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the fetus is a living human at conception, sure. I don't think it's a sentient being at conception, and I'm more concerned about killing sentient beings than I am about "human life."
After all, you can make the argument that cancer cells are "human life."
People who believe that a unique soul becomes permanently attached to a body at conception obviously have a good reason to worry about this, but I can't imagine why anyone else would.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who believe that a unique soul becomes permanently attached to a body at conception obviously have a good reason to worry about this, but I can't imagine why anyone else would.
There are also some who don't necessarily believe this, but think that there's a possibility that it does. These people would also have good reason to worry about it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, yes. I'm not sure the distinction is really all THAT relevant, but I'll concede it anyway. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's somewhat relevant, because it describes me, I think.
-o-
quote:For pro-lifers - WHY do you take this stance? At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
I kind of "slide it back," mentally, if I can make that make sense.
I think pretty clearly fetuses are as roughly sentient as infants at some point before they are born. That is, there is evidence that at some late stage in the game, the fetus is aware, and is certainly viable. I start from the position that a fetus viable to live outside of the womb is a human life, entitled to all the legal protections that implies.
(As an admitted "I believe I'm right" non-statement, I will interject here the comment that in my opinion, anyone who can't grant at least this much is not being reasonable. Sorry if that offends. I don't know if I can express this view non-offensively, but I believe there is value in expressing it.)
Based on this, then, the question in my mind is not "Does sentient human life begin before birth?" but--rather obviously--"How long before birth does sentient human life begin?" Having satisfied myself that a fetus is entitled to legal protection before birth, the only issue then is when this starts. Now, we can't set a specific date at which setience begins. We also don't really have a clear working definition of what intelligent human life is--to couch the question religiously, at what time the soul enters the body. Given our muddled understanding and lack of information, it only seems reasonable to me to err on the side of prudence.
I'm not positive that the fetus always counts as a human life. But it's possible that it does--and I'm certain that eventually it does. Terminating a human life--particularly one powerless to make choices--is much more morally wrong to me than the cost of prohibiting abortion. I think the fetus's rights trump the mother's rights.
The farther along the fetus gets, the less flexible I am in my beliefs. I suspect that a fertilized egg doesn't have a "soul"--though I'm certainly not anything like certain on the issue--and so I would be willing to compromise--only on the belief that a partial victory is better than total defeat--with extremely early abortions or something like the morning after pill. (Even saying that makes me feel vaguely monstruous.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It describes me, too. Good post, Icarus. I agree with Icarus, with one clarification:
quote: I think the fetus's rights trump the mother's rights.
I think the fetus's right to live trumps the mother's rights, except in cases where the mother's right to live is threatened. She has to be able to defend her own life and health, even against a baby in her own womb.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At what point do you think an embryo should legally be considered a human being? Do you have any information that would support your belief?
I believe the burden of proof rests with you. Can you say for certain at what point human life starts? Even taking into account brain wave activity and such, how can anyone say for certain that life begins at this point? Until you can say this, I believe you should err on the side of caution.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the fetus's right to live trumps the mother's rights, except in cases where the mother's right to live is threatened. She has to be able to defend her own life and health, even against a baby in her own womb.
I find this reasonable.
My own feelings are definitely affected by my Catholic upbringing; I make a distinction between actively killing the fetus and passively allowing it to die. I know some people would argue that the distinction is a meaningless one. *shrug*
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't we slipping into the whole "Drawing a line in a continuum" here? When does an acorn become an oak tree? etc. etc.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I've migrated more pro-choice over the years, exactly because I can't stand the "christian" arguments any longer.
I know I'm not fully a biological scientist, but my own "line" is related to cellular differentiation in the embryo. If cells can still be knocked off to form an identical twin, it's not at "human" stage yet.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
