Originally posted by Myth
Let me put it this way. Do you believe that killing is morally wrong? I sure hope you do. But then again, who are you to have a monopoly on this truth? Anyway, if you believe that a fetus is alive, then abortion is murder, and hence, morally wrong.You are saying that it is not morally wrong because it is not killing life. If it weren't life, I would agree that it wasn't morally wrong. But it is life. Stem cell research is tests on 'living tissue' (fetal tissue/transplant research in finding disease cures rely upon living tissue). The scientists that do this stuff are pro-choice yet they acknowledge it as living tissue themselves. How can living tissue come from something that is not life? And how can a living thing that is not human become human? It can't. Therefore, it IS human.
For those who argue "my body, my choice," think about this: How can the mother be simultaneously male and female? How can the mother have two blood types? How can the mother be two races? Why are the baby's cell chromosomes distinct from the mother? How is it that one can die and not the other?
With that last part, many of you say that it is not alive until birth. Then why is it that a mother can die, and the baby is still alive insider her? Obviously life comes before birth if the mother is dead and the baby inside her is still kicking.
kill v. To terminate life.
mur·der n. The unjust or unwarranted termination life.
Killing is not wrong. In fact, it is often essential to terminate the lives of some things in order to sustain the lives of others. This is true of harvesting crops, butchering livestock, and even terminating a pregnancy when it threatens the health of the mother.
No one is arguing that a fetus is non-living. However, just because cellular life is present, it does not follow from that a fetus is a life. See my previous post on the matter:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To determine when life begins, let us consider when life ends. Clinical death is the complete and irreversible cessation of hearbeat and brain activity but it is not the end of the life cycle. Long after clinical death occurs, cells divide and hair and nails continue to grow. Eventhough cellular life is present, the person is clearly not living. This standard is also used to determine when life begins. For if life exists when cellular life is present, then the clinically dead would also be considered alive.
Furthermore, no one is arguing that a fetus is not human. Anything containing human DNA is human. This includes everything from fetuses to fingernail clippings.
Regarding the issue of choice, is it morally incumbent on a woman to accede to a forced pregnancy? Should the government be involved in forcing women to remain pregnant? I refer you to the argument I presented earlier that every pro-life person in this thread has failed to address:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.