To all pro-choice out there, willing to discuss your justification for abortion and debate with you. Here's hoping we can have a calm and decent discussion and am personally hoping I can change some minds regarding how one sees abortion.
My question is: how can one not see abortion as the murder of an innocent unborn child?
That's a pretty loaded question.
First of all "murder": people think it's not murder because they think it shouldn't be illegal.
Second "innocent": Well that really depends on your definition of innocent. The fetus has not taken any actions by itself, so in that sense you may call it innocent, on the other hand it does grow in someone else's body and that action may not be viewed as innocent and be enough reason to separate the fetus from the mother
Third "unborn": I guess that's fair, it hasn't been born after all.
Fourth "child": It fits a certain definition of the word child, but you're trying to invoke the more common usage of child meaning a human being between birth to adulthood.
So taking the loaded parts out of your question that people who are pro-choice disagree with it leaves "how can you not see abortion as the killing of a fetus"
And I suppose many people do think it is killing a fetus, just as previously stated they don't see an issue with killing it (just as they see no issue with killing someone in self defense, war, or an animal for sustenance) ... others may not even agree with "killing" saying that a fetus does not have the prerequisites of being killed, that is, not having developed to the stage of being a life.
Originally posted by Bentley
Criteria are always arbitrary, we make reasons from entirely random happenings because our brains work that brain. Things carrying human DNA aren't "human", your cells contain such DNA and when you kill them, you aren't commiting murder. I was explaining that one of the reasonings to kill liberally is that killing non-humans cannot be punished in the same way killing humans should.Anyways, the discussion was about the logic and not about animal cruelty itself. I don't agree with the use of quotations for logic, but that's also an unrelated nitpick 😛
I understood arbitrary as a form of decision making where it wasn't established via a consistent system or reasoning. If I got the word definition wrong, then my prior statement is how I see the whole abortion argument to be based on.
Well, I see your argument as possessing 2 flaws:
1) Parts of a human body DO carry human DNA. But they are parts of a whole organism. The child/fetus itself is an entire living organism unto itself (as it has the potential to grow, use energy/resources autonomously and eventually reproduce). And by killing it, you destroy an entire organism. An organism, that via quantifiable methods is indisputably human. That, by defintion, is killing another human being.
2) Again, you use dehumanizing to justify killing. I've made my argument about this in the DP thread.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a pretty loaded question.First of all "murder": people think it's not murder because they think it shouldn't be illegal.
Second "innocent": Well that really depends on your definition of innocent. The fetus has not taken any actions by itself, so in that sense you may call it innocent, on the other hand it does grow in someone else's body and that action may not be viewed as innocent and be enough reason to separate the fetus from the mother
Third "unborn": I guess that's fair, it hasn't been born after all.
Fourth "child": It fits a certain definition of the word child, but you're trying to invoke the more common usage of child meaning a human being between birth to adulthood.
So taking the loaded parts out of your question that people who are pro-choice disagree with it leaves "how can you not see abortion as the killing of a fetus"
And I suppose many people do think it is killing a fetus, just as previously stated they don't see an issue with killing it (just as they see no issue with killing someone in self defense, war, or an animal for sustenance) ... others may not even agree with "killing" saying that a fetus does not have the prerequisites of being killed, that is, not having developed to the stage of being a life.
1) Fine, let's use the word "killing".
2) The fact that it is growing inside another person is thru no action of the fetus itself. It was thru the action of its parent that it was conceived. So the only "guilty" party here can only be the parents.
3) Ok.
4) It is an unborn child. What else can it be?
So a made-up criteria for defining what a "human being" is the justification for killing unborn children? Of course, ignoring the fact that quantifiable tests would prove 2 things: that the fetus is indeed human (via DNA testing) and a living organism (using scientific definition of what composes a living organism).
Originally posted by Nibedicus
So a made-up criteria for defining what a "human being" is the justification for killing unborn children? Of course, ignoring the fact that quantifiable tests would prove 2 things: that the fetus is indeed human (via DNA testing) and a living organism (using scientific definition of what composes a living organism).
You can say that about everything. All of human categorization is "made up", your definition of what a human being is (i.e. the moment that sperm and egg fused) is just as arbitrarily chosen as any other.
1. The fetus is made up of human cells, the step of calling it a human goes beyond that, and is debatable.
2. It is a living organism, but calling it a life goes beyond that, and is debatable
Originally posted by Bardock42
You can say that about everything. All of human categorization is "made up", your definition of what a human being is (i.e. the moment that sperm and egg fused) is just as arbitrarily chosen as any other.1. The fetus is made up of human cells, the step of calling it a human goes beyond that, and is debatable.
2. It is a living organism, but calling it a life goes beyond that, and is debatable
Not really. DNA would prove that it is human. Scientific criteria of "life" would call it alive.
Sperm and egg contain human DNA but are not "alive" as they do not have the capacity to autonomously grow/mature/reproduce/use energy on their own without first undergoing a process that requires outside influence.
If you think that a fetus being "life" is debatable, then debate it.
As I'm seeing now, this is just refusal to accept the possibility of being wrong due to fear of the implications of being wrong.
That's the issue though, this whole argument is based on word with multiple meanings, taking one meaning and claiming it therefore has the other.
Lets take the word "life" and this definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life
A fetus is a life in the sense that it is a living organism (definition 1a), however you are then saying because definition 1a fits, it also fits definition 3 (a living being, especially a person) and should therefore have the same rights.
Personhood is legally and arbitrarily defined however. A 5 year old has not the same rights as a 16 years old, a 16 year old has not the same rights as a 40 year old), so just saying that it is a developmental form of a human being, while true, doesn't make a good case why it should have the right to be connected to another human being for sustenance.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the issue though, this whole argument is based on word with multiple meanings, taking one meaning and claiming it therefore has the other.Lets take the word "life" and this definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life
A fetus is a life in the sense that it is a living organism (definition 1a), however you are then saying because definition 1a fits, it also fits definition 3 (a living being, especially a person) and should therefore have the same rights.
Personhood is legally and arbitrarily defined however. A 5 year old has not the same rights as a 16 years old, a 16 year old has not the same rights as a 40 year old), so just saying that it is a developmental form of a human being, while true, doesn't make a good case why it should have the right to be connected to another human being for sustenance.
False comparison. Children have "less" rights than adults mostly due to the fact that they are incapable of making life altering decisions prior to reaching the needed maturity to do so. One's right to life, however, does not increase/diminish with age.
It is connected to another person for sustenance due to the actions of the person whose body they are attached to. Their conception is in no ways within their control nor was it ever their decision to be conceived in the first place. While the parent themselves is completely 100% the responsible party that has forced this human to be now dependent on the person they were forced to be connected to. You are essentially looking at this backwards. Sadly, it is the parents with all the choice and the all the power.
Your problem here, Nibedicus is that you are overly attached to a scientific definition of 'human' that really sidesteps the argument, because the crux of the debate in the real world does not really centre around that (when scientific ideas of what makes something 'human' are presented, they really just form pieces of the wider moral argument below- never a conclusion).
The definition of 'human' used in all of these debates is not a scientific but a social/moral one- as in, when does a fetus become a true sentient being with the rights we give to humans?
Catholics traditionally believe it happens at conception. Pretty much everyone agrees once the baby leaves the mother, it has rights; indeed, very few see it as not being human in anything like that timescale, though some partial birth abortions are done very late and are part of the argument.
So all it comes down to- when is the fetus considered a proper, functioning moral human which gets the rights of such a being? And that really is 100% of the argument- from 'the moment it is created' to some defined time period.
Those who back abortion believe what is being destroyed is not in any way a sentient human life form with moral or legal rights. It is nothing to do with science- it is philosophy. A bundle of cells with human DNA does not necessarily a human make.
If you spend your whole time saying 'Science says it is human, you cannot argue with that' then you will never understand what you are trying to understand. It's also a very narrow view, and questionable.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It does though, like when you are a fetus, and can be aborted.Sure, except in cases of rape, the mother was partially responsible for having the fetus grow inside her, that doesn't mean she has to be bound by that though.
Circular logic. I mean, obviously.
In which case I said I was fine with instances of rape/medical reasons.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Circular logic. I mean, obviously.In which case I said I was fine with instances of rape/medical reasons.
But your "there isn't another case except for the cases where it happens" is a better argument?
I'm saying even if they are responsible for it happening, that's not a good reason to say they have to stick with it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your problem here, Nibedicus is that you are overly attached to a scientific definition of 'human' that really sidesteps the argument, because no part of the debate really centres around that.The definition of 'human' used in all of these debates is not a scientific but a social/moral one- as in, when does a fetus become a true sentient being with the rights we give to humans?
Catholics traditionally believe it happens at conception. Pretty much everyone agrees once the baby leaves the mother, it has rights; indeed, very few see it as not being human in anything like that timescale, though some partial birth abortions are done very late and are part of the argument.
So all it comes down to- when is the fetus considered a proper, functioning moral human which gets the rights of such a being? And that really is 100% of the argument- from 'the moment it is created' to some defined time period.
Those who back abortion believe what is being destroyed is not in any way a sentient human life form with moral or legal rights. It is nothing to do with science- it is philosophy.
Who defines what "true sentience" is? Why shouldn't it centre around what is scientific, what are we left with once we take scientific definitions out? Do we now arbitrarily decide based on what is most convenient? I can't even imagine where one can even consider killing anything to be deciding within a "moral" framework. Maybe within a framework of "necessity" but def not "morality".
Has the philosophy of what constitutes "life" and "sentience" been completely explored, established and agreed upon? Is it fact that fetuses have no unique sentience of their own? Who decides that? And if that is all still up in the air, then why take the position where innocent life pays the price instead of protecting it?
What if you're wrong? What if the arbitrary number/age assigned to sentience was wrong? What if the child fears/feels everything during abortion (there are hints to this at 8 weeks btw). Imagine sentencing someone to the death penalty even tho guilt isn't even all that clear yet. Imagine sentencing a helpless, innocent child to that.
Sentience is relative. And so is the system of assigning rights within a level of perceived "sentience". Does a mentally underdeveloped child now have less rights to life than a fully developed one? Is killing an underdeveloped child now less wrong that killing a normal one? As arguably, one can claim that one has a higher sentience than the other? To claim morality/justice, right to life has to be consistent throughout. We don't get to pick and choose.
See, I'll have to completely disagree with this line of thought. Who are we to decide what is proper or functioning? Newborns are no more "proper" nor
"functioning" by the definition of the word than fetuses, yet they seem to have rights to life. We need to be consistent on who gets the right to life and who does not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But your "there isn't another case except for the cases where it happens" is a better argument?I'm saying even if they are responsible for it happening, that's not a good reason to say they have to stick with it.
When did I say that? Pls quote me so I can clarify/correct myself.
Why not? We're weighting one's temporary autonomy vs one's permanent life. I thought one's right end when another begins and the right to life is the highest one there is. Priorities....