I'm not entirely sure that a 1-year-old baby has a soul. Should we then, on that basis, legalize infanticide, if both the parents so choose? (Or maybe just the woman?)
Never made any such claim .. only claimed that he had a soul prior to coma.. Maybe the soul does enter a fetus -- but at what point along the way ?
What is a soul -- what is the criteria .. perhaps we should legalize infanticide .. can you not figure out a reason why we shouldn't ?
W We can't legalize infanticide because the baby can survive without threatening someone else's life in doing so. The existence of souls is a religious matter and not within the purview of American law. I believe they exist and, like Augustine, that they are placed in the baby by God at the moment of birth and so are undisturbed by abortion.
A fetus can survive without threatening the woman's life too. In the vast majority of pregnancies, "the woman's life" is not a legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy, especially not one that's going perfectly normal.
My opposition to abortion is rooted in the instinct that the unborn have rights. The fact that the unborn have rights will soon be made evident by the actions of authoritian leaders/governments. And when the masses say, "Hey, you can't do that to fetuses in the womb!", the reply will be: "You have made it legal to scrape it out of the womb, and now you claim I can't do this!?"
Instincts are for animals. Try to be a human and use your reason onstead. What even is "the unborn"? Technically, the child I have neither had nor created is an "unborn" and if "the unborn" have rights, why don't the dead have rights too? That is only evidence of what most people already know - Authoritarianism sucks. How absolutely ridiculous.
Your entire argument assumes that humans have only two options when it comes to fetuses (vehicles to continue the analogy). Destroy it or allow it to develop. And for thousands of years this is the only way that humans can affect the vehicle. But now, humans have the capability to do many more things to that vehicle and the vehicle can still be used. The question for humanity has now become: What rights do I have to my vehicle prior to MY OWN capability to modify it?
Not before the first trimestre it can't. It is a threat to her life if it goes agaist what she wants in life.
So it sounds to me that you think it beyond the realm of possibility that a leader or government can systematically mandate genetic manipulation on babies born in their state. I for one am fully aware of what the Nazis would have tried to do if they possessed our current genetic knowledge. And I'm also not so naive to think humans are done with that sort of behavior. So like I said, soon the civilized world will have to confront this problem. And there is no way to do that with intellectual consistency if you are going to make the practice of scraping it out legal.
It is already kind of happening in China, so of course it is possible. But, claiming that legalisation of abortion automatically leads to totalitarianism is just stupid and nothing but hysteric fear-mongering. If America ever becomes a dictatorship, it is more likely that it will be an Evangelist one that is fully against abortion.
I never said that legalized abortion leads to totalitarianism. I'm saying that totalitarianism will use your legalized abortion argument against you to justify their own heinous actions. And when someone inevitably does this, we are going to have a philosophical and legal problem in telling them they can't.
That can be said about anything that is legal now. "They will use the legality of circumcision to cut off your genitalia" and "they will use free speech to brainwash you" etc etc. The most important part, however, is that dictators do not really care about the law. I do not see why this hypothetocal dystopic strawman of yours is even relevant to the topic though.
It's relevant because it's a very likely scenario in the near future that will force us to have a discussion on what rights the unborn have. What rights do I have to the modification of my "vehicle" before I can modify it? My instinct says we have rights here.
No answer? Did you have a right that prevented a scientist from tweaking your DNA to make you more docile? Should you have that right? Or the right against any other forms of manipulation of what would eventually become YOUR BODY? Even with your mother's consent, do you feel that you had some rights to prevent at least some things being done to you while a fetus? And if so, how do you mesh these rights with legalized abortion? I've yet to hear a satisfying answer from a prochoicer on this question in the 5 years I have been asking. Maybe you can be the first.
As a person born with an incurable and inheritable condition, I am not fully against "fetus manipulation". In fact, such advancements could even benefit me if I ever decide to have children. To a certain extent, it is already possible with IVF and CRISPR.
You have been told this. Federal law in Roe v Wade and subsequent cases obligates women to give birth after the 2nd trimester with few exceptions such as when the pregnancy is life threatening. So if you are prochoicer, you disagree with Roe as it most definitely restricts women's choice. Our SCOTUS justices clearly state the reasons for this restriction, one of them being the consideration of the concept of sanctity of life, which so many here flippantly dismiss as a pertinent subject when I bring it up in these debates.
I agree - but , this was a rabbit hole that another poster wandered down - suggesting a young baby had no soul. At birth is as sensible answer as any .. I put it at "I think therefore I am" - Cognition which is round 22 weeks - which leaves it mostly undisturbed by abortion. While not within the purview of Law - The religious rights vote - and almost all believe the soul arrives at conception - which to me makes no sense .. as the fleshy vessel has not the ability to think at this point ... the wiring of the brain not yet complete.
Sometimes you have to start simple and build from there ... and yes .. these days we can put the vehicle into suspended animation - and the vehicle analogy was initially brought up by someone else - so I responded to that person using that argument. There question here though - is when does the soul enter the vehicle .. the fleshy abode in which it will reside until death. Important to this question is where the soul comes from prior to entering the fleshy vessel .. and where it will go after.
I am empathetic to your plight. I know that humans' bodies can be harmed prior to birth. I know that humans' bodies can be helped prior to birth. In the former I can explain many different harmful things (but beneficial to the state) that can be perpetrated on individual fetuses or even an masse. Then I ask should these be tolerated as norms? And if they shouldn't be, then I can ask why is abortion? The latter is a different debate that I'm less sure on. I'm still working out why it is even wrong to manipulate DNA for what we think are beneficial reasons. It has to do with interrupting our evolution, not rights of the unborn.
I'm not sure about the harming the soul stuff. But I can picture in my mind's eye many ways to harm the "fleshy abode". Prior to birth. And this presents rights questions.
Abstinence and proper judgement fails. Beginning of story. If the culture embraced the idea a women should not engage in the sex act with a man that has no interest in her well being, or the well being of her possible offspring, abortion would be a very small issue. The sex act is viewed by most in this culture as only recreational and as a way of "getting off"......instant gratification.
