I am Atheist so arguments that Pro-Life people make on religious grounds aren't very persuasive to me. I think buried a little deeper are some ethical arguments than can be persuasive but perhaps aren't always presented very well. "Potential" is definitely key here because a fetus isn't anything really. A fetus is a woman, I suppose, but that includes having to disregard its potential to be an independent person. There is an ethical debate discussing "potential". One side says "potential" can't matter. The other side says it does. I'm thinking that it "potential" probably does. I'm just not sure exactly how it should be addressed. Anesthetics eliminate pain, conscious awareness, etc. The constitution didn't think that a severed finger or arm should be considered property 200 years ago either until medical advancements enabled a person to have it sewed back on. The current political debate does seem to pit women against babies, doesn't it?
My view comes from the argument of "potential". I don't think more value, no. Nor do I think the answer is to hand decisions over to "someone". And I don't care much about a zygote or an embryo. The "fetus" is unique in my view because while it may only be an 11 week old life form, it is also a 39 week potential infant person.
So....your OPINION of a potential person possibly existing someday should be used as reason to limit the freedoms of an actual person because you for some reason think your opinion is important enough to be used as such? Would this not make that someone you refer to, YOU?
Indeed it does pit women against babies (when the woman's choice is different from the presumed choice of the fetus). Of course there can only be an opinion opposing the woman if you assume that the potential person has a voice in the matter before it is capable of being an actual person. I would agree that the potential person has value, but only to the mother and her family. Approximately 40% of fertilized eggs die anyway of natural causes. In my opinion, that is just as tragic as an abortion. I just disagree with pro-life group regarding the solution. I would say medical science should try to help women who want a baby to be able to have a baby (even if that means petri dishes and artificial wombs) and the legislature should try to help actual people get the education and jobs that they need to afford the cost of raising a child (to eliminate other potential causes of abortion). It is unethical to try to solve the problem by making a woman have a child against her will. That is only a step away from the morals of Ariel Castro (the guy who locked women in his house and forced them to have sex and give birth to children). I do think the government has a legitimate interest in the welfare of a person who is born, but they should only be able to act on behalf of the child when there is an actual child (which is at birth). By all means warn the woman that her smoking or drinking or glue-sniffing is likely to harm the newborn (I hope doctors would do that anyway), but the government should only be able to act if the woman decided (of her own free will) to have the baby and the evidence supports a conclusion that her behavior actually caused a specific problem. The government should not be able to prosecute her if she has decided to get an abortion, or if she had a miscarriage. If she wanted the baby then the loss might trigger her to change, and if she did not want a baby she has not (yet) done harm to an actual person.
Well put. Keep in mind I am Pro-Choice. I think we are on the same page with probably 90%. The other 10% is in the details of how to reduce suffering of people who are born with birth defects or long term disability by, in most any other situation, by what would be considered negligence. I'm not even really advocating. I'm just discussing out of my own curiosity. I certainly enjoy your input. - - - Updated - - - No, not me. Verifiable causation.
I really thought I would get a few Pro-Life people on the subject of birth control but evidently not. I'll add this for clarity: I don't think the death of fertilized eggs as tragic in any way at all...zero. I think hormonal contraception is an 8th wonder. If it flushed out fertilized eggs every month, it would have no affect on my view of it. My personal view of abortion being tragic in any way at all is debatable to be honest. I view it as a choice not much different than hormonal birth control (especially early term abortion), later term most definitely should be under the care of a physician who follows medical ethics and patient well being guidelines. I think something like 25% of pregnant women take illegal substances during pregnancy. That is much more tragic to me than abortion is.
I am surprised that there has been so little input from the pro-life camp on the issue. Maybe they have not found this discussion yet. I appreciate your input to the discussion as well. I do not claim to know the answers. My views sometimes are adjusted as I learn new information or get a different perspective on an issue.
They are never without that, obviously. Were the husband or wife to ask for my opinion, I'd point out that any marriage which holds sexual satisfaction as paramount is doomed to failure.
That very well may be true. I've noticed that with some marriages where the connection was fairly shallow and couldn't withstand any difficulties. So is hormonal birth control a controversy at all? Hormonal birth control like the pill, implants, IUD all adjust hormones in the body to where the uterine is hostile to implantation. One of the mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If life begins at conception when an egg is fertilized, does that make hormonal contraception unacceptable to use?
If you believe that the zygote actually has some sort of human consciousness (a positive claim) then you have the burden of proof. For centuries people believed that our being resided in the heart (based on a thousand Biblical scriptures) and science, through research and heart transplants, has proven that to be mythological poppycock. Where is your proof that the zygote has human consciousness?
I think it's certainly been proven beyond any doubt that a zygote is devoid of any of the physiology that enable consciousness. That's pretty much enough proof for me that a zygote is devoid of any human consciousness. I'm not sure what most Pro-Life people might think, tho. Would it therefore also be acceptable to use the morning after pill or RU486 if the physiology that enables consciousness doesn't exist?
That is such consciousness as is unique to humans, the most elementary aspect of which is self-awareness, for which no neurological basis has been established. The problem being, of course, that there is no reason to believe there is any physiological basis for human consciousness as defined above.
If you claim there is no physiological basis for human consciousness, do you believe there are disembodied persons floating all around us?
Regardless if there is a human consciousness that exists outside of the body or brain, wouldn't there have to be a physiological structure that enables consciousness within that specific life form before it could ever be viewed as conscious? A plant doesn't have the physiology, yet the same standard you suggest could apply if you wanted to tell me that I couldn't prove that consciousness doesn't exist in plants. I can't prove that consciousness doesn't exist in plants, but I can indeed prove the physiology that would enable a plant to be conscious doesn't exist. Edit: I certainly respect that you value human life from conception, that life most definitely will become a person to value if the proper care is given so I'm not trying to make a mockery of any view that any person might have...simply exchange views with a wide variety of people on these subjects.
It was once thought that hormonal birth control prevents implantation, but that theory has mostly disappeared. "Abortion" is the termination of a pregnancy, there IS NO pregnancy until implantation, so preventing implantation cannot be an "abortion." https://rewire.news/article/2008/08...g-prolife-misconceptions-about-contraception/ but the underlying question can contraception prevent implantation? still stands. Now, of course, for pro-choice people, this is a moot point. Even if hormonal birth control could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, thats not abortion because pregnancy doesnt begin until implantation. To enter into this discussion is to first set aside the medical and legal definition of pregnancy and indulge the extremists.
To be sure; but you speak epistemically when ontology is required; IOW, lack of evidence of consciousness does not equal evidence of the lack of consciousness. The problem being...? No you can't, because you don't know what - if any - physiology is required. All you know is that some sort of physiology attends every creature that displays consciousness.
I used the word "regardless", I wanted to remove the consideration of the metaphysical for the very purpose of not having to discuss the existence of a soul. A soul's existence can't be proven or unproven. If you require proof that consciousness exists, you are opening yourself up for Pro-Choice people to say, "therefore, elective abortion should be performed at any stage of embryonic development because it can not be proven that consciousness exists". With respect, that is the problem being....
Gotcha. Thanks for your input, but this discussion was a way for me to understand the variety of positions a person might take on contraception. I haven't had too many Pro-Life people have much discussion at all with me on the subject, extremist or otherwise.
Unfortunately I have met very few who can step outside what is called "world view bias". A great many seem (and I know I am making some huge generalisations here) to operate off of minimal information or knowledge. When challenged to explore and expland that knowledge further they will often retreat to using sites that confirm their world view or bias May I suggest come easy to follow sites with good medical and non-biased information? (not being condescending here but if you have never done much study in the field it can become very very technically complex)
Are you referring to me or speaking to me? I'm not sure if you're suggesting that my quest for first hand information and asking questions to people is a sign of ignorance? I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to knowledge, there is plenty I'm lacking. You are welcome to enlighten me.
Then we have no common ground for discussion. Neither can the existence of the unalienable right to life, which is why the framers of the DoI didn't try. I haven't done any such thing. On the contrary, I note that the failure to prove lack of consciousness puts the pro-death crowd in the position of depriving the most innocent among us of as much benefit of the doubt as we give the Charles Mansons of the world.
