Saying a law restricting abortion makes you the government's property is like saying a law against murder makes you the governments property because both situations involve ending a human life violently. Has nothing to do with the specifics of the restrictions. The government has every reason to get involved because it's not a simple case of you doing whatever you want to your own body, another body is involved.
The bolded part is a non-sequitir. People don't assign values to things that haven't developed the accordant qualities yet. Also, I fail to see how your line isn't arbitrary.
A teenager hasn't had the time to develop an adult brain yet, would you value that teen's life less because of it? Same thing with a zygote, it's just even younger.
It's not remotely the same thing, as the teenager has developed the accordant qualities with which I am assigning the value of his life to (phenomenological consciousness and the ability to develop emotional attachments being the accordant qualities). A zygote hasn't developed these qualities yet.
Which is arbitrarily moving the line backward in time to give the desired result. Also, how would you measure if the baby has developed consciousness yet? Would you force women to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion?
It's not arbitrary if it falls on the time period in which the accordant values are developed. Why is it immoral to kill something that cannot, and never has experienced consciousness or developed emotional attachments beforehand (now that I have shown how your previous argument is a non-sequitir)? No, it is impossible for a zygote to develop consciousness until the 17th week of development. Also, I would like to say that I support abortion for utilitarian, not moral, reasons. Without abortion, society doesn't have a method of dealing with unwanted children.
I think you have a point. Too many pro-choicers are fixated on the aspect of "your own body". Yet I think that is a weak argument, because if killing a foetus is as wrong as murder, then screw the body rights, abortion needs to be regulated tightly to only allow those to save the health or life of the mother. There can be no anarchy if we assume that two people are already present. Better argue that killing an early-term foetus is not an immoral act in itself, since it is not a person.
To address your points one at a time... There is no scientific defining moment that says consciousness is what gives a human life value. Biologically, a new life is formed at conception. We are alive, and individual, before we reach any stage in development after conception. Why not say puberty is the moment at which this life gains value? Its arbitrary and not backed scientifically. I was alive before my brain switched on. I was still me, and I'm glad I wasn't killed, or I wouldn't be here. I'd like to think I had value from the get go. Life doesn't start at the moment the brain turns on. Killing a human is still killing a human, regardless of how young it is. So you want abortion to be illegal after a fetus develops brain waves? Is it 17 weeks to the minute? How do you legislate it? How do you measure it? What if the exact time of conception is unknown? It's unfeasible. Society should for starters, deal with not making unwanted children in the first place. Education, contraception, and personal responsibilities should be the corner stones of the solution. Then, as a last resort, there's adoption. At least give the life that has already been created a chance to make something of itself, without deciding for it that it should not exist.
True, science deals with facts, not values. But the same applies also your values - there is no scientific defining moment that says biological life is what gives a human person value. All we have is opinions when it comes to questions of value or morality. Killing a human (or non-human) is not wrong at all if it does not have a mind IMHO. Posessing a mind is a prerequisite for being considered valuable as a person. Yes, but its actually 20 weeks, I dont know from where Ideologue has the 17 week figure. http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ And it does not need to be exact "to the minute". Law is full of far more fuzzy limits made legally exact. Age of consent and driving age to offer some examples. See the study above. We will take the measured value with some safety buffer to account for inaccuracy and abnormal fetuses. There is ultrasound. Doctors should make a best guess.
It is not "the same organism". The first issue I have with your argument is that you use the term "human (descriptive adjective" and "a human (noun)" interchangeably. A "human organism" does not equal "a human" or "humans". Every human cell is as much of a "human organism" as the zygote. A heart cell "develops" The zygote is not "a developing human" because it is not "a human" The zygote cell will never be part of the eventual born human. The production of cells that make up "the human organism" are not produced until the embryoblast stage. These cells could be classed as "developing into a human" but it is not a "developing human" because at this stage none of the neccessary characteristics/parts that make up the human have formed yet. The zygote is reproduces "asexually", like every other cell, not like humans do. The zygote is not "a homo sapien", every human is a Homo sapien. The zygote is in the process of creating a human. No human is in existence at the zygote stage. There is only the blueprint and the potential for a human to be created.
Ill just quote a Dr on this, That pretty much says it all. If you value a human life you should be consistent. Life does start at conception, that is not religious dogma. I laugh at how any terminology I have ever tried to apply to a zygote that humanizes it gets rejected by choicers. I can't call it a person, human being, human, homo sapien, baby, anything that brings the hint of being what it is, human.
First I will deal with the quote from the Dr. Notice that he too seems to use the adjective (human) rather than the noun with is used for "a human". He is absolutely correct for the most part .. but then goes off course and drifts into obscure "non technical" language "living individuals of the human species" statement. This statement is a bit obscure because of the use of the term "individuals" when before he used the term "organism". He got the term "organism" from the science and is now substituting his own phraseology. The Doctor does not really claim that an embryo is "a human" .. it is a human organism. The use of the obscure terminology "living individuals" leaves things up in the air and is thus not technically correct. Scientists do not talk that way. If we are talking about what is, and what is not, a Homo Sapien. This is best left to the Scientists (Biologists) as these are the subject matter experts. A Doctor has no more expertise (and it shows when he puts his own terminology spin on the science) in determination of what is a Homo Sapien and what is not than any person who has taken first year biology. Here are some thoughts from Dana Kremples Ph.D Biologist at the University of Miami. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm Next time you want to quote someone you should provide a link. First: A Dr. (of who knows what) .. not that it matters because neither medicine or embryology is the domain science for the topic of "what is a human" Second: Life does not start at conception .. both sperm and egg are alive. Life does not come from non animate. 3) Terminology is either technically correct or it is not. Calling a single eukaryotic cell "a baby" is just not technically correct. 4) Your original argument was that the zygote was "a human" .. now you are moving on to the embryo. I matters not to me because neither are "a human" but you should try and stay on point. 5) No one is debating that the zygote is human. So is every other cell. A cluster of human heart cells is human .. but these are not "a human". The only significant difference between the zygote and some other random human cell is that the program codes in the zygote DNA " create a human" are turned on. Every cell has these codes but the zygote has these codes turned on. The good Dr. kind of says this, albeit using obscure language which does not really make sense or get to the point. "Internal resources to develop themselves into the mature stage of the organism" ?? This is a really convoluted explanation of the process of the creation of a human. The zygote has the program codes in its DNA turned on to create a human. (Calling this "internal resources" is not incorrect I suppose but is a bizarre and obscure way to put things) The zygote does not really "develop" into the mature stage. At least not like a child develops into an adult but the word develop can mean different things. The zygote divides creating two clones of itself. Each of these clones is individually capable of creating a new human as are the 100 to 200 cells after. We have 100 to 200 potential humans ! It is only at the embryoblast stage that totipotent cells start to create the differentiated cells that will form the eventual human. I hope this helps
NineInchNailz said, I agree with you 100% and so does science. I again agree. But now I have to disagree with you. Rape is a violent act and no woman asks for it. But the life in the womb is still a life and does not deserve to be killed because some act of violence happened to its mother. If you went into a nursery full of babies and the nurse asked you to identify the baby whose mother had been raped could you do it? What would make the death of this child ok? Do two wrongs make a right? Does one act of violence say ok to another? You are saying many different things here. You make a case why abortion should not happen then you say it should. ??????? You pro-aborts are all over the place ... And abortion should be illegal. And yet you want and think abortion should be legal?
I commend the woman who can overcome her fears and give birth after being raped. She is very brave. But a lot of women cannot be so brave. For them, abortion can help them heal. Women are already mentally and physically scarred from rape as it is, why add to their trauma and force them to give birth to a rape baby? Especially as they will only remember what happened to them, when what they really want to do is forget? The compassionate thing would be to allow the woman a choice in the matter. After all, did she choose to get raped? No - therefore she did not choose to get pregnant.
Yes killing would be easy right? Then they can live with the rape….and on top of that the fact that they killed their own living child. And thats a good thing…right?
I think the woman would not care about that. She wants to recover from her ordeal. Do you really think she will be able to recover from a rape if you force her to give birth to the baby of the man who raped her?
Hello everyone I'm new here but I'll give it a shot. Before my opinion I'd like to say I'm 19 years old on second year of studying political sciences and international business, and I plan to study criminal justice in the future. I know I'm kinda young but I do try to be mature and respectful. And all I'll say is my opinion and I could be right or wrong, it's just an opinion. Well I have read many of the post here, not all, and I came to one conclusion. Abortion should be a choice of the woman who is pregnant and no one else's. It is her body and that's all that is to it. On the other hand: the baby. Before the third trimester of conception the zygote is nothing more that live cells. Killing it would be like cutting your own skin (live cells) and claiming that is murder, or am I wrong? Even if you won't accept the skin comparison I'll add another one. I have heard people say that even if its only live cells, we can not kill the zygote because of its potential human life. But that is absurd. Is like saying that we cannot use a condom because using a condom will kill the spermatozoids, and since they have a potential to evolve in a human being, using a condom would be murder. So in my conclusion. Those live cells aren't an alive being until the third trimester from conception. In which time the future mother should be able to decide what to do with her own body and practically with her life. Because we all should know, having a baby is a tremendous responsibility. It could bring down someone's life if not properly prepared to it. Imagine a 16 year old forced to have a baby and give up her future? I can't understand how dooming her life and possibly the baby's life could be "pro-life".
Here's how I look at it. The point of distinguishing when a fetus is sentient is to make an important point regarding morality. IMO, morality should be based off of real-life data. In this particular case, the fetus' own ability to feel. Before this point, it cannot be logically claimed that the fetus can suffer as the neural architecture required for this doesn't exist yet. To me, it doesn't make sense to apply morality to something which cannot feel, unless the moral action affects others, but, if the woman wants the abortion, the mother has made her feelings known and the father is the only other person with a comparable emotional investment.
She should get her tubes tied if she 'never wants children' and wishes to engage in procreational type sex. Problem solved.
A zygote is not typically available for abortion as it has to travel down the fallopian tube (while undergoing mitosis) and eventually become a blastocyst, attach itself to the endometrium, create a placenta and become an embryo. At that point, surgical abortion can take place and it is no longer a zygote but a more complex entity that will, most likely, eventually develop into a fully formed human baby. The decision of killing the embryo has been decided by SCOTUS (Roe) to be solely the woman's as she has a constitutional right to the privacy of her own body. Whether or not killing a developing human life is moral in our society was not what was decided by that court however, SOME pro-choicers seem to think that way.
Or she could use contraception as she may want children at another time. If contraception fails, then she can take the morning after pill. If that does not work then an abortion will solve the problem.
My reply to that poster contained their quote 'never wants children' my response was in line with that stated sentiment. Contraception was not an option in the statement I responded to. In other words if a woman NEVER WANTS CHILDREN then sterilization seems a good option seeing as how contraception is not 100% effective. I can't see any woman preferring abortion over sterilization when she says she NEVER WANTS CHILDREN.
