English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Some pro abortionists would advocate foetal killing as being perfectable acceptable form of medical treatment, but would not go as far as to endorse enthuasia for newborns with very dehabilitating medical disorders. e.g. born without a frontal lobe (no emotions, no intelligence, no sense of self).

What is the difference, in terms of moral status, between a human being that is still in the womb and one that isn't?

2006-08-29 23:38:35 · 2 answers · asked by MrSandman 5 in Science & Mathematics Medicine

2 answers

If you believe life starts at a certain point (conception, "viability", birth, etc), then killing an infant/fetus beyond that point is murder. While killing one before would be a medical procedure. People have their own beliefs about when that point is and therefore there is no general agreement.

If you believe there is a continum of ever-increasing complexity and worth, then killing sooner is better. I think a lot of people unconsicously adopt some of this perspective because I note that people find it more tragic if a woman spontaneously aborts at 36 weeks than if she lost an early pregnancy at 1 or 2 months.

Morals are not absolute, however much we wish they could be. The bacon cheeseburger I had last week was immoral (admittedly on a very small scale) to a Moslem or orthodox Jew. But it tasted fine to me.

So we associate with those who believe as we do and fight (with ballots or guns) those who disagree. That's been true for thousands of years and doesn't seem to be slowing down.

2006-08-30 11:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by David in Kenai 6 · 0 0

From the instant that the egg is fertilized, it is now a live human, or else it would not divide and multiply.

The question one must address is: at what point are they willing to kill the developing human?

Killing a developing human to spare the mother's life, such as an ectopic pregnancy, is motivated from the deisre to preserve the mother's life, and very few would argue against this.

The problem arises when the developing human is killed out of convenience to avoid rasing a child. Rape and incest are cited as resons for this, but I have personally known females to carry a child to term after a rape.

The choice to kill, and one's personal moral beliefs, ultimately rests with the individual, but IMO using abortion merely as a form of birth control is wrong.

2006-09-01 03:15:19 · answer #2 · answered by L96vette 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers