What makes some people think an unborn baby isn't a human life? A human life worth saving?

Question

What is wrong with determining life begins at conception?

To the third poster: If I want to own a slave, are you going to "micromanage" my life and tell me I can't have one?

So few people are actually answering the question I asked. Why do so many people think it's not a human life???

Answer 1

Many of us think you should worry about and take care of the ones who have already gone through the birth canal. We believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE. That means it is none of my business what you do, I have enough to take of without trying to micro-manage someone else's life.

Answer 2

At what point does a cell become a living human being? When will legislation be put into place to make women collect and account for all their eggs?
Okay, If you are asking about this in the context of an abortion, I believe an unborn baby is a human life when the mother and father agree that the child they are about to bring into the world is a life. For some women, a fetus is not a living human until after it is born and seperated from the mother. The point here is that, as a fetus, as long as it is still connect to the woman, is still a part of its host, it is an extention of the woman. It is not up to you or I to suggest what a woman should or should not do with a fetus. Once a child is born it is, for the rest of us in the world, a living human being.
If we are talking about when a pregnant woman is murdered, we can only assume that the mother intended to give birth to this child and therefore it would be considered the taking of 2 lives.

Answer 3

The Christian Church has historically attacked any scientific advancement in the past. They killed Copernicus, imprisoned Galileo for life (because he proved the earth moved around the sun instead of the other way around), and many more. Prior to the past couple hundred years their stance was much lighter on abortion, but the subjects which they can claim the answers for is shrinking as our knowledge of science improves. They've moved on to abortion, cloning, evolution, and contraception, since they've lost most of their other influence.

When you say what makes some people think an unborn baby isn't human life? I ask you what makes you think a human fetus IS human life. If you extend that logic, we also shouldn't use condoms because every time we have intercourse it would be killing potential life. Once you label sperm as not life and feti as life, you make an arbitrary distinction. The Catholic Church realizes this and that's why they try to stop contraception as well.

The real problem with this line of reasoning is that any sperm or egg can be considered human life in that is can create human life, same as a fetus has that potential. A fetus can be still-born or miscarriage or fail before birtth - it's not a guarantee of a baby at the other end of pregnancy. In the same way sperm or eggs are no guarantee of life, as some people may be sterile or they may die before merging with an egg.

If we go by this, it implies we out to be running around like apes constantly going at it.

This clearly is impossible, so people against abortion arbitrarily decide that a fetus is "life" and a sperm or egg is "not life" and deem it more "logical" for a fetus to be, but not sperm or eggs.

From a logical standpoint, at any given point in time, we have a limited amount of sperm and there are a limited amount of eggs. So if we aren't constantly copulating we are allowing the sperm and eggs to die that otherwise could go together.

I know this sounds far-fetched if you're anti-abortion, but there have been societies that just used women as reproduction factories constantly churning out babies. Telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies goes back to that and is wrong.

All this said, I'm not saying abortion is good in all cases. Clearly, once a baby has a working brain they have sentience/life, but that doesn't occur until later in pregnancy. Generally I find that people who are adamently pro or against abortion end up with a lot of contradictions because they don't recognize they're making an arbitrary moral assessment. Abortion is moral in some case and immoral in others.

Ok, I've said my peace. Now all the abortionists will rip me apart for being too conservative and the pro-lifers will rip me apart for being too liberal.

Answer 4

I think the trouble some may find in answering your question is the number of agreed upon assumptions that must take place in order to answer your question. Often those who abort do not do so because of the lack of value they place on the being growing inside of them, on the contrary it is often done because they place so much value on it's humanity. The first interesting part I find in your question is the notion of saving. Saving from what? Those who abort may say they were saving the child from suffering from severe defects which would have left the child with a short and painful life. Others who abort may say they are saving the child from the system of welfare, single-parent home, and mis-care that they may have been raised in or seen others raised in. Whatever reason they may give I can assure you that in most cases they feel that their abortion is saving the child.
Now you may take this opportunity to point out that no matter what it is their responsibility to carry through with the birth. You may even say that adoption is an option and it is better for the child to live than to kill it before it's had a chance. To this I say that unless you are a woman living with that choice you should have no opinion in the matter. Adoption can be a very difficult process for the biological mother. Imagine having something attached to you, inside of you, growing for months only to be cut from you and detached from you forever. Yes adoption is an option but it is a very emotionally draining option.
I don't know what it is like to have to make such a choice but I know others who did for the reasons I listed above and more and I would hate to think that they didn't have the options that they did because of thoughts like yours. Every case of abortion is different but I have yet to read, study, or meet a woman contemplating this who did not understand that she held a human life inside her - matter of fact it was always this reality that brought her to contemplation. Recognizing the human life inside of her depended on her decision and that she had to make the best choice in order to protect that life at all costs, this is the reasoning that brings about this contemplation.
Yet again I am posed to ask you saving from what? What does this world have to offer an unwanted child, unless it is born in some far away exotic land for Madonna or Angelina Jolie to adopt....excuse my cynicism. But honestly I do understand that there are other options and I do not deny that there are many who abort or who work at abortion clinics who don't value the fetus as human life. However, I do not feel that this fairly represents the majority and to hold all accountable for the ignorance of few is just as inadequate.

Answer 5

At what point? Is a 4 week old fetus a viable human life? Is it capable of existing outside of the womb? The answer to both is no. The earliest I've heard of surviving is 4 months old (16 weeks) and that was only after almost a year in intensive care almost the entire time in an incubator. 99.9% of all abortions occur within 12 weeks. I have no probably with abortions up to that point.

Answer 6

Although very little stigma is attached to bearing a child and keeping it not being wed, it does crimp one's party style. Being pregnant is a common sight and giving away the baby is considered the humain thing to do. I think my mom had a fellopean tube pregnancy i.e. outside the womb, little chance of survival...yet felt lifelong guilt.
Very few babies have deformities or any problems whatsoever...loving childless couples need a break...they can have the baby at Aunt Girthas in Minnesota and come back after adopting it out. People return from out-of-town colleges all the time...nobody would even have to know. Heck...a childless couple MIGHT even pay for a year of college out-of-state to help a mom who cannot keep a baby...charities will put you up/ give you lodging in a heartbeat...

Answer 7

Here is a better question. Why is it that a woman can have an abortion at any point from conception till almost birth and it is not murder or killing a living thing or anything similar to it, but if I punch a woman in the stomach and her unborn baby (fetus, cell, egg, whatever you choose to call it) dies it is murder or if you kill a pregnant woman and she and the thing inside her die it is double murder? What they are saying is hipocritical, either it is a living thing with rights or it is not. You can't have it both ways. Even if you want to argue that the woman you killed wanted her baby that makes no difference it is a living thing with rights or it is not, regardelss of what the woman carrying it wants or thinks. If one woman is carrying a living thing with rights according to the law then all women are. we are all equal under the law or at least that is the way this country is supposed to work so if a woman can kill her unborn child then so can I. I of course have to much respect for women in general and all children born or not to commit MURDER, which is exactly what it is.

Answer 8

I think the question is not if an unborn baby is or is not a human life. Some will think it is, some will not. It depends on their own religion, conscience and/or feelings. The main question is, as you put it, if it is a life worth saving. I do think it is worth saving, but some will not think as I do. Why? Well may be for the same reasons they think a non-baby is also not worth to be saved.

Answer 9

"No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion AND capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point of view. " PJ O'Rourke

So True.

To answer your question.

Liberals have to convince themselves that an unborn child is not human. - hence the rather detached term "fetus" rather than calling it a "baby".
The liberal belief that a "fetus" is not human is both scientifically and morally bankrupt. Eventually, scientific and medical advances will make abortion extremely rare.
Until then, keep up the good fight.

Answer 10

That goes back a long way. For centuries no less. It goes like this:
There are so many things that can go wrong, injury, disease, infection, miscarriage, birth defects, accidents, war, famine, etc., that a baby is considered not living until after successful birth, and in some cases, a week or so after birth. Some people used to not name babies for the first week. It wasn't cruel, just facing facts. Times have changed but the bad things that can happen, haven't.

Answer 11

Greed, selfishness, putting ones own good before anothers. All life whether in or out of the womb is to be cherished, especially those who can not protect them selves.