ethics of abortion?

Question

my pevious post got a lot of controversy so ive gone back to my notes

the idea of the "pro-life" side of the coin is that the fetus is alive

what is alive

at 8 weeks the heart beats (true) but heart cells beat by themselves outside of the body in a petri dish

the fetus at 12 weeks i belive starts to move its developing muscles slightly, again even the muscles of a corpse will move with stimulation from an electrode

cogognition? well base emotions such as fear and joy only appear after the child is born (usually in first day) and just because the developing brain shows brainwaves this shouldnt be confused with thought, to determine whether a brain is active and thinking we would need pet cat and emt scans

what im driving at is at is that a lot of the actions performed by the fetus are just biological quirks that dont recquire the presence of a functioning mind or incorporeal soul

what is life

answer that then we debate the ethics of taking it away

response to first post, even plants have a circulatory system

response to second post, true but that implies that a gamete has the ability to fuse with another one and become a human life so by that logic masturbation(for men) is murder

Answer 1

the life is in the blood. thats right, i dont think plants are "alive" like animals are. so when somthing has its own blood it has its own life.

Answer 2

It may not be a question of potential or biological life, but of being. If left to develop naturally, a fertilized egg will grow into a human child and be born (barring any complications). The same cannot be said of a sperm or egg (though these are great examples for pointing out problems with pro-life arguments.)

Thought there are biological differences (undeveloped parts) between an infant, a 6-year-old, a college student, and a 40-year-old, we don't have trouble saying the infant is just as human as the 40-year-old (maybe we do, feel free to correct me).

It could be said that a fertilized egg is a human in a different stage of development just like a 6-year-old is. It is missing several biological features of a fully-functioning human, but in a sense it is not in the process of becoming a human it is a developing human.

That's a subtle distinction, I know, but it seems important. A human fetus may die or become deformed, but it will not develop into a cat or a plant or a tumor. It will not simply stop developing at some point (unless it dies). When the egg is fertilized, its task-at-hand is clear and unchanging.

To hit the emotional side - pregnant mothers experience grief when their fetus dies and the murderer of a pregnant woman has two deaths to answer for (I think - could be wrong here)

Answer 3

Regardless of whether or not abortion is morally sound, making it illegal does not make logical sense. If it is completely outlawed, this will not stop the occurrence of abortions; it will simply change the method by which women are able to terminate pregnancies. Wealthy women will be able to fly to places in the world where it's still legal, poorer women will either resort to back alley coat hanger abortions, suicide, or a range of other self-harming actions. Many studies have found that in societies in which abortion carries the least negative stigma and is regarded as an independent choice, there are fewer abortions than in societies that attempt to regulate or stigmatize choice. The child-like logic that making abortion illegal will halt abortions stems from the same train of thought held by the people who believe that making guns illegal will stop gun crime. Making guns illegal will simply leave the law-abiding portion of society defenseless, while the criminals will be handed even more power, being the only ones around with firearms (think: self-defense in case of intrusion, robbery, or kidnapping).

As for the "potential to create human life" argument, I have a question: Cloning can be done using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cells are "body cells" and have nothing to do with sperm or ova. Usually, skin cells are used in this transfer. Does this mean that if I decided to scratch off a few of these cells, I'd be committing murder? They harbor a very real potential to create life.

Answer 4

Life is the biological functioning which uses entropy to overcome itself in an open system.

An early stage fetus has no more claim to "life" than a tumor. Argument from "potential to be human" would mean men who masturbate, women who ovulate (since science can stop it) and those who get fertility treatments are murderers. Pro-lifers have no credible arguments, and any they might find are mute for one simple reason: the government should not be given license to legislate medical decisions.

Answer 5

The morality of abortion is certainly a controversial topic. The role that the concept of 'personhood' plays is quite crucial, as persons are what society grants right to, even dead persons have rights and laws protecting their body. Some argue that personhood ought to be given to an entity by virtue of that entity being biologically human, however they fail to justify why being biologically human is morally significant (leaving aside certain religious doctrinal justification). For example, if being biologically human grants you moral status, then human cancer culture must also be given moral status, as, it too, is biologically human.

On the other hand, some concepts of personhood are that it should be granted to a being due to that being possessing certain abilities i.e. self-awareness, sentience, emotionality, moral agency, reason, the capacity to communicate. However, this also has its problems as many infants and mentally disabled would not possess all if any of these abilities, and, it seems intuitive that they be granted moral status. Although there are those such as Peter Singer who do not grant them moral status and believe that it is fine for them to be killed in certain circumstances (this sounds horrific but his views are not as crazy as they appear prima facie and are argued for quite rationally and also maintain his extreme level of consistency within his moral theory).

Regardless of the view of personhood one holds, what you may find as justification against abortion is the fetus' potentiality; namely, its potential for becoming a person. Many argue that since a fetus has the potential to become a person, it ought to be granted moral status, and, maybe it should, personally I do not see a problem with that and it seems quite plausible. Having said that, there are a number of problems for the argument of a potential person, in particular, where do you draw the line? When it is a fetus? Pre-embryotic? or even further? Most accept that at the time of the embryo's attachment to the uterus then it becomes a potential person, however I still find it hard to justify at any one stage. Were we to grant moral status to a potential person, then surely, the rights of an actual person; namely the mother, are more important and ought to be given higher weight than those of a potential person. To evaluate them on an equal scale just seems ridiculous to me. So even considering a beings potential, it seems that abortion can still be justified by virtue of the actual persons rights over their own body. Hope that this helps.

Answer 6

This is not original to me--have forgotten the philosopher's name):

If I have been kidnapped and I wake up attached to an unconscious person by an IV tube, and I am told this is a great artist who needs to be attached to my blood supply for 9 months or else he will die, then I can choose to stay attached, but I am not morally obligated to remain attached.
So if I have used birth control and still get pregnant, or if I have been forced to have unprotected sex (including being forced by youthful ignorance or inability to get birth control) and have become pregnant, I have a right to terminate the pregnancy EVEN IF it is a living human being with the same legal status as any other person walking around.
__________________________________________
And my own argument: If I can take a pill in my mouth and kill somebody else, it is not really a somebody else.

Answer 7

Well, I was taught in public school that a sperm impregnating an egg is a miracle in itself.

See, there a million's upon millions of sperm that are ejaculated from the penis. Then they have to navigate their way up the vagina canal into the uterus. So, to compair the navigational obstacles ...well, the vagina is about size equivalent of you traveling from here to the moon ... without On-star or Huston ... then in the vast space of the uterus, the little sperm are still on a race to find an egg .... again it's like trying to find grass in our whole solar system (From the center of the Sun to Pluto; without help) ... then if they little sperm dudes who've survived make it this far, they still have to find energy to penetrate the egg ... this is the miracle that a mindless sperm without ON-star can find this & the little spearm doesn't even have the abiltiy to communicate. So, millions upon million of sperm fail at their mission, but that one, is a statistical mirracle that beat all odds.

Life is a mirracle; statistically speaking.

Answer 8

alive is anything with a well-being of its own
gives it to plants but what about fire though? or something like a river or mountain or beach? maybe not on their own but they have lots of residence and could be thought of as a community of society?

thinks you're not asking what is life so much as what deserves moral consideration.

some people consider masturbation a sin

guess buddy said it best when he said it is the mothers rights vs the unborn babies rights

Answer 9

Life is both pre-conception (Abraham talking with Melchizedek, before "being in his father's loins") and also intrauterine (Saint John Baptist recognizing Jesus while each are in their wombs), earthly, and post-passing (Elijah, Jesus, et al.).

Each soulfield initiative, God-ordained, has a unique opportunity ("It's a Wonderful Life" ), and therefore the only reasonable "abortion" is no abortion, but a medical procedure in which the mother and preborn are separated, in order to save one or more human beings.

The soul finally links with the preborn when the first movements occur.

Some points: "Life before Life," Jim Tucker, M.D., "Reborn in the West: The Reincarnation Masters," Vicki MacKenzie, "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock, http://www.divinecosmos.com and "Expecting Adam," Martha Beck, Ph.D.

Also: "Men in White Apparel," Ann Ree Colton, "Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet, and "Education Begins before Birth," O. M. Aivanhov.

If you were serious about examining various authors' evidence, and logically aware of the limitations of a reductionist physicalism, you might read the above with an open mind.

kind regards,

j.

Answer 10

an acorn is not an oak tree and no normal person would consider it to be so. We have these blinders on when it comes to fetuses.

I notice that many people are ignoring your points and simply respond with "but it's life" or whatever. Why can't they simply say that they can't define it but abortion skeeves them out? That's what it boils down to.

Answer 11

It doesn't mater if the fetus itself is 'alive' or not. What matters is what it could become given some time and a chance. It's still a person, regardless of what stage it's at.

~Tiger