Let’s say 15 weeks is around where we draw the line, and talk once again about “pregnancy reduction” (for this case, I use the term to describe when a mother chooses, for non-health related reasons, to abort only one child from a set of otherwise healthy twins).
So, up to around 15 weeks, this is totally okay, right? Please explain why or why not.
[/quote]
Why would she do this? Unlikely scenarios like these don’t make your point Cortes. Stupid people will do stupid things, but if this woman decides to abort one of her twins within the timeframe the law allows here, you can’t stop her.
And to be honest, I don’t care. Thousands of children die of hunger, thirst, bloodshed, abuse and neglect every damn day. Children who never had a chance of a normal life.
I’d rather allow a woman abort a pregnancy than force her to carry a child to fullterm and abandon it. There’s 7 billion people now on this planet, abortion is the least of our problems.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
If you define a 15-week old zygote as equal to a 39 week old unborn baby you’d have trouble understanding my position.
To me they are not equal, and yes we’ve been over this countless times.[/quote]You defining anything at all on your declared foundation for thought is mystifying to say of nothing of you defining human life and dignity.
Whether you abort one second after conception or in the birth canal or six months later the very same human person has been prevented from living. How could it possibly matter to you exactly when or in what way it’s done?
At what stage of pregnancy would it be morally right to have an abortion?
The line should be drawn at the time before reaching consciousness. If a fetus does not have it, I do not consider it to be a live person. That is why I do not consider an abortion to be a murder. So, when does consciousness develop?
Some guidelines: An american neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga said (5 years ago) that the consciousness does not even start to develop before the 13. week after impregnation. In addition, other scientists have stated that it is impossible for fetuses to have a consciousness before the 29. week because of a lack of neural activity.
Personally I do not know whether or not I would abort if I knew the baby would have DS. This is impossible to say for I have not impregnated a single woman to this day. (That sounded pretty weird, I know.)
PS. Can’t you people have a civil conversation and focus on the subject at hand instead of name calling? People have their beliefs and it is impossible to say who, if anyone, is ultimately right. Because, in the end, aren’t we here to broaden our horizons?
The line should be drawn at the time before reaching consciousness. If a fetus does not have it, I do not consider it to be a live person. That is why I do not consider an abortion to be a murder.
[/quote]
If consciousness is the requisite threshold for defining a “live person” then a person that loses it as in the case of a coma - regardless of chances of recovery - should be in the dire straits of being “put down,” right?
[/quote]
One does not (at least in many cases) lose consciousness in a coma. One can sense one’s surroundings during a coma. For example, hear music and what people are talking about. So no.
Abortion is bad.
Always.
It would be bad even if you did it to save the world.
because there is nothing to rejoice about death.
In some cases, when it’s clearly the lesser of two evils, having an abortion shouldn’t be penalized. But that doesn’t mean it should be legalized.[/quote]
I understand how you feel. And I know that technically even bacteria and plants are life in a sense that they are, well, “self-mobile”. I cannot say with 100 % honesty that I think fetuses are not alive. So let’s say that they are. Even still, I think they are a life form that does not equal one having consciousness.
About death. It could be argued that death is a necessary equalizer of life. So it would be needed and, therefore not completely outside of something “to rejoice about”. In economics scarcity is one of the biggest things that give things their value. If you ask me, this can be applied to life as well. So I think that death is what makes life valuable thus making it “a good thing” in a sense.
[quote]
About death. It could be argued that death is a necessary equalizer of life. So it would be needed and, therefore not completely outside of something “to rejoice about”. In economics scarcity is one of the biggest things that give things their value. If you ask me, this can be applied to life as well. So I think that death is what makes life valuable thus making it “a good thing” in a sense.[/quote]
a necessary evil is still evil.
in these discussions we too often confuse morality, utility, necessity, legality, legitimity, etc.
Morality is, by definition, the higher standard there is, and we should NOT try to lower it.
The line should be drawn at the time before reaching consciousness. If a fetus does not have it, I do not consider it to be a live person. That is why I do not consider an abortion to be a murder.
[/quote]
If consciousness is the requisite threshold for defining a “live person” then a person that loses it as in the case of a coma - regardless of chances of recovery - should be in the dire straits of being “put down,” right?
[/quote]
One does not (at least in many cases) lose consciousness in a coma. One can sense one’s surroundings during a coma. For example, hear music and what people are talking about. So no.[/quote]
In the cases where one DOES lose consciousness FOR ANY REASON but does not die your implemented philosophy would have that person put down like a dog at the pound. It’s that simple. And flawed.[/quote]
Actually no. I believe advancement in science could fix that person in the future. So said person could go on with one’s life when that happens.
About death. It could be argued that death is a necessary equalizer of life. So it would be needed and, therefore not completely outside of something “to rejoice about”. In economics scarcity is one of the biggest things that give things their value. If you ask me, this can be applied to life as well. So I think that death is what makes life valuable thus making it “a good thing” in a sense.[/quote]
Your grandfather’s ally during Operation Barbarossa couldn’t agree more.[/quote]
I do not support killing conscious people who have been born.
The line should be drawn at the time before reaching consciousness. If a fetus does not have it, I do not consider it to be a live person. That is why I do not consider an abortion to be a murder.
[/quote]
If consciousness is the requisite threshold for defining a “live person” then a person that loses it as in the case of a coma - regardless of chances of recovery - should be in the dire straits of being “put down,” right?
[/quote]
One does not (at least in many cases) lose consciousness in a coma. One can sense one’s surroundings during a coma. For example, hear music and what people are talking about. So no.[/quote]
In the cases where one DOES lose consciousness FOR ANY REASON but does not die your implemented philosophy would have that person put down like a dog at the pound. It’s that simple. And flawed.[/quote]
Actually no. I believe advancement in science could fix that person in the future. So said person could go on with one’s life when that happens.[/quote]
Well, according to your definition of “person”, there is no person to fix in that case.
“Said person” is not a person anymore.
[quote]
About death. It could be argued that death is a necessary equalizer of life. So it would be needed and, therefore not completely outside of something “to rejoice about”. In economics scarcity is one of the biggest things that give things their value. If you ask me, this can be applied to life as well. So I think that death is what makes life valuable thus making it “a good thing” in a sense.[/quote]
a necessary evil is still evil.
in these discussions we too often confuse morality, utility, necessity, legality, legitimity, etc.
Morality is, by definition, the higher standard there is, and we should NOT try to lower it. [/quote]
I meant that it is a good thing we are not immortal because that would create problems. Morality is an opinion based thing. I have my moral based on my life experiences and thinking processes. Your moral is formed similarly but it is never exactly the same as mine. It would be nice though if we would all share exactly the same moral values but that seems impossible to me.
The line should be drawn at the time before reaching consciousness. If a fetus does not have it, I do not consider it to be a live person. That is why I do not consider an abortion to be a murder.
[/quote]
If consciousness is the requisite threshold for defining a “live person” then a person that loses it as in the case of a coma - regardless of chances of recovery - should be in the dire straits of being “put down,” right?
[/quote]
One does not (at least in many cases) lose consciousness in a coma. One can sense one’s surroundings during a coma. For example, hear music and what people are talking about. So no.[/quote]
In the cases where one DOES lose consciousness FOR ANY REASON but does not die your implemented philosophy would have that person put down like a dog at the pound. It’s that simple. And flawed.[/quote]
Actually no. I believe advancement in science could fix that person in the future. So said person could go on with one’s life when that happens.[/quote]
Well, according to your definition of “person”, there is no person to fix in that case.
“Said person” is not a person anymore.
[/quote]
An excellent point.
But there is a difference because when a fetus gets aborted it has never lived or had people who would be devastated by the loss. Aborting a fetus and putting down a person who has a history in life are things that are far different from one another.
About death. It could be argued that death is a necessary equalizer of life. So it would be needed and, therefore not completely outside of something “to rejoice about”. In economics scarcity is one of the biggest things that give things their value. If you ask me, this can be applied to life as well. So I think that death is what makes life valuable thus making it “a good thing” in a sense.[/quote]
Your grandfather’s ally during Operation Barbarossa couldn’t agree more.[/quote]
I do not support killing conscious people who have been born.[/quote]
So when Grandpa skied up on an unconscious, wounded Russian civilian lying in the snow in January of '42 somewhere in a field north of Leningrad he would’ve been entirely within the parameters of your self conceived rectitude to put a bullet in the back of that poor peasant woman’s brain?[/quote]
I had to read this several times before I finally understood it was a joke. Lol. I’m not a native speaker so I’m not sure if I should have picked a word different from “conscious”.