kpt put it wrong, but he has a point. If life begins at conception, would the legalization of abortion not be someone else imposing their morals on the life that's being extinguished?
Poorly phrased on my part. Right you are, but if you believe the baby is alive, the baby is entitled to the some level of protection. Hence, the baby is having a decision about its life made based on another's morality.
Well proving that life begins at conception is not that hard, it's proving that personhood, or whatever we think should be legally protected, begins at conception. As I said earlier, the concepts we're working with there are really hard to pin down, and neither side has a particularly convincing argument for when personhood actually starts. The point of the comment I just made was not to prove abortion should be illegal, but to point out that the "one side is enforcing their morals on everyone" argument is a red herring. You have one side trying to enforce their morals on pregnant women, and the other side trying to enforce their morals on unborn children. The question is not who's trying to be overly controlling, but whose morals are right.
I mean that if you believe that the fetus is a life, then you would have to view abortion as allowing the mother's morals to dictate whether or not the baby lives, hence his/her life is dependent on another's morals.
Since no one can really give a concrete definition of when life begins...taking away that fetus' opportunity at life is essentially killing it, no? How is that right in any way, shape or form? We all, as living beings unless you a robot, started as the same. I don't understand how we can be considered living but the form we take in early life isn't considered living.
I'm sure you've heard the argument, but using contraception is taking away a potential fetus' opportuity at life as well and I don't think people argue that's killing it. Hell an IUD forces an already fertilized egg to not implant. That could be considered an "abortion." I have conflicted feelings about abortion, but I don't understand those arguing it's a cut and dry issues (either for it or against it).
I am much more comfortable giving that decision to the woman responsible for carrying the fetus 9 1/2 months than to the man wanting control over women.
Whoa now...now you're talking about "potential" fetuses. In the words of hatvol, I'm talking about what "is". Implanted, growing, etc.
The abortion debate is irrelevant to this topic. Embryos aren't being created for stem cell research. There is no need for that. Again I go back to the IVF issue. Do the anti-abortion folks agree with IVF? If so, there's a moral dilemma. I have them as well, so I'm not trying to play any games. I would just like to hear how that is rationalized. I will explain my rationale for any dilemmas that I have to be fair. It's not a gotcha question. Since we're jaywalking away from the topic, is gene therapy immoral? Is tampering with the human genome dabbling in matters humans shouldn't delve into? I would stay consistent and say no. It may not be 'destroying life' as some see it, but it is destroying life in the way it was 'intended' to work. It's a slippery slope that can lead to some outlandish positions like letting kids die due to not believing in medical treatments all which alter the body. I am pro-choice. But, I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control. I just don't want to make that choice for others. It is a tangled web of a subject. If it weren't, there would be some concrete solutions by now. I see nothing morally wrong with using embryos that are destined to be destroyed to ease human suffering. In fact, I feel it is immoral to 'waste' them when so much good could come out of it. I have a vested interest, sure, but we all do at various levels.
see my post above. I am not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control. However, I am not comfortable making that decision for others. Where is the concern for the sanctity of life once the child arrives when programs designed to support many of these kids (welfare, food stamps, healthcare) are deemed leeching off of society? I'm not implying there is no concern, but the level of emphasis is not near the same. If as much passion was put into providing for these kids after they are born that is put into outlawing abortion, I feel that the number of abortions would dramatically decrease. Sure, some folks get abortions because kids are inconvenient and the adult is selfish, but it would save many lives.
If there were a way to harvest embryonic stem cells without aborting a growing person, I'd be all for it. That way research could be done to further research to helps folks with MS like Jay, or stroke patients like my father. Stem cells put to test in stroke treatment in Houston - Houston Chronicle
You said "opportunity at life." Any fertilized egg has an "opportunity at life." That is until it passes through the birth canal.
