Pro-life or Pro-choice?

I stated that this was not an easy area, and I may allow a woman to choose in this instance. but this response is a lot emotional hand-wringing and an attempt to find moral equivalence. Abortion, I think, would be the greater of two evils, given that the fetus is a person. However, Abortion will not necessarily be a cure all; there is definite psychological trauma that comes from them. In some way, bringing a child to term that is the product of rape may not be the most psychological scarring, and the mother may have a sense that something good, something redemptive, may have come from an act of clear evil. And on another note, your moral revulsion to this is meaningless if you believe that morality is relative.

 

From a moral standpoint, I would feel that the greater tragedy would be in making the mother to carry a forceful pregnancy -- not only to term, but possibly through the life of the child.

In this circumstance, it is not simply the case of conception being non-ideal. It's not like she got knocked-up in the back of a car on prom. This was an aggressive, violent act, which is physically and emotionally shattering, and if the victim decides that the best way to recover from such atrocities is to terminate the life of the child she might have otherwise had responsibly and on her own terms with the lover of her choosing, then we as a society have no right to tell her how to go about the healing process.

If my girlfriend/wife/life partner/civilly-united partner were to be raped and get pregnant from it, I cannot possibly fathom the idea of making her carry the child if she did not desire to do so. That is such an unbearably cruel thing to do to a person who has (presumably) led an innocent life and only misstep was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Agreed.

 

So the Government has no responsibility to protect the life innocent human beings? If the fetus is in fact a person, then isn't it the government's responsibility? you may want to think about why you don't agree with it, and then decide if the Government should not be involved

 

I wouldn't call a fetus a human being. I would call it a fetus.

 

This is the crux of the abortion debate. Many argue that the right to life trumps all other rights. But to most others, the right to choose is the most inalienable of human rights -- for without choice, or the ability to makes life choices -- life itself is vapid.

If human beings are not afforded the right to make choices about their futures, families, bodies, lifestyles, eating habits, etc. Then life itself is no different than that of an amoeba.

A cow doesn't make life choices. It eats when it's hungry, sleeps when it's tired, runs when it's scared, etc. Everything is instinctual. Cows are also routinely slaughtered to provided sustenance for beings higher up on the food chain. By saying the right to life trumps all other rights, you are reducing the role of a human to that of a cow.

Choice is the right that sets human beings apart from all others. Without the right to choose which path is best for us in life, life is merely existence.

I would personally rather not exist if I cannot choose for myself. That is an empty existence.

 

At some point, a fetus becomes a person if not interrupted. When does its personhood start? that is the question...

 

This is a false dichotomy. Choice, yes. Unfettered choice, no. Ultimately it comes down to "Is it okay to kill an innocent to better your life?" For every instance apart from abortion, the answer would be no because your rights stop at their nose. If the fetus is a human being, that answer also has to be no.

 

So if your choice results in the terminating of the life of another, then your act of choosing trumps their right to life? Also, this comment is straying from objective reasons to subjective issues, namely quality of life. Furthermore, if someone did not respect your right to life, how could you exercise your right to choose, in the event of your non-existence?

 

A mother caring for a child outside of her body is nothing like carrying a fetus.

Anyone can care for a child out of the body. But if you remove a first trimester fetus from the mother, there isn't enough science in the world to carry it to full term. It's my belief that personhood starts when you can live outside of the womb. Yes, premature babies can live with the aid of machines...that's fine.

 

Article on Moral Relativism (MR):

http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Phil 1000 Fall 08/James Rachels.pdf

In addition, a summary of issues:

1. How do you define culture in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions? Once a definition is hashed out and accepted, how do you apply it? ( this is a conceptual problem)

2. Cultures become infallible. If cultures set their own moral codes, then they can never be wrong. To admit error is to measure the values against something external to the culture, which MR cannot allow and still be consistent.

3. No Moral Reformers. If Cultures determine moral codes, then those that run against them are considered immoral. This would mean that MLK jr. and Gandhi would be villains and not heroes.

4. No relevant criticism. Cultures existing in their own moral spheres are not allowed to criticize one another. Cultures, by the principles of MR, have no moral high ground; no culture is superior to another--all exist on equal moral footing. Hitler's Germany is, therefore, no better than Churchill's England.

5. Problems of tolerance. MRs claim that since morality differs from culture to culture, they must tolerate one another. Here "tolerance" is played as something outside culture, and actually is foisted in as an objective moral principle for all cultures to follow. If tolerance is objective, then MR is defeated. If it isn't, then cultures are not required to be tolerant, and an intolerant culture is not morally better or worse than a tolerant one.

6. No moral progress. In the U.S. and in other countries, some would say we have made progress: we are a more just and morally advanced than we were 50, 100, 200 years ago. This claim only makes sense if morality is measured against something exterior and objective to cultures. Hence, all supposed advancements of culture in terms of fairness and justice are illusory and are quite arbitrary if MR is true.

In conclusion, I would challenge MRs to think about some morals being objective. Often people go to far in their thinking by assuming some sort of religion must be adhered to. I'm suggesting this is not necessarily the case. Aren't there just a few objective moral values that exist? If I say:

1. It's morally wrong to rape and kill a child

what can be said about those who disagree? is it more likely that there is no truth of the matter, or that they are simply wrong?

Also, we must not confuse the fact that objective moral values exist with knowing which ones are in fact the correct ones

 

essentially, you are pro-life. You believe that personhood begins at the point of viability. But I'm wondering why stop there? The fetus will eventually become viable, and a person in the fullest sense, given time.

My point about motherhood was merely about the dependency relation of the fetus. inside the body, outside the body for some time (years), the fetus/child is still a dependent thing

 

If a fetus is a dependent person, can I claim a fetus on my taxes?

 

No, but it seems that religion is the #1 reason why people are prolife. I'm glad everyone is being civil thus far. Im very proud of you TW.

 

Here in lies a fundamental issue. At which point does a fetus stop being a fetus, and start being a human? It's a rhetorical question ofcourse, experts consider a fetus becomes a "person" as early as 6 weeks and as late as 24 weeks.

 

I think this is what i said in my first post, only much more condensed.

 

Great point! To reiterate, you are saying that by being stripped of the right to make choices for ourselves we actually become less civil, or more animalistic. I have never thought about it that way but it makes perfect sense!

 

Pretty much what I said prior. I believe it's a last ditch method that shouldn't be used, but I don't deny people the ability to use it.
<Notice the star of life. If I wasn't essentially Pro-Life, that wouldn't be there. But I respect peoples right to be Pro-Choice. Which in turn makes me Pro-Choice.

 

it's debatable but not rhetorical. in essence, this seems to indicate a form of agnosticism about the fetus. If that is the case, then we should err on the side of caution. Assume it is a person until shown otherwise. I would argue that most points of demarcation are arbitrary, and that the fetus is a person from conception.

 

I think you should be able to. the Government is schizo about this issue. On the one hand they allow abortion to take place, and on the other hand they treat the killing of a pregnant woman as a double homicide. What is the difference regarding the fetus? Either allow abortion and admit that killing an expectant mother is a single homicide, or disallow abortion and treat it as a double homicide. Trying to have it both ways is inconsistent. The inconsistency is allowed for emotional reasons, for political reasons, but not for rational reasons.

 

The two are inherently inseparable.

And, yes, in the terms of the human condition, the right to choose is fundamentally more important than the right to exist, for mere existence does nothing to separate a human from any other biological organism.

Tigers, grizzlies, many species of birds, fish and simple-celled organisms routinely eat their young as a method of population control, or to lessen the burden on the pride, school, mother, etc. If they have the means to choose, would they not rather eliminate the pregnancy altogether, instead of facing the stress, weakness and risk a pregnancy entails?