Slavery still exists in America.

[El Barto]

I haven't decided yet, I would appreciate your comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the following thinking:

When someone has the right to decide whether you live or die, and they can do so when you are a perfectly normal human being, solely at their own discretion, don't they in essense own you. In the same way perhaps as you own a dog. You are innocent, you are healthy, but if I want I can kill you without being considered a murderer. This is slavery, yes?

Lets say you are walking down the street and you see a auto accident. The only person involved is ejected from the car and lands face down in a ditch filled with water. He is going to drown. Do you have a responsibility to remove his head from the water so he can breath?

If we did not lift a finger to help a six month old baby to survive, he would certainly die of neglect. And you would go to jail. But if you are a mother, you can decree that your unborn baby will not have permission to live any more. The unborn baby is her slave.

Lets face it, an unborn baby is human (check the DNA), has a future as a self-reliant individual (unlike a brain-dead coma patient), and is innocent of any crime. Yet that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner", while we will preserve the life of the coma patient (who has no future), and the criminal, and cherish the life of the six month old. Does this make sense?

Yes, bearing a baby is a burden, and requires a sacrifice, but so does dragging the fellow out of the ditch, or laboring to preserve the life of the coma patient, or keeping the six month old child alive.

The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here. He has less legal right to live than the criminal, the coma patient, his slightly older sibling, and even the complete stranger involved in an accident.

What gives?

[stripsqueez]

some of your reasoning is so silly that its hard to explain how it is flawed

i dont know the good arguments that are pro this form of "slavery" - i dont think boys should get a vote

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[J.R.]

I hate this issue and can't make up my mind. Some countering perspectives.

"Do you have a responsibility to remove his head from the water so he can breath?"

Not legally.

"If we did not lift a finger to help a six month old baby to survive, he would certainly die of neglect. And you would go to jail."

Are you sure that is the case? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] I really doubt it unless you have a duty as a parent or legal gaurdian.

"The unborn baby (if not a slave) is certainly a second class citizen here."

Rightly or wrongly, many would argue you have to be a person before you can be a citizen.

"has a future as a self-reliant individual"

This is what those in favor of your general idealogy like to present as the crux of the disagreeement. This is what those against often argue is an illogical presuppostion.

"that baby can be killed at the whim of their "owner""

Rightly or wrongly, that is a narrow minded approach. While symbiotic is not the right word, there is a pretty significant cause and effect relationship between "owner" and "baby" that is more complicated than you present.

[scalf]

you all should see the new 3-d colour-enhanced ultrasound pictures of the baby developing; my now five month old baby waved and smiled at her parents during the 3rd trimester..

a lovely site..

gl [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Gamblor]

It's quite simple:

An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

Human life begins at birth, not conception.

The obvious counter argument would question the respect of animals despite non-self-awareness.

Animals are different, because they sustain the world that provides life for humans.

Thus, we must respect animals/plants/etc, because without them, humans would not continue to survive - it only follows that while animals may not be sentient and self-aware, they nonetheless require human respect for their roles in the ecosphere.

Ultimately, this argument only proves that humans are nothing more than self-aware animals. It's the same reason sex feels good, we find babies cute, and we care for our elderly:

It's all biological imperative. Sex is good because we need incentive to pro-create. Babies are cute because we're hard-wired to perpetuate the species, and it's easier to care for cute things than ugly things. We care for our elderly for what they can provide and what they have already provided: wisdom and experience that makes our own lives easier. And babies who are unborn are not yet babies, and since they aren't cute, only the Christian religious camp, which has never really let logic define itself, has any reason to demand their life.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think they are unaware? Also, what makes you think that they become aware at birth? I think that self-awareness might very well be a good defining characteristic of life, but I think your attachment of that characteristic to birth seems a bit arbitrary.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
An unborn baby is not entitled to life because it is not aware of its own life. Self-awareness is the defining human characteristic

[/ QUOTE ]

New born babies are not immediately self aware.



[ QUOTE ]
Human life begins at birth, not conception

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere inbetween. Unborn babies are receptive to certain stimuli at least during the 3rd trimester. Shine a simple torch on the mothers belly and the unborn child may respond.

[andyfox]

Does human life begin at conception?

[Zeno]

I think, (someone can check) that sentient life or self-awareness’ begins sometime in the womb in the third trimester. It may or may not be defined legally as the onset of brainwave patterns in the fetus but it is something that can be measured with accuracy and certainly can be augured as a reasonable scientific definition. Previous to the ‘turning on of the brain’ the fetus is essentially a growth with no real independence from the host. I remember reading about this long ago in some reference to abortion and other matters. It is one compelling reason that the Supreme Court did not allow abortions in the third trimester. Now this is old and partially recollected information and I don't know if things have changed in any scientific or legal sense. But this is a good starting point.

-Zeno

[blackaces13]

A baby is not aware of its own existence either. I'd say the first time I was self aware I was probably 3 or 4. Six month old babies have no idea that they are alive or what life is.