Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Science, Math, and Philosophy (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=45)

- - Abortion (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=294277)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean the first month of being alive (month 10).

I'm also pretty sure the second quote isn't mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because at that age, it is viable. It is no longer a fetus but a baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the words embryo and fetus are an attempt to divorce people from the realization that these are just different stages of human development. At the moment of conception, a genetically complete human being is formed and will from that point on continue to develop along the normal continuum of life. Once you acknowledge this scientific fact, it becomes clear that this is no different than killing of a human being at some other point in their development. If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda, read some of Peter Singer's work, who fully acknowledges the fact that if you allow abortion, then infanticide becomes viable as well and so forth. I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception. Any other line is an arbitrary one that we draw and say "ending a human life is ok before this point".

PS This is an exact copy and paste of a previous post of mine on this objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect you opinions and you should respect mines as well.
I do not believe that ending a pregancy before the end of the first trimester is wrong due to the fact that the fetus is non viable on its on.
I have a son and trust me I know what it's like to feel life inside of you. It is the most wonderful feeling in the world. I also lived through a miscarriage. What help me through it was the fact that I knew the fetus was less than 3 month old and that it was not a baby. It is a medical fact.

Why isn't it murder, I don't see from the definition.

[ QUOTE ]
However, one must admit that such action is possible within the abortion framework. It is not at all possible in the pro-life framework.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not correct.

Do you know any pro-lifers who think that we shouldn't kill bacteria?

"If we kill bacteria, we open up the door to killing adult humans" has exactly the same logical validity* as "If we kill fetuses, we open up the door to killing adult humans."

_____________
*Which is to say, none.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if we open up to abortion. We have to consider killing all sorts of people if we deem them unnecessary or costly to society.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we let 16-year-olds drive, we have to consider letting infants drive.

Any slippery-slope objection can be solved by line-drawing. Right now, for purposes of abortion, the line is drawn at the end of the second trimester.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would prefer after the 1st but that has some merit.

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't it murder, I don't see from the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not unlawful.

Debating when life begins is just that, a debate. We should have it. And policy should be shaped by that debate.

This is perhaps why abortion should once again be handled by legislators rather then courts. I don't know a single person who objects to this on moral or legal grounds (except for fear they will lose such a debate).

Your post ASSUMES bacteria=fetus.

If you make assumptions about wether a fetus is a life or not you can justify anything you want.

[ QUOTE ]
Your making a value judgement about the worth of the fetus. Your deciding personally if something is alive or not. Your entitled to do that, but other can disagree.

Are we going to let individual people decide for themselves what they consider a living thing? Are we going to let government do it? Are we going to let courts do it? Who should set policy in this regard?

That is the debate we probably should have had in this country. Instead of having that debate we got Roe v Wade. Which has done so much to solve the abotion controversy.

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote [censored], I think the abortion issues should be decided by the people at a state level. Have the people vote on what they believe what is right or not.
I do not think it should have been decided in the Supreme Court but Roe v. Wade was brought to them. The government did not decide to make a law about it out the blue.

If people did not disagree, it would be a very dull world.

Debating if something is illegal or not is a poor way of determining is something "ought" to be illegal.

[ QUOTE ]
I respect you opinions and you should respect mines as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let me apologize for being rude, but why should I respect your opinion just because it is yours? Esp. when I find the practice of abortion completely repugnant.

You need to check up on your "medical facts". Textbooks on embryology cite conception of the beginning of life. That is the fact. As I said, any line beyond that one is an arbitrary one where we agree that it is ok to prematurely end a living being's life.