Another Abortion Debate

[Willamena]

This is copied from another thread.

...Sure the claim is: *if* you grant that the fetus/ambyo is a human, then it should be illegal to kill him?..........that is my point..

Spilling off in a different direction:

It's an integral part of the woman, and so as human as she is. As is her appendix. And her hair follicles. And her nail clippings. And her spit.

Under what basis would you claim that the "unborn" is part of the woman's body?

My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

 

[SomeRandom]

Me. :Sees title of thread:

 

[Revoltingest]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

The fetus is "human" (as part of the mother) but not "a human".
That's how I see it.

 

[We Never Know]

The fetus is "human" (as part of the mother) but not "a human".
That's how I see it.

I see it like this. Once a seed starts growing its a plant. Once a fetus starts growing its a human. They just grow in different environments.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see it like this. Once a seed starts growing its a plant. Once a fetus starts growing its a human. They just grow in different environments.

That seems different from what I seed.
Seeds....
When a walnut seed starts growing,
it's a seedling, not a walnut tree.
But this analogy isn't all that apt.

 

[We Never Know]

That seems different from what I seed.
Seeds....
When a walnut seed starts growing,
it's a seedling, not a walnut tree.
But this analogy isn't all that apt.

Yet a seedling is a plant. A tree is an adult seedling....

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet a seedling is a plant. A tree is an adult seedling....

The salient difference between a fetus's relationship with
its mother is that a seedling isn't part of the parent tree.

 

[AlexanderG]

I don't think a fetus is a person. It has no capacity for having goals, dreams, memories, expectations, a concept of itself or reality, emotional attachment to others, nor does it have any personal legacy or social legacy valued by others, or any capacity to significantly suffer more than an ant or earthworm. This is incompatible with my definition of personhood.

Given this, and the significant health risks and lifetime impact for the mother of carrying a fetus to term, I believe the fetus' interests are vastly superseded by the mother's interest in her own bodily autonomy.

It's a balance of competing interests:
1. The right of a non-sapient clump of cells to eventually grown into a sapient human, versus
2. The right of a fully sapient human woman to decide how her body is to be used by another, and what risks she wants to take with her own life.

In the end, it comes down to which right you value more. It probably also comes down to definitions.

I see a lot of conservative Christians throwing the "soul" issue into it, which I don't think is helpful or illuminating. There is no evidence for a soul or that it's even possible for a soul to exist, and within the overall Christian worldview there's no definitive interpretation of the bible that indicates fetuses have souls. I might as well argue that it's immoral for women to give birth, because I believe women contain sentient invisible supernatural spriggles, who inhabit every woman's toes and who are killed by psionic emanations when a woman gives birth. This is as useful as the fetus-soul argument. You don't believe in spriggles, so you don't care. For all the same reasons, many don't believe in souls and don't care about that argument, and we find it especially disturbing when legislation or criminal penalties are justified based on this baseless superstition.

 

[We Never Know]

The salient difference between a fetus's relationship with
its mother is that a seedling isn't part of the parent tree.

It was at one time. The nut had to grow on the tree to ripen, then soon after separation the seedling grows.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was at one time. The nut had to grow on the tree to ripen, then soon after separation the seedling grows.

Different perspectives, eh.

 

[We Never Know]

Different perspectives, eh.

I reckon so

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

The popular frameworks for understanding this lead only to argument. Some people think a fertilized egg is a complete human being with an essential human personality and maybe a ghost such as a spirit or reincarnated life, and they are sure, absolutely sure. They are as sure about it as you are sure that the ground holds us up.

Rather than a spectrum of perspectives, there is a scale like the Kelvin temperature scale. That absolute certainty I mention is like the absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. Everyone else has different perspectives ranging some distance from that absolute one. That absolute certain position holds a portion of the population, and I am not inventing it nor making a fuss over a tiny group of one hundred. No, I think it is millions who feel this way about this issue.

To those millions abortion is absolutely murder. No one can ever satisfy these absolute zeroes, not with argument, not with any kind of assurances. There is no bargaining. There isn't a compromise. I think many people have witnessed this, and its a fact of our times. I have witnessed it.

 

[Stevicus]

This is copied from another thread.



Spilling off in a different direction:




My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

I would say an unborn child is a part of its mother, although I find it difficult to accept comparisons to an appendix or hair follicles. It's the result of a natural process, not some abnormal growth. It is what it is. At some point, it might eventually be considered separate from the mother, but I don't know where that point would be.

I don't believe abortion is murder, and I think it should remain legal as a practical societal matter. But I can't think of it as just a simple medical procedure either.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't think a fetus is a person. It has no capacity for having goals, dreams, memories, expectations, a concept of itself or reality, emotional attachment to others, nor does it have any personal legacy or social legacy valued by others, or any capacity to significantly suffer more than an ant or earthworm. This is incompatible with my definition of personhood.

This.

However I would, of course, say that while an infant also has no capacity for goals, dreams, etc, it does have brain function (assumedly a concept of self and reality), emotional attachment, and being born is far beyond that of a fetus.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was at one time. The nut had to grow on the tree to ripen, then soon after separation the seedling grows.

After separation? Isn't that a key part of the analogy then?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The popular frameworks for understanding this lead only to argument. Some people think a fertilized egg is a complete human being with an essential human personality and maybe a ghost such as a spirit or reincarnated life, and they are sure, absolutely sure. They are as sure about it as you are sure that the ground holds us up.

No dramas. They don't need to have an abortion. No one is forcing this on anyone, or asking them to act contrary to their beliefs.

If they want to convince other people about not having an abortion, I think the 'as sure about it as you are sure that the ground holds us up' analogy starts to struggle.
Bet I can more easily convince someone that without ground under their feet they're going to fall than they can convince me there is a reincarnated life held with a zygote. And that removal of said zygote doesn't simply lead to that life reincarnating somewhere else.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This.

However I would, of course, say that while an infant also has no capacity for goals, dreams, etc, it does have brain function (assumedly a concept of self and reality), emotional attachment, and being born is far beyond that of a fetus.

Infants dream. I'm not sure that's an important line, but there it is.

 

[Valjean]

My answer is simple, common sense. The apple is a part of the tree.

I'd like to invite others to weigh in on the topic of whether an unborn child is a part of its mother.

Define "part of."

An unborn child is a genetically separate organism contained within and nourished by the mother, as is a fœtus or even the original zygote (It's technically a parasite, in this regard).
If part of means contained, attached or something like that, then a baby is part of its mother. If it means a genetically distinct organism, then it's not.

Consider: If a farmer grafts a peach or plumb shoot onto an apple tree, will the resulting branch and fruit be 'part of' the apple tree, even though they're genetically different?

In re: Leroy's original query:

*if* you grant that the fetus/ambyo is a human, then it should be illegal to kill him?

Here, for me, the answer hinges on the term "human."
Human designates a species. The fœtus is human, but I don't see the morality of killing 'him' as tied to his species, but, rather, his personhood. The fœtus is human, but it's not yet a person. My moral obligation toward a non-person is not the same as my obligation to a person.

 

[Dogknox20]

Have you ever noticed that all peoples in favor of abortion have already been born!?
It is natural to protect the innocent... It is natural to protect the offspring!
Abortion goes against LOGIC and Nature!

Lets see... "I have a problem there is a baby coming; I know what I will do to solve MY problem; I will kill the baby that should solve MY problem!"

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Infants dream. I'm not sure that's an important line, but there it is.

I more meant "dreams" as in aspirations and goals