The basis of my argument, to make a long story short, is that I believe human lives are worth a level of protection that other forms of life don't and that inert matter or non living chemical reaction basically deserve no special protection in and on themselves. To arrive to this position though, I have to explain why human lives should be worth more protection than animal or plant lives, why life itself should be valued and what's a human in the first place. I consider that life in and on itself has value only due to some of its characteristics namely sensitivity, will and bonding capacity. This is what make life valuable to my eyes. Life forms who cannot display sensitivity, will or any capacity to bond with others (or more specifically us humans) aren't worth special protection or protection at all.
I consider sensitivity as not only the capacity to perceive one's environment, but also to have emotions in that context. The richer the emotion, the closest and more easily undertandable to that of other humans it is, the more valuable a life form becomes. Will, in that context, is the capacity of a life form to have desires, needs and act upon them. It can also include the ability to think, reflect, dream, predict things ,etc. The more developped the will, the more similar it is to that of other humans, the more valuable a life form becomes. Finally, the least important, as a human, we are gregarious by nature. The capacity of life to bond to socialise becomes paramount for our survival and happiness. The more closely knit we are with a life form the more value and protection it deserves.
Humans, even babies and the most mentally handicap people, have the capacity to display and have emotions and at least one working sense to explore their environment. Even the youngest babies or mentally ill person have a will and can express it. Every single human being can bond with other humans, in fact nothing can bond with another human as well and as profoundly as another human being. In that respect babies and children might even be more skilled in that domain than adults thus all the more valuable and deserving of protection.
It's impossible to deny the sensitivity, will and bonding abilities of humans and it's impossible to deny that humans' sensitivity, will and bonding abilities is different than that of other animal and that no matter how different from one another we are, we are closer to each other than other life forms. Thus human lives must be protected above all other life forms, but also other life forms with a will, sensitivity and a capacity to bond with us also deserve some protection albeit lower.
Human fetus and zygotes while being technically human and life forms have yet to develop the characteristics that makes life valuable. A fetus doesn't have any form of sensitivity to speak off until the 16th week of gestation. It doesn't have a will until the 26th and cannot bond with other humans until birth. Thus, fetus and zygotes, at least until the 16th week of pregnancy have nothing worth protecting. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that they will become human being provided the pregnancy is successful. This gives them some value in and on themselves, but not nearly enough to force harm on a woman to insure their survival. I will not condone the pain and suffering of another human being for the purpose of protecting a life form that cannot feel pain or suffering at all even if that life form could one day feel pain and suffering. I am not harming it in its current form, but I can harm a woman in her current form.
You have made your argument. I disagree with it on the following grounds:
We do not condone actions taken against any human when those actions are taken for the express purpose of preventing that human from developing even possible, not guaranteed, qualities. That is, if someone kills a promising professional sports recruit in order to keep him/her from becoming a champion because if s/he does, it would inconvenient the killer.
We absolutely abhor the idea of someone who...say...kills a baby in order to keep it from possibly inheriting a fortune someday. We do not see as logical the idea that, if one sees a group of people in the Nile after having escaped the sinking of their ferry, that this makes it permissible to shoot all the survivors lest any of 'em escape the crocodiles and make it to shore.
We do not see as logical the idea that killing a human in order to prevent development is ethical or moral...UNLESS we are talking about unborn human lives. Then the argument is 'OK, but this fetus hasn't the proper level of development YET, so even though the only thing that will prevent this living thing from REACHING that level of development is death. You are, in effect, punishing these foeti for actually succeeding.
there are rules for dealing with other human beings who are human beings even in your definition: self defense is a principle one. Self preservation: there is a phenomenon that is mentioned among search and rescue personnel. There's a victim who has fallen in ice covered river. He's difficult to get to...so much so that everybody who tries, drowns. Tie the rescuers together, and the first one in line actually drags the rest to death with him. The same sort of thing happens when climbers are tied together, and the last one or two falls....the choice is to allow those two victims to pull everybody else into the crevasse with them, or to cut the rope and, by losing the fallen two, save the rest. When the decision is...abort the baby or both the baby and the mother die, the choice is hard, but obvious.
.....and has NOTHING to do with whether the fetus is 'a person' or not.
The comparison is made between the brain dead adult who is deemed to be 'not alive' and a fetus. the problem here is that there is little to no chance that a brain dead human being will regain brain function....and an embryo WILL get brain function UNLESS it dies first. there's no 'maybe' about it; it becomes a newborn, progressing through the stages of growth to adulthood. Whatever level of brain function this individual may have, it WILL have some...or die.
What you are advocating is that, unlike the normal human ethical ideas about what's acceptable, it IS acceptable to kill in order to PREVENT the development of the desired physical characteristic, and excusing it by saying that it doesn't have that characteristic YET.
Very circular, and very disingenuous, reasoning in my opinion.
But this thread is about whether a woman should be allowed to make her own decisions; to have 'informed consent,' and the opposition seems to be advocating that no...she shouldn't. The only point of view she should be allowed to hear is that of those who agree with you about this issue.
I have no problem with this POV being given her. However, I think she should also have the opposite side given her. Let HER decide.
It's all we can do until the culture/law comes to a different opinion about this issue. I just hope that it does so before too many MORE babies are denied the chance for life because their mothers think that they are no more than the rat in the corner; easy gotten, easily disposed of, no problem.
......and there is NO EXCUSE for as many abortions as occur. None. Birth control, properly used, would prevent almost all of them. It would certainly prevent those which are sought because of inconvenience.
