of course, do as you please with your body. However, a fetus is not part of a women's body it grows inside her. A fetus is a separate person and has its own rights. A mother does not choose whether her child lives or dies outside her body.
I am not debating whether abortion should be illegal or not. I am asking on what moral ground is it okay to terminate another's life and rape and the pregnant women's health are the only two option. Even in the case of rape, there are methods to prevent pregnancy.
Yes, a fetus survives off of woman but that does not mean ownership. As a child, you survive off your parents but at no point do they have ownership you.
@Powerless You assume you have to be Human to have rights. As I pointed out, you don't, domesticated animals have rights, test animals have rights. Just because you are not fully developed, does not mean you can disregard its right.
@Powerless
1) You have not read my comments at all. Quote me where I said a fertilized egg has human rights. I did, however, say a fetus has human rights, which occurs past conception. A fetus has the major body organs, in my opinion, that is enough...
2) Chickens, cows, dogs don't have abortions. Do not know where you got that information from.
3) Again, you have no read my comments. At no point have I talked about animal pregnancy. What I said is how can we as a society say a fetus has no rights in whether it has the chance to live or not while there are animals like dogs and cats, who are not human but still have the right to live.
@Powerless
1) Consider this scenario: Male is called M and Female is called F
M comes home one day and beats his pregnant wife. As a result of M's attack, F's baby is killed. In this situation, M can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus and the assault of the women. If it had survived but the fetus' development was impacted by the attack, it would be double assault.
Under the law, the fetus is considered equal to the woman and has basic human right, though it has not developed into a full baby yet. Also, note double assault. The fetus is a separate entity and not one with the mother, which is how most people justify abortion, and how its a woman's right.
That is why the fetus should have human rights and why abortion is immoral
2) Contradiction happens all the time. Killing is not okay, it's immoral. However, in self-defence or in the Army killing is pardoned. You see? I cannot vouch for women who have been raped or even imagine the things they go through. Being raped without the added consequence of pregnancy is bad enough, something women their entire will go through processing and recovering from if they do that is. Now add the pregnancy to the equation and the already distress and the chance of miscarriage is a lot higher. Under no circumstance will I ever deny these people abortion. It may be a contradiction, but like my example, they happen all the time.
"Let nature take its course" - we would not be here talking about abortion if nature had its say. Also, saving the mother is the what the doctors will always do. I have no control over it and will not argue against it, tough enough being a doctor as it is. Above that, if a mother does die then the fetus is in life threating danger so it would be logical to save the mother first and then try and save the fetus.
1) Consider this scenario: Male is called M and Female is called F
M comes home one day and beats his pregnant wife. As a result of M's attack, F's baby is killed. In this situation, M can be prosecuted for the murder of the fetus and the assault of the women. If it had survived but the fetus' development was impacted by the attack, it would be double assault.
Under the law, the fetus is considered equal to the woman and has basic human right, though it has not developed into a full baby yet. Also, note double assault. The fetus is a separate entity and not one with the mother, which is how most people justify abortion, and how its a woman's right.
That is why the fetus should have human rights and why abortion is immoral
@Powerless
1) Want something philosophical?
Modernity has killed any sense of morality.
2) You asked why should we give a fetus its rights.
Law does change, hence why it legal to have an abortion. But we still class it as a person when in court. Therefore it has basic rights. How killing a fetus has become a sense of emancipation I do not know.
3) I have absolutely no care if you think its moral or not because you can't see the forest for its tree. Nothing will change your mind because of that. I can do nothing more for you, dear.
4) I have played Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion and not once has anyone give me an example of how abortion is moral or one the remotely well thought out.
But you can try if you want.
@Powerless
I know you made arguments about why people believe the fetus should have rights. But you also give your own opinion beneath them. That is what I am responding to.
1) your point about the Human Genome did not invalidate anything. Yes, no one would argue the for skin cell independence, this is because skin cells are not individual, its part of our genome not separated from it. I'll admit I do not understand the point you made, the part about skin cells threw me off and I can't wrap my head are how absurd it is. I'm sorry, but you going to have to clarify in better detail.
2) My point still stands. Okay, so the biological mother may not be taking care if it but if someone is then the argument still applies. It's not self-sustaining, it may drink someone else's breastmilk, it does not matter who takes care of it, but that someone does. Though I do like that point on the fetus not being able to survive without the host. Hard to argue against :) You'll be interested to know that there are science advancements that are taking place where they are recreating an artificial uterus. The impact of this, I guess is still unknown.
3) I'll give you that my point was really bad. However, you are implying that given the situation the human will be saved 100% of the time. I admit the majority of people will, but I would also bet that some would have saved the embryos. It like that question do you save 1 and let 100 dies or save 100 and let 1 die. It all depends on what people have been through. Of course, those of public service would save the man first. I have no idea what a technician at the lab would do. This is a tough argument. One that can easily be able to agree and disagree on.
4) Guess we both agree.
5) Okay, I do like this point. The issue is that when the woman wants the baby then as a society we accept it as if it was a developed human. This is why I bring up law. But when the woman does not want it then the fetus is regarded as nothing. This is the big issue I have.
6) I agree. But if we look at it scientifically, even with unplanned parenthood the women go through a biological change in that we see an increase in hormones that can change her as in she becomes more caring and nurturing in time for the child. The shows the perhaps that abortion is unnatural and goes against the natural order. However, society and culture also play an effect to what extent we follow science and nature.
7) It's unfair to assume that pro-life do not care about the child beyond birth. The issue of poverty, abuse, child neglect is an issue that needs to be looked at on its own, rather than being a branch of another subject.
Also, there are pro-choice who believe a woman has every right to drink or smoke while pregnant even though it stunts development and how it causes major health problems for the child. Neither side is perfect.
Maybe help raise children was the wrong phrase but you would be surprised how much aid there is and what you are entitled to as a parent.
Things like maternity leave and pay, shared perentaly leave and pay, maternity allowance, the list goes on. These aids are there from the time you are preganant and when the child goes to school.
Also you cannot disregard the law or justice system in this arguement because its the centre of our society and everything we do is revolved around it. Sure it may of flaws but does not mean its invalid as an argument. Nothing is every black or white. There needs to be a legitimate debate when it comes to the law.
@Powerless
1) Your point does not make sense. Skin cells begin with having DNA in them so it can form in the first place. But once they have formed it no longer has any DNA as it destroys itself. Most cells contain DNA but that does not mean it uses it all. Only specific parts are used so each part of our body can function properly. The different cells in our body express a fraction of our genes and it represses the other.
2) A fetus and mother relationship is not at all like a parasite and its host. The role of the placenta is what makes this relationship so dynamic. When a mother is healthy then the placenta will increase the rate it absorbs nutrients but if the mother's health at any point is compromised then the placenta will reduce how much it absorbs for her well being and take only the amount that is needed to develop.
There is also research that shows that a fetus will use its own stem cells to help repair the damage it does to the mother's heart. It may not use its mouth to eat but the fetus is much more than a parasite or some sort of a tumour that many believe it to be.
3) Personally, I do not like the idea of using human instinct is a good form of argument as it is so unpredictable, similar to human rationality. I do see your point though. I would save the man before the embryos too. But my reason is not that I don't see embryos as life but the nature of IVF and ethics. This argument is the equivalent to saving the mother before the fetus I assume. That's something I can agree on.
6) Perhaps you are right here. However, if you stray too far what is natural the line between moral and immoral becomes blurred.
7) An interesting perspective, but also a different debate.
I'm growing tiresome on this point about the law. I will not budge on this point and nor will you. Every time we have argued our side its always been with the same argument. We have to agree to disagree on this. For me, morality and law are so intertwined in our society. For you, it's not.
Honestly, I think I've said everything on the side of how abortion may be considered immoral. I have given this side of the argument because it's important that someone does and that we should always question our selves on issues that are so emotive and that we do not cower away because feeling may get hurt. We can only do great things as a society if we stick to the moral path.
What I have argued does not necessarily reflect my own personal attitudes.
It was fun discussing with you powerless, peace brother :)