Abortion- "It is her body!" But is it?

Broken legs a flu vs pregnancy is a weird comparison indeed. But I would love to hear her elaborate a little on that. It might make sense...

 

Should pregnant women be granted special protection by law? If yes, how does that correspond with regarding a pregnant woman as equal to the non-pregnant woman? And if the pregnant woman is ought to be protected by law, what is it exactly that should be protected by this law if the fetus is just like a liver, heart, finger or any other body part?

 

Many in the pro life camp will claim to be religious. Many of the very same religions also require the slicing of the penis.
So those in the pro life really don't care about the unborn, especially after they're born. They care less is they starve to death in the mother/family has financial hardships. They merely claim, if you can't afford the kid, don't get pregnant. But if a mistake happens, well, let the kid suffer for life.
Odd group those RWers. As many of them also claim to be RW.
Yes, another thread.

 

Then why is abortion such a divisive issue which has only gotten more divisive over time? Obviously you are wrong.

 

You have it backwards. The dictionary reflects society, the dictionary does not dictate social morals. As all the other abortionists are doing, your entire position is nothing more than a rant "Its not a baby!" "Its the law!"

 

What is a life? If you are pro-life you should believe every living thing has a life and should be protected. In practice, that is not what pro-life advocates believe. They believe only a human life is worthy of special protection, and they want to say it is a unique human life worthy of protection as soon as its unique DNA is established by the combination of sperm and egg.

Philosophically, the concept of human life (or person-hood, or soul) involves a presence of mind that is lacking in all other animals (except maybe the gorilla and a few others with complex brains). Pro-life advocates don't generally like to think about the gorilla being considered a person because that makes it about the mind instead of the body.

The fetus does not have the mechanical ability to be conscious until the last few weeks of gestation, and even then it is sedated by environmental factors (otherwise it would probably wake up and drown). It would be inaccurate to claim the fetus can feel pain before the last few weeks of gestation because the nervous system is not fully integrated. When an injury to the spinal cord interrupts the flow of signals from the legs to the brain, that person does not "feel" pain, although the nerves in the legs might be alive and functional. They detect the pain but they cannot present that signal to the brain to be processed as a sensation of pain. By the same token, a fetus does not "feel" pain until the cerebrum is developed enough to process sensations.

A newborn (especially a premature newborn) may not be fully conscious, but the mind is certainly activated by birth (if you ever watched a birth, you can see it happening). As soon as the mind is activated, it may begin recording experiences to be used later in forming a personal concept of the world around it. That is the beginning of person-hood in a philosophical sense. The body is just the life support system for the mind, and most parts can be replaced if necessary.

 

The issue under discussion is not a philosophical question regarding life in general, it is the status of the unborn human. "Pro-life" means the person on balance opposes abortion. Don't try to distract from the issue in order to muddy the waters.

On what basis do you make such a sweeping claim that pro-life advocates believe only human life is worthy of protection? Once again you are trying to distract and muddy the waters.

Your concept of human life is based on the stage of development of the mind. That is clearly not universally accepted or there would not be an abortion issue. And it is an arbitrary point which ignores the continuum of development of a human throughout its life from conception to old age and death.

You mention soul, the soul is not the mind, and the soul brings in God. That clearly places an impossible burden on abortionists to prove there is no soul until a certain point in development. As soon as you bring in the soul and God, abortion is over.

 

The fetus does not have to switch its status in any way. The fetus is a partially developed human body which may potentially become a person. For some women, that is a gift that they will treasure and protect. For some women, it is a burden that they are not prepared to carry. The pregnant woman is the ONLY actual person directly impacted by the pregnancy (until the mind of that fetus is activated). Why should anybody else have a voice in the decision?

If your favorite uncle gives you a red sports car, you might be excited because you need a car and enjoy driving, or you might decide (living in the city) that the car is going to cost more in insurance and parking fees than you can afford. The car does not switch from one thing to another, but your evaluation of that car may be different depending on your circumstances.

 

As you said ""Pro-life" means the person on balance opposes abortion." so they are really "anti-abortion" but choose to forsake the literal meaning of "pro-life" and focus on opposing human abortions. I should, however, have said *most* pro-life advocates only care about human abortions since I have met a very few pro-life advocates who also care about other species. Where do you stand on protection of other intelligent species? Are you really "pro-life" or just "anti-abortion"?

The details of fetal brain development were not clearly understood back in the 1970's so people were misled by pro-life doctors talking about seeing the fetus move as if it had purpose and intention. It takes time for the general population to overcome the mythology of the past.

Actual birth is not an arbitrary point at all, and in the case of a premature birth it allows for protection of a newborn whose mind is not quite able to process anything. We know that the mind of the premature NEWBORN is active because blood chemistry changes AT BIRTH to allow that activity.

You claim "the soul is not the mind" but can you prove that? This is a forum for Religion and Philosophy so why wouldn't we discuss the soul here? Can you prove that the soul enters at the moment of conception? How do you know the soul is not floating about, waiting for God to finish forming the body it will inhabit at birth?

 

Semantics. Does not refute my position that animals kill innocence, so why not humans? Are we just animals?

 

Animals kill innocence. Humans must be animals if we kill innocent human life.

 

One thing is for sure and that her body isn't your's. So unless you contributed to making the fetus wht should you have any say in what she does?

 

Humans are programmed to kill. It's genetic. And yes, humans are animals.

 

Are you going to extrapolate why "pro-choice" is not globally for complete freedom of choice in all situations?

"Pro-life" is a general label for people who generally oppose abortion. "Pro-choice" is a general label for people who generally support abortion. They are for convenience, nothing more. Its a waste of time trying to extrapolate beyond that simple position.

So what? People undergo tremendous chemical changes at puberty and menopause, brain function changes throughout a persons life, sometimes degenerating into senility.

The fetus is just another stage in the life cycle of a human person. Nothing you have written changes that position.

Religion is clearly an aspect of the abortion issue. But if you want to go there, then the debate ends - people who believe God forbids abortion, or believe abortion is a sin, are not going to be swayed by any secular argument you can make.

As a Christian, I believe that abortion is murder unless as a last resort to prevent the death of the mother and the baby. That has been the accepted position since the Church was created in the 1st century. That is my understanding of the Bible, its what my conscience tells me, it fits the moral principles of Christianity. On those grounds, the issue is settled, the chance of you being able to convince me otherwise is about zero.

 

Pregnancy isn't treated? Guess you never heard the term "pre-natal care".

 

I don't see it as a divisive issue. There are still a few who think they have some religious right to tell the entire world how they must live. But no one listens to them anymore. You are becoming insignificant.
I don't see it discussed in the prez elections hardly at all, even if at all.
So, I doubt I'm wrong.

 

I see I have you stumped ......Yes, I like Fugazi , too, since he sets posters like you straight...

 

It isn't a social moral issue any more. Except to those who think they have a right to tell the world how they must live.
No one wants that anymore. Do you want radical islam telling the world how they must live. NO? Many don't want any religious nutters telling anyone how they must live.

 

All women should be protected by the law....you're making a problem where there is none.

- - - Updated - - -

Then humans are animals because humans have killed innocent lives since there were humans....if you wish to call humans animals have at it.

 

According to Ritter you are not allowed to use the term "pro-life" in this thread.......(ya, I ignored him,too )


....and you have to first prove there is a god and a soul....there is no proof....

 

...snip
I am pro choice, but would never have my wife or daughter seek an abortion. I would greatly discourage but under dire circumstances.

 

Go look in a mirror.
What do you see.
That is you and you have a body.
Is that body yours?

Guess what....when a woman does that she comes to the same conclusion.

YES, it is her body and yours is also yours....why is she different?

 

The difference is that I don't claim abortion is right because choice is ALWAYS right... whereas those on the other side of the spectrum often pretend that they ALWAYS choose life.

Regarding the significance of the moment when the mind is first awakened and is able to experience life, you said:

Wrong... The fetus is another stage in the life cycle of a human body. You have not proven that the fetus is a person. What criteria do you use to distinguish between a person and an amoeba, or a person and a tonsil, or a person and a sea slug?

The debate does not end with religion, but when you acknowledge that the difference is based on a religious believe that cannot be proven one way or the other, the government (in any country with freedom of religion) has no authority to force one group to bow to the religious views of another. The debate then becomes a matter of religious speculation and you have the right to behave according to your beliefs and I have the right to behave according to my beliefs (like sprinkling versus immersion to accomplish a baptism).

 

We create lots of arbitrary lines for the good of society. For example, there is an arbitrary line that says it is wrong for one person to kill another person unless it is in self defense. Why not an absolute line that says it is wrong to ever kill another person? Most people agree that a person should have the right to defend themselves against an attacker whose actions would cause injury.

Your line that person-hood begins at conception is just as arbitrary as any other. You want to base it on the beginning of the DNA combination as if a unique DNA pattern makes a person. What happens if a person is infected by a virus that changes his DNA? Does he become a different person, or does it just change the characteristics of his cell structure?

 

Perhaps you could explain why people have been charged with the murder of a fetus then.