What constitutes a person?

[Verv]

I can't say I really care about whether or not the foetus has 46 unique chromosomes. It's relying on someone else's body for life, and nothing has the right to do that.

If it's not wanted, and it can be removed from the woman's womb without causing it too much suffering, there's no good reason not to. It will never know the difference.

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of people whingeing about the uniqueness or personhood or humanness of the foetus. Does it positively desire to be alive? No. Does the person whose life it is potentially going to take over for the next eighteen or so years want it there? If no, then remove it. Call me callous, but I just can't see the point of quibbling over something unwanted that has no desire to be alive in the sense we experience it.

In all honesty, why would you oppose infanticide? If you follow the logic that life can be terminated in the wound due to it being a burden, what about circumstances in a place like Africa?

Let's say we have a village with just too many kids, not enough people can take care of them and the food is running short; a couple has a kid but is now incapable of supporting it and i tis a burden. What would be morally wrong about killing the infant if it is a burden?

It hasn't developed the ability to even remember things nor even walk. What really makes this a human? What value can we inherently attach to it if it becomes a burden on the community?

The difference in newborn and fetus is much more than geography. The difference is physiology. A fetus is a direct physiologic burden (sounds pejorative, but it's biologically accurate) on the mother's body. A newborn is not. A pregnant woman's blood volume can increase by 50%, and her heart has to work 30 to 50% harder. Hypertension can occur. The enlarging uterus can restrict venous return from the lower extremities, causing varicose veins and leg and feet swelling. The kidneys have to work harder, as do the lungs. Most pregnant women will get out of breath with higher levels of exertion. Pregnancy impairs glucose metabolism, and up to 3% of women get gestational diabetes. The lower esophageal sphincter often malfunctions, causing acid reflux. Here's a more complete discussion. Pregnancy is not a totally benign state. It can have significant maternal health effects. And obviously, if the mother's health is imperiled, the fetus has no chance at all. It is a shame that these discussions come down to a competition of maternal "rights" versus fetal rights. But overall, I just think the mother's welfare is more important. If we have to make such arbitrary distinctions, I think the mother's rights must be given priority.

Pregnancy is a burden but I think that 9 months of uncomfortableness can justify 75 years of human life.

I think if we are not in the mood to make arbitrary decisions a lot of the reasons people give for being pro-choice could also be used to justify infanticide.

I think if we are not going to try to really even delve into the idea that people have a personal responsibility to have sex carefully so they are not terminating the humans in their wombs, we can really see why it should not be such a big deal or a big event to oppose abortion.

If you have all of the ability to prevent pregnancy through birth control pills and condoms, why should it ever be necessary to terminate lives inside of a woman?

 

[jayem]

"Self defense" has always been seen as a justifiable homocide. Situations where the mother will die unless the fetus is killed would not at all indicate a diminished right to life for the fetus any more than it would for any attacker who was killed in self defense.

It serves little purpose to put too fine a point on things, but maternal health risk is not that situation in the moral sense. In the vast majority of cases, a fetus isn't willfully "attacking" the mother. The fetus is just an innocent bystander. Mother and fetus both are unfortuante victims of some coincidental disease process. I doubt there are many other situations where we would, or should, sacrifice one innocent person to save another. I can't imagine that we would ever sacrifice a newborn baby to save the life of it's mother. The only reason we would even consider medically necessary abortion is because the life of the mother simply has a higher moral gravitas than that of an embryo.

 

[jayem]

Let me add one other point. I'm not an absolutist. I think both a fetus's right to life and a mother's right to her bodily autonomy are legitimate. But neither are absolute. I think we have to balance the two. Up to the point of natural viability, 24 weeks, the mother's autonomy takes precedence. But after that time, I think a fetus should be considered a person with rights independent of its mother. And for legal purposes, states can and should restrict elective abortion of a naturally viable fetus. I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise, which considers the interests of both parties.

 

[cantata]

In all honesty, why would you oppose infanticide? If you follow the logic that life can be terminated in the wound due to it being a burden, what about circumstances in a place like Africa?

Let's say we have a village with just too many kids, not enough people can take care of them and the food is running short; a couple has a kid but is now incapable of supporting it and i tis a burden. What would be morally wrong about killing the infant if it is a burden?

A community in which children were killed for any reason would be a frightened and violent community, one ultimately doomed to collapse. For that reason I could not condone infanticide.

It hasn't developed the ability to even remember things nor even walk. What really makes this a human? What value can we inherently attach to it if it becomes a burden on the community?

Oh, it is definitely a human; no doubt about that. It has no inherent value, though. I don't know what inherent value can possibly be. All value is extrinsic.

 

[gengwall]

Oh, it is definitely a human; no doubt about that. It has no inherent value, though. I don't know what inherent value can possibly be. All value is extrinsic.

I hope for your sake that you never come face to face with your own philosophy. If your value as a human being is determined by the subjective opinion of others, if you have no inherent value simply because of the fact that you are a human being, you eventually will return to a state of having no value at all.

 

[cantata]

I hope for your sake that you never come face to face with your own philosophy. If your value as a human being is determined by the subjective opinion of others, if you have no inherent value simply because of the fact that you are a human being, you eventually will return to a state of having no value at all.

The subjective opinions of others, and my own. If I am in a vegetative state, and everyone who cares about me is gone, then I am no longer valuable - by all means be the first to pull the plug on me.

I think a concept of intrinsic worth may be useful (like a concept of natural human rights might be), but I don't think it correlates with anything in reality.

 

[AstronomyMike]

If that were the case, most rape victims would be lenient on their rapists. They were victims of violence, and would not wish the same on those who have harmed them. Bringing rape into this conversation is ridiculous anyways, so leave that alone. It's another attempt to justify that a fetus is nothing more than a virus invading a host and deserves to be killed if no longer wanted. Scientifically, it may not be considered a "human", it still holds the possibility of life. Imagine the number of people who were prematurely denied life, that could've made a positive impact upon the world. They were denied that, out of a sense of inconvenience. I'm not talking about those who have been raped and get abort the child, I'm talking of those too irresponsible to accept what happened to them and allow another to enjoy life.

Selfishness, shallowness and laziness surround the majority of abortions today. Whether it be from the would be parents, or their parents. Doesn't matter whose more to blame, but the blame is there on all parties. The only innocent is the being that could've made a difference in the world, but was denied that.

That has got to be some of the poorst argument construction I have ever seen. "Most rape victims would be lenient on their rapists" indeed. A clear case of "Citation needed!" The context in which the post was made was perfectly valid. It was designed to point out that you had made a fallacious assertion, that only someone who had a grasp of the ideal (sic) of parenting could grasp the pro-life argument.

I am a parent, and I do have a perfectly good grasp of good parenting. I have an well-behaved, intelligent, polite and enquiring daughter, but that doesn't give me the right to dictate to people on ANYTHING, and that includes parenting. I also don't agree that termination in all cases is unacceptable. Say a 12-year-old girl is raped, and becomes pregnant. Going full-term would kill her due to a birth defect. Is the girl then to be condemned to death for being raped?