But that's assuming the unborn entity is . . . already someone. As long as it lacks the attributes of a person such as having a mind . . . it cannot be said to have such rights. There's nobody there, yet, to have rights.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i guess i just believe human beings are special because im a human being if i was a horse maybe i would think horses are special i can only speculate on that of course but maybe . the human experience is amazing i enjoy living i think everyone has a right to this experience and noone has a right to take it away from someone else regardless of their own opinions on life and humanity they can have any opinion they want when this human being develops they also will very soon have their own opinions and they have a right to have them just as much as you or i or their mother does.
you say you are "pro choice" (support a womans choice to have an abortion) yet you are challenging the morality of your position and say that abortion is immoral by default (killing an innocent person for no good reason is bad so why not abortion?) i am surprised to hear that you identify as pro choice and not pro life since you bring up some really good arguments against abortionI think I am essentially presenting it an axiom. And I can make the axiom more clear if you prefer:
"Intentional killing of human beings = bad".
There are exceptions to the axiom because no moral rule is black and white. However, in the vast majority of situations, intentional killing is considered wrong.
So, for those that view abortion as moral (or amoral), the onus is on them to justify why abortion is an exception. I think the default position is that abortion is immoral unless it can be justified that it falls in a similar class as capital punishment, war or self-defence.
Keep in mind that I am pro-choice. The subject of this thread is whether abortion is moral or immoral not whether it should be legal or illegal. Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral, nor does it mean it should be encouraged, nor does it mean it is a desirable outcome.
The subject of this thread is whether abortion is immoral or not.
There are plenty of pro-life pro-choicers, and vice versa.you say you are "pro choice" (support a womans choice to have an abortion) yet you are challenging the morality of your position and say that abortion is immoral by default (killing an innocent person for no good reason is bad so why not abortion?) i am surprised to hear that you identify as pro choice and not pro life since you bring up some really good arguments against abortion
Yes, it is extremely low. It amounts to 0.16%.
Let us compare it with the rate of Severe Maternal Morbidity, or the more severe complications that "healthy young women" suffer each year by going through with their pregnancy. Your CDC quotes it as 163 in 10,000, or around 1.6%.
Allow me to help you with the risk calculations. It is 10 times more likely that a woman's health will suffer from completing a pregnancy than through undergoing a termination of that pregnancy.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/severematernalmorbidity.html
But that's assuming the unborn entity is . . . already someone. As long as it lacks the attributes of a person such as having a mind . . . it cannot be said to have such rights. There's nobody there, yet, to have rights.
By what definition of "mind"? They have rudimentary "hardware" but there isn't a lot going on in there until quite late in the piece. "Thought" as we understand it requires neural connections, and neural pathways simply don't exist early on.An unborn baby is primarily a "mind"..
We're both nurses, we could both cherry pick extreme examples, and we both should be conversant enough with statistics and bias to know why it's misleading to do so.Yes, it is just antidotal but I have personally cared for two hospitalized patients in the past 6 months who had "incomplete abortions" (medical abortions that didn't work) that required emergency surgery...the first spent several days in the ICU with a blood infection and over a week in the hospital, the second required emergency blood transfusions while in surgery. Neither young woman had any risk factors or complicating factors that would have suggested any risk for a pregnancy with complications.
OK. I have to ask given this definition do you find yourself compelled to side with keeping the human body alive even if the person is brain dead?
By what definition of "mind"? They have rudimentary "hardware" but there isn't a lot going on in there until quite late in the piece. "Thought" as we understand it requires neural connections, and neural pathways simply don't exist early on.
Yes, it is just antidotal but I have personally cared for two hospitalized patients in the past 6 months who had "incomplete abortions" (medical abortions that didn't work) that required emergency surgery...the first spent several days in the ICU with a blood infection and over a week in the hospital, the second required emergency blood transfusions while in surgery. Neither young woman had any risk factors or complicating factors that would have suggested any risk for a pregnancy with complications.
A brain dead human being is fundamentally different from a fetus for two reasons:
1) A brain dead person has no potential to become a fully functioning, thinking, conscious person. So, from the perspective of the OP's arguments, killing a brain dead person does not deprive them of any future experiences because it is impossible for them to have such experiences anyway. Thus, the premises of the OP's argument are not fulfilled and it can be reasonable to suggest that a brain dead person can be killed amorally.
2) A brain-dead person may have been not brain-dead at some point. This raises the possibility that they could have given consent to different scenarios. If the brain-dead person had previously discussed such scenarios with family members, legal entities or physicians, then that will affect the decision. A fetus cannot give consent and so, in being consistent with all other medical situations, the default position is to keep the fetus alive. This is consistent with other scenarios such as a paramedic finding an unconscious human being on the side of the road: without consent, the default position is to keep that person alive.
With those two points in mind, I think it is okay to kill a brain-dead person assuming:
1) They have given some form of prior consent and;
2) There is no chance they will recover into a fully-functioning, thinking, human being.
I think the crux of the difference is that a brain-dead person is dying while a fetus is just coming alive. One is bursting with potential experiences while the other is incapable of ever experiencing anything every again.
And you admire this fool!? I have emboldened the key flaw in his 'argument'. In order for you to wail about your doomed foetus, one first has to be formed. Therefore, one of those sperm cells must form a "combination" with the egg. That we are unable to identify beforehand which particular sperm cell will unite is irrelevant. The inescapable conclusion is that one must, before your wailing can commence. Ergo, any measure taken to prevent all sperm cells from uniting with any egg necessarily prevents your precious foetus from coming into existence. Its "future" is then denied!
Honestly, that took an 87 year old brain about 3 minutes to sort out. You need to start reading and thinking chum.
you say you are "pro choice" (support a womans choice to have an abortion) yet you are challenging the morality of your position and say that abortion is immoral by default (killing an innocent person for no good reason is bad so why not abortion?) i am surprised to hear that you identify as pro choice and not pro life since you bring up some really good arguments against abortion
interesting question , yes i definately would feel obligated to save that persons life . a pregnant woman literally does not have to do anything but allow it to happen naturally she doesnt need to go anywhere or do anything but yes if i was some kind of special DNA match that would require me to be connected to a stranger for a couple months to give them the gift of life i definately would and i would feel an obligation to do it . this entire thing is about one think the value a person has on human life thats it nothing more some people value human life more than others and where that comes from i dont know why some people dont care i dont know some people can kill without remorse and others cannot . why is one woman who has an abortion overcome with guilt for the rest of her life but another woman has no remorse after her 5th abortion ?
That's "anecdotal" and yes it is. Serious researchers reject anecdotal evidence because it rarely gives a true picture..
Human life value is only assigned after conception, not before.
One egg and one sperm does not mean human life value, it just means one egg and one sperm. Only after the sperm fertilizes the egg do we have human life value.
This is the natural point to draw the line between human life value and egg and sperm value, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Yea, I think it is one of the most interestingly complex moral questions. It is a classic moral dilemma between two things, neither of which seem particularly moral.
It seems completely wrong to force a women to carry an unwanted child to term. I am not going to support legislation which criminalizes or inhibits women from choosing to have an abortion.
It also seems completely wrong to kill a fetus. I am not going to support legislation which encourages women to get abortions rather than carry them to term.
Both are wrong.
However, I think it is possible to recognize the immorality of abortion while also recognizing that outlawing it or criminalizing it would have horrible side-effects and wouldn't really solve the problem. I think the best approach is to encourage women to choose not to get an abortion.
Being pro-choice means you want them to have a choice. It doesn't imply which option you want them to choose. I want women to have the choice. But I don't want them to have abortions.
Does that make sense? I hope I explained my position well.
This isn't a valid argument (either side) because a brain dead person is not considered alive anymore. A diagnosis of "brain dead" means a patient no longer qualifies to get medical treatment or life support. They are dead. The only reason the body is kept on life support is to maintain organs for a short period of time so they can be used in transplantation procedures.
Are you a serious researcher? I will maintain that my experiences have validity because of my medical training & specialty and shows that maybe it isn't as "safe" as pro-abortion people want us to believe. Either that or the number of medical abortions going on in my metro area are excessively high since I only care for a very small percentage of women who are hospitalized. What is your background that shows that your research has more validity?
This is your view, nothing more. Most people, including myself, hold a different view.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?