Your right thats what I meant, I suck at words. I’m going back to playing TF2 where I can use a headset and a gun to do my talking :-)
I wasn’t trying to jump on you for it. Just noting that you have to be careful.
I’m glad you pointed it out.
You’re overstating the position here. A fetus is definitely human, and alive. That’s just basic biology But when asked “what makes you human” people don’t tend to go for the obvious biological answer of “my DNA”.
Humanity tends to be described as self-aware consciousness, rational thought, or similar, which a fetus doesn’t have.
This is also the view that lets doctors remove life support from comatose patients with irreparable brain damage without being labelled as murderers.
I think there is a good argument to be made that “being human” is not the same as “being a person”. The latter qualifies for rights, the former does not.
Things that are “human” but not “persons” unarguably include disembodied organs, tumors, brain-dead individuals, and cadavers, and arguably include anencephalic babies, individuals in a persistent vegetative state, and fetuses.
Sure, but that’s different from being a human. My left hand is both human and alive, and although hands are more universally enjoyed than are children, you aren’t charged with manslaughter if you accidentally cut one off.
I’m curious to know, because I see the thread drifting into “is a fetus human?” territory, how many of you would still be pro-choice if we could definitively prove that a fetus was a human consciousness (or whatever your standard for human-ness might be)?
Do you put more weight on the choice aspect of pro-choice or do you just not believe that a fetus is human (in the same way the mother is human)? Personally, my stance reduces to “don’t force women to bear children” so I don’t see my position changing.
I’d probably still be pro-choice in some circumstances, but I guess only if it were a danger to the mother, health-wise. If it’s an actual human person in there, it’s a little barbaric to just kill the dude when you can just put him up for adoption in three-fourths of a year.
As it stands, though, it’s pretty much just a tiny ball of miscellaneous whatever, and I have no problem removing it. So that question is a little bit silly.
I would still be pro-choice. I think that abortion is the equivalent of a wealthy landowner forcing indigent squatters out of her vacant property in the middle of winter, to their likely death. It is immoral but it should not be illegal.
0_0 Not sure that’s the most appropriate analogy but ok.
So, 2-1 in favor of the mother’s rights trumping those of a sentient fetus? I can sympathize with the “fetus isn’t a human” argument, but it’s a little disturbing to me that anyone would remain pro-choice in this scenario.
To be fair it was more of and “adoption of a post”
I threw it on the doorstep and ran away…
But, I am just saying that I personally don’t think abortion should be an answer. But I don’t think that my personal beliefs should be everyones.
Just because I don’t think I would want that done, doesn’t mean it applies to everyone. Just like how I don’t want to shoot a deer, doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t be able to do it.
That is my say. Morally against abortion, politically pro-choice.
(And I am done with this thread, I was busy down in vegas, and I need to drop off another orphan)
Maybe it was a little over the top, but basically I subscribe to Judith Jarvis Thomson’s pro-choice argument, in which motherhood is a virtue comparable to being a Good Samaritan.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? …
If a set of parents … have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility for it. They may wish to assume responsibility for it, or they may not wish to. And I am suggesting that if assuming responsibility for it would require large sacrifices, then they may refuse. A Good Samaritan would not refuse …
I wouldn’t be in favour unless under exceptional circumstances.
Then again I might be in similar favour of euthanasia under exceptional circumstances as well.
Whether the fetus is sentient or not, it cannot fully develop physically or mentally on its own. Without the consent of a guardian to raise it – and the nonspecific chance of adoption or life as a ward of the state is not good enough to bind with the force of the law – it would be irresponsible to carry it to term.
Why is it silly? The two primary lines of pro-choice reasoning are “the fetus isn’t human” and “maintaining control of ones body trumps whatever rights you want to assign a fetus.” I would think that figuring out where you stand on the issue would be, at the very least, interesting. If you favor the former argument then you need (or, at least, should want) to define a cut off point for being human. Now, for example, you might want to consider late term abortions. If the crux of your pro-choiceness is the humanity of the fetus then you might be against them. Do you support legislation that would outlaw such procedures (with exceptions in extreme cases)?
So it’s a quality of life issue?
On the relative personhood of a fetus…
Do you [the hivemind] oppose laws that establish penalties for harm to a fetus?
How do you feel about regulating the behavior of an expecting mother for the well-being of the fetus?
Though she knows she’s pregnant, and she intends to deliver her child, an expecting mother continues to binge drink and use drugs. Should she be confined to a hospital for the duration of her pregnancy?
That’s pretty radical even for pro-lifers, so I don’t think you’ll find any pro-choicers on board. Most mothers who drink and use drugs deliver normal babies.
What.
The post was written in crazy.