Originally posted by telerionyou wrote...
Yet again you misrepresent my postion.
That's not what I have written. First, my position throughout is that all fertilized human eggs are humans. Whether they multiply enough times and in the proper manner to become persons is another matter entirely. It is a medical fact that most zygotes and many embryos do not reach such a stage due simply to natural causes. This is just one fact that weakens the common pro-life argument that "fertilized human eggs have the potential to become children and therefore killing a fertilized human egg is morally as reprehensible as killing a born child." It does so because it draws into question the likelihood of such potential begin achieved.
I took this to mean that because a large number of fetilized eggs to not make it to full term, then it is ok to abort them because chances are they would not make it anyway. Just like some folks die of natural causes before they are 33 year old. Its not a good argument and hardly makes anything a flaw.
Why do you use any time period as a cutoff for abortion?
Originally posted by lepomisFirst, you write this in response to my post about cases where killing a human is probably okay.
nope... this has always been my position. A life is a life. One is not more important than another. If one has to die... then the women can choose.
Originally posted by lepomis
I will never agree that killing a developing baby on purpose is anything other than wrong.
Next you respond to wittywonka's question about endangering the mother with the following:
Originally posted by lepomis
I have no problem with the women deciding to save her life if carrying the baby to term would kill her... especially if both lives are in danger.
How is it this not a contradiction? In the first quote, you say that you will never justify killing a developing baby, then you turn right around in the next and justify killing a developing baby if the mother's life is in peril.
I took this to mean that because a large number of fetilized eggs to not make it to full term, then it is ok to abort them because chances are they would not make it anyway.
No. You are mistaking the purpose of my mentioning that statistic. I stated my reasons for why I think abortion in the first trimester can be justified, and the likelihood of a zygote/embryo/fetus coming to term was not one of them.
I have always brought up this medical fact about natural abortions as an argument to weaken the common pro-life position that a fertilized egg is, for ethics discussions at least, equivalent to a born child. Pro-lifers that hold this position invariably do so on the (false) premise that if left to nature's course the fertilized egg would become a born baby. I use the high frequency of natural abortions as a way of further demonstrating how poor that pro-life supposition is. Of course, I have already gone a step further when I showed that even if their supposition was true, that is all zygotes naturally became babies, fertilized eggs and born babies cannot be equated to one another in a discussion of ethics.
Let me say again, the potential for a zygote to become a born baby is a poor argument either against or in favor of abortion, and I do not base my argument in favor of abortion upon it.
Just like some folks die of natural causes before they are 33 year old. Its not a good argument and hardly makes anything a flaw.
Which would be a good reason not to equate a 30-year-old with a 70-year-old in, for example, a discussion on the ethics of social security.
Why do you use any time period as a cutoff for abortion?
I have already addressed this question. Rather than repeat myself, I'll simply direct you back to my post in which I justify first-trimester abortions in part on the basis of personhood (or really lack thereof). Sometime between fertilization and birth a fetus becomes a person. This gives rise to a need for a date when we think a fetus may have achieved the mental faculties to be considered a person. Of course, no one knows the definitive date for every (or even any) fetus. We just know some upper and lower bounds. 12 weeks is definitely still too early. 16 weeks is probably too early as well, but better to err on the safe side.
Originally posted by telerionI do not think it is a contradiction. If it is, then I am a hypocrite. If I feel that human life is important and should not be killed, then how could I choose if the mother or baby should die to save the other. That is why I said that it is her choice. Also, it is an extremely small fraction of abortions where this would be an issue... Why not focus on the 99.99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape or the possibility of the mothers death.
First, you write this in response to my post about cases where killing a human is probably okay.
Originally posted by lepomis
[b]I will never agree that killing a developing baby on purpose is anything other than wrong.
Next you respond to wittywonka's question about endangering the mother with the following:
Originally posted by lep ...[text shortened]... around in the next and justify killing a developing baby if the mother's life is in peril.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionSo where we differ is that I think life is important after conception and you don't until later on in it's development?
You wrote:
Let me say again, the potential for a zygote to become a born baby is a poor argument either [i]against or in favor of abortion, and I do not base my argument in favor of abortion upon it.[/i]
I think we agree here.
Originally posted by lepomisThere's no reason to call yourself a hypocrite. Your position is simply inconsistent. Happens to everybody.
I do not think it is a contradiction. If it is, then I am a hypocrite. If I feel that human life is important and should not be killed, then how could I choose if the mother or baby should die to save the other. That is why I said that it is her choice. Also, it is an extremely small fraction of abortions where this would be an issue... Why not focus on t ...[text shortened]... e 99.99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape or the possibility of the mothers death.
Since you still don't see the contradiction, let me try again.
You have essentially made the following two claims:
1) You will never say that killing a developing baby is okay.
2) It is okay for the mother to kill her developing baby if her health is in danger.
The contradiction arises because you used the condition "never" in (1). You would have been better to say, "I will do not believe that killing a developing baby is okay except in the circumstance that . . ."
In the "..." you would insert "the mother's health is at risk" and/or any other conditions that you think make it permissible to abort a fetus.
Originally posted by telerionthanks for the tip
There's no reason to call yourself a hypocrite. Your position is simply inconsistent. Happens to everybody.
Since you still don't see the contradiction, let me try again.
You have essentially made the following two claims:
1) You will [b]never say that killing a developing baby is okay.
2) It is okay for the mother to kill her developing ...[text shortened]... isk" and/or any other conditions that you think make it permissible to abort a fetus.[/b]
Originally posted by lepomisI think that life is always important. For this reason, I do not squash bugs or torture animals for pleasure. I do not without some necessity harvest vegetation. That said, different forms of life have more importance to me than others. I will smash a cockroach in my house only for the reason that it may breed and spread my roaches through my house. I believe that the cause of fewer roaches in my house is sufficient for me to justify killing that life.
So where we differ is that I think life is important after conception and you don't until later on in it's development?
You wrote:
Let me say again, the potential for a zygote to become a born baby is a poor argument either [i]against or in favor of abortion, and I do not base my argument in favor of abortion upon it.[/i]
I think we agree here.
Likewise, I do not like harming fish and for this reason I do not fish for pleasure. However, I recognize the nutrition value to eating fish and eat them on occasion. I realize that this makes me complicit in the killing of the fish, but I believe that my nutrition and that of my family justifies this action. Note however that the fish has more importance to me than the roach. I would not find a fish's ability to produce more offspring in my aquarium sufficient to kill it.
Continuing along this line, I would never take part in a dog fight or harm a dog for pleasure. Nevertheless, our animal shelters are filled to the brim with stray dogs. Some of these dogs can be adopted but others are unsuitable for pets. Releasing the second type of dogs would pose a serious risk to human life and caring for it at the shelter until it dies of natural causes takes up valuable resources that could be spent helping other more sociable dogs. In this case, I accept that euthanizing the dog is justifiable.
Now getting back to zygotes/embryos/fetuses (ZEF's), I think that the life of a ZEF is important. It should not be harmed/killed without sufficient cause. The life of an early-stage ZEF is less important to me than that of a later stage one because of the personhood issue. The life of a born person is even more important to me than that of a ZEF for a similar reason. As a human progresses from zygote to embryo to fetus to born child, it requires IMO a greater measure of cause in order to justify killing him or her. As I have made clear in a previous post, the will of the mother is sufficient cause for me to justify abortion in the first trimester. After that point, the mother's will alone is no longer sufficient. A stronger cause, such as the mother's health, would be required for me (and apparently you as well) to justify killing the fetus.
Just becuase somthing might one day grow into a baby (like my sperm) doesn't make it a baby. Those who want to deny the freedom of choice act like an abortion is murder or that there is an inconsistence. It just is not killing a baby or like killing a baby and it just seems to me like they are misguided. Thankfully technology like the morning after pill will make it easier to get an abortion and this debate will become more theoretical than practical.