Is abortion really pro-choice?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i was merely bringing myself closer to his position. he sets an arbitrary line that once you cross it you are a human being and before that you are a tumor, a parasite. i was admitting for a moment that the fetus is a potential human being and was set in proving that a newborn isn't much human either.

i do believe that once the zygot starts cell multipl ...[text shortened]... n the humanity status. so all that remains really is a matter of location, womb vs crib.

i was merely bringing myself closer to his position.

I see what you were doing now. Indeed, I realize I misread one of your replies on page 1, which got me confused. My apologies for that.

i do believe that once the zygot starts cell multiplication, that is a human being,...i also believe that accepting for that zygot to come into existance, the woman should enter a binding contract to carry it to term, even if the conception was done by accident. (except under the special circumstances).

You believe the woman should enter a binding contract with whom? Contracts are typically such that they are entered into between multiple parties. The woman would constitute one party. What are the other relevant parties involved here?

Also, why should the woman be obligated to do that? Remember, even if you were right that the zygote undergoing mitosis is a human being, that has nothing, per se, to do with showing that this zygote has rights or merits moral consideration.

are we denying the right to live, the most basic right, to another human being? didn't we already do that to slaves?

Again, as I have tried to outline, the question of rights is not vetted through considerations of human beinghood. The question of whether or not X is a human being is quite different from the question of whether or not X has rights or merits moral consideration. When you ask blatantly loaded questions like these, it signals that you fail to understand this distinction that I and others draw.

why should a fetus living in a woman's womb have any less rights than a newborn....all that remains really is a matter of location, womb vs crib

Please note that this question is no more apt than one that could be directed to you, such as "Why should the fetus have the same rights as a neonate?"

At any rate, to answer your question: depending on the gestational age of the fetus, I am not claiming that it should; on the other hand, during the early stages of gestation at least, your implication that there are no morally relevant differences between the fetus and the neonate is false. Let me explain below why.

The issue is one dealing with moral consideration. If, for example, one takes it to be the case that X is a moral patient, then she acknowledges that it matters how we treat X, and not just derivatively so. If, for another example, one takes it to be the case that X has rights, then she acknolwedges that this has prescriptive implications for our dealings with X. But, presumably, these kinds of judgments are not arrived at arbitrarily, so we should ask ourselves what sorts of considerations should inform such judgments. One that is central (I am not claiming it to be in any way exhaustive, just that it is central) to this should be the consideration of whether or not X stands to be harmed or benefitted. Don't you agree? After all, why should we care how we treat, non-derivatively, something that, say, cannot be harmed or benfitted? However, standing to be harmed or benefitted in the relevant sense here surely requires some mentality on the part of X. Minimally, it requires the capacity for consciousness; it probably requires the capacity to have interests which can be frustrated or upheld; or some mental point of view from which things can go worse or better. Your zygote undergoing mitosis lacks such mentality and cannot be harmed. You may want to ask yourself why you argue for rights for something that cannot be harmed. You may want to ask yourself why you endorse obligating the woman to enter a binding contract which has as its object the treatment of something that cannot be harmed or benefitted. Surely, this signals an important morally relevant difference between your zygote and the neonate.

I would also add that I understand this discussion is very complicated. Here are a just a few complications. For one, discussion of rights in no way exhausts the morally relevant considerations here. We can also have substantial moral obligations to non-persons as well, since we have prima facie general obligations to minimize pain, suffering, etc. For two, even if it were settled that your zygote has rights, that is nowhere near the end of the discussion. That would only lead into further complicated discussions regarding conflict of claims, in which multiple persons can have interests involved that are at odds in various ways. For three, through the zygote/embryo/fetus development, etc, the entity at issue here is acquiring along the way properties that are clearly morally relevant. So, this surely complicates the discussion tremendously. For example, I think it is very easy to draw morally relevant differences between your zygote and the neonate; on the other hand, it is much more difficult to do the same between, say, the fetus late in gestation and the neonate. For four, there are always important extenuating circumstances to consider as well, which is a point that you already seem to rightly acknowledge.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
so in conclusion. abortions are pro choice. they are also pro-rights of the host.
a human's rights begin after birth.

But the woman already has a choice. Unless she is raped she agreed to have sex which can lead to babies. If she prefers not to get pregnant she can use condoms and or other kinds of birth control. If she absolutely does not want to get pregnant she can refrain from intercourse. If she never ever want children there is the option of sterilisation. So there is the is a lot of freedom to choose without taking life.

You have to solve a problem at it's roots. Fetuses don't appear out of nowhere.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A sperm is a potential human being. That is not sufficient for it to have the right to life.

A newly born child has rudimentary consciousness and the ability to feel pain. A 3-month old fetus has neither (to the best of our knowledge). I generally support the right to have an abortion until these things emerge in the fetus. That is roughly around the ...[text shortened]... nly be allowed under certain circumstances [like rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life].

Sperm is not a potential human being, sperm does not grow into a baby by itself. Only a fertilized egg is a "potential" human being.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Sperm is not a potential human being, sperm does not grow into a baby by itself. Only a fertilized egg is a "potential" human being.

I second that.

P.S. That assumes the sperm and egg are from humans.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abortion Provider Speaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXZCOaRVrbg&feature=related

Abortion doctor: 'Am I killing? Yes, I am'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfWB7tcAdhw&feature=related

Abortion clinic horror story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=iH6zN4pMrhw

How abortions are performed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch? ...[text shortened]... ed

Live Abortion Documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nff8I2FVnI&feature=related

how many babies did god abort during the flood?
how many babies did god abort at soddem?
how many caananite babies did god abort?
how many babies has god aborted by designing they female body wrong?
how many babies has god aborted by not providing enough food and water to their mothers?
how many babies has god aborted because he told the pope that condoms are bad?
how many babies has god aborted because he allowed the creation of disease?


welcome to the hypocritical world of god, where god doesnt believe in setting a good example to his flock. one rules for them and no rules for him.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Sperm is not a potential human being, sperm does not grow into a baby by itself. Only a fertilized egg is a "potential" human being.

A fertilized egg does not grow into a baby by itself. It needs to take in energy from outside and be in the right environment.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A fertilized egg does not grow into a baby by itself. It needs to take in energy from outside and be in the right environment.

This is true, but I was talking about where a human being starts it's existence. You can feed sperm whatever energy you like but it won't grow into a human.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
This is true, but I was talking about where a human being starts it's existence. You can feed sperm whatever energy you like but it won't grow into a human.

Point is, saying something is not a potential human even though it has what all potential humans must have (the genetic code) just because it can't become human on its own is an empty statement. The fertilized egg can't become human on its own, either. And it's still just a potential human at that point, with respect to personhood.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
This is true, but I was talking about where a human being starts it's existence. You can feed sperm whatever energy you like but it won't grow into a human.

Feed it an egg and a womb and it will.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Feed it an egg and a womb and it will.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother talking to people who repeatedly deny the obvious. It's like you're having to explain this to a 5-year-old. You have far more patience than I do, friend.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Point is, saying something is not a potential human even though it has what all potential humans must have (the genetic code) just because it can't become human on its own is an empty statement. The fertilized egg can't become human on its own, either. And it's still just a potential human at that point, with respect to personhood.

The argument is meaningless because there is no living organism to be found in this universe that can be sustained by itself without taking energy from outside. By definition such a being would exist outside of this universe, everything is interconnected. I hope we agree that we cannot kill any being we like because it is dependent on it's environment to sustain itself.

The argument that a fetus is not yet human it is meaningless too, because it can be appied to all living beings and it would mean there are no humans since you cannot find a beginning or and end to the energy that composes us and the endless stream of cause and effect that led to our existence.

What you can find is volitional activities that lead to the existence of the human life, and volitional activities that lead to the end of this process.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother talking to people who repeatedly deny the obvious. It's like you're having to explain this to a 5-year-old. You have far more patience than I do, friend.

No need to be offended friend. It's nothing personal. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Feed it an egg and a womb and it will.

In this line of reasoning a human being never starts its existence. Semen is dependant on testicles to start it's existence and testicles are dependent upon the man to feed himself, and I could go on forever.

There is the intentional act of intercourse which often leads to the beginning of the process we call a human life. And there there are intentional acts to be found that end this process.