Nulono wrote:The Murtunian Tribes wrote:1. You're missing the point. One, right and wrong has nothing to do with anything, and I have no intention of trying to prove legalized abortion is "right" from an ethical standpoint. Two, the reason I DO agree with the law on what constitues being personhood is because of such things like woman's rights vs fetus, strain on social services, etc. I'm sure you're well versed in those by now. That's why birth should be the threshold.
2. Life, from an ethics standpoint, does not necessarily begin at conception. The case can easily be made there is nothing wrong with fetal termination. From a strict biological definition, life begins at conception. An embryo is at least as alive as any sort of protozoa or what have you out there. Is that clear enough for you?
4. Legally, they have no right. Ethically, that right is subjective at best. I claim that a woman's right to her own body trumps an unthinking lump of cell's right to live. I have every ounce as much evidence for my claim as you do. But mine does not have the added stigma of forcing pregnancy on women and not putting additional strain on an already overburdened social system. The only contribution your claim makes to society is that it protects the rights of unthinking cells that don't even know they exist.
7. You're right; putting a strain on social services alone does not negate the right to live. Putting a strain on social services, violating a woman's right's to her own body, and lacking any of the cognitive faculties that makes humans human does. ANd no the last two sentences do not boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so". They're a retroactive justification of the current law based on the above reasoning. Honestly a it was little bit unnecessary.
1. If you're arguing based on the mother's rights, you ARE arguing ethics. So far as strain on social services, that could be used to justify killing much more than unwanted unborn children. So could the mother's rights.
2. Life is a biological concept, not an ethical one. You can argue that personhood or rights don't begin at conception, but life beginning at conception is an objective fact.
4. Since when does "knowing you exist" determine your right to live? Even born children don't develop this until 18 months after birth.
7. Cognitive ability does not "make humans human". You don't become more human the smarter you get, and the mentally handicapped are not subhuman. A woman has a right to her own body, but the fetus has a right to live, and an abortion would violate this right. Strain on social services is completely irrelevant when it comes to one's right to live. And those sentences certainly did boil down to "It should be legal because the law says so"; if you're arguing that the unborn should not have legal protection because they are not legal persons, that is EXACTLY what you're arguing.
1. I fail to see how woman's rights could be used to justify killing outside of abortion. A born child isn't taking resources and nutrients directly from the mother. ANd if the parents do not feel capable of raising the child they can give it up for adoption. Unlike in pregnancy, were no alternatives exist beyond abortion. I'm not arguing the ethics, I'm arguing what I think the role of the government should be in determining the fate of someones body; namely none. I have no interest in who's morally correct.
2. Indeed.
4. It doesn't. My point is that fetal cells are less human than born people because they lack the full development of humans, even those who are mentally handicapped and what not.
7. The child being there unwanted is a violation of the woman's rights. So....the question who's rights are more important? I say the woman's, because she's more of a human than her fetus. AND FOR THE LAST GODDAM TIME; the whole what the law says thing is not an argument. Just forget about;as I said it's unnecessary anyway.
