fetusus is part of the living body, the bigger pictue in devolpoment.
You are correct. The mothers living body.
fetusus is part of the living body, the bigger pictue in devolpoment.
fetusus is part of the living body, the bigger pictue in devolpoment.
Although I agree that the validity of this list is not something we ought to be debating, I must point this out: If you must insist on using the list as a foundation for an argument, and concede that it is a fallible and shaky list at best, then be aware that your argument will consequently be fallible and shaky as well. Castles built on pillars of sand have a tendency to collapse.
Well, there's where I'm different. I know you don't have a better test for life. And I don't recognize the current list in question as a valid foundation for indication of life. Some non-living things fit the specifications of the list, and some living things do not fit the specifications of the list. It can go either way. According to this list, your hand is like a fetus. But let's look at this from another scientific perspective.
Organism --> Organ system --> Organ --> Tissue --> Cell
This list holds true for mammals. Each contains all of the following. According to it, a hand would likely fall under the category "organ", perhaps even an "organ system". It's compotents are skin, muscle, bones, and blood. Respectively, parts of the integumentary, muscular, skeletal, and vascular systems of the body. A fetus, on the other hand, could be classified as an "organism" during the later stages of pregnancy. It's organs and organ systems are already functioning. From THIS perspective, a hand and a fetus differ. So these determinations of life, these lists, can be distorted to support even the most outlandish ideas. Herein lies the paradox of the "life" debate, a paradox I have long been trying to point out.
It would appear that our ideas about where the "line" is are similar. The reason I suggest viability is because, at that point, it is perfectly capable of living on its own, and of development into a functional person.
Organs will never develop into a human, and are surrendered to the patient for the patient's use.
It is. Your hand doesn't contain living human cells? Your hand is human life, but will never be a full human. A fetus has both of these characteristics, so your comparison is null.
Say a man had his house robbed and the thief got a hold of his credit cards, and then bleeds his bank account dry. In order to maintain the man's personal comfort, should he go rob his neighbor/a bank? Doing so would help him greatly. He wouldn't lose his way of living, and his family wouldn't suffer.
It is the same with abortion. It's the same with almost any negative situation. Something bad happens. You try to fix it. But with some situations, like having your bank accounts robbed, you can't fix it without a drastic action. In the case of theft it is thievery. In the case of rape it is abortion. Abortion is murder for personal comfort. Wouldn't you say that relieving yourself of the pains of rape is personal comfort?
I personally don't care what they have to "think" about. Usually the root of it is selfish, and thoughts of putting the child in a "bad" world is an excuse to cover up the reality of the situation.
Your argument falls apart at the last sentence. If you do not care if a mother would murder her unborn baby for any reason, would you care if she murdered her newborn? Her toddler? Her disrespectful teenage son or lazy husband?
Let's say that this is the case, then what is wrong with choosing personal comfort? A very famous analogy was used by Thomson to argue this scenario. Say that oone had been kidnapped by a society of music lovers who need you to save a dying violinist. This violinist needs your blood to survive and you must be hooked up to him permanently for nine months so that he might live. Most moral philosophers agree that in this case the kidnapped person would not have a moral obligation to save the violinist because it is a massive affront to her right to control her own body. We might say that saving the violinist is a good thing to do, but we would not say that it is something you have to do. This scenario works well enough with a bona fide person such as the violinist, add into the equation that the foetus may not even be a person at the time of abortion and it becomes very hard to argue against the rights of the mother to abort in cases of rape.In the case of rape it is abortion. Abortion is murder for personal comfort. Wouldn't you say that relieving yourself of the pains of rape is personal comfort?
If this is the case, wouldn't allowing the birth to occur if it's at great risk to the mother's life be effectively giving the foetus the right (by dint of allowing it's existence that could be easily terminated) to take the mother's life. Many people would argue that it is perfectly moral to take the life of another person if they are being directly threatened by the other person, hence why many people beleive that soldiers are still moral individuals, as are those who kill in other forms of self-defense. To claim that no one has any right to take a life in any circumstances is a dangerously hardline approach to morals.People enjoy life, and NOBODY should have the right to take it from the people.
If this is the case, wouldn't allowing the birth to occur if it's at great risk to the mother's life be effectively giving the foetus the right (by dint of allowing it's existence that could be easily terminated) to take the mother's life.
Slightly Insane said:Your argument falls apart at the last sentence. If you do not care if a mother would murder her unborn baby for any reason, would you care if she murdered her newborn? Her toddler? Her disrespectful teenage son or lazy husband?