Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
insomniac17 said:
Rath said:
I find it inconsistent that a libertarian would force their personal (or religious) view of when life begins upon another person, because that is all the view of when life begins is.
|
I disagree. The issue is when does it become a human life? I would argue that it is from conception, not because of religion, but because if you let it continue to develop, you will get a human child from that. If you let sperm/unfertilized eggs sit around, nothing will happen and they therefore are not human life. I don't support abortion because the idea that it's the woman's body is absurd. The fetus is connected to (and inside) the woman's body, but it is not actually part of her in any way. The result of pregnancy is that a child is born, not that some minion controlled by the woman is spawned (as in she can control it the same way she controls everything else that is her body). So how it is the woman's body escapes me.
Also, I believe that sex is the choice. When a woman consents to have sex, she makes the choice knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of that, and she has to deal with the responsibilities of that. It's like this; if a teenager is angry at a parent for not being able to stay out later at night, it's not that they can't, it's that they don't like the consequences of choosing to do that. They can stay out as late as they want, but they will most likely be punished in some form by the parent. Thus, it makes sense to me that using the same form of logic, when a woman chooses to have sex, she does so knowing full well that pregnancy could result from it. In the case of rape, I am still against it because of the first paragraph; I believe that it is life.
|
However a fetus does not have any of the things that make a person - it does not initially have a brain of any sort (and as such does not have a mind). There are strong arguments against it being a human being with all the rights that entails essentially based on that fact. I don't think a libertarian should, as Ron Paul wants to, say 'my definition of this is the only correct one and should be backed by the state, not based on scientific backing but on my personal beliefs'.
|
That'd be a stronger arguement if it wasn't for the fact that abortions are permitted well past the time the brain develops, and brainwaves are detectable... as it is, no opinion on abortion is actually based on any particular science.
Generally the law for abortions everywehre aren't based on when it becomes a person, but when it becomes a person who can live on their own via resperators and such. Essentially that you become a person when you stop becoming a parasite. (Insert your own joke about aborting politicians here.)
I'd also somewhat disagree that such a thing is a strong argument that means it isn't a human being. (Even though I am pro-abortion).
Afterall, does that mean living wills should be ignored as soon as someone goes into a coma or goes braindead?
Are you ok with cloning brainless bodies to be frozen for organ harvesting? (I am, most people aren't though.)
The Anti-Abortion "scientific" argument "Being a Fetus is the first stage of life. No different then anything else, and if left alone, a baby and person would result in the end. Therefore being a Fetus is the first step of a person's life."
Essentially, how a Larva is a stage of life for a Butterfly.
|
That is what I'm saying! There isn't a scientific point where you can say 'this is a person'. It's partly based on science (such as brainwaves) but also influenced by opinion, religion and philosophy. There are clearly strongly diverging views on this particular matter, I find it odd that a libertarian would state 'my view is the correct one, everybodies choice must be based on my view'.
As for a living-will, once again it is based on a personal view of when somebody is a person. If a person thinks that they are still a person when braindead, then their living-will will probably say to keep them alive and should be respected. If a person thinks that a braindead person is merely a corpse that hasn't realised yet will probably ask for life support to be switched off in their living-will. I don't see how this is contradictory.
As for bodies being harvested - I would, I admit, have ethical concerns about that, but I wouldn't consider the bodies to be persons as such.
@MrStickball. As far as I'm concerned the question is 'When does a fetus become a person?', this question is not a scientific question. Personhood is not a scientific concept. In some peoples eyes it happens at conception - whether they consider this due to the idea of a soul or due to its unique DNA - in others eyes it doesn't happen until later on when human features start to appear. I maintain a personal idea of what makes a person a person, it probably isn't the same as your idea of it.
|
