|
theprof00 said: I feel like yours is the kneejerk. |
And in feeling that way, you show just how reflexive you are. I never stated my opinion on abortion. I'm not even sure what my position is, to be honest. But basically, it seems abhorrent to me and yet, even though it is not logical to say that the circumstances of a person coming to be should determine how they are to be treated, I can't get on board with forcing a woman to bear her rapist's child. I'm also not sure exactly when a fetus can be considered a person. Abortion may be one of those things that is (sometimes, at least) unethical but should not be illegal because of the problematic nature of enforcing a law prhobiting it.
| theprof00 said: The idea that they are avoiding the science is evidenced by the decision 'to arbitrarily decide when life begins when it isn't written out specifically in the Bible'. |
No, it doesn't. For one thing, there's nothing arbitrary about saying that life begins at the moment of conception. That's an extreme position politically, but of all the positions, it's probably the most logically consistent. I don't even understand what you're getting at here. It's also the most scientifically correct. The question is, is it a person? This is why it is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.
| theprof00 said: It's not two arguments from where I'm standing. It is an argument over who has rights. Myself, I believe that BOTH have rights. But how can that be? They have overlapping rights! Who is MORE right. Well, the mother always has rights by the idea that life confers rights. So the question within the argument of "who has rights" is "do both fetus and mother have rights concurrently". I would again, say no, because an egg to me is not life. There are plenty of instances within those 9 months, according to some studies up to 30% rate of miscarriage with an average of 15% in meta, in the first 12 weeks. |
We're not talking about an egg, we're talking about a fetus. Unless you mean like a bird egg. In which case, of course an egg is not life. But what is inside the egg is alive.
On that note, it is a bit fucked up to me that the penalty for scrambling a bald eagle egg (up to $250k and 2 years in prison) is less than the penalty for scrambling an unborn infant's brains (no penalty, because that's a woman's prerogative).
| theprof00 said: So, giving the fetus full rights despite a 15 to 30% chance to miscarry anyway, seems faulty. I would argue that these first 12 weeks at the very least, the fetus has no rights. Afterwards it does, until the point where a woman's life is under threat of death, then the woman's rights supercede once again. As per my reasoning, I draw upon the ideas of both military and medical, that the provider must ensure their own ability to function before all else. If the mother believes that delivering would substantially destroy the family, then she has the right to abort. A medic's job is to protect and save the wounded, but if they cannot guarantee the safety of both, they are generally not allowed to attempt action. Unless that person wants to risk their own life and be called "a hero under fire", they should hold back. In the same vein, women who decide to deliver despite all odds is also a hero, and should not be the standard, in my opinion. Furthermore, I say they shy away from the science because science would say "heartbeat" or "live on it's own" or "brainwave" or something similar. HOWEVER, all of those things occur after conception, and would therefore prvide for abortion up to a point. The pro-lifers cannot allow ANY abortion, and so decide that it is specifically at conception. I would call this shying away from the science, because everything we've ever used to define life is being ignored JUST FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE. That seems odd...i mean, doesn't it? |
You do know that your stance is a pro-life position, right? Because you just ruled out elective abortion altogether after the first 12 weeks. While there is some disagreement on the pro-life side of the issue about whether abortion should ever be legal, your position completely flies in the face of the pro-choice position that abortion is ethical and should therefore be legal under any circumstances (although some pro-choicers get squishy on this once the fetus is viable).
