SAM:
It is if you're justifying abortion based on the theory that its a group of "cells" no different than a wart or pimple. Its an individual, a unique human being and anyone who thinks that vacuuming off a human being from their uterus is not killing a person is fooling no one but themselves. I kill rats for a living, I don't pretend they are vegetables, just so I can justify it.
Netiher do I, as it happens.
It seems that for a lot of people (probably yourself included) that the moment you have a human being. whether it is a one-celled blastocyst, six-week old embryo, or 8.5 month-old foetus, for some reason it should instantly be granted the same rights as all human adults (or at least young children).
I don't see why. For reasons I have already explained, what is important is not the potential of something to become something else, but what the something is right now. Pretending that an embryo is a child is silly. It patently is not a child, although it might become one in future.
Kadark:
Humans, in general, are superior to animals through intelligence, although that admittedly isn’t an adequate or satisfactory argument for justifying my anti-abortion stance. My reason for valuing humans more than animals, as I have detailed before, is seemingly quite simple - they are a different species from us.
I noted this before.
Essentially, your argument for the special status of human embryos rests entirely on the fact that they are members of the human species, and nothing else.
I think that species membership is a simplistic way of determining the intrinsic value of a living being. It ends up undervaluing many valuable beings and overvaluing many undeveloped beings.
Because I don’t see the direct equivalency between humans and animals, any argument whose premise is comparing the killing of an animal to the killing of a human is irrational and counterproductive. In summary, my views on abortion cannot be discredited or invalidated because of my views on animals.
That's right, because in the end species is all that is visible to you and all that matters. Our discussion indeed is over, because of your lack of moral sophistication.
Ignoring your question’s blatant errors, I will answer with an emphatic “no!”. If I waited a week, how many cells would that embryo become? If I waited a month? If I waited several months? Pretty soon, what was once a single-celled embryo would become a fully-functioning human being. Of course, killing a one-celled embryo is less severe than killing a more developed embryo, if that's what you're asking.
Why? If your view is that all human beings, from the moment of conception, have special moral value due to their membership of the human species, then why pretend that some human beings are more valuable than others? You don't really think that - you're not arguing for a sliding scale of sin in abortion. You have already stated you think that all abortion is immoral from the moment of conception. If abortion is murder, as I'm sure you think it is, how can murdering a six-month old foetus be any worse than murdering a six-week old embryo?
Are you seriously comparing a sperm cell to a developing human being?
You're seriously comparing a one-celled blastocyst to a newborn child. Why draw the line at the single cell?
So then, let nature take its course! I’m doing everything in my power to remain professional, but you really are “grinding my gears” with these ludicrous comments. If that single cell is to develop, then leave it be; if that cell is to die off, then let natural causes determine that.
Why? We interfere with nature all the time in our daily lives. Why should the matter of conception or abortion be any different? And do you support birth control (contraception)? To do so would surely be hypocritical, since you advocate that nature needs to be allowed to takes its course.
For example, if I buy a lotto ticket, I am a potential millionaire lotto winner. By your argument, I should therefore now, before the lottery is drawn, be given my prize, because the important thing is my potential and not my present characteristics.
You realize your example has no merit whatsoever, right? Your biggest mistake is comparing a material and inanimate object (money) to a living human organism.
No. I was talking about my potential, as a human being, to become a millionaire, just as you are talking about the potential for a human embryo to become a child.
Your second mistake is witnessed by the mathematical argument of odds: the chances of you winning the lottery are astronomically low, especially in comparison to the chances of a child developing to the point where it can live outside of its bearer’s body.
Then reduce the odds, to 1 in 4, say. By your argument, having brought my 1-in-4 chance lottery ticket, I have a right to claim the prize before the draw, since I am a potential winner. The particular odds aren't important.
Thirdly, your example implies that children shouldn’t be able to develop (under all circumstances), just as a person gambling with the lotto logically shouldn’t be awarded until he or she wins.
Er.. no. My example demonstrates that a potential X is not the same as an X, and clearly does not have the same interests and entitlements as an X.
Look, 98% of abortions in the U.S. are done for “personal reasons”. I know the U.S. doesn’t represent the entire world, but I think it’s safe to say that these statistics are quite accurate in portraying the worldwide abortion cases. If 98% of people having abortions are not doing it because they were raped/involved in incest sex and experience no direct health hazards, then most of the concrete, tangible reasons for abortion are thrown out the window.
Actually, I am interested in why you think that abortion is justifiable in the case of rape. If the life of the human being is paramount, shouldn't the foetuses interests dominate, even in the case of rape? Why do you make an exception and allow abortion in that case?
The reasons for abortion now boil down to “personal reasons”, which constitute an overwhelming 98%. What are these “personal reasons”, you ask? The women in question aren’t “ready” to take care of their developing children; the women in question simply don’t want their developing children; the women in question already have “too many” children; the women in question want to avoid adjusting their life to take care of their developing children; etc., etc., etc. Do any of these reasons seem mature or reasonable?
Absolutely. Would you want to bring a child into the world if you knew you could not care for it adequately, or that it would not be happy or secure?
Of course not! They’re reflective of young women who simply want to enjoy sex with multiple men, but are faced by a unique predicament: they are impregnated with a baby(ies) due to actions they knowingly and willingly committed.
I find your generalisations based on your underlying misogyny distasteful.
I regard both the mother’s and the father’s interests in low value, because both are triumphed by the baby’s rights. Unless the mother in question doesn’t want the child because she was raped/involuntarily had incest sex, or if the baby’s existence poses a lethal health hazard to the mother, then undergoing abortion should not be within her realm.
Again, why those exceptions? How does rape suddenly obliterate the rights of the baby, which you argue is a precious human being?
Naturally, who has more responsibility: the mother who physically carries the baby(ies) for nine months and deals with all of the symptoms/pains, or the father who goes through none of these hardships? Indisputably, the mother has more responsibilities than the father. Yet … you say, “they should have equal responsibility”.
What I actually said was that both have equal responsibility for conception of the child. You misunderstood, it seems.
