When it comes to abortion, one question keeps popping up and getting shoved in our faces: When does a fetus become a child? Many pro-choicers would say that the fetus does not become a child until it is born.
I disagree, and here's why:
There are only four differences between a fetus and an infant: Size, Location, Environment, and Dependancy, or S.L.E.D.
Size should not be a just cause to exterminate an organism. If murder were justified based on size, there would be a WHOLE lot of people (myself included) who would not be allowed to live. The size of the fetus vs. a baby is irrelevant in regards to its right to life.
Location is not a factor when deciding to grant life or not. If someone is located in Montana, and someone else is located in California, which person deserves to live? You cannot morally decide. In the same way, it doesn't matter if the child is within or out of the womb when deciding whether to take its life or not.
Environment may seem a bit like location, but it's entirely different. Within the womb, the fetus is in a warm, fluid environment, and once it's born, the baby is exposed to air, the weather, bright lights, loud sounds etc. Likewise, each person is exposed to a different environment. Some are brought up in upper class families with expensive mansions, and others are raised on groceries bought with food stamps. When deciding whether to let a child live, environment is not a factor.
Dependency may sound like the hardest element of SLED to argue with. Within the womb, the fetus is receiving nourishment from the mother and does not have to breath air on its own, and after the birth, the baby is forced to open its lungs for itself, breath on its own and react to its surroundings. Hundreds of thousands of human beings are diabetic and rely on insulin shots, thousands rely on chemo therapy treatment for various types of cancers, thousands more require daily medication to function properly, and millions more have artificial limbs and organs, are on dialysis and heart monitors, are in wheelchairs, are fed through tubes, and are completely dependent on medical treatments to continue with everyday life, some even to survive. But does that give us the right to kill them?
I think not.
You just compared yourself to a fetus, in size at least. This is illogical, I doubt you are that small. As for location, many people have been forced out of where they live and killed because of who they were, the Holocaust and Darfur are examples of this.I also think that sometimes it is better for the child to not have to be brought up in a broken home, living on the streets type environment. And for dependency, Terri Schiavo was dependent, and the courts found that she should have her feeding tubes taken out.
I agree with you Fraygirl. You make a number of good points. There are a million and one points of religion and morality in this situation (which I do actually consider important), but you just can't legitimately argue them as with facts.
That said, I get where you're coming from, Amat, but I wanted to look a little closer at your cases.
1. You're right. Fray probably isn't the size of a fetus. But the size difference is appreciable between a lot of people. The average height for a woman in the US today is roughly five feet and three inches. The average for guys is roughly half a foot taller, which can feel like a whole lot when you're nose to nose. Or... nose to chest, as it were. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf)
2. She didn't say that people haven't been discriminated against and killed based on their location. The case made is that abortion is murder, just like the Holocaust and Darfur are cases of mass murder.
3. This is one of those ones there aren't really 'facts' for. I completely appreciate how you feel... it can be rough for those kids. I still think that in that situation (and being gifted with some sort of fetal omniscience to understand my situation), I'd rather take a shot at life rather than snuff it without giving my own best effort. Again though, that's just my two cents. There's nothing to be said for or against with concrete 'evidence'.
4. Dependence is different between a fetus and the Terri Schiavo case. She was a person who already had many years of life behind her, and time to make decisions and take actions about her future. All discussion of what actually happened aside, she did at least have a chance to tell someone what she would want done if she were in that situation. If that wish was followed we'll probably never know. But an unborn child doesn't have that chance to speak up.
I hope I helped bring across the gist of what I got from Fray's blog, but that's how I saw it anyway. It was very well reasoned out, and I look forward to seeing how it is supported and constructively criticized in the future.
----------
Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow. ~Aesop
There are only four differences between a fetus and an infant: Size, Location, Environment, and Dependancy, or S.L.E.D.
The majority of abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy (that's week 1-12 of gestation). At 12 weeks, not only is an embryo/fetus smaller than an infant, it also has no capability of surviving outside the womb, as an infant does. It hasn't started making active movements yet. It cannot feel pain, as the brain is no where near being close to developed. It isn't even capable of being aware of its own existence yet.
If something is going on in someone's life that makes a pregnancy not in their best interest, I'm sure not going to scream "murderer" in their face because they're choosing to remove a 2 and a half inch (or smaller) entity from their own body.
I'm sure others will have plenty more to say on this subject. I, for one, grow weary of arguing with the distorted information and flat out lies promoted by pro-life-biased websites (like Frontline Ministries and abortionno.org).
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
You're partially right in the respect that I didn't post 'Development' as one of the arguments. But that's because Development is broken down into two halves: 'Size' and 'Dependency', which were both mentioned as arguments. Both your mentioned arguments had to do with these two halves. Your first paragraph was associated with dependency, the second one was size, which are both irrelevant to the justification of abortion.
Oh, and I read your blog about breast cancer. I didn't even know men could get breast cancer, and whenever I go on our annual cancer run, I will run for both men AND women.
There is a world of difference between something that doesn't have a brain and something that does, and it isn't based on size or dependency.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Both the fetus AND the born child have a brain. It's a matter of when the brain starts functioning within the womb, and that comes back to the dependency issue. There are many fully grown adults who are brain dead and rely on life support to stay alive, but that's still no reason to terminate them.
I agree the abortion debate gets tiring sometimes, but that's certainly no reason to abandon it.
As for the fact that fetuses are not self-aware, I agree with that. But neither is a baby after it's born. Based on this argument, is it still acceptable to terminate the child's life? Actually, there are "philosophers" out there who do think babies shouldn't be considered "people" after they're born, most notably Princetonian theoretical ethicist Dr. Peter Singer. The implication? The killing of such a child is not criminal or immoral. I think those of use who haven't become rationally disembodied would see the fallacy of a Singerian position.
Besides, what right does anyone have to take another's life? True, maybe if I killed my neighbor, I'd be better off (he always parks on my side of the driveway). Therefore, if I killed my fetus (if I could biologically carry one, that is), I, and it, would be better off- right? No... that argument doesn't justify a killing.
The ProU blogger blackout and I had an extremely long debate about abortion... if you wanted to at least peruse it, here's the link. Just to give this blog's author her due, it was written by Leesanimevampire.
(1) The correct L is LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
(2) Let's rephrase the argument just a little ... Every time you sneeze, you eject about a thousand living epithelial cells out of your nose. Those cells are living. They are obviously human. And with only slightly improved cloning technology we might be able to create a completely new living human being out of them. So following a sneeze should we invest great sums of money and effort into finding as many of those cells as possible and trying to keep them alive and turn them into living human beings? Here is the argument ...
So tell me do you think the above argument is ridiculous? ... I do. So is yours.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Yes, the above argument IS completely ludicrous. There are very distinct differences between the cells in a human sneeze and an embryo.
1. The embryo, IF LEFT TO GROW BY ITSELF is able to be formed into a human being. 2. A sneeze is a natural response of the human body and abortion is completely the opposite
3. Embryonic cloning is another subject entirely, and the technology is not developed enough to assure the health of the cloned child. Scientists have tried to clone numerous animals in the past, and each one had a major health condition and died prematurely.
... as least as easily as you dismiss objections to your argument.
Yes, the above argument IS completely ludicrous. There are very distinct differences between the cells in a human sneeze and an embryo.
1. The embryo, IF LEFT TO GROW BY ITSELF is able to be formed into a human being. 2. A sneeze is a natural response of the human body and abortion is completely the opposite
3. Embryonic cloning is another subject entirely, and the technology is not developed enough to assure the health of the cloned child. Scientists have tried to clone numerous animals in the past, and each one had a major health condition and died prematurely.
(1) The embryo WONT grow by itself. It will die unless the mother provides it with the proper environment ... just as the sneezed cell needs us to provide it with the proper environment in order for it to survive.
(2) What difference does being "a natural response" make in this case. Dying is the natural response to jumping out of an airplane, does that mean that parachutes are immoral?
(3) The natural birth process does not "assure the health of the [natural born] child" either. So should we outlaw the natural birth process? Furthermore, not all cloned animals have major health problems. If saving human life (and that is definitely what these sneezed out cells are) is absolutely paramount, then shouldn't we devote an inordinate amount of our research efforts into finding ways to save these poor unfortunate cells?
The answer would be "yes" if saving human life is absolutely paramount. But there is something that is different about the human life of these sneezed out cells from the human life of a living human being. Just as it is obvious that there is a difference between the human life of these sneezed out cells; there is obviously a difference between fetal tissue and a living human being. Your argument was claiming there isn't an important difference. The point of this argument is that your rationale for claiming there isn't a difference applies equally well to these sneezed out cells. ... And it does. That should give you an idea that your argument is as ridiculous as the sneezed-out cell argument.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I understand how you could possibly reach the conclusion you came up with. You're right, the mother must provide the fetus with nourishment in order to sustain its life. BUT, the mother cannot withold nourishment from the fetus unless she aborts it. The scientists can choose to withold nourishment from sneeze cells without aborting it. This is why a fetus is a human life and a sneeze cell is not. And I'd like to hear a legitimate example of a cloned organism that has absolutely NO health conditions.
... the defining factor in defining human life?
I understand how you could possibly reach the conclusion you came up with. You're right, the mother must provide the fetus with nourishment in order to sustain its life. BUT, the mother cannot withold nourishment from the fetus unless she aborts it. The scientists can choose to withold nourishment from sneeze cells without aborting it. This is why a fetus is a human life and a sneeze cell is not. And I'd like to hear a legitimate example of a cloned organism that has absolutely NO health conditions.
(1) So then what makes a sneezed-out cell not a human life is the fact that we can withhold nourishment if we want to??? Then is a baby (from whom we could withhold nourishment if we wanted to) not a human life? I'll go out on limb here and guess that you would say it is. Therefore using a parallel to your SLED argument, the ability to withhold nourishment is not a reason to let the sneezed-out cell die.
(2) I gave you a link to an article that talks about cloned dogs that have no apparent health problems. Just click on the blue phrase in my post above.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I think I would've opted for one of the dozens of colonies of bacteria in our bodies that enable us to survive, but nice touch otherwise :).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"Many pro-choicers would say that the fetus does not become a child until it is born."
I'm not sure any pro-choicers would say that, actually. Very few people support the practice of partial-birth abortion, so I think you could argue that MOST people believe that a fetus becomes a child at some point during the third trimester - perhaps when it becomes viable outside the womb.
Furthermore, many pro-choicers themselves do not believe in abortion and would not have one themselves, but support the rights of others to make their own personal decisions.
There are only four differences between a fetus and an infant: Size, Location, Environment, and Dependancy, or S.L.E.D.
LOL. Did you come up with that yourself?
Size should not be a just cause to exterminate an organism.
The right to abortion actually has nothing to do with the embryo's size.
Location is not a factor when deciding to grant life or not. If someone is located in Montana, and someone else is located in California, which person deserves to live?
That is RIDICULOUS. My body is not public property, like a state or a piece of land.
You cannot morally decide. In the same way, it doesn't matter if the child is within or out of the womb when deciding whether to take its life or not.
OF COURSE IT MATTERS. If something is inside my body, I have the right to remove it, and no government can take that right away. My body is mine. I decide what happens to it.
Environment may seem a bit like location, but it's entirely different. Within the womb, the fetus is in a warm, fluid environment, and once it's born, the baby is exposed to air, the weather, bright lights, loud sounds etc. Likewise, each person is exposed to a different environment. Some are brought up in upper class families with expensive mansions, and others are raised on groceries bought with food stamps. When deciding whether to let a child live, environment is not a factor.
My body is not an "environment" like a house. I AM A HUMAN BEING AND I GET TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS TO MY BODY.
Dependency may sound like the hardest element of SLED to argue with. Within the womb, the fetus is receiving nourishment from the mother and does not have to breath air on its own, and after the birth, the baby is forced to open its lungs for itself, breath on its own and react to its surroundings. Hundreds of thousands of human beings are diabetic and rely on insulin shots, thousands rely on chemo therapy treatment for various types of cancers, thousands more require daily medication to function properly, and millions more have artificial limbs and organs, are on dialysis and heart monitors, are in wheelchairs, are fed through tubes, and are completely dependent on medical treatments to continue with everyday life, some even to survive.
But NONE of them rely on ANOTHER HUMAN BEING'S BODY to live. If they did, the other human being would have the right to remove them. It's not "murder" to remove something from one's own body.
A woman is not a state. She is not a house. She is not an insulin shot. She is not property to be used by others. She is a person. She deserves the right to control her body.
In case you couldn't tell from my username, I am a woman as well, and I firmly believe that a woman has the unalienable right to control her body. But along with that comes the RESPONSIBILITY to control her body. In other words, she shouldn't be sleeping with men if she doesn't want to get pregnant. it's as simple as that. in the case of rape (because I KNOW you would bring it up if i didn't mention it), I believe the choice to murder the child is still not justified because the child does not deserve to die. The child has done nothing to warrant its extermination; it was its father who should be severely punished for his actions, not the child. the ONLY instance when abortion is right is in a case where the mother's life is put in jeopardy. Murder cannot be justified outside of the dependency of another life upon it.