I'm sad to see that this debate has not had any activity for awhile, so I am going to try and spark it again, as to provoke more discussion and eventually, some kind of resolution - which, in itself, is a dubious task, since we all have different moral, political, religious, and philosophical agendas. But I find it unsatisfying when there is not some kind of resolution, which this board currently lacks.
Does the child have the right to be in the womb...Fetuses do not have rights. They are not individual functioning beings. They are growths inside of a female that can potentially be born. And potential has nothing to do with actual.
DanteAzreal, I find this comment very confusing. To me, it seems that the potential for a fetus is not the fetus itself, but the gamete cells before the mingling of sex cells. And what is an “individual functioning being.” You use a very specific terminology here, and I want to understand what you precisely mean by “individual,” “functioning,” and “being.” (most especially functioning.) For, if we take the idea of a fetus functioning to the good, a fetus can only be a fetus to the best potentiality that a fetus can; thus, it is good, and has a right to life. In addition, I think your statement that “a potential has nothing to do with the actual” is a fallacious, since there is no way that an actuality can exist if there was never a potentially to begin with. I cannot expect a rock to burn when I throw it in the fire because it never had the potentiality to be a burning object, yet, when I place a log in a fire, it does have the potentiality to burn. Semantics, yes, but it is important.
You wouldn't believe how many things each and every one of you kills daily. Every time you have an itch, you kill millions of skin cells that are living.
Thestateimin, I do not find this answer satisfying either, as I see the human person as a more important being, than, say, a skin cell. My skin cell, when it does, never has the capacity for higher-level thinking, producing humanity, or even intelligible communication. To be certain, a zygote or fetus, a collection of cells, does have this capacity. Also, if we assume you are right, we need to see ourselves as no more important than an amoeba, belittling our status as a rational animal.
As for me, I find myself in a grey area between political rights and philosophical belief. In terms of political rights, I believe that a woman has full right over her body and that, if she wants to have an abortion, she ought to have the right. However, I do not necessarily think it is a good thing. Indeed, there are times when a woman’s body, because of particular physiology, will not be able to maintain the health of a child and her own health, that perhaps the mother would prefer her own life to the life of a developing human – and while most cases like this are indeed sad ones (I doubt very highly that most of these parents willingly give up their child), it is understandable why one would choose an abortion. In contrast, when one willingly aborts a fetus, it shows that, more likely than not, that individual did not have a sound moral standard to begin with. When one partakes in intercourse, there is, no doubt, no matter how many precautions you take, the risk of creating a pregnancy. If one partakes in sexual activity, it seems to me, that one should be aware of this risk (sounds like a stupid statement, but it really is not) and be prepared to deal with the circumstances if they exist. As opposed to an easy way out strategy, most people do not think of the implications of what that zygote is, or rather, they dehumanize it to be only a cluster of cells.
Now, we move to the idea of whether a zygote or a fetus is a life or alive. To be certain, the cells are never inert. For myself, I believe that it is fully alive, but only at a very specific point: at the point where the cluster of cells comes to be conscious of itself, or the point of emersion of consciousness. Now, I know there will be debate as to when this happens, but, to be certain, a fetus is aware of certain things while in the womb, and being aware means being actively present, implicating, at least for myself, that the soul has conjoined itself with the body. At this point, the soul, or the organizing principle of the body, exists in conjunction with the body, and this matter-form dichotomy is that of a human. In this way, once soul is meshed with body, it is a human life.
Thus, what it comes down to, for myself, is that, in most cases, choosing an abortion is ignoring a specific moral and ethical system, implying that “since the government says it is okay/not okay, it is okay/not okay.” If they actually looked at the being inside of themselves as a living being, or even the potentiality for a living being, they would probably be a lot more critical of the situation. Perhaps it would be better to carry the fetus to term, and then give the child up for adoption, but even that becomes hard, because there is an attachment to a real, living person, both in the mother and the father; but even then, there would not be a wasted life or potential for life.
March 3rd, 2007, 3:11 pm
have you ever seen a red spider? or a zeba jumping spider? just think how small their babys are, befor they hatch from the web nest...we see them moving inside..like we do our own babys in the mother..
Remember the spark of life, the unity of deulity between the sperm and the egg, once the unity is complete, the spark of life is present.
you say that she has no control over her own body. To but it "blunty" as you said it -she opend her legs and got some* Period. It is a well known fact that a woman can only get pregnent on a particular week of her menstol cycle..SO she knows the times she is at risk of pregnacy..SHE chose to have sex =sex is a risk of getting pregnant..she has full control over if she has sex or not.. THUS control..if she choses to have sex she must except the enevitable concequence..of getting pregnant..aan abortion is some one who is not excepting the concequence of their actions...