NationStates Jolt Archive

Those who are anti-abortion are so because they reconginze the fetus as a living person. To abort a fetus is to destroy life, and since murder is wrong, abortion is wrong. If a chance to create life is destoryed, it is murder. Governments must make abortion illegal to ensure that their citizens act morally.

So, if Jake and Jane, 18 and 19 respectivley get pregnant, they have no right to abort the fetus (which would likely improve their own lives) because they would be ending the life of the baby.

Here's a thought experiment that extrapolates that logic:

Ron and Rachel are a married couple in their 30s. They are, arguably, at their reproductive prime and are in a much better position to support any children that they may have than Jake and Jane. However, having been married for a long time, Ron and Rachel's sex life has fallen off somewhat. They rarely engage in sexual intercorse because they are, for lack of a better word, bored of eachother. However, Ron masterbates often, thereby loosing millions of potential children daily. Rachel has her period every month; she looses a potential child monthly. Ron and Rachel could be having many children, they are physically compatible. Shouldn't the fact that they aren't having children that they could be havung be considered murder. They could potentially having a baby every year!

Why then, considering that they could make a baby in an hour, is it acceptable for Ron and Rachel to abstain from having babies, when it is not acceptable for Jake and Jane to get rid of their baby once they've actually fertalized? I see very little difference between an egg that was fertalized an hour ago, and an egg that could be fertalized in an hour. So, if governments should make abortion illegal, why shouldn't they make unprotected, regular sex compulsory?

Why are organ donations voluntary? If a person who is DEAD has an organ that can save the life of another human being, doesn't that person have an obligation to donate that organ? Don't doctors and other medical personell have an obligation to remove the perfectly viable organs from a corpse to save the lives of living people?

Do corpses have more right to decide what happens to their bodies than living breathing women?

hahaha. Ya, good one

I agree with you both. :)

A human fetus is biologically a living human. It has 46 six chromosomes and is classified as alive:

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


Thus killing a fetus would be to kill a living human.

its always confused me ... those who are most anti - abortion arguing they are defending the sanctity of human life are also more likely to be pro death penalty. eg Bush and other right wingers, surely the latter disproves the former

Thus killing a fetus would be to kill a living human.
Then the issue becomes, 'Do they have the status of personhood?'

Then the issue becomes, 'Do they have the status of personhood?'

I don't see why not. They're living humans.

A human fetus is biologically a living human. It has 46 six chromosomes and is classified as alive:

1. Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


Thus killing a fetus would be to kill a living human.

Yes. That's what the pro-life position boils down to.

But depriving a person of a heart, liver or kidney that a perfectly viable corpse(which is NOT a living human being) no longer needs is also killing a living human being.

But in this country, we have a right to decide what happens to our bodies. And that right trumps the rights of an embryo or a fetus. A woman has a right to have the fetus removed.

Perhaps if some of the millions of dollars spent trying to convince people that abortion was wrong was spent on finding a way to save the fetuses, then there would be an alternative to abortion. :p

I don't see why not. They're living humans.

A heart cell is "living" according to your definition. Can you be tried as a murderer for killing a heart cell?

I think since they require the mother to survive, they should be considered part of the mother. So, after a certain point, I believe that abortion should only be only if the woman is in danger, but before that, it's fine.

-snip-
And so we finally know that everything that is alive (like a dog's bladder that has been removed from the body and lies on the street) is human!

Shouldn't the fact that they aren't having children that they could be havung be considered murder. They could potentially having a baby every year!
The difference is that a fetus doesn't have potential,it is alive.

Shouldn't the fact that they aren't having children that they could be havung be considered murder. They could potentially having a baby every year!
The difference is that a fetus doesn't have potential,it is alive.
In the same way a gamete is alive.

I say if you're under the legal age (18 in my country) there should be no reason you shouldn't be killed.

snippednclipped

Interesting point. I personally don't think a thing that has no heartbeat is alive, no functioning brain that tells the heart to go then you ain't alive. Once the heart is beating and the brain functions the fetus is alive in my book.

Yes. That's what the pro-life position boils down to.

But depriving a person of a heart, liver or kidney that a perfectly viable corpse(which is NOT a living human being) no longer needs is also killing a living human being.

But in this country, we have a right to decide what happens to our bodies. And that right trumps the rights of an embryo or a fetus. A woman has a right to have the fetus removed.

Perhaps if some of the millions of dollars spent trying to convince people that abortion was wrong was spent on finding a way to save the fetuses, then there would be an alternative to abortion. :p
Actually they can sort of save them. They can freeze them and a while ago in Spain I think some people had some of those fetuses from other people implanted into them. Interesting, eh?

Shouldn't the fact that they aren't having children that they could be havung be considered murder.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

Somebody's been listening to too much monty python.

Somebody's been listening to too much monty python.

Every sperm is sacred... :p What?