I don't really have a position on this, but I'm curious about appearance of the notion of a fetus not being a "human" regarding breaches of morality. Question: Has the notion of a fetus not being a human ever been advocated at anytime more than now because of the abortion debate? Is the argument not comparable to the fallacy of denouncing the rights to life of a criminal to try to separate execution from murder? Isn't it like confirmation bias in the reverse? I love picking at the inconsistencies of modern morality. This is just another example of it being extremely subjective because everyone alters it (and its boundaries) to accommodate their "wrong-doings". Educate my developing mind.
I'd like to see your demonstrate your premise is true to wit: 'Has the notion of a fetus not being a human ever been advocated at anytime more than now because of the abortion debate?' Why do you consider abortion, comparable to state sanctioned execution? What is the basis for your subjective claim of 'modern morality'. Where the Greeks, for example, more or less moral? Did the progeny of Adam and Eve come about via what is essentially incest? Have you considered your 'inconsistencies' are just your own subjective code of morality?
I wasn't comparing execution and abortion really, but the appearance of the nature of the excuse for both. The idea that execution is not as morally reprehensible as murder exists BECAUSE we wanted to execute people and not vice-versa. The idea that a fetus isn't human exists BECAUSE of the pro-abortion movement and not vice-versa. I make a distinction from the modern "complex" (subjective) morality to the origins of morality necessary for altruism, socialization, etc. The inconsistency and subjectivity of morality go hand in hand. We as a society constantly alter our views of it as time passes and situations change. Also it is altered at the individual level based on the effects of our actions and perceptions of others' actions. You could probably classify their children as born of incest (not religious however). But think of WHY incest might be considered immoral (offspring illnesses, religious/moral views of the family, etc) and ask yourself if those same factors would apply back then. Asking me if the Greeks were moral is like asking a Persian citizen if the Greeks were moral during the Greco-Persian wars. Morality is subjective. (This is contradictionist of me. I realize that I view morality in a black and white manner that probably doesn't apply reasonably when judging others' views.)
I think the basic reality is females will get pregnant and some females will get an abortion whether it's legal or not. It's better to do it in a doctors office by medical professionals, instead of a motel room possibly being performed by someone who might have flunked out of their first year of pre med (or worse). If everyone started out early in their life will proper training on the use of birth control and such birth control was widely provided there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancies to deal with and less abortions.
The whole premise is wrong. One cannot legislate morality. Morals would cease being morals, even just by definition, if codified by legislation. Morality has no place in a courtroom. Legal precedence and what has been codified reigns supreme in that arena. Sentencing an individual to death has no moral implications inside the legal system. The moral implications are felt and dealt with by society outside of that framework. Morality is what societies are judged on. There is no such thing as "modern" morality. Morality is a living breathing notion. It is dynamic; the ability to evolve. Referring to it as being subjective is an undeveloped attempt at trying to comprehend what morality is. Morality in its purist form is at the opposing pole from subjective. Morality is also like one's conscience. It can be cast aside freely; when seen fit. Man has tried to bend morality to his will. Has tried to justify unmoral actions through rationalization. That is where this common confusion comes in as to when the taking the life of another is acceptable and when it is not. That is why life or death decisions were placed inside courtrooms. Morality could be cast aside that way. One can now possess the ability of having a justified feeling afforded them by the law. Morally, life is life. It possesses a developmental / beginning stage. It is only through the law and or rationalization that affords one the willingness to set in motion methods to put an end to it. Morally, there is no difference between sentencing an individual to death or abortion. Legally there is.
The odd thing about that is that if an unborn baby is killed during commission of a crime it can be prosecuted as murder while at the same time killing an unborn baby is also a 'woman's right to choose'. The only difference is who is doing the killing and why. It doesnt seem fair to the little unborn human, does it?
Personally I think it should be based on how conscious the foetus is, ie. brain activity. Since I don't know the answer to that I can't really comment. But I see it as similar to the ethics of turning off life support for a brain dead patient; technically the body is alive but the 'person' part is no longer present.
Exactly, morally there is no ambiguity or it applies here but not here. Life has a beginning and an end. It is man who tries to manipulate morality through rationalization to fit his fancy. Who cares how accurately the stages of the beginning of life can be dissected and differentiated by categories and subcategories. That is put into place legally so an individual can be morally absent in their decision. All that is so one can mentally cope with their decision. Morality is shed at will so one can take solace in that they were legally within their right to choose. Funny thing is, we all have been given free will in the first place. We have always had the free will to choose our reactions towards what presents itself. It was our conscious, concerns of morality that had profound effects. That is why certain arguments are placed in the court of law; so one's morality can be rendered moot, crumpled up and tossed away, so we can feel that solace afforded us by the law.
@morbias; the argument is then made that, if given nine months or less it would be born a person, and the vegetable won't. This is the only thing I can be devil's advocate for, because then others (like the Duggars family) take it a step further and say any time you are not pregnant is another child that could have been. So really what is the difference? Considering how easy it is to impregnate, every time an egg is lost from the menstruation cycle, isn't that the same as abortion? Or hell, ain't plan B also the same as abortion, since also given enough time a baby would have been born? The conclusion I come to is this. We give people, alive things, rights. The 'possibility' of a life does not deserve rights. Because, every woman who had a period or took plan B would be a murderer right now if we really thought that.
Well yes exactly, in that case every time a man ejaculates he's committing genocide so I don't think that argument is particularly valid!
There is a reason, a purpose to why our bodies are constructed and function the way they do. During the unimpeded functioning of our bodies and a menstruation cycle concludes without a pregnancy being tantamount to murder, morally, murder would be as natural as breathing. So this so called family has no concept that their premise twisted nature into some kind of demonic perpetrator pitting the final laugh at us as a race of murdering psychopaths. Miscarriage is natures way of aborting pregnancies from something that went way off the normal process' scale. Abortion terminates pregnancy through artificial manipulation. Yet both have the ability to carry the same emotional scars. Plan B has been rationalized down to a contraceptive choice. The science behind it ends the menstruation cycle through artificial manipulation. The individual has no clue if the egg and sperm united or if it would have resulted in a pregnancy.
Actually it doesn't in Australia. There's been several news articles where a drunk driver has swerved off the road and hit a pregnant woman, and she's lost the baby and the driver didn't have anything pressed against him because the child was unborn. (Some weird loop in the law) There was something simple I saw just the other day talking about it and it was along the lines of. If we can pronounce someone dead when the heart stops, then we should pronounce someone alive when the heart starts. And when a heart starts in the womb is a fetus age of about 4-5 weeks. There are sometimes reasons for an abortion that can be medical but it should only be under that 4 week mark before a heart beat. That's my opinion, and even then it would have to be a pretty good reason to perform it.
And yet there are those who view simply being not pregnant as equally sinful as an abortion. Notions gathered from ancient religions. But obviously no sane, unindoctrinated, mind would view a period as murder. But if 'common' morality (mostly from religion) is the only thing against abortion, a lot of people have abortions, and yet we are still not a race of murdering psychopaths. Logic dictates that, at the very least, there is a vast difference between murder and abortion. And while it's true that you wouldn't know if you would have been pregnant if you didn't take plan B, it's also true that you don't know if would would have miscarried if you did. Not knowing things doesn't mean you don't get to make your own decisions.
Abortion. Like it or not it is still killing. Only mitigating thing about it is, that fetus does not have higher cognitive functions and is not fully self aware. In cases where mother's life is in danger, abortion is natural thing. In nature animals prefer abortion even post birth over their own death as young ones would not survive without mother anyway. I think it is better to allow abortion than to have children with only one parent unable to properly support it, give it its time and love. And there are categories of people who should not better breed. As far as act of ending its life, till it is born it is part of mother's organism therefore even in Australia it still should be considered at least as heavy health injury to mother with lasting consequences.
Where did I say an individual did not have the right to make their own choice? Morally there is no difference between abortion and murder. Put whatever label desired on it. It is still ending life. Like I stated before, morally there is no distinction. Legally there is. One is punishable by the law, the other is not. So logically the only difference between murder and abortion is the legal ramifications because both terminate life prematurely. Plan B prevents the egg from anchoring itself to the uterine wall if the egg has not already done so. So, if the egg has already anchored itself, Plan B has no effect. That is the reality of it and why I said it has been rationalized down to a contraceptive choice. No one has the right to take the freedom of choice away from anyone. Other than stating my opinion on the difference between morality and the law, where did I say an individual did not have the right to make their own decision?
Who am I to cast such a judgment on someone. Through pain staking soul searching, by no thought at all, or anywhere between, it was their decision and their decision alone. Those who chose to do so have to live with whatever comes with that decision; whether it be regret, nothing, whatever it may be. Am I saddened by the loss of life, yes. Do I whish evil upon those who have decided to go through with it, no. Do I feel sorry for them, no. If someone that was my friend that made such a choice still be my friend, hopefully so. Would it have an effect on the friendship because of my individual feelings, most likely yes. Would the relationship be permanently affected, no. Would I be there for them if need be, would like to think so. Do I know of anyone that I have been in contact with gone through such an ordeal, not aware of anyone. Am I a saint, not even close. Am I a Christian, hopefully by the time I die, I could be considered one.
Because without casting judgment on people, anarchy ensues. We can't wait for 'hell' to punish people. You commit murder, you are punished. I doubt you can disagree with that. And yet, you don't say the same towards abortion, in other words, even you admit it's not the same as murder.
Do not confuse my unwillingness to place judgment or to effect punishment on someone for their actions when it is not my place to do so and my feelings on the topic. Punishment for one's legal transgressions is quite different from what was inferred. Obviously I view it the same as murder. I cannot make a statement about someone else's morals. Am I morally against the death penalty, yes. Have I done anything to combat it, no. So do I risk being judged for allowing it to occur and not doing anything to see that an end is put to it, yes. Can I be considered a hypocrite for doing nothing but voting against it, maybe. Do I support abortion clinics, no. Will I ever, no. If it was put to a vote I would vote against them. If one dies during an abortion do I feel they deserved to die, no. Do I think the ones left behind should have the right to sue for malpractice, depends. The "doctor" performing the procedure ceased being a doctor for performing such a procedure if the woman's life was not at risk. So in those instances, no. Would I voice my displeasure to my wife if she was being treated by a doctor that performed such procedures, yes. Would I prevent her from seeing that doctor, no. Would I try to get her to see another doctor, yes.
