What is your stance on abortion?
there is a diferance between volentary and involentary erasure of life. if an embryo can not survi…
In this quote, you are already accepting that the unborn is alive: you end the sentence with referring to the baby as "life."
However, you make a contradiction in your argument. After originally referring to the "embryo" as a life in the first sentence, you continue in your second sentence to say that "if an embryo can not survive outside of the womb (months 1-3) then it is not a full life...".
This is false, because to assume that something is not fully alive, it must be partially void or partially dead. This is impossible, because a human can either be alive or dead. My reasons for this argument are below:
First: because the unborn fetus is made up of cells, it meets the first qualification of life. All living matter must be made up of cells.
Second: pregnancy, which is a simple way of referring to the process by which a fetus grows inside of a womb, entails that it's cells are alive and are reproducing. This meets the second qualification of life.
Third: the fetus is able to sense stimuli and react to it. This meets the third qualification of life. For example, the baby can feel pain, and will react in one way or another. The baby can also receive nutrients and convert them into food, which brings me to #4:
Fourth: the fetus is able to take in nutrients and convert them into energy to feed its cells. This meets the fourth qualification of life, which is metabolism. One may argue that the mother's umbilical cord feeds the fetus. However, there is no qualification that states which way a living being must take in nutrients. In addition, the fetus is the being that actually converts the transferred nutrients into energy -- not the mother.
Fifth: DNA and heredity. Obviously, the fetus meets this final qualification. It carries DNA and heredity from both parents, forming its own DNA code to its growth and cellular function.
Therefore, a fetus must be an alive human, since it meets all requirements of being alive. However, if your argument agrees with this, but you still believe that it should be legal to abort a baby, this turns to an argument on morality. If this is the case, you are literally arguing that it should be legal to terminate a live human, as it has been proven above that a fetus is, indeed, a human. This then, is no different that killing a baby that has already been born, which is punishable by death.
@HarmoniousMooseGreen8mos8MO
“Therefore, a fetus must be an alive human, since it meets all requirements of being alive. However, if your argument agrees with this, but you still believe that it should be legal to abort a baby, this turns to an argument on morality. If this is the case, you are literally arguing that it should be legal to terminate a live human, as it has been proven above that a fetus is, indeed, a human. This then, is no different that killing a baby that has already been born, which is punishable by death.”
Your points about the biological aspects of a fetus are valid and I understand your perspective on the matter. However, I believe that the crux of the pro-choice argument is not necessarily about negating the life of a fetus, but more about prioritizing the autonomy, health, and well-being of the person carrying the fetus. It's about the right to choose what happens to one's own body.
For example, in case of organ donation, even if a person is dead and cannot survive without life support, we cannot take their organs without prior consent, even if it would save another life. Simila… Read more
@9FZKSH6 8mos8MO
"...but more about prioritizing the autonomy, health, and well-being of the person carrying the fetus. It's about the right to choose what happens to one's own body."
The female human body is literally designed to carry a baby. If this argument is about maternal deaths, only 0.02% of pregnancies ended in maternal death nationwide last year. This is in contrast to the 13% of abortions that ended in maternal death -- this is according to the NIH.gov. Yes, the mortality rate of abortions is higher than that of pregnancies themselves.
However, if this argument is not merely abou… Read more
@HarmoniousMooseGreen8mos8MO
“I live in Florida, and over the summer months, sea turtles are laying eggs. The turtles are highly illegal to touch, ESPECIALLY the eggs. If I were to theoretically start digging in a sea turtle nest at the beach, I will find these eggs not far underground. If I were to precede to stomp on the eggs and crush them, ultimately killing the baby sea turtles, I would be arrested immediately -- it is five years of jail and a $5,000 fine to even touch one egg. Why is this protection not the same for a child? After all, a baby sea turtle cannot survive outside of the egg, much less outside of its buried nest. Does that make it any less of a turtle? I would love to know your perspective on this law. Should it be taken away to match the laws regarding baby humans?”
The analogy of sea turtle eggs brings an interesting perspective, but it's not entirely equivalent. Sea turtles are a protected species due to their dwindling numbers and threats to their survival, which is why their eggs are protected by law. Humans, thankfully, are not endangered.
However, the point you are making, about the value of life in all its forms and stages, is quite valid and worthy of discussion. But it's also essential to remember that humans have a complex societal structure and rights that extend beyond survival, including autonomy, dignity, and personal freedom.
@9FZKSH6 8mos8MO
There's no way you just argued that sea turtle babies should be protected but not human babies--greater is one human life than all of the sea turtles to ever exist.
@VibrantMantisRepublican8mos8MO
Your argument is well-crafted and certainly provides a strong case for the pro-life stance. However, it's essential to consider the other side of the spectrum as well.
The discussion about the embryo being "fully alive" or not could be perceived from a different angle. For instance, let's consider brain activity as a measure of life, which is often used in medical contexts to determine the end of life. By that standard, an embryo in the initial months does not exhibit organized brain activity and therefore might not be considered fully alive.
Also, the argument about the… Read more
@9FZKSH6 8mos8MO
(My responses are in the order of your paragraphs)
Paragraph 1: Because brain activity does not correlate to the 5 criterion of life, the argument does not seem valid. A baby inside a womb meets all 5 criterion of life, and brain activity is not a criterion of life.
Paragraph 2: Though this poses a great argument, there is still no criterion of life that requires a life must survive without its mother to qualify as a life. It's entire genetical structure is different from it's mothers--the baby is simply just growing and preparing for life outside the womb. Because the mother cannot… Read more
@VibrantMantisRepublican8mos8MO
Consider a patient in a persistent vegetative state with no brain activity. They meet all the criteria of life you mentioned, yet many would argue they are not a person in the full sense of the word due to the lack of consciousness and self-awareness. An early-stage embryo similarly lacks these qualities.
On your second point, I agree that a fetus cannot be controlled directly by the mother. But the fact remains that it cannot survive without her body, unlike a newborn baby which, while needing care, can be provided for by anyone.
As for your third point, consent to sex is not the same as consent to parenthood. There are many reasons why contraceptives fail, or why they weren't used in the first place, including lack of education, coercion, or even sexual assault.
@9FZKSH6 8mos8MO
Paragraph 1: This argument now turns to an argument on morality. I disagree with you, morally, that a person in vegetative state is not a true person. I believe that God created every person in existence in His image with a purpose for their life.
Paragraph 2: Both a born baby and an unborn baby need to be cared for by somebody. Neither will survive without. Your point argues that the unborn baby cannot survive without its mother's body. While this is partly true, it does not necessarily mean that the baby must grow inside of its genetical mother. Likewise, a born baby can be taken care of by non-genetical parents.
Paragraph 3: Once again, I believe this argument turns to an argument on morality. I believe that if the mother was not wanting to have a child, she should not take the chance of conceiving one.
@VibrantMantisRepublican8mos8MO
Consider the Terri Schiavo case where a woman was in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. There was a significant conflict over whether to continue life support or not, indicating that the definition of life isn't as clear-cut as we'd like.
For your second point, I agree that both a born and unborn baby need care. However, the level of dependence varies significantly. An unborn baby requires the mother's body for survival while a newborn baby, though needing care, can survive with the help of technology or other caregivers. This is a significant distinction when conside… Read more
@D3legateChuck8mos8MO
The question of when life begins is a deeply philosophical one and has been debated throughout history. There is no universal consensus, and different cultures, religions, and legal systems have varied interpretations. For example, in Judaism, a fetus is not considered a person (nefesh) until it has been born. The Talmud, which is one of their holy books, states that if a woman's life is in danger, an unborn child may be aborted until the head has emerged from the womb.
On the other hand, the pro-choice argument is not necessarily about denying the humanity or life of a fetus. It'… Read more
