No one denies that life begins at conception. But it is irrelevant. We kill people all the time. We also fail to save people all the time. You need to prove that the woman is obligated to lend her body out for 9 months to save the fetus.
If you can't prove it, then I stick with my original position, that abortion ought to be a personal choice.
The value of human life is infinite and intrinsic. Valuable, regardless of its usefulness, and ends in themselves. Whether or not the child is infringing on the 'rights' on the mother is irrelevant. It's part of the necessary process of having a baby. She knew beforehand what it takes to have a baby--9 months with it inside of you. It's not a surprise; everyone knows that. Why wouldn't she have an obligation? Why would the lending out of the body for 9 months override the lifehood of the fetus which you admitted to?
And even if you don't buy that, it doesn''t follow that it should be legislated as choice. If you buy choice, then you're saying it could be right, it could be wrong. So you're legislating something that's potentially wrong. Would you legislate stealing as legal and let the individual decide? Don't you think stealing is wrong? See the quote below.
1. You know it's a baby, and it is.
2. You know it's not a baby, and it isn't
3. You don't know if its a baby or not, and it is.
4. You don't know if its a baby or not, and it isn't.
1. obviously wrong
2. nothing wrong
3. irresponsible
4. irresponsible
It's the definition of human life that's at the heart of this debate.
That and the VALUE we place on human life, which i argue is being diminished in the line of thinking that permits abortion.
Yep. I think the definition is getting too scientific. These detached, impersonal, intellectual scientific definitions have no bite to them. They have no guilt attached. Moral definitions do have guilt to them. They address the real world and real life and the real guilt that you feel when you have an abortion. Even if you defined it scientifically, you'd still have to tie it back into morality. And when you do that, regardless of all the scientific jargon, you'll find that when you get pregnant, a baby will come out. In 9 months. Not a lizard, not a monkey, not a cantaloupe. A baby that was once part of you. A baby that
is you.
If you are personally against having an abortion, guess what, don't ever have one.
By that same logic, I can say "If you are against me stealing, guess what, don't let me steal. Lock your stuff up." "If you are against Columbine, guess what, don't shoot up your cafeteria and shut up."
Leave me and my uterus alone, they're entirely my business and not yours.
By that same logic, I can say "Leave me and my choices alone, they're my business. if I want to murder, let me murder. If I want to steal, let me steal." The fact that your body's involved is irrelevant. It's either wrong or its not, regardless of the extrinsic price you have to pay.
You could argue that stealing is legislated as illegal for utilitarian purposes, but come on now. It's wrong. Legislation is morality. The only thing you can legislate is morality. Even if you said , "do whatever you please, as long as its your choice, and doesn't infringe upon others' choice," then that is also a morality. So morality is unavoidable. So let's go with "Life is intrinsically valuable."