Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Almost everything comes down to the question: "When does the organism growing in the womb qualify as a human being?"



This is the centre of the abortion debate, whether people realize it or not.

I thought the debate hinged solely on that until I read Telcontar's post. Now I think not only would we need to determine when the sperm and the egg together (zygote IIRC) turns into a human being, but also if it is okay to end its chance to become a human being - even if we decide that for some of the time in the womb it is not a human being.

Does that make sense? I can clarify (or go back to lurking, which I will do after... I'm a wannabe lurker in this thread anyway. I blame you intelligent posters! )

Oh no, what you and Telcontar have said makes sense.

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I think that if the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being then it is almost as bad to 'kill' them. It takes away their chance to live and to be a human being. Surely that is almost if not as bad as killing a young child.

I once argued that in an abortion debate. The answer I got forced me to drop that stance. I don't know if it will with you.

If we haven't the right to end the potential child, then taking any action to avoid pregnancy should be considered wrong. After all, it is stopping the potential life, taking away the chance of a nonexistent child to live and be a human. All contraception would be considered wrong, but really one could go much further then it. It almost seems to be right that we have many children, and wrong to have none (unless the woman is barren).

Abortions often take place because the mother doesn't want to face the social, emotional or economical hardships that having a child entails. They also sometimes occur because the mother cannot promise the child a good future.

What we look at the decision of having a child or not, we also look at some of these factors. We want to be sure we can raise the child in a comfortable environment, want to make sure that we can afford the new life.

So what you're saying, if taken along its natural extent, means that we shouldn't consider those factors when we're deciding whether or not to have children. Instead, we should just have babies, babies, babies, babies! Nothing should stand in the way of life! We shouldn't care whether we'll never afford a good education for any of our children, or can't supply health coverage, or any amusements whatsoever. Life rules!



Stopping the fetus from living if it is not really a human being is like smashing an insect under foot. There is nothing considered wrong with smashing the insect under foot, and in this case, it would have enormous benefits to mothers that would go into poverty, and to society as a whole, for we wouldn't have to pay for the vast number of children on our hands.

That's why that argument falls apart, to me. Stopping potential life is like stopping an insect. It's that we're very possibly stopping real life that causes me to be a hardliner.