| Subject: Abortion fun |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/11/02 2:44pm
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "It comes down to one unloaded question" on 11/10/02 8:56pm
>
>I don't think that it is necessary to prove that a
>fetus is a life in the abortion debate. Rather, it
>should be necessary to prove that a fetus is not a
>life in order to allow abortion.
So, to kill something we must necessarily show that it is not a life? This is a rather weak argument. We don't "need" to show that a deer is not a life to kill it. We don't "need" to show that a dog is not a life in order so that we may put it to sleep. We don't need to show that a virus is not a life in order to stamp out its existance with antibiotics. Clearly, there are other criteria that determine whether or not it is "okay" to go ahead and kill something other than whether or not it is simply "alive". Life in and of itself is no entitlement to the right to live.
Until either thesis
>is proven, we are obligated to err on the side of
>caution. How would we react when, if the fetus is
>definitively proven to be a human life, we realize
>that we have endorsed the murder of millions of
>innocent lives?
Or a deer? Or our dog in distress? Or our virii? Again, it isn't just being alive or even being a human life that warrants a decision with regards to whether or not something lives, although it would be fundamentally assumed if it were a question of killing that this thing was indeed "alive".
>
>Given that a large number of aborted fetuses have in
>fact survived the operation, some for several hours
>and others permanently, indications are that a fetus
>is in fact a life.
Okay, even if this is satisfactory for a defintion of life, so what? Just because something is alive doesn't entitle it to always stay alive, or be immune from being killed.
>
>Yes, a fetus is dependant upon another person to live,
>and that dependance may be an inconvenience to the
>other. However, that does not negate it's right to
>live.
Moreover, it doesn't entitle it to live to perhaps even less a degree than our dog which we know is a life, or the prisoner who we execute.
>
>Imagine this: you are a passenger on a small plane
>which crashes in the deep wilderness after straying
>drastically off course. Only you and one other person
>have survived, and you know you have virtually no hope
>of being found by rescuers. You will have to trek out
>of the wilderness to civilization, however, the other
>survivor has a broken leg and is unable to walk. You
>know that if you leave him behind, he will most
>certainly die of exposure before you can return with
>help, but to bring him along, you'd have to carry him
>somehow. Is it right for you to leave him behind to
>die because he'd hinder your hike? Of course it's not.
>In fact, it may be a criminal act.
Simply to leave your hiker behind because you don't feel like fooling with him is one thing. It is clear that the hiker is a life. The question arises if you should be liable for his life, and the answer is not necessarily even in a clear cut situation like this. There is no good reason other than some sort of reverence for the thing referred to as human life to save your hiker, other than out of pity, or to perhaps alleviate your own conscious if you left him behind, which in either case would be less than an altruistic act. Regardless, this analogy isn't quite the same as the abortion issue. You'd have to be responsible for the "hiker" for 18 years, in some cases you wouldn't have a choice in helping the hiker; it'd be more akin to someone planting a hiker in your womb without first asking, and also the hiker changes your body chemisty, eats what you eat, and is totally dependant on you. There is even some question as to whether or not the hiker in you is "human" or "alive". Should you or should you not have some say in whether this hiker stays since it is you that it fundamentally changes and inconveniences? Should you or should you not have some choice in whether you help the hiker in your example with the broken leg? Surely the answer should be yes.
>
>Consider this: a fetus is scheduled to be aborted on
>Tuesday, but on Monday night the mother suddenly goes
>into labour and delivers a premature but healthy
>child. Now that child's life is protected by law,
>though it was previously labeled for legal
>termination. The child is still dependant on others
>for survival, the only difference is that it was
>previously attached to another's body. Where is the
>logic in this?
Law is arbitrary and not grounded on any morality besides that which the masses prescribe to. In North America, it happens to be christian values. The santicty of human life etc. Clearly as I've shown though, life in and of itself is no reason to warrant life.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 