| Subject: Mission aborted |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/13/02 12:34pm
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. 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?
This is a very interesting debate, I think, and one in which emotions run high on both sides. To me, the issue is not one of whether or not a fetus is "alive." Where is the universal law that says all life must be preserved? Like Damoclese, I see no objective reason to think that human life is somehow more important than animal life, other than the obvious anthropocentric view I naturally have by virtue of being a human.
Someone once asked me this question: "If you saw a human baby and a cat sitting on a highway in the path of oncoming traffic and you could only save one, which one would you save?" I said, "I'd save the human, of course." But then I added, "The real question is: which one would a cat save?"
As humans, it's natural to esteem human life above all other life, but in complex issues like these, we have to be able to step away from our human-centered view sometimes.
Moreover, it's difficult for me to see the real difference between a sperm or an egg and a zygote. Should we prevent people from wearing condoms because of all the sperm that is lost? Or should we try to make sure that no woman ever loses an egg without at least attempting to become impregnated? These ideas sound humorous, of course, but what is the real difference between a sperm and a zygote? Both are really the potential for human life, but are not fully developed humans.
All that said, I do not think abortion should be used as birth control. If people are not responsible enough to take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they shouldn't just go have an abortion every time they get pregnant. But I do think there are times when abortion can be appropriate, and I see no objective moral reason to think otherwise. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world, and I don't see any reason to bring more in.
Your idea that the burden of proof lies on the person who would prove that it is "not a life" is misplaced, in my opinion. The idea of "life" or "not life" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, until I see a mandate to keep all life alive as long as possible. I think the burden of proof should lie on you to prove that destroying a zygote (something that nature does all the time anyway... should we take nature to court for miscarriages?), thereby possibly depriving the world of another unwanted child, is wrong.
>I challenge anyone to come up a sound, logical
>argument to support abortion. The one question to be
>answered is: is the fetus a life or is it not? The
>evidence suggests that it is, but until either
>position is proven, I restate that we must err on the
>side of caution.
Again, this is not the "one question to be answered." If it were, this debate would be much simpler. Go ahead and err on the side of caution. In the meantime, send me your address so I'll know where to direct all the unwanted children.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 