Converation thread

there is a diferance between volentary and involentary erasure of life.
if an embryo can not survive outside of the womb (months 1-3) then it is not a full life and should be up to the parents determination to continue with its existance or not

"there is a diferance between volentary and involentary erasure of life." -Your quote. I agree.

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,…  Read more 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:

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 fetus's dependency on the mother for survival is critical. Yes, all living beings need nutrients, but the extent of the fetus's dependence on the mother is unique. It's not just about nutrients; the fetus cannot survive without the mother's body, at least until a certain stage of development.

Regarding the morality of abortion, it's a deeply personal and subjective matter. Some might argue that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy might also be considered immoral, as it infringes upon her rights to her own body.

Would love to hear your thoughts on these counterpoints.

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.

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.

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 morering the rights and autonomy of a pregnant woman.

As for your third point, let's consider a scenario where a woman gets pregnant due to a contraceptive failure. Should she bear the responsibility of raising a child for the next 18 years because of a single incident that wasn't entirely within her control?

The Terri Schaivo case is completely different--she had spoken to her husband about not wanting to live off a machine. However, this case was brought before the Supreme Court on an argument of morality. Many protested the death of Terri. This is because people see human life, no matter the stage, as precious.

I believe this argument is not merely about the "rights" of a pregnant woman, but the rights of the unborn baby. After all, the Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to our posterity, not the right to abort a baby.

Yes, she should. She took the risk. She messed around and found out. However, even if raising the child was not a possibility for the mother, she can still put it up for adoption. She just has to deal with pregnancy; you reap what you sow.

While the Terri Schiavo case indeed was about morality, it also highlighted the complexities in defining life and personhood. This complexity extends to the abortion debate, where defining when life starts isn't universally agreed upon.

On the rights of the unborn baby, the Constitution does indeed guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.