It's Another One of 'Those' Arguments
March 27th 2008 06:55
There are many scientific debates that are argued using political or religious points. Such arguments tend to carry an 'all or none' mantra where either side has to have its way and compromise just isn't acceptable. In the case of global warming one side declares it exists one side tries to reason its way out and in the middle there's a perfectly good argument that whether or not global climate change will result in the apocalypse is irrelevant, we are running out of fossil fuels and are clearly killing off the environment.
Abortion itself is an even more absurd debate, one side claims it's 'my body' the other 'even a few gobs of cells is life'. Both sides are actually wrong and right in a sense, it is part of the womans body and it is also a few gobs of cells. That's where it ends, because the gobs of cells develop into something that can be best described as human and at that point it's really a living being seperate from the 'host body'.
For all its worth you can no more call the killing of a gob of cells murder than you can a grazed knee. However you cannot call a being with its own heart and pulse as part of your body as it really is an extension of that and it is human, indeed all the yelling and screaming by the pro-life groups who like to hold up signs of chopped by fetuses really are right, it is watered down murder. Though no matter how much they choose to yell and scream a gob of cells cannot be recognized as a human being both in medical and practical terms. What defines life if not the beat of your heart and expansion of your lungs as it takes in air?
Let's all stop and think about it, if it were life it would exhibit some life-like attributes, if it were part of your body it would have no indication that it could live on its own, such as a beating heart. In the end the moral debate can simply come down to when we define human life in a sound medical sense, how do we define life and more importantly when do we declare someone legally dead?
Abortion itself is an even more absurd debate, one side claims it's 'my body' the other 'even a few gobs of cells is life'. Both sides are actually wrong and right in a sense, it is part of the womans body and it is also a few gobs of cells. That's where it ends, because the gobs of cells develop into something that can be best described as human and at that point it's really a living being seperate from the 'host body'.
For all its worth you can no more call the killing of a gob of cells murder than you can a grazed knee. However you cannot call a being with its own heart and pulse as part of your body as it really is an extension of that and it is human, indeed all the yelling and screaming by the pro-life groups who like to hold up signs of chopped by fetuses really are right, it is watered down murder. Though no matter how much they choose to yell and scream a gob of cells cannot be recognized as a human being both in medical and practical terms. What defines life if not the beat of your heart and expansion of your lungs as it takes in air?
Let's all stop and think about it, if it were life it would exhibit some life-like attributes, if it were part of your body it would have no indication that it could live on its own, such as a beating heart. In the end the moral debate can simply come down to when we define human life in a sound medical sense, how do we define life and more importantly when do we declare someone legally dead?
| 107 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Raven
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Now, it is up to the host whether or not it wants to continue feeding the 'glob of cells', or whether the host wants it ejected from its body.
A woman is more than a vessel. We do not exist simply to be incubators for the next generation. Perhaps that is what natural selection originally intended but with the evolution of our bodies came the evolution of our minds, our emotions, our desire, our ambitions.
If I do not want something growing in my body I will remove it. To an unhappily pregnant woman a fetus is little more than a parasite. Yes, a pregnancy can be a blessing but it can also be a curse. A reason for celebration or a reason for suicide. Women have risked and lost their lives in order to rid their bodies of unwanted fetus's. Why now, when we finally have the technology that provides a safe procedure are we even discussing the possibility of reversing a law which will put women at risk again?
All this talk focusing on the rights of the fetus who has no conscious or sensory awareness, no dreams or desires, no ideas or ambitions. A woman has all of these and more. Why are her rights and her wants and needs pushed aside in this focus on an unborn entity? By saying that the rights of the fetus trumps the rights of the woman you are relegating the woman to second class citizen status.
A woman is not a second class citizen.
I will defend to my dying day the right of a woman to choose. To choose who she wants to marry, when she wants to have sex, when she wants to work, when she wants to stay at home, when she wants to be free and when she wants to be a mother.
Yes, in the case of unwanted pregnancy, a line is drawn and the entire world feels it has a right to infringe on the issue and take a side.
You choose the fetus. I choose the woman.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Ruby, while I agree in part I cannot say that a gob of cells can be defined as anything but a gob of cells and a fetus that has taken much time to develop cannot by any definition be considered a parasite.
A parasite by its very definition exploits but gives nothing back, a fetus grows and is born into this world, it gives the most precious gift imaginable. There simply is no comparison.
If a woman does not wish to have a baby then she should make that decision before this 'parasite' develops into what may be recognized as a human being, especially in a medical sense and perhaps one day in a legislative sense.
Perhaps you're looking at this rom the perspective that men see women as lesser beings because they carry children. I'm not sure who put you into this mindset, in my opinion it's just as much the mans responsibility as is the womans responsbility to raise a baby, choices where made by a higher power or natural selection (take your pick) so that the woman may carry the child and as such our social standards have evolved to reflect this. If it means you feel that you are a second class citizen it is not the fetuses fault but rather societies.
You have no right to kill a well developed fetus much like you have no right to give birth to a baby and let it starve though the argument you present, that 'it relies on me to lvie thereore I should have a right to kill it, or not worry about its life'.
You say you will fight to the dying breath to give women their freedoms, I'm taking that sentiment a step further, I'll die defending a woman, her rights, but also an unborn and its rights, Ibelieve there is a time the unborn is human even while in gestation. I will also fight 'to the dying breath' to put men in the same boat as women in this matter, perhaps some men have used it to their advantage, that they don't have to be responsible for the baby simply because they don't carry them.
I don't choose between a fetus and a woman, I choose between a human being, a gob of cells and a woman. A fetus that has developed well is in fact a human being, a gob of cells is no more than a part of your body. To punish someone for aborting a two month pregnancy is akin to punishing somone for grazing their ankle, cells are killed, that is that. To kill something beyond the three month period is little more than watered down murder. Does it mean it should be punished as such? Well no, however it is wrong and unfortunately some people have taken the stance that it doesn't matter because women have a right over their fetus, even if it is by all accounts a living human being with a heart that beats and lungs that breath.
Comment by tlcorbin
Murder is a premeditated malevolent action.
Raven
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
For instance you might buy products made in China which supports the Chinese government. Someone is executed in China, say a political activist, it's passive but it's murder, it's watered down.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't think most women would want to wait that long either.
At what stage does a zygote become a fetus? I feel we are on the same side here Ahmed. It's just semantics. I guess my comments were aimed at those who consider abortion murder at any stage.
I am not trying to define a fetus as a parasite. I am merely trying to get people to understand the sheer desperation a pregnant woman can feel is all.
And I don't believe men think women are second class citizens because they can have babies. I think men think women are second class citizens because they are still mad at us for the whole Adam and Eve thing. The Bible is scathing in its treatment of women and this mindset has carried on down through the ages. Hence the stigma with sex.
Just have a look at that other blog and see the names that women who have sex are called. Whores, sluts, etc etc etc. What name is given to men who have sex?
This hatred of women is biblical and it is indelibly ingrained in our psyche.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'd hazzard to say women who like to call others whores are probably more guilty than those they condemn with their own laws.
Comment by Damo
You little glutton for punishment.
Recycling your old posts for a new generation.
I can't blame you I have been tempted to do the same thing myself.
Didn't we have this same discussion from a scientific view point.
Might be a good idea to link that old post to here.
Not much more to add here, you know my point of view.
I think we did cover confusing rationalism with objective science. I can't remember that well.