Posted:
"In your lethal injection scenario, I don't have info on steps 1,2,3. She directly actively kills a child. That is murder. In this the subject matter of this debate we are at step 2. Also nothing actively is being done to "kill" a child, but nothing is done to "save" it. A botched abortion is an exception, not the norm. A significant harm has already been done to the child in the attempt to abort. Saving is much more difficult and may not always be practically feasible for the hospital. Costs may outweigh the benefits."
Isn't that a contradiction? You justify abortion on the basis that a fetus is not a living entity anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. The basis for not counting the fetus as a life like the mother comes from the fact that is still attached to the mother's body and is not independent. Once the fetus comes out - regardless of whether it survives or not - can it be deemed as an independent life or not? If the fetus/baby dies outside the womb is it still a potential life being killed or an actual life? If it is actual life but you still justify it on utilitarian ground - i.e. the baby might have had a worse future if it was kept alive - then is that much different from the lethal injection scenario I provided. Why call it murder then and not provide suitable justification for it too?
I've said it before. Very early abortions can be justified because the fetus still has not developed a brain or heart or complex organs to feel pain or be conscious. Even if it is living, it is unconscious at best. Late term abortions don't have that justification. While whether fetuses can feel pain or not inside the mother's womb is debated, the fact is that it can once it is born is not. As such when it dies after coming out, the "Only a potential life that was not even conscious" does not work.
As for "She directly actively kills a child." - erm, isn't abortion the direct active termination of a fetus? That the fetus are not living is your subjective opinion, much like that life starts at conception.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
The difficult issue is defining life and if the fetus can be deemed as living or a potential life at best. Also whether doing evil for the greater good is justified over doing good resulting in greater evil. Of course that the unwanted fetuses/babies will have a bad future is nothing but a matter of pure speculation and probabilities, the same argument that pro-choice use to justify abortion saying "a fetus may not become a life, and assuming it will is nothing but a matter of probabilities and assumptions".
Isn't that a contradiction? You justify abortion on the basis that a fetus is not a living entity anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. The basis for not counting the fetus as a life like the mother comes from the fact that is still attached to the mother's body and is not independent. Once the fetus comes out - regardless of whether it survives or not - can it be deemed as an independent life or not? If the fetus/baby dies outside the womb is it still a potential life being killed or an actual life? If it is actual life but you still justify it on utilitarian ground - i.e. the baby might have had a worse future if it was kept alive - then is that much different from the lethal injection scenario I provided. Why call it murder then and not provide suitable justification for it too?
I've said it before. Very early abortions can be justified because the fetus still has not developed a brain or heart or complex organs to feel pain or be conscious. Even if it is living, it is unconscious at best. Late term abortions don't have that justification. While whether fetuses can feel pain or not inside the mother's womb is debated, the fact is that it can once it is born is not. As such when it dies after coming out, the "Only a potential life that was not even conscious" does not work.
As for "She directly actively kills a child." - erm, isn't abortion the direct active termination of a fetus? That the fetus are not living is your subjective opinion, much like that life starts at conception.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Originally posted by: ItIsMyLife
If fr some reason a mother fails to abort the baby then after 9 months the baby will born.
At that time if the mother kills the baby then she will be termed as killer.
Then why does the same thing not applicable for abortion?
A life is a life.
The difficult issue is defining life and if the fetus can be deemed as living or a potential life at best. Also whether doing evil for the greater good is justified over doing good resulting in greater evil. Of course that the unwanted fetuses/babies will have a bad future is nothing but a matter of pure speculation and probabilities, the same argument that pro-choice use to justify abortion saying "a fetus may not become a life, and assuming it will is nothing but a matter of probabilities and assumptions".
Real Estate
Book Talk
