Here's what I mean: if I mention 'politics', because it is me, Doug, here at FDW, you will instantly decide from past posts what my viewpoints are about politics, and whether or not you will agree with or dispute what I might say. Some of you (Hi Lu!) might already be assembling a list of my wrong headed beliefs, ready to jump on any alleged 'fact' that can be disputed.
Calm down, citizens-this isn't a political post. I may post on that subject again, but since the last Presidential election, there hasn't seemed to be much point.
No-you're safe from one of my political screeds.
Here's another test-abortion. Clang{!} go the bars of your mind, shutting the front door on anything I might say.
You can't argue with a made up mind, so again, there doesn't seem to be much point in bringing...that word...
up.
Deeper down, friends, below the surface world of accepted truths and assumptions, without regard to political positioning or bumpersticker non-mentalities...please, just one question I would like you to answer.
Is a fetus before it is born...human?
12 comments:
Make what you will of the picture, but it was chosen for this post for my own goofy reasons. I just watched the movie again last night as a post at Morlocks was a tribute to Sandy Dennis, who was in the movie.
I know that I asked a very tough question, but how you answer that question is the bedrock belief that supports all of your other beliefs regarding the subject. I didn't ask what the Law says. I didn't ask what the Supreme Court
decided. I asked you. I know my answer and, like you, it is the bedrock on which all of my other beliefs regarding the subject rest.
"Is a fetus before it is born...human?"
I'd say it exhibits the features we define as life after a certain stage of development, yes. If a bill were proposed in my home state that made it illegal to obtain an abortion after a detectable heart beat, I'd vote for it.
To say a day-old fertilized egg is a person is less a biological statement than a theological one, though, I think. In the Middle Ages, theologians believed in "ensoulment" whereby God breathed "life" into the fetus by granting it a soul, but they differed as to when. For that reason, I think it's not unthinkable to permit a woman to terminate a pregnancy before it develops the properties we consider human. Realize that this isn't much time at all. We're talking a matter of a couple weeks, I think.
Hello James-hope that you have a good Fourth planned.
"To say a day-old fertilized egg is a person is less a biological statement than a theological one,"
To be clear, James, I wasn't asking about personhood. We know what the Supreme Court ruled.
I also didn't mention day-old fertilized eggs. I said and meant fetus. In the womb. Is it human?
Also, whatever the theologians of the Middle Ages thought isn't germane to the question.
Is it human?
" Is it human?"
I thought I was clear. A fetus is obviously not a chimp or a fish. Yes, it's human. Yes, it's life. As such, it deserves protection. Its biological dependency on another doesn't make it less human. I see no difference between the Nazi experiments and partial birth abortion.
"hope that you have a good Fourth planned."
Thanks. Like most of my evenings, it was quiet. My partner retires early due to his work schedule, so he went to bed and I read the news. We don't socialize much. He tends the horses while I do my computer work. We rarely go to the movies or to dinner. I sometimes wonder if we're living in a monastery.
James, we agree-a fetus is human. As I said in the post, that truth is what informs both my politics and my life. If it is human, if a fetus deserves protection, then I oppose those who affirm/defend Abortion.
I hate this topic, being somewhat ambivalent on it myself, but here goes. (Being ambivalent, I hold views that are acceptable to neither steel-door-clangs-shut faction, always a fun place to be. At least I get to share with James, whose views are different from mine but still firmly in no man's land.)
Doug, suppose one of my (actually existing) children needed an organ or tissue transplant to survive and I was the only known donor match. Suppose further that taking the material from my body wouldn't significantly impair my long-term quality of life. Am I morally compelled to do the donation? Should I be so legally compelled?
Hi Lu-"I hate this topic, being somewhat ambivalent on it myself,"
No topic, no how about this or that, just the question: "Is a fetus in the womb human?".
"Doug, suppose one of my (actually existing) children needed an organ or tissue transplant to survive and I was the only known donor match. Suppose further that taking the material from my body wouldn't significantly impair my long-term quality of life. Am I morally compelled to do the donation? Should I be so legally compelled?"
Lu, you are asking a totally different question unrelated to mine. Organ and tissue transplants are common now, and a parent would usually donate either whether or not their own health or 'long term quality of life' were impacted. Parents do for their children. Children do for their parents.
As for whether a person should be morally or legally compelled to do so...my opinion is no, and as far as I know, there is no law on the books demanding that one MUST donate tissue or organs, so...is that something you fear is happening?
So you don't think a woman should be compelled to donate an organ or tissue to her child, but you do think she should be compelled to allow a pregnancy to occupy her body.
"but you do think she should be compelled to allow a pregnancy to occupy her body."
Lu, I know that your pro-abortion stance requires you to be resistant to the idea of a fetus being human.
But it is human.
Your argument for a "woman's reproductive right" is emotional but not valid. At least half of the victims of a "woman's reproductive right" are women themselves, female babies robbed of their human rights just as blacks were once considered not worthy of the same.
Slave owners held sway over the life and death of a slave; a woman choosing to murder her own child is as bad as a slave owner.
The Law of the United States states that this is legal so, indeed, it is legal to kill a fetus in the womb.
But God is watching, and His Law will stand. Those guilty will pay.
Those who seek forgiveness and come to Christ in repentance will be forgiven.
huh-look at that-my response is both emotional AND valid.
You have almost enough red herrings here to feed five thousand. We can agree (I hope) that my children are human beings. And we agree that, if one of them needed tissue (or even blood) from my body, I wouldn't be morally or legally compelled to give it up. So why is it a different story for a pregnant woman?
Lucia, you are intelligent, and I know that you know the answer, though your political ideologies force you to pretend ignorance.
Why is that? Why do you have to be obtuse rather than simply accepting life as it is?
The answer you pretend not to recognize is life. Life, new life apart from her own grows within a woman. The difference between tissue or blood and a fetus is that one of them is made to live apart from the woman. If it IS human, then a fetus deserves as many human rights as the human woman enjoys.
Such as not being murdered.
Are you missing my point on purpose, or is it just phenomenal talent?
Let's go through this one more time.
My child, living and breathing outside my body, requires material from my body to go on living. Am I morally and legally allowed to withhold it, causing my child's death? You say yes.
A fetus inside a woman requires material from her body to go on living. Is she morally and legally allowed to have it removed, causing its death? You say no.
In each case we are talking about a living entity distinct from a woman that depends on her body for its continued existence. I've implicitly stipulated (for the sake of argument) that in each case that entity is a human being. So why do you value the life inside the woman more highly than the one separate from her?
Post a Comment