Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond
Honestly, just trying to get discussion going. I have a habit of making sentences which sound like jabs I suppose.
I read your post KG, and I agree with the majority of it, but I do have an issue I would like to raise with you. I believe you stated that you believe human life begins at the impact of DNA fertilization. So then you would consider the "mass of cells" after DNA fertilization to be a human, correct? So, if this "mass of cells" is a human, then don't you have to afford this human rights? Isn't this human entitled to liberties?
|
This is a good question. You actually pinpointed the very flaw in my stance on abortion, which is that I believe a woman should be entitled to make the decision to have an abortion during the first trimester, but that it is morally reprehensible in my book. It is a contradiction. I even suggested that if my girlfriend got pregnant I would want her to get an abortion, but I can't answer that honestly because she's not pregnant. If at all possible I would maybe strive for the adoption.
But yes, I believe "human life" begins when DNA fertilization occurs. How could it not? Picking an arbitrary point during development and saying that at this point life begins is, to me, a non-logical argument. Humans continue to develop and grow until they are 21, or so most doctors would say. But, in reality, we continue to undergo biological changes until we die. Our cells constantly grow and die and replace themselves with new cells. To me, DNA fertilization marks the beginning of life in the sense that we know it as.
However, personally, I reserve some unique situations in which human life becomes less valuable. For instance, in the case of Terri Schiavo, I believe that the decision to pull the plug was an okay one. She was in a vegetative state where she felt no pain, had no conscience thoughts, and was essentially a vegetable. She was alive only by the definition that she was breathing and needed food. In my opinion, if the embryo does not have brain impulses and if it cannot feel pain (during the first trimester or most of it), it because slightly less morally reprehensible to abort than after the point at which it develops into a feeling, conscience being. You are still removing the potential for life from that embryo. Hence why it would fall into the category of being morally reprehensible. However, the embryo knows not of living in the sense that it is not a conscience being with brain impulses, so one could argue that it is "less bad."
I try not to bring terms like "less bad" into arguments, because that is a fool's argument. But, that's where I stand for now.
I feel that my gender puts me at a disadvantage to say "NO!" to all abortions. That's another part of it. I think, if I was a woman, I would feel more comfortable taking a stronger stance against abortion. I feel that everyone has their own moral plate, and they should be able to make some of their own decisions. They can live with their own moral guilt.
However, I am only 20, I am fairly liberal, and I'm still learning things everyday. I'm sure I will have different viewpoints in a year, or 5 years, or after I have kids and a family of my own.
But I do enjoy the positive argument you are facilitating, I hope more people contribute to this thread
.