[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

However, I present this analogy. Some people think that all things have some good. Living and nonliving. Some people think that only living things have good; this extends to the plants, the trees, the animals you eat. And, some people think a good is only intrinsic to things with a waking conscience. So, I ask, if something does not have a conscience or to a lesser extent is unaware of their good, do they have less value than the things that do?

That is why we talk about human life in abortion arguments and legal discussions, and not life in general.

Again, I believe that any form of abortion that is not the pill is morally reprehensible. The pill does what nature does by chance, only by tweaking hormones. However, I do not feel that I am in a position to deny all women the right to make the decision to have a first trimester abortion or to have an abortion in unique circumstances. In defense of my own contradiction, I do think to an extent life holds different value in certain situations. I'm not saying that there is a time when killing someone is okay; that's not what I said. However, if someone in an indefinite vegetative state or if some mindless mass of cells were to be compared to you or me, I think we could argue that there is a difference in value of life.

Thats why I believe that a set time needs to be agreed upon, like you said. The earliest abortion law was passed in the early 1800's, and it prohibited all abortions after the 4th month, and I am ok with that. Personally I am pro-life, but socially pro-choice to a point. I do not know when human life really begins, and I would not impose that ignorance on others. But at the same time, I think we can all agree third trimester abortions are pretty unethical.

That said, our current abortion law is terrible. Its far too subjective and placed WAY too much power in the opinions of people, rather than the law of the land, Subjectivity needs to be removed and clarity must be achieved. We are quickly approaching the time in science when humans will be able to create other humans, and if we do not do a better job of defining human life, I don't even want to think of the horrors that are possible.

This very well may be, and I cannot further this argument in an attempt to win so I ask a hypothetical question: what if she was brain dead and she was not coming back, then does it become morally permissible to do what they did? And, second, what if she was in agonizing pain during the entire time but we could not know? Did we do her a favor by taking her life?

The answer to that question is literally defined by the way in which she was allowed to die. Normally in brain dead situations, you do not kill someone, but rather remove life support and allow nature to take its course as they cannot breath on their own.

Terry was NOT on life support, she only required food and water. Essentially she was starved to death over several days. It was a unique situation. So if life is life, was allowing her to die from starvation and dehydration any better or worse than ignoring an infant until it dies of the same neglect?

The question of pain is subjective and I'm not going to play the game of whether or not I think she was in pain, as it only clouds an issue where we are trying to find clarity.