Personhood and Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

A human cell does not equal a human life.

Why? What is the personality of a man who has a coma? What is the personality of a person who cannot communicate to you by anything but the simplest means? Can you tell? How can you judge?

You can cut out what most of Baatar said otherwise but you haven't explained why you're right.

A personality is an extremely vague concept on which to decide whether a human being should be killed legally or not. By that extension we could say anyone who is comatose can be killed because they lack a personality. Do you kill the deaf, dumb and blind on that basis too?

Killing an actual child of rape, especially an older one, might be somewhat akin to an honor killing; aborting a zef from rape not so much. I don't know how many times we have to say it, but a zef =/= a child.
edit: and preventing a person from ever existing =/= murder.

On average, most women do not know they are pregnant until around the 8th week. By that time, the baby has developed well past a "clump of human tissue". Biologically, it is definitely a human. It has unique DNA, has its own unique brain waves, is alive and is human in species.

Nor does a fetus equal a human life in any meaningful sense through which we would normally assert makes murder wrong.

On average, most women do not know they are pregnant until around the 8th week. By that time, the baby has developed well past a "clump of human tissue". Biologically, it is definitely a human. It has unique DNA, has its own unique brain waves, is alive and is human in species.

A highly controversial topic, but it's something that has been bothering me. In Oklahoma, where I'm from, our government is on the way toward passing a "Personhood" bill, which would effectively ban most if not all forms of abortion, as well as likely invitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control and contraception, and all of this would apply even in cases of rape.

I've been getting into arguments on facebook about all of this for some time now, and it seems like no one I know agrees with my views and opinions, and I've upset and even lost some "friends" over the things I've had to say, so I keep wondering if I'm simply completely off-base.

While I dislike labels and find them limiting, at this moment and in relation to this topic, I would have to say I'm most closely a "Liberal Christian" but "Right-leaning Libertarian," and in regard to this issue specifically, either "pro-choice with exceptions" or "anti-abortion," as I feel "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" isn't really fitting.

My basic arguments, as primarily laid out on the pages or comments and photos of my liberal and feminist friends and acquiantances (simply because they're the ones being most vocal about birth control and abortion and what is happening here), is that I disagree with the bill, but on the other hand agree with the notion that unborn children are human beings, and that life begins some time AFTER conception but BEFORE birth (as opposed to the proposal's attempt to assert that life begins at conception).

I also believe that terminating a pregnancy is ending that life, but that killing does not imply murder and is not wrong in and of itself, but that it's morality might be determined by factors such as when, how, and why it is done. I've also said before that I disagreed with the statements that other people were making, specifically their claims that until a child is born, it is either not human, not living, or neither. My argument is that the fetus is human and alive, but I don't see that position as requiring one to be absolutely "pro-life" (for lack of a better phrasing), due to the ideas I mention above. Also, I find the notion that some people I know have been tossing around that a child is solely the non-human property of the woman alone, until it is born, as one that is dehumanizing and reminds me of arguments used to support genocide or slavery, which is probably what offended people the most. I oppose that position because I believe it negates questions of morality, when this is a decision that must involve morality.

I don't believe that decision is one for our government to make for everybody, but one the woman has to make for herself, whether or not I personally agree with her choices.

So people who support the bill, who appear to be mainly Fundamentalist Christians, have been getting mad at me and others, arguing that abortion is wrong, and therefore should be banned, and either the doctors or women or both be held legally accountable (which I disagree with), while people on the other side of the fence seem to be mad at me and Republicans for "judging" them, claiming that everyone must be "pro-choice" and feminist or else are "anti-women," which I don't understand, since I don't see those ideas as exclusive. I'm agreeing with them that the legislation is a form of enforcing morality that is potentially oppressive and harmful, but I'm disagreeing with them about the defition of personhood and life, and will continue to support my religious belief that certain actions can be irresponsible or immoral, while maintaining my political view that legislators shouldn't be the ones making those decisions for us. I don't see how that is "wrong"?