Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[tickitytak]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

first of all, a fetus does not have a self-aware consciousness. this fact alone should be enough to settle whether or not it deserves rights. it will not be missed once it dies. it will not think to itself "i wish i wouldn't have been aborted". its death would be meaningless just as everything else in existence is meaningless until it or something else gives it subjective meaning.

if a fetus has the right to live, i expect bacteria and viruses to have the same right. i expect all organisms in the entire universe (no matter how pesky, disgusting, or inconvenient they are) to be allowed to live. if this were proposed though, people would argue that only organisms with the potential to develop into humans in their lifetime would be granted this right. but what the fuck kind of double standard is that? are we really that full of ourselves? that kind of perspective is just an example of our incredibly self-absorbed species, pretending as if we're beyond nature and better than everything else. we are no better. we don't deserve life any more than any other organism.

a fetus means nothing until you give it meaning, and lack of meaning is only bad if you perceive it so.

[tickitytak]

scourge99,

i absolutely agree with you.

i have no inclination to believe that objective morality exists nor that it could possibly exist. if God's will were to be objective morality, it would be purely subjective.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 7 Post 66:

first of all, a fetus does not have a self-aware consciousness. this fact alone should be enough to settle whether or not it deserves rights.

At a certain point fetuses can feel pain. It is my contention this pain is a reflection of a certain self-awareness, in that pain is a means of "understanding" one is in potential or real danger. Also there's the issue of folks who are in a vegetative state, and the rights we grant those folks.

it will not be missed once it dies. it will not think to itself "i wish i wouldn't have been aborted".

There are some mothers who miss their aborted fetuses for long periods afterwards, up to and including typical grieving behaviors.

its death would be meaningless just as everything else in existence is meaningless until it or something else gives it subjective meaning.

Perhaps to you. The many folks who object to abortion would indicate they at least find a "meaning" for the fetus.

if a fetus has the right to live, i expect bacteria and viruses to have the same right.

There are bacteria within the human body that are required for our full functionality. I would dare say attempts to remove these bacteria from existence would be met with stiff resistance.

i expect all organisms in the entire universe (no matter how pesky, disgusting, or inconvenient they are) to be allowed to live. if this were proposed though, people would argue that only organisms with the potential to develop into humans in their lifetime would be granted this right. but what the **** kind of double standard is that?

I agree somewhat. I worry about theists that look at the world as "for man to do with as he pleases". Fortunately this seems to be a rather small portion of theists.

a fetus means nothing until you give it meaning, and lack of meaning is only bad if you perceive it so.

Many anti-abortionists consider the fetus has "meaning" simply by nature of its being a human, or potential human.

[scourge99]

Subjective reality? Subjective truth? Oxymorons.

This is called cherry picking. When you can't quote and respond to what I wrote directly then its not surprising you don't understand what is being explained.

The omniscient perspective does not exist because morality is by definition a subjective opinion.

Begging the question.

Then tell me what question I am begging if you are so confident I am begging the question.

we have examples who societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing right and wrong all the time.

Law and Order are not Right and Wrong.

Where did I say they were? Nonetheless let me clarify: "societies are more efficient with mutual understanding of right and wrong....we have examples of societies that lose law and order and thus a basis for establishing [a mutual understanding of] right and wrong all the time. And we see what becomes of them. Chaos.

There is subjective good and evil and objective good and evil. The former is known to be true assuming that more than a single self conscious being exists (someone other than our self; there is overwhelming evidence for this). The latter can be true, but not necessarily true for all cases, with or without the existence of God(s).

Subjective good and evil? Good and Evil that depend on the mind for existence, or Good and Evil that are influenced by personal opinions, desires, etc.?

I fail to see the difference between the two. "Personal opinions, desires, etc" are a subset of things in which many people utilize in making subjective determinations.

And how does the existence of a disagreement prove that that both disagreements are necessarily true?

Once again, from whose perspective?????? Yours? Mine? The guy down the street? From an objective perspective? From an omniscient perspective?

Just because I say a thing is good and you disagree does not mean that we both MUST be right. Only that we disagree and one or both of us MUST be WRONG.

Or the two people making claims to truth are both wrong because the question is not a tautology.

Furthermore, this is complicated by the fact that our basis for claiming truth is limited because we are non-omniscient.

I said that one can believe a lie, which means that one's subjective view on reality is irrelevant to the actual nature of reality.

This is all dependent on the age old question: WHAT is true reality (truth) and how are you so sure? There are many valid beliefs that are contradictory. And guess what? Its possible more than one could be right! Its possible that contradictions do, in fact, exist. Though, personally, I find it highly unlikely.

Whether you believe in good and evil or not, they either exist or do not exist.

Lets assume they don't (which is what i believe).

If they actually exist (which they can only with a God) then one's opinion on them is irrelevant.

not quite true. For example, atheists can believe that the universe is created in such a manner that certain actions are contradictory to some natural purpose or goal. Thus: objective morality. E.G., natural law. Personally, I don't find it convincing, but its plausible (I.E., its logically sound; it does not violate the rules of logic).

One might as well say: "What I like and what I don't like."

I agree. And what I like and don't like is used to determine my subjective morality. Which leads us to my point all along: even though my morality and society's morality is subjective, it does not mean we don't have a basis for imposing it upon you. Our basis for imposing our morality on you is that we don't like actions contradictory to our morality. (but that is just one philosophical perspective).

[tickitytak]

From Page 7 Post 66:

At a certain point fetuses can feel pain. It is my contention this pain is a reflection of a certain self-awareness, in that pain is a means of "understanding" one is in potential or real danger. Also there's the issue of folks who are in a vegetative state, and the rights we grant those folks.

a self-aware consciousness and a consciousness are not the same thing. self-aware consciousness is awareness of the self, of the persona. consciousness is simply awareness of environmental stimulations. a computer program is conscious in this same way.

is pain truly experienced if there is no awareness of the self?

There are some mothers who miss their aborted fetuses for long periods afterwards, up to and including typical grieving behaviors.

Perhaps to you. The many folks who object to abortion would indicate they at least find a "meaning" for the fetus.

Many anti-abortionists consider the fetus has "meaning" simply by nature of its being a human, or potential human.

all meaning is purely subjective. there is no objective meaning. in other words, everything is meaningless until it is given subjective meaning. the concept of significance is a human creation.

[otseng]

but what the *beep* kind of double standard is that?

Moderator comment:

Please refrain from the use of vulgarity on this forum. Please also make sure you read through and abide by the rules.

[tickitytak]

but what the *beep* kind of double standard is that?

Moderator comment:

Please refrain from the use of vulgarity on this forum. Please also make sure you read through and abide by the rules.

oops. i didn't realize there were impressionable children reading such heavy philosophical discussions. hopefully i didn't completely destroy their entire perspective of existence by typing a word that would only be interpreted as something negative by someone who is already familiar with its definition and usage.

i'll be sure to refrain from such vulgarity in future posts... unless of course i start a philosophical thread that analyzes the illogical acceptance of our "dirty word culture".

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

oops. i didn't realize there were impressionable children reading such heavy philosophical discussions. hopefully i didn't completely destroy their entire perspective of existence by typing a word that would only be interpreted as something negative by someone who is already familiar with its definition and usage.

i'll be sure to refrain from such vulgarity in future posts... unless of course i start a philosophical thread that analyzes the illogical acceptance of our "dirty word culture".

Be sure that you do. Also be sure that you refrain from responding publicly to moderator comments. That, too, is against the rules.

[Confused]

but what the *beep* kind of double standard is that?

Moderator comment:

Please refrain from the use of vulgarity on this forum. Please also make sure you read through and abide by the rules.

[strike]o[/strike]Oops. [strike]i[/strike] I didn't realize there were impressionable children reading such heavy philosophical discussions. [strike]h[/strike]Hopefully [strike]i[/strike]I didn't completely destroy their entire perspective of existence by typing a word that would only be interpreted as something negative by someone who is already familiar with its definition and usage.

[strike]i[/strike]I'll be sure to refrain from such vulgarity in future posts... unless of course [strike]i[/strike] I start a philosophical thread that analyzes the illogical acceptance of our "dirty word culture".

SUGGESTION:

See corrections in pretty colors.
If one is going to accuse others of being "childish", then one should probably make sure they can use accurate grammar in their accusation or risk seeming childish in their sarcasm as well.

[Confused]

From Page 7 Post 66:

At a certain point fetuses can feel pain. It is my contention this pain is a reflection of a certain self-awareness, in that pain is a means of "understanding" one is in potential or real danger. Also there's the issue of folks who are in a vegetative state, and the rights we grant those folks.

a self-aware consciousness and a consciousness are not the same thing. self-aware consciousness is awareness of the self, of the persona. consciousness is simply awareness of environmental stimulations. a computer program is conscious in this same way.

is pain truly experienced if there is no awareness of the self?

There are some mothers who miss their aborted fetuses for long periods afterwards, up to and including typical grieving behaviors.

Perhaps to you. The many folks who object to abortion would indicate they at least find a "meaning" for the fetus.

Many anti-abortionists consider the fetus has "meaning" simply by nature of its being a human, or potential human.

all meaning is purely subjective. there is no objective meaning. in other words, everything is meaningless until it is given subjective meaning. the concept of significance is a human creation.

Some wonderful philosophical rhetoric here but did you answer any of the issues joeyknuccione brought up or did you opt to divert the conversation away from them by picking out one abstract concept and focusing it on it alone. It has been my experience that when one starts to speak in subject abstract quality, it is usually because one cannot address the underlying issues. I would love to hear your position on the actual topics brought up in this post rather than jumping to the old sideline of "subjectivity".