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]

i really do feel self-awareness is essential to the value of life in the eyes of whoever gives it significance. is it ethical to kill a homeless man who has no family, no loved ones, and nothing going for him? no, not if he doesn't want to die. he has made the choice to live out his current persona; therefore no one should be allowed to violate that choice. this is the right to live.

a fetus is not capable of making this choice. killing something that is not capable of making such a choice can only be unethical if its death is decided by anyone other than someone who is directly (physically) emotionally attached. deciding to shoot Old Yeller, based on the situation, is ethical. deciding to shoot someone else's dog because it's annoying you is unethical because you're bringing pain to someone who is emotionally attached by direct interaction.

now, for those who get upset over the deaths of people or things that they have never even directly interacted with (they don't know them)... their pain is caused entirely by themself and no one else is responsible. any pain brought to them under such circumstances is not unethical.

to summarize, i only feel it is unethical to abort a fetus without the parents' consent.

[Jayhawker Soule]

killing something that is not capable of making such a choice can only be unethical if its death is decided by anyone other than someone who is directly (physically) emotionally attached.

That is a chilling position.

[scourge99]

i really do feel self-awareness is essential to the value of life in the eyes of whoever gives it significance. is it ethical to kill a homeless man who has no family, no loved ones, and nothing going for him? no, not if he doesn't want to die. he has made the choice to live out his current persona; therefore no one should be allowed to violate that choice. this is the right to live.

a fetus is not capable of making this choice. killing something that is not capable of making such a choice can only be unethical if its death is decided by anyone other than someone who is directly (physically) emotionally attached. deciding to shoot Old Yeller, based on the situation, is ethical. deciding to shoot someone else's dog because it's annoying you is unethical because you're bringing pain to someone who is emotionally attached by direct interaction.

now, for those who get upset over the deaths of people or things that they have never even directly interacted with (they don't know them)... their pain is caused entirely by themself and no one else is responsible. any pain brought to them under such circumstances is not unethical.

to summarize, i only feel it is unethical to abort a fetus without the parents' consent.

What about people who are sleeping or in a coma? Is it morally permissible to kill them? They are not "self-aware". What about the brain dead? What about fetuses?

What is the precise point when humans become "self-aware"? What is the precise point people stop being "self-aware"? How can we tell?

[JoeyKnothead]

now, for those who get upset over the deaths of people or things that they have never even directly interacted with (they don't know them)... their pain is caused entirely by themself and no one else is responsible. any pain brought to them under such circumstances is not unethical.

Tell that to the Jews. Humans, nigh on each and every one of them, are worthy of the pain their passing causes other humans. Your rejection of folks you've not met is noted, but hardly a sound reason to consider the issue of abortion.

to summarize, i only feel it is unethical to abort a fetus without the parents' consent.

I can agree to that, but not on the above grounds.

[tickitytak]

sigh.. there are some obvious misunderstandings.

That is a chilling position.

please explain.

What about people who are sleeping or in a coma? Is it morally permissible to kill them? They are not "self-aware". What about the brain dead? What about fetuses?

What is the precise point when humans become "self-aware"? What is the precise point people stop being "self-aware"? How can we tell?

to kill someone who is sleeping or in a coma is ethical if this person wished to be killed in this state at that time. it's entirely up to that person. if this person is in a coma and had not specified their preferences, and it seems that this person is never going to be awake again.. the decision is in the hands of their family. please don't exaggerate my opinion to such ridiculous degrees.

the brain dead are already dead. realthinker's opinion on when a fetus can be aborted most accurately represents my opinion as well. in regards to self-awareness, i was referring to those that are not human or those who do not have the cognitive ability to recognize the self.

Tell that to the Jews. Humans, nigh on each and every one of them, are worthy of the pain their passing causes other humans. Your rejection of folks you've not met is noted, but hardly a sound reason to consider the issue of abortion.

if i were to think about the jews who were killed in the holocaust and feel emotional pain, it is purely my own doing. the nazis who killed those people are not responsible for my pain.

[scourge99]

What about people who are sleeping or in a coma? Is it morally permissible to kill them? They are not "self-aware". What about the brain dead? What about fetuses?

What is the precise point when humans become "self-aware"? What is the precise point people stop being "self-aware"? How can we tell?

to kill someone who is sleeping or in a coma is ethical if this person wished to be killed in this state at that time. it's entirely up to that person.

I agree.

if this person is in a coma and had not specified their preferences, and it seems that this person is never going to be awake again.. the decision is in the hands of their family.

One of your premises is that the person must have an unlikely chance of recovering. But if this person is likely to wake up then I presume it is NOT okay to make the decision to kill them. A fetus is very very likely to become self-aware, probably much more than most coma patients. So taking your reasoning to its logical end, shouldn't we wait for the person to make a decision themselves just like we should not presume that a person would like to die if they are in a coma and will likely recover?

realthinker's opinion on when a fetus can be aborted most accurately represents my opinion as well. in regards to self-awareness, i was referring to those that are not human or those who do not have the cognitive ability to recognize the self.

Why is the cognitive ability of self awareness the standard for determining a right to life?

How can we determine when self-awareness is present or absent in others?

Thought experiment: if a chimpanzee where to have an average human IQ then would you deny him the right to life?

Why are highly intelligent and self aware animals denied their rights while babies are?

---------------

Sorry for all the questions but I find them thought provoking and pertinent to your answers.

[tickitytak]

One of your premises is that the person must have an unlikely chance of recovering. But if this person is likely to wake up then I presume it is NOT okay to make the decision to kill them. A fetus is very very likely to become self-aware, probably much more than most coma patients. So taking your reasoning to its logical end, shouldn't we wait for the person to make a decision themselves just like we should not presume that a person would like to die if they are in a coma and will likely recover?

well, the difference between a coma patient and a fetus is that a coma patient has already lived the life a developed human being and experienced the human world, the human persona. they have recognized the self and formed an identity; to kill them would destroy that person. a fetus is not a person; it has not recognized the self or experienced such a persona. the death of a fetus is not the death of a person.

Why is the cognitive ability of self awareness the standard for determining a right to life?

existence would be unappreciated without the cognitive ability to recognize the self.

How can we determine when self-awareness is present or absent in others?

i'm not entirely sure. we have some very generic frames to work with: humans are self-aware, animals are not. but of course, we should definitely look more into this. i'm fairly convinced though that a fetus is far less "aware" of the self then the most primitive of fully developed animals.

if a chimpanzee were to have an average human IQ then would you deny him the right to life?

are you asking whether or not i would willingly kill a chimp? i don't think i would. it's hard to do something like that when you become empathic and know that this animal is capable of some level of understanding that you can relate to.

Why are highly intelligent and self aware animals denied their rights while babies are?

why are intelligence and self-awareness required for the right to life? i guess because killing something that isn't even consciously aware of itself isn't really a big deal to begin with. it'd kinda be like feeling bad for the Cheerios when you chew your cereal.

[InHocSignoVinces]

I find it interesting that many Christian anti- abortion campaigners are pro-war, once it's against non-christians. I believe that abortion isn't the killing of a 'child', but you are destroying what will BECOME a child. Abortion of a tiny cell blasticist only a week old is very different to aborting one several months later. I don't believe that abortion should be allowed in every case, but in cases of rape and such, no woman should be forced to have a child that she did not want.