Aside from the "morality" argument, is there any reason to not to legalize abortion?

13»

Comments

  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    tessaria, can u please define what a person is? an amoeba has Dna and i assume is independent of its creator, would that make it a person?
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    Tessaria wrote:
    Don't we already have a thread for this?

    Well, for argument's sake, I say yes, you CAN argue against abortion aside from the morality stance: a scientific one. Like what I've said in the other thread, a fetus, at the moment of conception, has his own DNA, something that is entirely unique and separate from either one of his parents. That tells me that the person inside the womb is a person, and not just some pesky 'organ', or extension of the woman's body.

    Right...Let's just say that scientifically, it's indeed true that the fetus is considered a person (although I will agree with freakster, in actuality, that not all things with DNA's are persons). Isn't it still a moral debate on whether or not to kill that little "person"?

    I mean, the only reason science was used in your argument was to give proof of life, which consequently ends up as part of the morality argument, anyway....
  • JaywalkerJaywalker quantum cat PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Well, for argument's sake, I say yes, you CAN argue against abortion aside from the morality stance: a scientific one. Like what I've said in the other thread, a fetus, at the moment of conception, has his own DNA, something that is entirely unique and separate from either one of his parents. That tells me that the person inside the womb is a person, and not just some pesky 'organ', or extension of the woman's body.

    Tessaria we were having the same discussion on the “when does life begin” thread. You haven't answered my last post there though.
    It is a scientific fact that at the moment of conception the fetus acquires its own DNA that is different from its mother’s. However, that just explains when a fetus gets its genetic identity, science doesn’t say that having human DNA is the sole basis for a being to be considered a “person” and “alive”.
    “When does human life begin” is a question more suited to philosophy than science. For it to be considered a scientific question, we must first define what qualities an organism must possess for it to be considered a person. Just having human DNA is a bit conflicting Since after all, almost every cell in your body has the same human genetic identity and I think everyone here would agree that a human cell is not “human” on its own.

    Identical twins have identical DNA and yet they’re considered as two individual human beings.
    –Is it because they have separate bodies? What about conjoined twins? They’re not
    ”separate” are they just one person?
    -Is it because each has a separate consciousness? A zygote doesn’t have a brain therefore it cannot have consciousness can it be considered an individual?

    By the way These are mostly logical points, not moral ones.
    bludwid wrote:
    Isn't it still a moral debate on whether or not to kill that little "person"?
    It could be a law debate. If the state gives protection to “persons” then it should protect unborn babies from abortion if it is proven that they are indeed persons. Unless of course, by being born, that little person would endanger the life of another person then it becomes a purely moral debate about which life has more value.
  • bludwidbludwid U Want Somma Dis? PExer
    Jaywalker wrote:
    It could be a law debate. If the state gives protection to “persons” then it should protect unborn babies from abortion if it is proven that they are indeed persons. Unless of course, by being born, that little person would endanger the life of another person then it becomes a purely moral debate about which life has more value.

    At the same time, isn't the Law's basic foundation of right and wrong derived from moral principles?

    When you talk "law", you talk "right and wrong", too...

    Like, killing is forbidden by law... but why? it's because it just is the wrong thing to do, right?

    that's why my argument is, in the end, when you strip off all the shiny papers and ribbons, it boils down to the basic concept of "is it right, or is it wrong", "are we killing or are we not", and "will I go to hell and burn, or is it ok", which are all, basically, moral questions.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file