I Am Truly On the Fence About This

So I am wrestling with morality of abortion.  I am truly on the fence on this issue.  And though I do not usually align myself with religious fanatics, I can actually understand their feelings about this.  If a fetus is truly human, then abortion would, in fact,  be murder.  And the right to life of the unborn child would, in my mind, superscede the woman's right to choose, even though the fetus is totally dependent on the mother's body to survive. 

 The question then for me is when is a human a human?  I don't think any rational person would argue that an unborn child 8.5 months in is not, in fact, already human (although it has been argued otherwise in this group!)  But is a 3 months old fetus human?  Is a 4 week old embryo human?  Is the zygote human?  if there is a line, a point where a clump of cells becomes human, where do we draw it?  who decides?  doctors?  lawyers?  politicians?  a popular vote?

I don't buy this beating heart argument that is used so much by pro-lifers.  What is this fascination with the heart?  Why not the liver?  Or the lungs?  Are they not just as important to support life?  To me, if any organ makes humans human, it would be the brain.  That's what makes us who we are.  So maybe that's what we should be looking at.  Brain function. 

I am of the opinion that when one is not sure about something then it is better to err on the side of caution.  Therefore, i am leaning a little bit towards being pro-life.  But as I said, I am on the fence.  I appreciate the difficulty this issue poses.  In fact, I see it as the one issue that could divide America in half.



PobbleToes PobbleToes
41-45, M
3 Responses Feb 26, 2009

I've always been pro-life, but not necessarily religious so I have researched the subject quite a bit. I did this to understand the pro-choice POV and was ready to switch if the argument was there. I walked away firmly pro-life. So here is my POV.<br />
<br />
To answer your question simply is that an embryo/fetus is a human being. Scientifically this is so. The law however does not recognize it as a PERSON. It is very important to grasp that. Basically it states that because the fetus does not have enough mental capacity to think, understand self, or "act human," it is not deserving of protection of the law. A lot of pro-choicers use this argument, however they are against infanticide and eugenics. This to me is a double standard and even hypocritical. Why? Because true defenders of that argument realize that newborns and even adults with certain mental disabilities either by birth or developed later in life (i.e. Alzheimer's) are also "non-persons" ba<x>sed on that argument. I feel that if you cannot be a supporter of infanticide and eugenics ba<x>sed on that premise then you have no business being pro-choice ba<x>sed on that premise. BTW, the whole personhood mentality is ba<x>sed on old philosophical ideas from different cultures. So I would say that if religion needs to be left out of the argument, then so should philosophy. <br />
<br />
The next pro-choice defense is that a woman has the right to her own body. This is a valid argument, but not sufficient in my opinion to defend abortion. Why? Because if you remove the personhood argument from the equation, then it comes down to two human beings with conflicting rights. The mother's right to her body and the fetus' right to life. Now lets be logical. We all have rights, however our rights have a sort of value system. For example my right to drive is not as high up as your right to cross a street safely, or a man's right to sexual satisfaction is not greater than a woman's right to safety. In society, life should be the greatest right because death is irrevocable. There is nothing more to take away from a human being. (Personally some people think it's freedom or sanity or whatever else, but those are personal values, not those of a society.) To me that means that the fetal right to life trumps those of the mother's right to her own body. And before someone says that is slavery and why should a fetus have that right, I would answer this. Right now children have certain rights (positive rights) that adults do not. For example children have the right to food, clothing and shelter. Society understands that their defenslessness makes them eligible for these rights (at least in a civilized society.) Yet an adult can't demand this of the government. So if born children have the positive right for those things, then how can the right to life be ethically denied to a fetus?<br />
<br />
I don't believe that it can. That is why I am pro-life.

On the other hand...<br />
Do we not, as a society, accept that war is sometimes necessary whenever our freedoms are attacked or our way of life threatened? Are not numerous innocent men, women, and children killed in these wars that we wage? Do we not accept this as a necessary evil? Are we not saying that freedom is more valuable than life itself? How different is this then from a woman who views an unwanted pregnancy as an affront to her personal rights and freedoms? Has she not the right to terminate this pregnancy to preserve her freedom? Is this just another necessary evil?

i am against this and its really a killing of a human that we cannot justified.. we should think before taking such decision in our relationships in which partner become pregnant without knowing its results and we should control our wishes.. and desires too. we should not cross the limits.. <br />
<br />