You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #26: An arbitrary distinction. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. An arbitrary distinction.
Edited on Mon Jul-13-09 04:18 PM by gorfle
I think this is where we have the problem. From your post, you must think that a collection of cells, not viable outside the womb, is a person. To me, a fetus becomes a person only when it is viable.

The problem with this is that there is no magic indicator as to when this "viability" event happens. And as medical technology progresses, the definition of "viable" is going to continue to change, pushing farther and farther back to conception.

To me, life begins at conception. Any other marker is arbitrary.

And even when it is viable outside the womb, if there are medical complications that would make the baby's life a short and painful one (such as having no brain), again it is not my business to decide unless I am the mother--any more than it is my business to decide if an adult who is in a coma with irreversible brain damage should be taken off life support. It is a decision that can only be made by a physician and the loved ones (if a DNR isn't in place).

I agree with you. But you can see why some people don't. Society does take a stand in preventing people from killing other people, even when they are not directly involved. Even people who are brain dead, as they Terri Schiavo case demonstrates.

But you are bringing up a special case - brain damaged fetuses. What society really takes exception to is killing innocent, healthy people, even when they are not directly involved. What about the ones where the mother's life is not in danger, or where the fetus is not damaged somehow? Just a normal, healthy fetus that, if left alone, would grow to be a normal human being.

Just as someone would want society to step in and prevent someone from killing someone on the street, personally involved or not, you can see how some would want society to step in and prevent someone from killing a fetus.

Like I said, I personally have resolved that it is OK to kill people under certain circumstances, and I'm all for a woman to be able to kill her fetus at any time for any reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC