Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?
Misanthrope, it is entirely relevant to animals when you are comparing them to infants. You are trying to apply personhood of humans to pre-person humans. An infant does not develop the capacity for rational thought or imagination until well after birth. This is completely measurable as infants lack the capacity to even remember things that are removed from sight as I mentioned before for the first three months after birth or longer. Imagination, reasoning, those aren't even on the horizon for infants.
Infants do not problem-solve. Later on-as the brain and personhood develops, this capacity develops too. But you are using mature humans in an abortion debate which isn't really making sense. I am at least working with a 2.5 month old newborn here. You are right, it has to do with intelligence. A baby is pretty lacking in that department even months after birth. This is proven using recognition testing, which is getting more and more precise since Piaget first started this study of human intelligence development so long ago.
You make some very valid points here, John. All the arguments that people can make about it being OK to kill animals are very much applicable to a fetus, since it is not sentient nor intelligent. Well put, sir.
Hey Brandon, thanks for the compliment, but the argument is just a summary of Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. They really make the most astounding arguments concerning the issue of abortion and infanticide.
I was a conservative Christian at the time that I was introduced to Peter Singer. It totally killed my belief that life happens at conception. Singer mentions that if life happens at conception, then the person splits into two different people if twinning occurs.
here is the full debate. http://hulk03.princeton.edu:8080/WebMedia/lectures/20060329marquis-...
You should see what happens to "feral" children. We take our brains/states of mind for granted. Our "advanced" brains are not that way by default, but by exposure to animals that are already advanced (i.e. its parents/family) and society.
I'd Google it and post a YouTube vid about feral children, but I have a feeling it'll be a futile endeavor.
The answer is simple. If a woman is just one day pregnant in any given year, declare the "child" on her income taxes as a dependent and let Uncle Sam tell her whether it is viable or not.
Just something to lighten up the mood:
hahaha this always makes me feel better :D
If it's wrong to terminate a human fetus because each conception is a result of the hand God breathing life into the fertilized egg, then it's also wrong to terminate a fertilized dog, turtle, or fish egg.
Caviar, anyone? Lol
But honestly, people need to stop being such hypocrites when it comes to this topic. We act like the human race is more "sacred" and meaningful than any other specimen on Earth. As this point has been brought up a couple of times already, what is the difference between aborting a human embryo or fetus vs. a canine embryo or fetus? Or a cat, bird, alligator, anything... Nothing. The only reason people are so against abortion in humans is because: A.) We are a selfish and egotistical race. B.) We are, contrary to how it may seem at times, very intelligent and able to feel much stronger and more complex emotions than pretty much any other species. So even before the embryo/fetus has developed to the point where it can be considered human, we form an immediate bond with it - typically.
We are selfish and egotistical, but that really does not get at the core of the issue.
Would you consider that your choice of a mate is based on how well that mate will protect that offspring and you. Knowing this I think you should also consider the male perspective that although we do have an interest in protecting an offspring we have a lot less invested in a single offspring. So if a man is able to trick a women into keeping a child and not afford her any protection then he is free to go off and find another mate. I do not think that this is the whole story but it gets closer to a biological truth.
You're right. It's not the entire story of it, just a general basis. There's definitely a lot more to it though. I'd also like to add that I wasn't trying to seem biased or anything on matter of the sexes. Men and women alike, we're all extraordinarily arrogant.