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?
It's strange in that that is not the way we talk about parts of our body, generally speaking.
biologically it may be classified as living (or may not be, that's still up in the air), but philosophically is it worth something yet? Certainly ants are alive and not worth worrying about their killings, and corpses are dead yet worthy of respect, so "alive" does not mean "worth something" necessarily.
The abortion question is not about biological definitions, but about the question of worth. Clearly a sperm and an egg are not worth saving, yet a full-grown person is worth saving. So where does the switch happen? And before a fetus has formed any relationships (even with its own parents!), there is nothing worthwhile that is destroyed in abortion.
Once again, it's all about offering up definitions to apply rather than facts that might settle anything.
Here's a definition: for something to be a person it must have formed a personality. Does a zygote or fetus have a personality yet? Is it zany, or depressed, or politically conservative? Does it have a favorite color?
Fetuses can't be persons because they don't have a personality yet.
yes..because it's a stupid question. this is a case where religion makes good people bad...what difference does it make, really?
Life began billions of years ago and is a continuous process. The debates about life beginning at conception or birth or when the baby is viable outside the womb are in my opinion moot. If the process of conceiving and bearing children could happen without the need for a woman's body this debate would be so much different. That a baby needs another person's body is the reason why I am pro-choice, it is unfair to for a woman to be forced against her will to sacrifice her body for another person.
All a man has to do is stick his penis in a woman and move it around long enough to ejaculate and his part is over. The woman has to carry it for 9 months and deal with the permanent effects on her body that's why it's her choice to make not the mans.
However, the father should have rights to demand termination of the pregnancy due to the life-long consequences of carrying it to term.
*Just want to note that this comment was a reply to another comment that now doesn't exist anymore.*
Misanthrope left Think Atheist, so there will probably be a lot of hanging comments.
I think you're overestimating how much men care about having children. There certainly are some, but the day when men lose sleep over whether they will have a male heir are gone. I have a daughter and I love her, but frankly at the time my wife became unexpectedly pregnant, it was up to her as far as I was concerned. Had I known how much bringing a child into the world would change our marriage, and how expensive it would be, along with other inconveniences (taking her to school events and swim meets, etc.), at the time I might have voted against it. I don't regret it now though.
It's the woman who gets gets stretch marks, hemorrhoids, loses her perky boobs, and who will likely be the one who has to make sacrifices along the way to rear the child. All that considered, it seems right to give the male a minority vote at best. Perhaps no more than the right he already has to inject his 2 cents.
Being pregnant is one of the riskiest things a woman can do. It's only because of modern medicine and technology that child birth is no longer the number one cause of death for women and that fewer women suffer from debilitating side effects.
There are many positives about having children for those who wish to have children and feel they are ready for them and can properly support them. For people who do not wish to have children and are not ready to support them children bring many negatives.