//M,
I assure you, I am not trying to dodge your question. I'm telling you I don't have all the medicial details you want. I'm also telling you that not having all the details does not automatically make my point of view, from a moral standpoint, any less powerful an argument.
I didn't say anything about whether the dodging was intentional. I assure you, I'm not asking for medical details anymore. That's why I said:
but Im going to assume that youre not a doctor and that youd leave it up to the doctors, so Ill forgo the question which, of course, makes the job of convincing myself that this is an important time period more difficult.
In addition, it sounds like a wholly inane point of dispute to continue to question why I've choosen this point in a fetus' development as the cut-off point. Its axiomatic. The reason of why is built into the answer. You either buy into it or you don't. How many different ways do you want me to put it?
It should not be a wholly inane point of dispute. It should not be axiomatic and the reason why should not be built into the answer. You shouldn't have to say that either I buy into it or I don't.
Once again; If we can legally define death, we can legally define life. Since it is the goal of our society to protect the rights of those living within it, wouldn't it be sensible to extend these rights only once the people in question fullfill the criteria of life?
Once again; I don't buy into the premise here. Explain why the legal definition of death should be the legal definition of life. The act of dying and being born are very different.
One goal of our society is to protect the rights of human beings living within it. It would be sensible to extend these rights to human beings. The question is when does the fetus become a human, not alive. Life is most certainly present when the first two cells divide. That doesn't make it human.
Duke,
I use that point as the moment of emancipation, because at that time the fetus is no longer 100% dependent upon the mother for its livelihood and existence... As soon as that developmental event occurs, there become multiple paths by which the child can grow to adulthood.
I disagree. I think that as soon as the child can survive outside the mother with all of our techological assistance there become multiple paths that development occurs. I think your real argument is that if there is a law, it should not be dependent on the amount of money the parents can put into technology to keep the baby alive. That's a good reason for ruling technology out of the question. So your cutoff point is the
lastest point at which the child could possibly have multiple paths to adulthood - assuming the child can still be taken out of the mother surgically. But that's a problem. Do we assume that the parents can pay for surgery?
Ok, here are my list of problems with the argument at the moment. I'm not very good at covering them all in paragraph form and I think it will be easier to respond to if I list them out.
- Does the "multiple paths" argument happen at the point of survival with minimal technology because of the fact that if technology were invovled then the parents ability to pay doctors would be a driving factor?
-If the answer to the above is yes, what about the technology and cost invovled with the surgical removal of the child?
-If theoretical self-sustaining life outside of the mother is the cutoff point, why is it then that dead people are still considered individuals and still have certain rights?
-What about the fact that even after the child has acheived this theoretical self-stustanining life condition, it is still part of the mother? It is still physically, biologically part of the mother. I'm still not seeing how fundamentally just because part of the mother could live on its own if it were removed, she loses control of that part of her body. Let me illustrate with a thought experimanet:
If all of humanity were attached via living tissue and shared nutrients through that tissue - say - we were a big ball of humanity all wrapped up in tissue. Let's say we still had our brains and mouths and apendeges. Let's say that if we were surgically removed from the ball of humanity that we would then become self-sustaining individuals. Does that mean that while we are wrapped up in the ball of humanity, we are individuals even then? I would argue that we would be one giant being capable of being dissected into multiple beings. Not multiple beings capable of being emancipated. Does the potential for individual self-sustaining life infer individuality? <- I think this is the crux of the disagreement.
Both of you,
Don't give up on me here. I'm not trying to be rude or closed minded. I'm going to throw some picky, weird or tough questions at both of you because that's what it is taking for me to understand your point of view. If it seems like we're going around in circles, it's only because I don't understand your argument yet.
