make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

I was going to respond to

I was going to respond to someone else on that issue along their "none of your business" arguments. But this one seems better. The fact is that deciding at what moment a developing individual is wothy of the same standards of Human Rights as later developmental stages is, for lack of a better term, "tradition". The fact is that each of us has our own preconceptions of what "life" is as well as what "Human" is. Think about these two situations: The Birthday. A "tradition". We have, in a significant part of Human society, decided to recognize the time of Birth. Why? Biology doesn't care about whether we recognize and celebrate a child's birth any more than it cares if we celebrate the conception date. How about medical conditions? Take me for example. I've been visually impaired all my life. Traditionally, many would say, when asked, that we were visually impaired "since birth". HOWEVER, much of my condition is inherited. Which means genetically. Which means, in fact, that I've been visually impaired since CONCEPTION. Yet, tradition has instilled the response "since birth". Biology doesn't care where we, as a society, recognizes what looks like, or is in general, Human. Biology says that a Human fertilized egg, an egg produced by a Human and fertilized by sperm produced by a Human, will develop along Human developmental stages. NO other species develops under those circumstances. Doesn't require ANYONE's belief one way or the other. Biology says this is the way it works. Doesn't matter, in fact, if we have a tradition to recognize the passing of an individual at any stage of their development. So, whether we see a single cell as being a Human because of it's Human genes, or a baby in the second trimester as being worthy of Human Rights protections or even a child in the third trimester. These are decisions based on individual belief. And if we argue the point that it's not Human and therefore expendable by need or intent at one stage of development and no one else's Right to interfere in that, why would it be appropriate to say that someone else who holds a different view, a view that an individual at a later stage of development still can be disposed of, for whatever reason, and that the person who thinks that the later stage is actually Human should just keep their nose out of it? If we argue based solely on Freedom of Choice, then abortion, even after birth (and no sarcasm or smart remark is meant here), should, in fact, be legal because no one else has the Right to decide for another Parent what they may or may not do with their own child. You may use "viable" as an argument, but who are you to decide for someone else what is or is not "viable"? We can both come up with various arguments about what "viable" is to support a lower or higher developmental stage. So, scientifically and biologically, we should be deciding what Human is, rather than using tradition or opinion. In the end, though, without fixing and improving all other alternatives and creating new alternatives, outright banning abortion, even in part, isn't sufficiently helpful. Andrew


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.