People who are pro choice say abortion is ok because the “clump of cells” relies on the mother to sustain it, therefore it is a part of her, therefore she has the right to end it.
If a person in a coma is hooked up to a ventilator and a feeding tube, does that mean they are not a life, because they rely on machines and caretakers to sustain them? No, a person in a coma is still a human life. Just as an embryo is a human life. Life starts when a sperm and egg meet and a unique genetic code is created. It is not “part of you” it is a separate individual life.
Adoption is an option, or just wait until you are in a committed relationship to have sex. abortion may be necessary in rare medical cases. But murdering a baby for your own selfish reasons is just wrong.
26 comments
Your analogy is just...not good.
1) Machines aren't alive. Like, dismantling them bit by bit would not even get the most nutcase tree hugger to shed a tear.
2) Amusingly, the scenario you presented actually gives evidence another direction. Catholics consider pulling the plug on such a person to be justifiable. It's not murder in that case as it's simply allowing the person to naturally die.
The person in a coma is a FULLY-FORMED HUMAN BEING you sherbet-head!
Also; If the situation turns out to be hopeless, then....yes....they must pull the plug.
8 years ago, my siblings and I had to make a hard choice similar to the scenario that awifesnewlife is trying to make. My mom was suffering from cancer and was in the final stages of dying. We had to make the choice of increasing the morphine to make her more comfortable. The catch is it would shorten her life. We chose to increase the morphine since we knew she would pass anyway. We didn't want her to suffer longer than she needed to. Until you have been put into that position, you don't know really what you're talking about.
Yyyyeah, I've already told my family, if I'm comatose and obviously not recovering any time soon, they can pull the plug and let what happens happen. Strike one.
Ventilators and feeding tubes are not human beings. The fact that you think they are an appropriate analogy for pregnant women is extremely telling. You are aware that women are human beings, and not inanimate machines, correct? Strike two.
And of course... "just wait until marriage", "murder a babby for selfishness!" Careful there, bucko, you're letting your real intentions slip. You know damn well it isn't that simple, but no, gotta punish those women for having sex. Strike three, yer out.
People who are pro-choice often say that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils. The lump of cells have no functioning nervous system, so it can't feel or experience anything. A child given up for adoption has a functioning nervous system, and might feel unwanted and abandoned its whole life.
Many people who have abortions already have the number of children they want and can care for properly, and they are in steady relationships.
Many have an abortion because they won't be able to care for a child, the very opposite of selfish.
Actually its not murder, that is illegal killing - this is killing within the law which of course your Bible and 10 commandments specifically allows, given there is a long list of legal killings included.
And its not for the mothers selfish reasons either. The reason we allow abortion up to term is SOCIETY's selfish reasons - the ability for females to be fully equal and productive members of society depends upon the ability to control their fertility. At the present time there is no other effective way of emancipating half of humanity, for the ultimate benefit of us all.
Oh, and I think the argument works better with newborns - they are just as dependant upon round the clock care as the unborn, they would both inevitably die without it. We used to treat children as less that full humans so people could do whatever they liked with their own kids, hopefully one day the progress we have made in recognising born children as independent entities with their own (albeit more limited) rights will extend to its logical conclusion and cover all children.
If the machines could give consent to have a person removed from them, then yes, it's like the same thing. Otherwise, fundie Christians suck at analogies.
An abortion is a medical procedure, and is none of your business unless you're the patient. Do you also tell people they shouldn't have breast enhancements, bariatric surgery, or rhinoplasty because those procedures don't fit into your beliefs?
If you think abortions are wrong, don't have one. See how easy that is?
It isn't a "clump of cells,” it's literally a clump of cells. If a body that has zero chance of regaining consciousness is still a human life, then so are boogers you sneeze out, because they're both full of a unique human genetic code. Sentience is a concept you need to investigate.
The argument is spurious. If the fetus is part of the woman's body, she clearly has the right to do with it as she pleases. If it is not, then it is a foreign body and she can choose to leave it where it is or have it removed, since it has no claim to her body or her systems.
Pretty sure machines and medical equipment aren't people. Also pretty sure that those who work in the health field and care for people in comas aren't forced to do so. But it's so gracious of this lady to compare other women to machines. And to claim that women should lack bodily autonomy and forfeit their reproductive rights because someone thinks "just giving it up for adoption" is the super obvious, super easy solution most of the time...
Also, hate to break it to ya, but folks who are in exclusive/long-term relationships still get abortions. Pregnancy and having a child is a real game changer when it comes to a woman's health and her, or a couple's, life. There are always real health risks when a woman goes through pregnancy.
It shouldn't be hard to understand that an embryo/fetus has the potential to be a person, possibly. Obviously many never make it that far, either due to natural causes or medical intervention. Gestation-- which is a burden placed solely on females-- is needed in order to have a baby. Duh.
Warren McIntosh:
Oh, and I think the argument works better with newborns - they are just as dependant upon round the clock care as the unborn
Nope. It's only pretty late in the pregnancy that a fetus has a reasonable chance of survival from any less care than being physically grafted onto another living being in order to use that being's body as a life-support system, which is basically what pregnancy is. This is where bodily autonomy comes in, as nobody has the right to forcibly graft themselves onto you in order to use you as a life-support system - not even a fully conscious, sentient and aware person. The fact a fetus is not this is simply an additional argument as to why abortion is in no way wrong.
No, she has the right to revoke consent to being part of the pregnancy, *even if that takes another life*. And if you think women lose the right to consent when they have sex, that's only fair if men also lose that right--for example, mandatory life-altering, potentially-lethal surgery randomized after sexual encounters for organ donations. Hey, it's someone's LIFE we're talking about! How can they refuse?
“But murdering a baby for your own selfish reasons is just wrong.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
