REPLY #13 TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) Laws are not necessarily ethical. So your argument based on laws is not really sound. It you want a truly philosophical argument you must move past laws.
(MB) Abortion is an issue that can be argued from many different perspectives -- all of which have merit and relevance. Legal arguments seek to point out realistic difficulties that could be encountered if certain laws are passed to regulate or restrict abortions.
(R) As far as medical evidence. What evidence are you talking about. Scientist aagree that at the point of inception the embryo has the DNA for its entire make up. At the moment of inplantation is is viable.
(MB) I think you have a misunderstanding of the term "viable". Certainly, nobody would argue that an embryo is capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb.
(R) Just because Goverments have taken a stand to not count unborn humans does not mean that they are less human. They have Human DNA. So the real question is what constitutes a human?
(MB) Our legal system draws a dividing line at the moment of birth that effectively constitutes the point at which "human" status is gained. Prior to that, no "human" is considered to exist. Your argument is equivalent to claiming that a lump of dough is equal to a finished loaf of baked bread.
(R) I would say that those containing Human DNA are human. Regardless of their state of development.
(MB) What about a dead human? The corpse still contains human DNA but it is not considered to be "human" in the legal sense of the word.
(R) Since they are human they are granted the rights of a human, to grow in freedom to their full potential.
(MB) Again, your "human DNA" argument would also have to extend to corpses. Obviously, that won't work so another definition will be required.
(R) Many people argue that since the fetus is dependent on the mother to sustain life, it is despensable. However, my children are dependent on me to sustain their life. If I do not feed them, they will starve. If I do not cloth them they will freeze. If I do not send them to college they will live with me forever :)
(MB) You are mixing together two different types of "support". You have to provide for your children and put food on the table, but you don't have to feed it to them, chew it for them, digest it for them, etc. They can also survive very nicely without a 24-hour attachment to you. A fetus (prior to attaining medical viability) is a different story. It won't live outside the mother's womb no matter how much you try to care for it.
(R) Are the elderly and infirm no human because the depend on other to sustain their lives?
(MB) Euthanasia is a different topic and one which also has compelling arguments in its favor.
(R) It is not a reasonable argument.
(MB) I guess that depends on what one considers "reasonable".
(R) The idea of unwanted children and possilbe complications are really just justifications for doing what makes OUR lives better. Unfortunatley the extreemist have made this a question or religon, women's rights and everything else under the sun. But it is really a question of our philosophy. Will we work to build a better society based on reason and intellegence or will we allow our own personal desires cloud the good of society.
(MB) We most definitely should work towards the promotion of reason and intelligence. Those qualities should be applied to questions like abortion instead of the normal outpouring of emotion or righteous indignation. Unfortunately, I can't think of an argument against abortion that does not derive from some combination of emotion or religion.