Man, I was hoping for some religion with my politics. Oh well. 1. I'm pro-choice. IMO it just doesn't make sense to define the starting point of a life as anything other than birth. 2. I can't say without a doubt that no crime is worth capital punishment, but what I definitely believe is that we can never be sure enough of a given person's guilt to kill them. The death penalty is 100% final, so it seems like the only way to justify it is if you're 100% sure of someone's guilt-- and that's just not possible.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel differently about abortions very early on in the pregnancy (e.g. the morning after pill) than those that occur late. That is, if someone were to theoretically (and I know in many places this is prevented by law) abort their pregnancy the day before they were due, would you still argue the fetus is not alive?
Hm, I have always found this position hard to understand, which is why I am curious. In fact, it is because of this 'thought experiment' that I define life to start at conception. To me, aborting a fetus a day before it is due is much much worse than doing so early on. A day before the due date, the fetus is completely viable, so to me there is little difference between this and murdering a newborn. We could think of the even more absurd scenario in which you kill the fetus once labor has actually started (after all, it can be a long process). What about two days before? Three days? This thought process always reminds me of Sorites Paradox I agree that defining life to begin at some arbitrary point in the pregnancy makes very little sense, but I go in the opposite direction than you and say it begins with conception rather than birth. Anyway, I don't mean to challenge your beliefs so don't take the above the wrong way or anything. Just explaining why I (and probably other pro-lifers) see conception as the logical starting point.
Well, for the sake of discussion we can continue. Why don't you agree with the above? We can agree that someone is alive once they are born. What has changed about them through the process of exiting the womb that differentiates them from how they were an hour before, as a fetus. The only thing I can think of is physical location, changing from in to out of the womb.
They're a fully formed, totally independent person. I guess it's the independence that matters most to me. So maybe it makes sense to say a life starts at the cutting of the umbilical cord? I hadn't really thought about that before.What has changed about them through the process of exiting the womb that differentiates them from how they were an hour before, as a fetus. The only thing I can think of is physical location, changing from in to out of the womb.
In what way do you see them as independent? I concede that they can breath on their own, but there's not much else a newborn can do on its own. A baby right out of the womb certainly can't provide for itself and will likely die if left alone. How is it more independent now than before? With regards to the umbilical cord, would you consider killing a baby who is out of the womb yet still attached via this cord as morally the same as taking the morning after pill?
Physically. They're no longer physically attached to their mothers. Probably not. But I'm still just considering the idea that a baby attached at the umbilical cord isn't alive yet. Actually, y'know what, get back to me on this in the morning. I need some time to think.In what way do you see them as independent?
With regards to the umbilical cord, would you consider killing a baby who is out of the womb yet still attached via this cord as morally the same as taking the morning after pill?