Friday, January 11, 2008

thought of the day.16

Denying a woman control over her own body is more immoral than any choice she might make regarding it.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It isn't her own body if it affects an unborn child, too.

john evans said...

I think at a certain point in the development of the child you can make that argument. Certainly, early in the pregnancy the fetus is not a child but a mass of cells with only the potential to be a child. I would be fine with outlawing abortions after a certain stage of development.

Anonymous said...

At any point, it is the potential to be a child. Where can you draw a line and say "you are not a child here, but only here?" A seed has the potential to be a plant. Not all seeds become plants, but there is a 100 % chance that if you grind up that seed and throw it away, it will not become a plant.

john evans said...

I would think at the point in development that the the child has a nervous system that can experience pain would be a point we could say “potential” has become “person.”

A little quick research shows that 88% of abortions are done within the first 12 weeks. It seems the child can feel pain at 8 weeks. I would be in favor of outlawing abortions except in unusual circumstances after 8 weeks. This would undoubtedly add burden to the woman to act quickly but would eliminate much suffering on the part of the aborted fetus/child.

Anonymous said...

I still think there is a flaw in that. If you, as an adult, were under anesthetic, you wouldn't feel it if somebody killed you. Yet it would still be wrong.

john evans said...

I think a difference there is that the fetus has yet to develop the capacity to feel pain whereas the adult’s capacity has just been temporarily incapacitated.

I don’t think there is a perfect point in the development of a child that everyone would be comfortable with as some people consider 2 cells a child with a soul. The suffering threshold seems to be a good middle ground to me.