Mine is that abortion is actually killing a human life in every case, but that is totally fine often times, as we shouldn't have to place as much value on really tiny humans vs larger, especially born ones in all cases, or even most if it doesn't suit us. I think abortion should be legal up to a certain point and that it should be the mother's choice whether to terminate, but I think most pro-choicers are too chickenshit to call a spade a spade and admit that we want to be able to kill tiny humans for what amounts to no more than convenience or to correct poorly thought out decisions in many cases. A lot harder to defend when you put it like that.
Heh, came back and read this right after shocking some crazypants pro-lifer on Facebook by not being offended when she called me "callous, heartless, and cruel" for asserting that I don't give a damn whether or not a fetus is a person or where life begins, because I'd gladly kill a full-sized adult, too, if that was the only alternative to using my own internal organs to sustain it for nine months, culminating in its removal through a painful process that would at best permanently change my body and at worst kill me. OK, so that's callous, heartless, and cruel. Fine by me. It's still my choice and I intend to exercise it if necessary, after taking all possible precautions to avoid it. Yes, I goddamn well feel I can kill tiny humans if they inconvenience me and the only alternative is supporting them inside my body against my will, and if I ever have to do so, I guarantee that more children will benefit from that choice than be harmed by it, considering that my no-kids status is what allows me the flexibility to do as much charitable work as I do, much of which benefits children.
I'm with you mostly; I don't think it's so hard to defend. The thing is, the question of abortion is one of the most difficult ethical/moral questions we have, because what you're dealing with is a spectrum of life from the single-cell to the fully-formed bawling smiling baby. You're dealing with a process which is mostly beyond human comprehension at this point--a process which takes a form of life which most people obliterate by the trillions on a daily basis (in the form of bacteria) to something which is so complex and mysterious as to be effectively the last true "magic" of the scientific world: the sapient human. The question of where to draw the line and how to formulate logically a policy for barring or permitting the systematic killing of organisms along this spectrum is one of the most ferociously gray areas you can come up with. Saydrah makes an interesting point below, which is that a pregnant mother is protecting herself from intense bodily transformation (and potential damage) by aborting a pregnancy. Another way to think of it is the euthanasia of a human being which has no quality of life by definition. This is analogous to the regular killing of humans who are irreversibly damaged to the point of being unconscious or terminally miserable. The place where this analogy falls down I guess is that while fetuses are completely incapacitated human beings, they are all but destined to "recover" by growing up and becoming (presumably) functional members of society. So aborting a fetus in this sense is no different from unplugging a Terry Schiavo who is almost certain to undergo a full recovery in the coming years, but a recovery which the caretakers are unwilling or unable to finance and supervise. In the end, I think abortion should be legal, but mostly that is a gut feeling. A feeling which is based on a respect for the intimate connection between the fetus and the physical identity of the mother as well as a recognition of the immense problems which unwanted pregnancies can lead to. In a pragmatic sense, I suppose the question should come down to whatever people feel is right in each occasion. Where and when you can say that an abortion should be forbidden is really hard to decide in, say, a conference room. Or, more accurately, our Congressional offices. When it comes down to it, I think people should do what seems the most right, and the least gross, and whatever moral implications there are will be in the interpretations of the people who see it happen.
The crazy thing is that because this is a 'spectrum' as you aptly described it, attempts to define life along it are arbitrary almost by definition. The least and perhaps only non-arbitrary place to define the beginning of a human life is at conception as I see it. This rankles people in the pro-choice camp, but probably rankles lifers more when the consequence of that view is that i feel you should still be able to kill it. So really the conversation to me is about how we value human life at different stages, and the question of where does life begin is secondary and kind of misses the point in the context of not holding the view that all human life is objectively valuable or sacred. The whole problem is made worse by the fact that there is no right answer but rather a cultural spectrum of ethical stances...which only makes sense.
But you can't paint all situations like that. For a lot of people, they did take the correct precautions and it still happened. Having a child is a huge financial and emotional burden, something that a lot of people aren't ready for. I'm of the opinion that it definitely is the beginnings of a life, but a life it isn't. Up to a certain point it can't survive outside of the womb, let alone react to stimuli.
It is alive but is it 'a life'? To me up to a certain point the foetus is only 'alive' in the sense that it is another part of the living mother. It really depends on what you consider 'life' to be, right? The foetus does not think for itself until a certain point and does not experience pain independently until another. Is it a life if it is not even capable of feeling its death approaching? Let alone understanding what death is? Surely the foetus is simply a part of the mother until it is able to think independently (even in the most basic terms). To me it would be strange to consider the foetus as 'a life' as it is not, at least until a fairly late stage, anything more than a part of the mother. It is part of her 'life' and she can remove it in the same way she might remove a wart.
Fetus is alive and shares chromosomes of both the mother and the father. Most of the points you made apply to newborn babies as well, including total dependency. Something that is alive is a life, by definition. All of your tests and qualifications for what constitutes a life are arbitrary, and I think speak directly to why society has such trouble defining life along a spectrum of development. I define it at the point where it begins, conception, and simply say its just not that valuable at that point unless the parents place a value on it, instead of trying to move the definition of where it begins for everybody else.
I agree with what you say but I personally take that train of logic slightly further. I believe that the younger the human is, the less of a person they are, they have had fewer experiences and have had less time to form a self (so an early foetus is barely a person and thus not a great shame if the life is ended). As a result I also think that when children die it is less of a tragedy (still obviously a bad thing though) than when an adult dies. When the Sandy Hook shooting news broke I realised how differently I valued human life to most people. I felt most angry about the teachers that died than the children, in their 30-some years of existence think how many thoughts they had thought, how many experiences and interactions they had which all contributed to a complex and sentient, interesting being. Compare this with the young children who had spent less than 7 or 8 years alive. Sure they had potential, but potential doesn't contribute to what kind of person you are. So that's probably my most controversial opinion.
Is masturbating killing a person? When does it become a person? Does it have to have a brain? How well developed does it have to be to be called a "person"? I'd rather kill a baby than a whale or a tiger.
Please no. That's a load of crap and you know it. It's very easy to distinguish between something which has half the chromosomes needed to be considered human and something that has all of them (or close in the case of some mutations :D) Of course, on a technicality the statement is correct. Masturbation does kill sperm which amounts to cells. The intended meaning of that propaganda phrase is that it's killing a human life (closer to the legal definition of murder) which is just plain dumb. That sort of completely useless, overly dramatic, and completely fallacious statement shouldn't be welcome here. If only we had "downvotes" ... I know you were probably trying to be funny or just spewing something you've heard dozens of times before, but please, no.