Really? It, the cell mass, loses the life it has, and it does have life. Whether it is A Human Life or is only Some Human Life (as in something that is of humans) can be argued. I'm surprised that you don't recognize this as life, low level, and parasitic though it is. But this just goes to zoebird's point that there are many ways to view the developing fetus.Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
it's not at all 'desperate.'Call me crazy. i find babies to be of more value than mice or insects. In fact, I just stepped on a bug.This comparison is, in my opinion, reaching desperately for something or anything to justify your position on the issue..
Foremost, I brought forth several examples when killing humans is considered valid -- not something that would be considered morally reprehensible. Even among the most conservative stances, this can include abortion.
Yet, you refuse to discuss these issues at all. And, they are related.
In regards to animal rights issues, they take their argument perspective from the same place. Their primary slogan is "meat is murder!" This is not just saying -- as it is -- that it is killing. They are saying that it is killing with a specific moral implication.
Beyond modern animal rights activists, there are those of specific religious communities (ie, Jains) who hold that all animals' -- including an insect's -- life is just as valuable and important as a human, and as a practice of ahimsa (non-harming/non-violence) our obligation to non-harming, to not-klling extends even to them.
The idea being that if we truly value life, and we truly value not killing/not harming, then what we would choose is to live absolutely in accordance with this.
Gandhi -- who was raised with Jain influences -- wrote about The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism which describes the problem of killing for food, industrialization of food, and ahimsa (nonviolence) practices.
In fact, I'm looking at this notion of killing in the broadest possible application and it's moral implications.
As a person who practiced vegetarianism and veganism over a decade (though currently eats meat), a person who practices buddhism and teaches yoga, I am familiar with these philosophical underpinnings as well -- and how they relate to pro-life stances and ideologies.
I am also familiar with how complex that these issues can become -- as a person who has lived a vegan and vegetarian life, and did so as a method of ahimsic/nonviolence practice, and yet had to set that aside for health reasons. I am also a person who does -- in fact -- avoid killing mice and insects in so much as I can. Infestation must be dealt with for human health reasons; but other than that, I have no qualms with tolerance. I even choose to actively live with spiders (as they keep other insect populations in check).
Likewise, one of my dear friends -- a vegan since age 16 (so 20 years now) -- currently works in the pro-life political movement as well as offering her services at the clinic where I once volunteered (I believe she is one of the counselors). I greatly value our talks together, including how she manages to avoid killing in as many forms as humanly possible. . . likely even moving toward a more quaker stance on peace activism, taxes and war.
This is simply to illustrate that these notions and ideas are not 'far afield.' I suppose you can say this: If you have been asking Jane to "think about it" in regards to when she considers how to view a developing infant, I suppose I am asking you to consider how far you're going to take this notion of "killing is absolutely wrong."
Because I have considered it, lived it, and practiced it.
Last edited by Zoebird; 3-17-12 at 1:05am.
I'm sorry for this accidental inference. I can see how it can be taken this way, and It was not what I intended at all.
Instead, I meant to use it to say that I understand and value this specific position -- that of life being connected to heart beats and brain waves!
This was also intended to be reflective of your assertion that your DIL is pregnant and that the infant has a heartbeat (congratulations btw!), and I wanted to call attention to that element as being important.
I'm sorry for not doing so with more grace and clarity in my communication.
I'm also sorry if you believe -- because of this -- that I am somehow "sick."
I think Jane's perspective, as quoted by Iris Lily, is particularly interesting.
It is defining personhood in terms of consciousness, and that if a infant is not conscious at a certain stage of development (which is why brain waves might be an important aspect of determining consciousness), then the infant experiences no sense of self, and therefore no sense of personal loss of life in the way that one of us would -- we being fully conscious human beings.
Likewise, the position would seem to assert that the mother also doesn't loose anything, likely because she is not at all emotionally attached to the gestating infant (which an ultrasound may create) nor did she have the desire for that, nor may it even be necessary of her.
To talk to my own experience with pregnancy, I have two.
My first pregnancy was accidental. We had a double birth control failure: our barrier method failed, and I was not as adept at FAM at that time (having only just started about two weeks prior!). I thought that I had passed the fertile phase, but apparently not. My menses then, was 2-ish weeks late, which would put us just at 6 weeks since the last menses. This is generally considered "6 weeks pregnant" but is likely closer to 4. So, the baby was in the zygote/blastocyst/embryo stage at the time of the miscarriage.
Honestly, I hadn't even realized I was pregnant. It isn't unusual for one of my cycles to go long, often several of them to go long, and I have a poor concept of time (it is good that I chart, honestly!). But, keeping records at the time, this would make sense. It wasn't until I was menstruating into day 10 or so that I even considered that I was miscarrying (and it was the toughest period I'd ever had!), and then I realized that this was the case on research.
I think that had the pregnancy 'stuck' -- I would have an older child. This is just how things roll out for me -- morally speaking. I wasn't 'ready' -- but we were capable. I was 27 at the time (might have been 26).
My second pregnancy was planned. After the miscarriage, I really worked on my charting. I wanted to know several things: 1. my overall health; 2. the state of my fertility itself; and 3. whether or not I had issues that lead to the miscarriage that I could solve naturally or head off before deciding to become pregnant again. Simultaneously, DH and I started to "take seriously" that we would ahve children not just "someday" but -- that we would. We sat down and talked about we wanted to create in our lives before having children, so that we could welcome them as comfortably as possible. The primary situation was financial -- we wanted to get to living onto one income, so that I could SAHP if we so chose.
It took 5 years to both get the fertility in order (very mildly low thyroid function lead to broken luteal phases that were solved through diet/lifestyle) as well as to get financially in order, and it gave us time to do the other things as well.
We tried and connected on the first go. I felt very blessed that this was the case, but knew that I wasn't "out of the woods" because many pregnancies fail in the first trimester.
I was also cautious not to get "too attached" to the baby in this trimester. I know it might sound cold or mean, but I was protecting myself emotionally for another miscarriage as well as prior to getting pregnant, preparing myself for it "not working" the first few tries. I was -- you might say -- cautiously optimistic.
I chose, for many reasons, to have an unmechanized pregnancy. This meant -- effectively -- no allopathic prenatal care. I chose natural methods instead, and did this myself. The first trimester came and went, and things seemed to go along fine -- normal early pregnancy symptoms, and we made it through those first twelve weeks.
But, I didn't feel the baby until nearly week 20. This is fairly normal. And this is called the quickening.
After the first trimester, I got a bit more comfortable, and started to think more about the baby being viable, being born. I'd spent those five years getting educated and psyched about birth, so I started to work in that direction -- preparing myself spiritually for the process.
But it wasn't until the quickening that I started to have an attachment -- you might call it a relationship -- with the baby. He (before we knew he was a he) would move, and I could move, and we could poke and play and so on. It was really quite miraculous.
And of course, he was born (exactly 40 weeks from conception or 42 weeks as a doctor would measure), exactly on the day that I expected. He was born, unassisted and at home. Because he was posterior, my husband caught him, as I'd labored on hands and knees.
After holding this funny, skinny, beautiful boy baby in my arms for the first time, my consciousness shifted radically. Turns out that humans -- unlike many other animals -- the mothers imprint on the infants, not the other way around. Having an unhindered birth allows this to happen, as the hormones crescendo to create this outcome in the brain of the mother.
After having him, I had a completely different perspective of abortion and miscarriage too.
Certainly, I am less cavalier about it than I was 4 years ago.
But, I'm also still legally quite liberal about it -- why? Because of people like Jane -- and how I can see how my own perspective could fall right in line with that.
Until the quickening, I didn't have as great a consciousness of DS. It wouldn't have been as hard of a loss. A loss because he was wanted from before he was conceived (the loss that infertile couples face), but if I hadn't wanted him, would not be more like my miscarriage, where I felt really, no loss at all?
Honestly,I felt no loss in the loss of the first pregnancy. All it did was set up some modest anxiety about the potential pregnancies that I would want.
So, here is what I see.
As I ramble along. LOL
I think that it is possible for a woman to see things differently than me.
And I think it's appropriate for the law to accommodate her.
But I also think it's appropriate for our culture, each of us as individuals, to provide support and opportunities for women and infants to prevent abortion. Not necessarily by making greater and greater legal hoops for her to jump through, but by really shifting the culture to where abortion would be naturally less common.
Those sorts of communities *do* exist, and I think that we can create it too. Why not?
In end of life situations, we use consciousness/brain function along with a patient's ability to survive off machines as a determinant to "pull the plug." I don't see life without consciousness. Human tissue, yes, but not life.
In the biological sense, cells have "life," that's established scientific fact. I will not be the one to argue that any life form must be preserved, since that's not my POV and that's a logical leap, anyway.
Consciousness is one good way of viewing life worth preserving, but that's just one way, your way--which is perfectly fine.
Last edited by iris lily; 3-17-12 at 1:05pm.
A beginning life has a future and will grow into conciousness at some point. At the end of life when you are pulling the plug, there is little or no possibility of conciousness returning. Infinite possibilities in life for the new life and no possibilities for the ending life. I think that's an important distinction.
Last edited by Midwest; 3-17-12 at 3:26pm.
+1
Midwest,
Great point.
For me, the question begs -- what is lost?
A cell may have life, but not consciousness. The cell may develop consciousness -- this is really about potential.
What is lost for the cell, if removed from the possibility of gestation, is the potential for consciousness.
What is lost for the carrier for gestation is the cells with a potential for consciousness -- and whatever emotional attachment she may have to that (if any).
Then the next question is what is the level of harm here, as this would define the moral import.
Little or no possibility = some possibility. Again it comes down to the same issue - when is it appropriate to kill?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote