?

Log in

What is the moral status of an unborn child? From a Liberty… - Cawfee Tawk [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Time to Talk Place to Talk.

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Jun. 16th, 2005|09:39 am]
The Time to Talk Place to Talk.

up4discussion

[meh_ssdd]
What is the moral status of an unborn child? From a Liberty perspective, is it the same as us? Even if it only has the complexity of a fungus or paramecium?
At what point should it be considered a citizen and have its rights acknowledged? I had a really interesting discussion with Dad about this, and wanted to see how other people saw the issue. I realize this is a senitive subject and don't want to offend anyone, but its also an important point of debate in contemporary events.
Try to explain your answers because I doubt any of us have the same perspective...
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: threebeerqueer
2005-06-16 04:40 pm (UTC)
I'd say at 8 weeks when it develops it's own heart beat.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ___evagination
2005-06-16 10:34 pm (UTC)
I agree. It used to be that I thought that when a child took it's first breath of oxygen it was then considered human, but with certain past experiences I have grown to accept a beating heart as a sign of humanity.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: threebeerqueer
2005-06-17 06:14 am (UTC)
YAY!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dreamin_demon
2005-06-16 10:39 pm (UTC)
I'd really hate to sound so impersonal, but I think of humans as only slightly more evolved organisms than fungus or paramecium. If that says something about my view on life in general, or just on the human race, I don't know. I don't see us as very much more significant than anything else. From the aspect of citizenry and from a government perspective, thats something I'm very hesitant to touch, I guess, when it's born . . . ? (for lack of a more reasonable answer otherwise)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: meh_ssdd
2005-06-17 12:47 am (UTC)
I consider Liberty to be based on senteince, that makes it a slippery issue to me. I can't really say that a zygote has to be protected when a rat(being infinitely more complex) is not. To a degree potential is involved, but I think its a very tough issue...
Like I said below; I'm going to consider it as the time when it becomes a seperate entity from its mother.
Tricky indeed
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: meh_ssdd
2005-06-17 12:38 am (UTC)
The way I see it a baby becomes its own person at the time it has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. From a Liberty standpoint I think that after that it certainly has rights and should be given protection under the Constitution, before that I guess its a part of the mother and I suppose its her business what she does with it... That sounds really impersonal and cold but that seems the best way to look at it to me...
But then again I'm not a potential mother....
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ipaytostalk
2005-06-17 02:50 pm (UTC)
I think that once the fertilized egg attachs itself to the uteral wall it becomes a human being. I think abortion is wrong, but it shouldn't be made illegal for the early stages. Someone help me out but I think there's a type of illegal abortion that comes later in the pregnancy that should stay illegal I think. Is that when the heart starts to beat? Abortion should be an educated decision made by free-thinking adults. There are also the cases that people mention all the time about rape and maternal peril.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: marzzmatrix
2005-06-19 04:43 pm (UTC)
Personally, i dont know when the baby would become a human being. However, i have my own views toward abortion, and a lot of people have agreed with me.

First off, if a person is-
1) physically unable to care for a child, i.e. homeless, handicapped (either physically or mentally, to the point of not being able to care for a child);

2) under the age of 18 and doesnt want the child (with parental consent);

3) Financially unable to support a child (income notwithstanding, a certain amount of debt would have to be incurred);

Then abortion should be covered under insurance and be legal.

If a person already has too many children, then insurance should partially cover it and then partially cover the expenses of getting the female's tubes tied.

If a person does not fit any of the criteria above, yet still wants an abortion, insurance shoould not cover it, it hsould not be done, and the child, after bearing it and raising it for one year, should be put up for adoption.

i have a lot more criteria and such to fit this but i can't remember them right now.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: genius7023
2005-06-29 03:42 pm (UTC)
my whole realm of thinking has very recently changed and therefore my thoughts on this issue aren't fully developed as i haven't had time to consider them under this new level of thinking...however just a quick look at it...i like kyle's thoughts on the issue and i agree w/ them to an extent...but i'm inclined to think it's just a little bit earlier than that...so i guess when the baby could potentially live outside of the mother's womb...i say this for basically the same reason kyle does.i just have a different opinion as to when it becomes a seperate entity...i think when it could survive on it's own life forces it can then be seen as it's own person...as for the abortion issue that came up.in general i don't agree w/ it but i think that until the baby reaches the point of becoming it's own person as i defined above...it should be the mother's decision because until that point the baby is just part of the mother...as cold as that may seem...i'm sry if i offended anyone...
(Reply) (Thread)