I believe that science shows that it is both alive and a human being from conception.
Person is of course the legal term for when a being has rights, particularly in this case the right to life.
The choices I've heard are:
1) from conception
2) when the heart starts beating
3) when they feel pain
4) when they are conscious
5) viability
6) birth
I go with 1.
Do you have reasons behind that choice? This is the big question to me.
I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to killing someone.
I left out "viability" from that list, which is odd that I forgot that since that was the presumption in the Roe v. Wade statutory requirements. So I edited in above.
Thanks. What direction you err is important, but it doesn't give me a full picture of the thinking that goes into it. To clarify, do you have a position on other issues of life and death, like brain-dead patients, in-vitro fertilization, human cell cultures, animal rights, and/or the death penalty?
Not the person you asked, by my position has been quite clarified for me while dealing with my father's medical issues. In short, I favor human life in all its forms from conception to natural death.
- I am against the death penalty. If we can contain someone so they pose no threat to others there is no reason to kill them (pragmatically in the US it also cheaper as the cost of incarceration over the remainder of their life is often less than all the legal bills racked up by both sides contesting a death sentence). It also eliminates any possibility that the State, as representative of the people will kill someone who is actually innocent.
- By contrast, I understand that sometimes, in the moment, that killing in defense of yourself or others might be the only way to prevent even greater loss of life. In this case, one is choosing the lives of innocents over the life of someone who wishes them harm. If there existing a technology that could reliably disable someone as efficiently as a firearm, but without killing them, my opinion on this would change... but such things are presently the realm of science fiction so that's a moot point.
- This one came directly from the issues with my father. If someone they can breathe on their own and their heart is beating on its own and they are able to digest nutrients (in the dying process the digestive system can shut down) then it is morally wrong to deny someone food and fluids, even if they are comatose, particularly since the feeding tubes are often more for the convenience of those caring for the individual so they don't have to feed by hand. ETA: To clarify, if we had listened to the doctors and not allowed him to be fed, he would have been dead a month instead of about to go home.
- If, on the other hand, they are comatose and not able to breathe on their own or able to digest nutrients and there is no reason to believe there is hope of recovery then you can remove the artificial life support and let nature take its course.
- I am opposed to invitro fertilization because it creates a number of embryos, implants some (and if too many implant it can require selective abortions for the mother's survival) and leaves the rest in potential limbo in indefinite storage that it is fraught with all manner of ethical issues. I understand the impetus for wanting a biological child, but if you are infertile it is generally for a medical reason and there are so many other children just waiting for loving parents and forever homes where you can be a hero who chose them to be your child... that there's no real reason for invitro fertilization.
- I oppose embryonic stem cell research for the entirely practical reason that all the money dumped into it has yet to product a single viable treatment while adult and umbilical stem cells have produced a myriad of successful treatments. If one believes in God, one might almost think that God planned that the wicked would never be able to produce the slightest good from the murder of innocent children... if you don't, its still just a huge waste of resources to keep chasing a failed line of research when effective and non-morally compromised lines of research are readily available.
- I oppose cruelty to animals, but we are omnivores by diet and so am neither a vegetarian nor vegan. I believe in humanely killing animals for food (and letting as little of the animal go to waste as possible... so do not oppose leather made from animals we eat for food), but oppose killing for sport or convenience (we use live traps for the raccoons and possums in our barns and for mice in our home, and I even use a cup and sheet of paper to transport spiders and other insects outdoors rather than just squashing them.
- Since I don't even like to kill animals outside of for food (i.e. survival) I don't think its surprise that I'm against abortion. My lone exception is when the mother's life is in jeopardy (not inconvenienced, at great risk of ending... i.e. self-defense). I don't make exceptions for rape or incest or disability of the child. Rape because as horrific as it might be, compounding it with the murder of an innocent child doesn't make it better. In terms of disability because who are we to judge what quality of life is "worth it"? I know a number of children and adults with Down's Syndrome and they are among the happiest people I've ever met who enrich others' lives. I can't imagine the prospect of killing them just because they might not be "perfect."