Originally Posted by
RayA75
In intercourse, here is the series of events that can potentially occur to give the process of becoming:
IF the intercourse was unprotected, then IF the man ejaculates inside, then IF the woman ovulates, then IF the egg gets fertilized.
All these ifs obviously show how intercourse is only of potentiality in relation to life.
Granted all the answers to those "IF" are "yes", then here is the series of events that need to take place for a fetus to give life.
The fetus successfully develops and is born.
This process is what we protect from being aborted. Just because, through accidents to which ethics do not apply, the fetus could stop developing, that does not mean we should do it ourselves.
The fetus is already in the process of becoming. This is what is inevitable. Should an accident happen, and the child be stillborn, there is nothing ethics can do about that.
I know first hand of stillborn children. Had it not happened, I would be the oldest of three siblings.
So,to you it is ehtical that we use our medical advancements to intervene,and help a fetus that might not have developed under normal conditions(without the help of the advancments we currently have)?You can't deny that today that we have helped people stay alive that would have been dead,if not for those advancements etc...And,it is ethically correct because it helps us humans endure our enviroment.
I want to just give my conclusion,about something that I posted before:
Originally Posted by
William
A fetus comes from the fertelization of an ovum,right?Your argument is that through killing that fetus,we deprive him from the right to live.But,if it wasn't for the entry of the sperm to the vagina of the women...the baby wouldn't have existed anyway.Meaning that if it wasn't for the "want" of the two people involved in this sexual act,the baby wouldn't have existed.In conclusion,if their was an actual "desire" for the baby to exist,then he would have existed.This case is more related to the case of "oops,I forgot to wear a condom!" in which mistakes happen.There are countless of other situations as well.
Originally Posted by
RayA75
No. A fetus is formed from the fertilization of a sperm, not a baby.
I bolded what I will be referring to in that quote: "purely because of nature." Normative moral philosophy cannot and does not apply to natural dice throws. It applies to our actions. Here's a metaphor which can be applied:
A volcano erupts, and kills tons of plants and animals. Can we say that this is ethical or not?
I wanted to conclude is that the fetus isn't of something significant at all since it derives from a high degree ofchance.First,in meiosis if it was in spermatogenesis,their will be the production of four different sperms in the end of the process.In addition,to quote from wikipidia:
"This division implicates sources of genetic variation, such as random inclusion of either parental chromosomes, and chromosomal crossover, to increase the genetic variability of the gamete."Same thing for oogenisis(although we have the production of polar bodies,which is not important for my point atm).Without forgetting that the sperm that might perforate the egg might be different everytime.All of that shows,that the fetus is truly nothing important by itself.If we allow it the right to develop then it'll develop to it's potential.In this sense,the fetus is just a "thing" that contains random(ofcourse there are certain guarantees...) genetic information.It has the capability of developing,if it does then great...if it doesn't then why should it matter?Their are endless possibilties of fetus's that can develop.Furthermore,you seem to always be concerned that if it's nature that killed "those people" then that's "OK".But,don't you think we alter our nature everyday?Simply because we existed,we have altered all of our enviroment.