@JaapDaniels @Dr_Faustus @JonhathonBaxster
I think it's worth noting that both sides of the argument tend to believe that if the fetus has a soul, that it would be wrong to kill it, generally speaking.
So perhaps it's more of an empirical dispute about whether the fetus happens to have a soul, rather than a moral dispute about how souls should be treated.
I leave the word soul here to your discretion -- whatever it is about humans that gives them a different moral status to, say, plants, or other inanimate objects.
btw the word soul needn't assume mind-body dualism -- physicalists can use that word too, see
here at around 9:40.
The problem is that such theological concepts are hard to weigh on when we ourselves barely understand it, not like we have tried in the past such as the experiment to see if the soul actually holds weight which to no surprise does not.
The thing with souls and the scales of belief are far more lucid than anything else. Depending on your belief they could just go straight to the afterlife, or limbo or whatever. Maybe they will get a second chance to try again, or perhaps they just don't obtain a soul until after they are born. The arguments about kicking/moving inside their mother is not a response of the soul or brain but are merely reflexes in the same way the body will still have reflexes even after death (you know, when the soul is supposed to leave the body). The human body is made up of a lot of fun tissues and small electrical pulses, biologically speaking we are the closest form of perfect technology when it comes down to it, and I do not think that it was just luck that we became what we are today because of it.
I don't want to argue the existence of a soul or not though, as I would rather believe in there being an afterlife for everyone. It would be far more peaceful to think rather than once you're dead that's it, your electrical signals in your brain cease and the biological hard drive and processor that is your brain ceases operation permanently with no ghost or presence of yourself afterwards. Its a depressing thought but one that has to be considered since the truth of truths is still vastly unknown to anyone, all we have is beliefs and the systems that they are structured on and to some that is enough.
That said we still should not put our personal opinions on the right and choice of the people involved in these situations. Manipulating the idea of the fetus being a lifeform harboring a soul is as groundless as saying that the trees and vegetables have a soul. Hell some religions don't even believe that anything but a human can have a soul, discarding whole lifeforms and species from the mere concept of having a soul and a chance in a afterlife. (something I find highly disrespectful to anyone who had pets they loved dearly and had passed on, the thought that you can't reunite with them in the afterlife is gut wrenching to me.) Every form of life matters and deserves a chance if that is the case, but this is of course not the reality that is presented to us.
If you want to be a protector of life, then it starts from the top to the bottom. All life is precious then, all animals, all people no matter the conflict of differences or beliefs, they all deserve to be protected as well. But this is not the reality here. Wars are still a thing and people die for far less, animals are killed for sport, kids are put into factories forced to make clothes until they die so you can buy your next cheap shirt from walmart. Major corporate entities are making entire villages suffer due to their push on resources and can get away with it because they have the money to while bribing third world hospitals to push their baby formula on babies so they become dependent on the substance regardless of its actual health. We even still have issues with getting kids back to their families who crossed the border here in this country. Tell me, of these things and more how does the priority of life matter most when it comes to something not even formative of a human or even formative enough to have a heartbeat yet? So determined to protect something to the point where radicals would actually threaten the life of those in clinics no less, tell me does that make any sense? It doesn't.
The Pro-Life movement is founded on hypocrisy and nothing more. A misguided effort of trying to protect something that barely exists and putting so much obscene effort behind it to the point that it circles back around and could end up taking lives to "help your cause". When human lives have to be put on the line to simply make your point you have already lost any credibility of your argument making sense. It becomes a question of mental deterioration or even illness, all for the sake of "being righteous in the eyes of God" let me tell you, if there is a hell those who do these things will be on the fast track there when they die.
Finally, missing another point is that a woman is just as much a human and a lifeform deserving respect as anyone else. They do not exist as a means of accessory to a man's life. They are not tools to use to your desire and then become vessels for making kids. They are as human as the rest of us and deserve just as much respect and choice in their lives as any one of us do. We do not hold the right to determine what someone can or can't do because of how we feel about it. Again, if that is the case then take responsibility for your actions, if not then stay the hell out of it and let them choose what they need to do in their life to survive.
If you feel the need to essentially "whiteknight" something that can't speak for itself basically, take up against animal abuse since animals can't talk for themselves. Or perhaps help those in other countries where the culture is so ass backwards that the idea of a woman speaking out can have her killed. Or maybe help bring attention to the slaves and the "reeducation camps" in China that have no problem forcefully sterilizing people of other beliefs/races so they could systematically erase their existence in a few generations. There are a lot of causes out there helping those who can't speak or defend themselves. Those deserve to have their lives protected before they are ended. There is no need to worry about a lump of underdeveloped cells when there is real trouble in the world worth defending life for.
So please tell me how anything I have stated here is invalidated to your core belief of protecting life, to protect the soul, to protect those who cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. It does not. If you really care about any of these things, then be the good example in the world and help those who need it, not attack women in your own country because of something that has not even formed a life yet.
@
Xdqwerty:
