Abortion

[Dre89]

An abortion thread was made in the DH, and I wanted to participate in an abortion dicussion so I made one here for all the PGers.

I'm arguing that abortion is never acceptable under any circumstances, even ****.

I'm also arguing that it is a human once the sperm reaches the egg and forms a zygote.

Part of my grounds for arguing this is that people say it is not human, yet I think it is the most human thing of all. A human zygote can only be human, and nothing esle, and every single human in the world was a zygote at some point. Not many things constitute humanity more than that.

Obviously I'll reveal more of my views as/if the argument progresses.

And please, no one use Judith Thompson's violinist thought experiment, that is the most overrated thought experiment I've ever seen.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

An abortion thread was made in the DH, and I wanted to participate in an abortion dicussion so I made one here for all the PGers.

I'm arguing that abortion is never acceptable under any circumstances, even ****.

I'm also arguing that it is a human once the sperm reaches the egg and forms a zygote.

Part of my grounds for arguing this is that people say it is not human, yet I think it is the most human thing of all. A human zygote can only be human, and nothing esle, and every single human in the world was a zygote at some point. Not many things constitute humanity more than that.

Obviously I'll reveal more of my views as/if the argument progresses.

And please, no one use Judith Thompson's violinist thought experiment, that is the most overrated thought experiment I've ever seen.

I don't even know of that... Okay, let's pretend that a girl has a teenage pregnancy and AIDS. Let's also pretend that AIDS will be passed on to the newborn. Let's then say that the poor teenager is poor and has no means of supporting a child with AIDS. After that when the child is born, he has an extremely painful and short life through the lack of medical care and the disease he's carrying. Would it be better stop everyone involved suffering by just destroying a foetus? Fairly quickly and painlessly I might add.

Is the few years of pain and suffering gained worth it? And then in the end nothing results. Is it moral to stop the suffering and pain for only a small sacrifice? Would an abortion be justified?

Sure this may be an emotional argument, but this situation could be very real.

Also, not all zygotes develop into human beings, some die and some fail to develop. With an abortion, you are killing the chance of life, not life itself.

And then what about contraception? Is that immoral as well? It kills the chance of life to.

I just don't think that there should be any hard and fast objective rule on abortion. I believe that deciding on whether it's justified should be done on a case by case basis. The world is not black and white.

 

[Eor]

Human?

We were at one point all zygotes. At one point we were also all the matter blown off from a supernova. Because we were once something doesn't mean that it's human, that seems like a pretty silly thing to form your basis of a human on.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Human?

We were at one point all zygotes. At one point we were also all the matter blown off from a supernova. Because we were once something doesn't mean that it's human, that seems like a pretty silly thing to form your basis of a human on.

That matter that was blown off from a supernova is totally uniform and disorganized. A total "democracy" of atoms I might say. However, a zygote is something else entirely. It has specific parts that make the essence of what it is, and if these parts are removed or changed, the object is no longer the same thing. This is will be my definition of "life".

If you cut the head off of a human, it is no longer a human in the same sense of what it used to be because the vital organs (brain) make up the essence of a human being such that it will change if they are taken away or moved or changed. But if you cut any part off of a rock, or you remove a bunch of matter from stuff blown off from a supernova, you still have a rock and some matter blown off from a supernova.

The specific structure of a zygote, who's properties can be altered without any chemical changes, qualifies it as life, and therefore, a human zygote is human life.

The core of my argument is that a zygote qualifies as life because it's existence is entirely dependent on whether or not certain structures remain intact. This is completely unlike any form of inanimate matter such as a rock or a bunch of matter, because those can exist regardless.

To differentiate this from simple lone egg or sperm cells, an embryo has a guaranteed future. It will grow into a human (regardless of whether or not it actually survives, it will grow) unlike a sperm cell which may or may not depending on circumstance.

Furthermore, one has to ask whether stopping a life from forming is the same as murder. If I somehow acquired a time machine, and I traveled back 25 years or so into the past and stopped my parents from ever meeting eachother, I have committed suicide because I have prevented my own existence. If I were to die, I would no longer exist as a human because the "democracy" of atoms would be re-established. A dead human is a dead human whether or not it has a head, but a live human no longer exists. By this logic, the definition of suicide would be stopping one's own existence in some method (This could include simply holding a gun to my head or using a time machine. It doesn't really matter). And so preventing a future that is guaranteed, just as an human embryo is guaranteed to grow into a human, is the same thing as destroying it, or perhaps murdering it.

And so I oppose abortion for reasons that are completely independent of religion. The only time an abortion would be permissible is in a situation in which the baby that would otherwise be born has no chance of survival. Not just that he would be born to poor parents or into a bad situation, but would be dead regardless at the moment of birth. Whether or not this can be accurately predicted isn't really something I know the answer to. I take Chemistry, not Biology.

 

[ArcPoint]

Do we even have legal consistency on whether or not killing a fetus is murder? I recall some court cases where the death of a pregnant woman resulted in the charge of 2 murders.

Hmmm.

*goes to look up court cases*

And Eor, multiply that mass by a few trillion, vary the cells a touch more, and add a few more complex chemical processes. Human? Why?

Edit: Might as well try to drive the point home.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/fetus2.jpg

Human?

http://itsmypulp.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fetus.jpg

Human?

http://198.45.22.27/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg

Human?

*warning, link below is rather gruesome*
http://anti-abortion.info/images/aborted_7_month_fetus.jpg

Dead human or dead mass of tissue?

http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Business/images-2/Human-infant-newborn-baby.jpg

Human? Or just another mass of tissue?

 

[Eor]

That matter that was blown off from a supernova is totally uniform and disorganized. A total "democracy" of atoms I might say. However, a zygote is something else entirely. It has specific parts that make the essence of what it is, and if these parts are removed or changed, the object is no longer the same thing. This is will be my definition of "life".

My supernova comment was in reference to the claim that since all humans were at one point zygotes that zygotes were life.

I'm afraid I don't understand your concept of life either. Almost everything is made up of parts that if you change them won't be what they were. Take a hydrogen atom from a molecule of water and it is no longer water. Take the toxic gas Carbon Monoxide, add an oxygen atom and you'll just get Carbon Dioxide, which is used for carbonation.

If you cut the head off of a human, it is no longer a human in the same sense of what it used to be because the vital organs (brain) make up the essence of a human being such that it will change if they are taken away or moved or changed. But if you cut any part off of a rock, or you remove a bunch of matter from stuff blown off from a supernova, you still have a rock and some matter blown off from a supernova.

True in the large sense. However, I could cut off a hand from my body. Am I no longer a human, because I only have one hand? What if I get an artificial heart? I no longer have a heart but I'm still capable of moving around.

The specific structure of a zygote, who's properties can be altered without any chemical changes, qualifies it as life, and therefore, a human zygote is human life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "can be altered without any chemical change". Could you clarify?

The core of my argument is that a zygote qualifies as life because it's existence is entirely dependent on whether or not certain structures remain intact. This is completely unlike any form of inanimate matter such as a rock or a bunch of matter, because those can exist regardless.

It's two gametes that fused together to make a new cell. I can destroy skin cells, which are human. Is this a human life?

To differentiate this from simple lone egg or sperm cells, an embryo has a guaranteed future. It will grow into a human (regardless of whether or not it actually survives, it will grow) unlike a sperm cell which may or may not depending on circumstance.

It will, yes. But it's not unique in that function. Is a seed a tree? If I go into someone's yard and cut down their tree I can be fined for destruction of property. If I go into their yard and crush a seed should I still be fined the same?

Furthermore, one has to ask whether stopping a life from forming is the same as murder. If I somehow acquired a time machine, and I traveled back 25 years or so into the past and stopped my parents from ever meeting eachother, I have committed suicide because I have prevented my own existence. If I were to die, I would no longer exist as a human because the "democracy" of atoms would be re-established. A dead human is a dead human whether or not it has a head, but a live human no longer exists. By this logic, the definition of suicide would be stopping one's own existence in some method (This could include simply holding a gun to my head or using a time machine. It doesn't really matter). And so preventing a future that is guaranteed, just as an human embryo is guaranteed to grow into a human, is the same thing as destroying it, or perhaps murdering it.

Well I'm going to have to cut your time machine parallel out because it's not scientifically possible (if you could go back in time, you couldn't change anything, since whatever occurred in that time must have already occurred in your time). But if we can accept it philosophically, then this raises a new question. If someone kills someone, are you also killing all of their descendants and children? If I killed someone before he could have a family, and say if I didn't kill him he'd have a bunch of kids, am I still a mass murderer for killing one person? If stopping something from becoming alive is murder then wouldn't using a condom be murder because it stops fertilization?

Now you did specify "to stop a future that is guaranteed". Thing is, about 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week, when instead of a zygote it's an embryo.


edit: to Arcpoint - like I said above, the supernova argument was against his argument. Reductio ad absurdum.

At the same point, pictures obviously trigger emotions, but whether it looks like a human or not doesn't really matter. I could make a marzipan baby that looks just like a human, or I could get a dead body and probably morph the remains of it to look like a baby. My own view on Abortion is that it should be legal until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's body. If it can survive outside the mother's body then the only time I'd be "in favor" of abortion would be if giving birth to this baby would result in the Mother's death, though to be fully honest I don't even know if it's possible for a baby to be capable of living outside the mother's body and still have a health effect on the mother.

And I'd define being capable of surviving outside the womb to be past the minimum possible date, and instead to the "likely" area. A fetus with fully developed (or well enough along on development) systems that can survive without much medical care required is what I'd consider the breaking point, not including genetic defects or diseases that makes certain babies require medical care, even past the nine month period.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I'm afraid I don't understand your concept of life either. Almost everything is made up of parts that if you change them won't be what they were. Take a hydrogen atom from a molecule of water and it is no longer water. Take the toxic gas Carbon Monoxide, add an oxygen atom and you'll just get Carbon Dioxide, which is used for carbonation.

I understand your point. Chemical changes can alter the existence of inanimate objects, but that's where this:

The specific structure of a zygote, who's properties can be altered without any chemical changes, qualifies it as life, and therefore, a human zygote is human life.

comes in to play, so I guess I'll elaborate on that now. The existence of life can be extinguished by non-chemical alterations, whereas that of an inanimate object cannot. That is exactly what makes life different from the inanimate. If you break off a piece of a rock, you still have a rock, but if you break off a vital piece of a living organism, you will not still have life. The essence of the rock is not changed, even though the rock went through a physical change. The only thing you can do to the rock to make it not a rock would be to alter its molecular structure, which would be a chemical change.

The difference between the animate and the inanimate is that the essence of the inanimate's existence is not destroyed by physical change, only chemical change. Living organism's, however, can be made non-living (dead) by physical changes. It's a question of chemical versus physical change.

I could cut off a hand from my body. Am I no longer a human, because I only have one hand? What if I get an artificial heart? I no longer have a heart but I'm still capable of moving around.

That's exactly what makes life unique from inanimate material. Certain parts in a living organism have more importance than other parts. A human has several centers that are vital to his existence, such as the brain or other vital organs. If a human loses these, he undergoes a fundamental change in his nature of existence (that is to say, he dies). A rock has a uniform level of importance in all of it's parts. Life is a "fascism" of molecules as opposed to an inanimate object's "democracy".

An artificial heart would still be a heart of some sort, meaning that the human is still a human because he has that important center necessary for continued life. Just to make sure I'm being clear, it's not a question of the sanctity of the human body or anything at all like that, it's a question of continued existence. You can still exist and live without your hand.

It's two gametes that fused together to make a new cell. I can destroy skin cells, which are human. Is this a human life?

Not at all. See my response directly above this one. A couple of skin cells do not make the essence of life because they can be removed without destroying the life of the person they belonged to.

It will, yes. But it's not unique in that function. Is a seed a tree? If I go into someone's yard and cut down their tree I can be fined for destruction of property. If I go into their yard and crush a seed should I still be fined the same?

What's important is that it's part of human life that we're talking about. A tree on someone's yard is property, and the purpose of this piece of property is only fulfilled with the time it takes for the tree to actually grow so it can be aesthetically pleasing. So destroying a seed could be considered destroying a tree minus the time and resources it took to raise the tree, so you could be fined for the value of the seed. This doesn't exactly compare well to humans, however, because they aren't property, have no pre-designated purpose, and no price tag.

Well I'm going to have to cut your time machine parallel out because it's not scientifically possible (if you could go back in time, you couldn't change anything, since whatever occurred in that time must have already occurred in your time). But if we can accept it philosophically, then this raises a new question. If someone kills someone, are you also killing all of their descendants and children? If I killed someone before he could have a family, and say if I didn't kill him he'd have a bunch of kids, am I still a mass murderer for killing one person? If stopping something from becoming alive is murder then wouldn't using a condom be murder because it stops fertilization?

Not being able to change the past is actually just one theory about time, but the debate at hand is, as you said, the philosophical aspect of this analogy. I'd like to point out that, in a way, people do subconsciously add the future of a person into the equation of how immoral a murder is, which is often the cause of much anger and mourning. But that's already a given, and so it's part of our judgment in the murder of one person to begin with. The reason we think murder is wrong is because someone has cut short the potential of someone else's life. They are angry about the future that could have been, so yes, that's already considered.

What I really want to argue in response to this is that the predetermination of the zygote makes all of the difference. Killing a person is not necessarily killing their descendants because that person is not predetermined to be a father. Many people do not have children. That question is up in the air, and it is not known whether he will even attempt to have any descendants. That's where the difference is. A zygote is predetermined to grow into a human. If nothing goes wrong, it will happen. There's no question of whether or not the zygote will decide that growing into a baby isn't his style, which brings me to your next point:

Now you did specify "to stop a future that is guaranteed". Thing is, about 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week, when instead of a zygote it's an embryo.

The zygote does, with 100% consistency, move in the direction of growing into a human. That's the defining factor. That is the purpose that the zygote achieves. This is different from murdered potential parents because humans do not exist for the sole purpose of reproduction (at least not in this society).

At the same point, pictures obviously trigger emotions, but whether it looks like a human or not doesn't really matter. I could make a marzipan baby that looks just like a human, or I could get a dead body and probably morph the remains of it to look like a baby. My own view on Abortion is that it should be legal until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's body. If it can survive outside the mother's body then the only time I'd be "in favor" of abortion would be if giving birth to this baby would result in the Mother's death, though to be fully honest I don't even know if it's possible for a baby to be capable of living outside the mother's body and still have a health effect on the mother.

And I'd define being capable of surviving outside the womb to be past the minimum possible date, and instead to the "likely" area. A fetus with fully developed (or well enough along on development) systems that can survive without much medical care required is what I'd consider the breaking point, not including genetic defects or diseases that makes certain babies require medical care, even past the nine month period.

This might not have been said in response to anything of mine, but I'd like to address it as well. Isn't a newborn still incapable of surviving without it's mother after birth? Without a mother to feed and protect the baby, it will die. Does that mean that your abortion window should be extended to 1-year-olds?

If I didn't answer any questions, be sure to ask them again. I didn't mean to drop anything.

 

[Dre89]

Human?

We were at one point all zygotes. At one point we were also all the matter blown off from a supernova. Because we were once something doesn't mean that it's human, that seems like a pretty silly thing to form your basis of a human on.

But what else is a zygote going to develop into other than a human?

Apart from the appearance, which should not matter, what exactly is the difference between a fetus and a born baby?

Both are predetermined to grow as humans, and only as humans.

Both are required to be human, you cannot be a human without being a fetus or a baby first.

Both still require external care, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of the womb.

Now if you're one of those people who believes that there is a distinction between human and 'personhood', and that only a human with personhood has the right to survive, then you have to wait until about 7 years old until a child has a right to life. 7 is widely considered the age of reason, even Peter Singer argues children only have a right to life at the age of seven.

So if you believe that there is a distinction between human and personhood, neither the baby or fetus exhibit personhood, so how can a baby have a right to life but not a fetus?

So again, what exactly is the difference between a fetus and a newly-born baby?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But what else is a zygote going to develop into other than a human?

Something dead? Miscarriages occur, babies and mothers can die during child birth.

Apart from the appearance, which should not matter, what exactly is the difference between a fetus and a born baby?

The fact that one can actually survive outside the womb maybe...

Both are predetermined to grow as humans, and only as humans.

Both are required to be human, you cannot be a human without being a fetus or a baby first.

Both still require external care, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of the womb.

Maybe your missing something, all humans were zygotes, but not all zygotes become human. They can die or fail to develop.

Now if you're one of those people who believes that there is a distinction between human and 'personhood', and that only a human with personhood has the right to survive, then you have to wait until about 7 years old until a child has a right to life. 7 is widely considered the age of reason, even Peter Singer argues children only have a right to life at the age of seven.

So if you believe that there is a distinction between human and personhood, neither the baby or fetus exhibit personhood, so how can a baby have a right to life but not a fetus?

So again, what exactly is the difference between a fetus and a newly-born baby?

Maybe the fact that a foetus lacks almost everything it takes to be human, a developed CNS, a developed brain, working lungs and heart, a proper digestive system that works. In short, a whole number of things. Also it has no relationships or hopes and desires, it doesn't really feel anything, it's barely alive! When it is aborted, it probably can't even feel it!

Additionally, at the foetus stage, there a numerous obstacles that the foetus has to overcome to be born or reach 7; even more than a new-born baby.

Additionally it is very likely that a new-born will grow up, not quite so for a foetus, it has to do so many things even with constant care.

Please answer my question as well. I've provided you with a situation where I feel it would be appropriate for the soon-to-be mother to have an abortion. I would like to see what you think of it.

 

[Dre89]

Something dead? Miscarriages occur, babies and mothers can die during child birth.

That makes no difference. Naturally, a zygote only moves towards human growth, if nothing unfortunate occurs. This is no different to a baby.

The fact that one can actually survive outside the womb maybe...

They both still require external care.

Maybe your missing something, all humans were zygotes, but not all zygotes become human. They can die or fail to develop.

And do all babies become adults? No. Failing to move onto the next stage is a possibility for both fetuses and babies.

Maybe the fact that a foetus lacks almost everything it takes to be human, a developed CNS, a developed brain, working lungs and heart, a proper digestive system that works. In short, a whole number of things. Also it has no relationships or hopes and desires, it doesn't really feel anything, it's barely alive! When it is aborted, it probably can't even feel it!

This is a personhood argument. You've made it evident that you consider a fetus human when it displays some form of intelligent capacity.

The problem with this is, is that if you feel there is a distinction between human and personhood, then a child doesn't achieve this personhood until about 7 years old. Until that age (roughly) a child lacks the capacities that distinguish humans from animals. So in that sense, a newly-born child is still purely an animal, and has no right to life.

Additionally, at the foetus stage, there a numerous obstacles that the foetus has to overcome to be born or reach 7; even more than a new-born baby.

Additionally it is very likely that a new-born will grow up, not quite so for a foetus, it has to do so many things even with constant care.

But a baby still has more obstacles, and does not display the same rational capacities as an adult, so why do they have a right to life and not fetuses?

Again it refers to my previous point. If you're going to believe that there is in fact a distinction, considering that a new-born baby still hasn't reached the stage where they display capacities exclusive to humans, they are still only animals, with no right to life.

Please answer my question as well. I've provided you with a situation where I feel it would be appropriate for the soon-to-be mother to have an abortion. I would like to see what you think of it.

I don't feel it's really our choice though, despite the emotional complications in that scenario. The only time I'd advocate an abortion is that if the baby will be born dead, and that the mother will also die if she continues with the pregnancy.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not here to start an argument as Eor's doing a pretty good job by himself, however I just want to ask something that's been bothering me since I've read the opening post.

I'm arguing that abortion is never acceptable under any circumstances, even ****.

What are your thoughts on the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was ***** and became pregnant? Should she have carried the twins to term? despite the high mortality rate 9 year old's have when giving birth?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That makes no difference. Naturally, a zygote only moves towards human growth, if nothing unfortunate occurs. This is no different to a baby.



They both still require external care.




And do all babies become adults? No. Failing to move onto the next stage is a possibility for both fetuses and babies.

This is a personhood argument. You've made it evident that you consider a fetus human when it displays some form of intelligent capacity.

The problem with this is, is that if you feel there is a distinction between human and personhood, then a child doesn't achieve this personhood until about 7 years old. Until that age (roughly) a child lacks the capacities that distinguish humans from animals. So in that sense, a newly-born child is still purely an animal, and has no right to life.

But a baby still has more obstacles, and does not display the same rational capacities as an adult, so why do they have a right to life and not fetuses?

Again it refers to my previous point. If you're going to believe that there is in fact a distinction, considering that a new-born baby still hasn't reached the stage where they display capacities exclusive to humans, they are still only animals, with no right to life.

I don't feel it's really our choice though, despite the emotional complications in that scenario. The only time I'd advocate an abortion is that if the baby will be born dead, and that the mother will also die if she continues with the pregnancy.

I believe that babies have a right life, because they have passed a huge number of hurdles to reach where they are now. Additionally, it is VERY likely that they will grow to reach 7. A foetus hasn't passed anywhere near as many hurdles, and it is nowhere near as likely that the foetus will reach 7.

Also a babies death will be painful, a foetus' will not. This means that the death of a foetus won't really hurt anyone as much as with the death of the baby. I think I draw the line here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also if you believe that it's the mother's choice whether she has an abortion, I'm perfectly fine with that. All I have a problem with is people who think they should decide the rights of others, despite having no connection with them. I feel that a person should have the right to decide themselves whether to have an abortion or not.

I don't really feel that this topic is a black and white one, it's more of a subtle shade of grey. The reason being that I feel that an abortion would be justified under a few certain circumstances, and not under others. I find this topic a touchy a murky one, because while I partially agree that foetuses deserve to be born, I just think that there are some circumstances where it would be entirely inappropriate and would cause large quantities of pain for everyone involved.

I don't believe in objective morality; I'm a moral relativist and I believe that the route that cause the least pain and suffering for everyone should be taken. This means that the argument about the right to life for a foetus really doesn't affect me too much. It's like euthanasia, sure the people have a right to life, but if life is suffering then why bother?.

 

[Dre89]

I believe that babies have a right life, because they have passed a huge number of hurdles to reach where they are now. Additionally, it is VERY likely that they will grow to reach 7. A foetus hasn't passed anywhere near as many hurdles, and it is nowhere near as likely that the foetus will reach 7.

What on Earth does passing hurdles have to do with it? Does that mean that someone who's had more obstacles in their life has more of a right to life than someone who's had less? Drawing a line on right to life based on hurdles and probablity of making it to the age of reason is far too vague and subjective when you're terminating lives.

Also a babies death will be painful, a foetus' will not. This means that the death of a foetus won't really hurt anyone as much as with the death of the baby. I think I draw the line here.

Pain has nothing to do with it. That would justify terminating the lives of people temporarily in comas.

Also if you believe that it's the mother's choice whether she has an abortion, I'm perfectly fine with that. All I have a problem with is people who think they should decide the rights of others, despite having no connection with them. I feel that a person should have the right to decide themselves whether to have an abortion or not.

Does a mother have the right to decide whether a born baby should live or not? No. Considering that even if you accept the personhood distinction, neither has reached personhood, it's not different for a fetus.

And no, I don't believe it's the mothers decision. I don't believe she has the right to take the life of someone, when she is causedly (causedly, not necessarily morally) responsible for their state of dependancy.

I don't really feel that this topic is a black and white one, it's more of a subtle shade of grey. The reason being that I feel that an abortion would be justified under a few certain circumstances, and not under others. I find this topic a touchy a murky one, because while I partially agree that foetuses deserve to be born, I just think that there are some circumstances where it would be entirely inappropriate and would cause large quantities of pain for everyone involved.

I don't believe in objective morality; I'm a moral relativist and I believe that the route that cause the least pain and suffering for everyone should be taken. This means that the argument about the right to life for a foetus really doesn't affect me too much. It's like euthanasia, sure the people have a right to life, but if life is suffering then why bother?.

There is too much in these paragraphs to be able to counter in a post. You've basically touched upon nearly every important issue in moal philosophy, then made a simple, one-line opinion on it, when in truth opinions on those issues take thosuands of words to justify. I can't be bothered writing a thousand words to counter each one lol.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not here to start an argument as Eor's doing a pretty good job by himself, however I just want to ask something that's been bothering me since I've read the opening post.



What are your thoughts on the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was ***** and became pregnant? Should she have carried the twins to term? despite the high mortality rate 9 year old's have when giving birth?

My statement was a bit incorrect. I accept abortion when both the mother and baby will die if the pregnancy continues.

To me the **** is irrelevant, having someone dump trash on your yard does not give you the right to then go dump that trash on your neighbours' yard (that may have sounded like a I don't care for **** victims, but I do, my point is to just address the moral inconsistencies with **** abortion).


The reality is, she is still causedly responsible for the babies dependancy on her.

Very few moral philosophers only advocate **** abortion, but not others, due the moral inconsistencies. The reason why not many academics are ****-only-abortion advocates, is because most pro-choicers beleive the fetus is not human, so it would be fine to abort it at any point.

The ones who are ****-only are ones such as Judith Thompson, who argue that even if the fetus is human, that a mother still has a right to abort the child.

I'm not too sure about the exact danger in that particular case, but if it was certain that both the mother and babies would die as a result of the pregnancy then yes I'd advocate an abortion there.

 

[GoldShadow]

I believe that babies have a right life, because they have passed a huge number of hurdles to reach where they are now. Additionally, it is VERY likely that they will grow to reach 7. A foetus hasn't passed anywhere near as many hurdles, and it is nowhere near as likely that the foetus will reach 7.

Now I'm not advocating one way or another, but there is a pretty big flaw here.

What constitutes "very likely"? Is it an 8 in 10 chance? A 1 in 8? 99 in 100? 1 in 10000?

How can you decide what probability to draw the threshold at? What gives you the right to decide that probability?

 

[Dre89]

Now I'm not advocating one way or another, but there is a pretty big flaw here.

What constitutes "very likely"? Is it an 8 in 10 chance? A 1 in 8? 99 in 100? 1 in 10000?

How can you decide what probability to draw the threshold at? What gives you the right to decide that probability?

This is what I was tyring to address. It's also with the personhood argument in general. There is no clear definitive line where personhood is achieved, and you cannot terminate lives based off estimation.

The thing is, nature hasn't drawn a clear line on when it has a right to life, because abortion is just not natural.

The reality is, practices such as abortion and the use of contraception are corruptions of what is natural, so that humans can attain bodily pleasure without having to hold up the other end of the deal.

I'm certainly open to arguments that despite the fact it's unnatural, it's still morally permissable, but you cannot deny that it is unnatural. I'd personally argue that something which is unnatural is usually morally impermissable though.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm certainly open to arguments that despite the fact it's unnatural, it's still morally permissable, but you cannot deny that it is unnatural. I'd personally argue that something which is unnatural is usually morally impermissable though.

...so you also don't believe in vaccines, breeding dogs and cattle, antibiotics, plastic, tylenol or sudafed, motor vehicles, airplanes, mechanized farming techniques, television, telephones, Frosted Flakes, snow plows, satellites, guitars, beer brewing, cholecystectomies and video games?

 

[Dre89]

...so you also don't believe in vaccines, breeding dogs and cattle, antibiotics, plastic, tylenol or sudafed, motor vehicles, airplanes, mechanized farming techniques, television, telephones, Frosted Flakes, snow plows, satellites, guitars, beer brewing, cholecystectomies and video games?

There's a difference there. I'm not a against technology, because it is natural that humans have the capacity to invent and operate technology.

The difference with contraception and abortion, is that they go against what is natural. Medicine doesn't really corrupt anything natural, it helps us preserve life, which was what humans were already trying to do. Medicine builds upon a goal already naturally within human nature.

Contraception and abortion however, are attempting to eliminate procreation from sex. Naturally procreation is attached to sex, if they were not meant to be, then humans would have natural ways of consciously preventing ejaculation when they wanted to at the sexual climax, but we don't, we require artificial intervention to do so.

I hope that made sense.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Now I'm not advocating one way or another, but there is a pretty big flaw here.

What constitutes "very likely"? Is it an 8 in 10 chance? A 1 in 8? 99 in 100? 1 in 10000?

How can you decide what probability to draw the threshold at? What gives you the right to decide that probability?

I don't know, I honestly don't believe that I have the right to decide that. I think that it should be decided by someone else. Possibly the mother... This is partly why I'm pro-choice and pro-life. I believe that abortions should be of last resort, and not taken lightly. It's just that there are some circumstances where abortions would the right thing to do.

Also, Dre I feel that banning abortions would deny the mother the right to her own body. She should be able to chose at least within reason to do what she wants with her body. Would you think it fair if someone just decided to commandeer your organs to keep somebody alive who you don't want? And what if that process is extremely painful perhaps both emotionally and physically? And then what if the end product was nil or ultra-extreme pain for no gain?

The hurdles argument was that a foetus has a long way to go before it reaches the stage of 7 or whatever age it needs to be considered a person. A baby in comparison, not very far. The point is that the foetus needs to do a lot of things in order to actually be born and therefore shouldn't be valued the same as a newborn. It can fail those things and die at many stages before it is born. This means that a foetus has a lower chance of reaching 7 or whatever it requires to be considered a person.

Anyway, about the pain point. A foetus has no friends, no relationships, no hopes, dreams, aspirations etc. It would cause everyone else and it little pain to terminate the foetus, at least in comparison to a baby. A man in a coma, will have friends family, loved ones, possibly a spouse etc. It's different.

In response to the nature argument, would you say that the Ebola Virus is of high moral character? It's natural! Or what about rabies and the bubonic plague?

And then what about shoes? They eliminate the pain on your feet from walking, which is natural mind you. And why is being natural good? What is wrong with subverting nature, so long as we don't harm it? Less humans on this planet would be a good thing, there is far too many of us. And to keep a lid on the population to protect nature, it's perfectly fair to subvert it at least in my opinion.

 

[Dre89]

I don't know, I honestly don't believe that I have the right to decide that. I think that it should be decided by someone else. Possibly the mother... This is partly why I'm pro-choice and pro-life. I believe that abortions should be of last resort, and not taken lightly. It's just that there are some circumstances where abortions would the right thing to do.

I don't believe the mother has a right to terminate a life for her own ends, especially when she is causedly responsible for that babies dependancy on her.

Also, Dre I feel that banning abortions would deny the mother the right to her own body. She should be able to chose at least within reason to do what she wants with her body. Would you think it fair if someone just decided to commandeer your organs to keep somebody alive who you don't want? And what if that process is extremely painful perhaps both emotionally and physically? And then what if the end product was nil or ultra-extreme pain for no gain?

The reality is, the mother is causedly responsible for that babies dependancy on her. Because she is in part responsible for that baby's existence and dependance, she has an obligation not to kill it for her own ends.

The hurdles argument was that a foetus has a long way to go before it reaches the stage of 7 or whatever age it needs to be considered a person. A baby in comparison, not very far. The point is that the foetus needs to do a lot of things in order to actually be born and therefore shouldn't be valued the same as a newborn. It can fail those things and die at many stages before it is born. This means that a foetus has a lower chance of reaching 7 or whatever it requires to be considered a person.

You're going off the assumption that it's only human once it's outside the body. Probability of survival doesn't change the fact that both are predetermined to grow into mature humans.

Anyway, about the pain point. A foetus has no friends, no relationships, no hopes, dreams, aspirations etc. It would cause everyone else and it little pain to terminate the foetus, at least in comparison to a baby. A man in a coma, will have friends family, loved ones, possibly a spouse etc. It's different.

Again, this is a personhood argument. We know that from the conception of a zygote, it will progress to become a mature adult. Now if you're arguing it only has a right to life at a certain point, then logically that point would have to be where it achieves this personhood.

Niether a baby nor fetus has personhood, so there is no reason to protect one and not the other. If you're using the personhood distinction, which you are, then it makes no logical sense to protect babies, because in this sense, babies are still only animals.

If you are using the personhood distinction, the only way you can protect babies is by arguing that they have a right to life because they have the potential to achieve personhood. However, so does a fetus, so you'd have to argue for the protection of fetuses as well.

In response to the nature argument, would you say that the Ebola Virus is of high moral character? It's natural! Or what about rabies and the bubonic plague?

Again, you're jumping into issues that are a whole other debate on their own, and yet again your conclusions require far more justification than you've given. There is just no point debating you on side-issues such as these.

And then what about shoes? They eliminate the pain on your feet from walking, which is natural mind you. And why is being natural good? What is wrong with subverting nature, so long as we don't harm it? Less humans on this planet would be a good thing, there is far too many of us. And to keep a lid on the population to protect nature, it's perfectly fair to subvert it at least in my opinion.

Removing pain is part of the natural goal of striving towards well-being. Being natural is good because it's related to our purpose. Our purpose is to be natural, that's where goodness comes from. At least that's the theory anyway.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't believe the mother has a right to terminate a life for her own ends, especially when she is causedly responsible for that babies dependancy on her.



The reality is, the mother is causedly responsible for that babies dependancy on her. Because she is in part responsible for that baby's existence and dependance, she has an obligation not to kill it for her own ends.

**** perhaps?

You're going off the assumption that it's only human once it's outside the body. Probability of survival doesn't change the fact that both are predetermined to grow into mature humans.

Again, this is a personhood argument. We know that from the conception of a zygote, it will progress to become a mature adult. Now if you're arguing it only has a right to life at a certain point, then logically that point would have to be where it achieves this personhood.

Yeah, when it starts to feel pain and can act as an individual, is conscious, has the ability to communicate and is self-aware. These are the signs of personhood.

Neither a baby nor fetus has personhood, so there is no reason to protect one and not the other. If you're using the personhood distinction, which you are, then it makes no logical sense to protect babies, because in this sense, babies are still only animals.

Um, frankly no, babies do act as individuals and they do feel pain. I'm not sure whether they're self aware, but very soon the will be, they also posses the ability to communicate. Foetuses need huge amounts of development to reach this stage, a newborn, not quite so much.

A good (IMO) analogy is image if you were driving towards the town of Personhood and the trip is 500km long. A zygote is right at the start, and the foetus is somewhere in the middle. A newborn baby is right near the end only around 30km away. At this point, why would you give up when you've travelled so far and when the town of personhood is only 30km away. It is conscious, it can act independently, and it's very close to becoming self-aware. The point is IT'S SO CLOSE. A foetus isn't.

Again, you're jumping into issues that are a whole other debate on their own, and yet again your conclusions require far more justification than you've given. There is just no point debating you on side-issues such as these.

Okay whatever... I just wanted to know what you thought of those.

Removing pain is part of the natural goal of striving towards well-being. Being natural is good because it's related to our purpose. Our purpose is to be natural, that's where goodness comes from. At least that's the theory anyway.

Okay, I suppose you've explained that fairly well, at least it seems consistent with the rest of your beliefs.

 

[Dre89]

**** perhaps?

Even in a case of ****, the mother is still causedly responsible for the baby's state of dependancy on her.

Think of a **** case like this: You go out into your yard and find there is a ticking bomb. The only way you can save yourself is to throw it over a fence, meaning you will kill an innocent person.

As emotionally detached as it sounds, this is what **** abortion is. It is shifting the problem onto an innocent third party.

This is different to someone holding a ticking bomb telling you to take it so they can live instead of you, because in this case, you are not causedly responsible for the bombholder's state of dependancy, whether you existed or not wouldn't change the fact that the bombholder's life is in danger.

In a **** case, the only reason why the baby is in a state of dependancy is because the mother is causedly responsible for it.

Yeah, when it starts to feel pain and can act as an individual, is conscious, has the ability to communicate and is self-aware. These are the signs of personhood.

Um, frankly no, babies do act as individuals and they do feel pain. I'm not sure whether they're self aware, but very soon the will be, they also posses the ability to communicate. Foetuses need huge amounts of development to reach this stage, a newborn, not quite so much.

A good (IMO) analogy is image if you were driving towards the town of Personhood and the trip is 500km long. A zygote is right at the start, and the foetus is somewhere in the middle. A newborn baby is right near the end only around 30km away. At this point, why would you give up when you've travelled so far and when the town of personhood is only 30km away. It is conscious, it can act independently, and it's very close to becoming self-aware. The point is IT'S SO CLOSE. A foetus isn't.

If you believe in the personhood distinction, you cannot say it has personhood until it is roughly around the age of 7.

Personhood is when someone exhibits the traits that distinguish humans from animals.

Self-awareness is also exhibited in animals, it is not a mark of personhood.

A baby still only exhibits animal characterisitics, that's why a baby is not held morally accountable for its actions.

If you believe in this personhood distinction, again the only way you can protect babies is by arguing they have the potentiality to personhood, but then again so do fetuses, so you'd have to protect them too.

Okay whatever... I just wanted to know what you thought of those.

Okay, I suppose you've explained that fairly well, at least it seems consistent with the rest of your beliefs.

I appreciate you responding to these is such a mature and civil manner.

 

[Riddle]

Even in a case of ****, the mother is still causedly responsible for the baby's state of dependancy on her.

Biologically yes. Otherwsie no.

Think of a **** case like this: You go out into your yard and find there is a ticking bomb. The only way you can save yourself is to throw it over a fence, meaning you will kill an innocent person.

As emotionally detached as it sounds, this is what **** abortion is. It is shifting the problem onto an innocent third party.

While your premise is sound, the conclusion you reached is merely based off of personal beliefs you hold. What if you threw the bomb at a mouse and killed it? Sure you killed an innocent third party but I think it was worth it. So while I can mostly agree with what your saying, our fundemental differences in opinion about the worth of fetuses is too different to agree here.

This is different to someone holding a ticking bomb telling you to take it so they can live instead of you, because in this case, you are not causedly responsible for the bombholder's state of dependancy, whether you existed or not wouldn't change the fact that the bombholder's life is in danger.

Is it though? In both situations you are making a conscious choice that causes another person to die. Why should it matter who starts with the bomb. I challenge you to give me a reason why the state of the persons dependence makes any difference. After all, a person's life is in danger!

In a **** case, the only reason why the baby is in a state of dependancy is because the mother is causedly responsible for it. [/qoute]

You keep saying this, but I really don't understand what you mean by it. Elaborate?

 

[Dre89]

Biologically yes. Otherwsie no.

In a **** case, the only accountability the mother doesn't hold is a moral one. That baby is only in a state of dependancy because of her.

While your premise is sound, the conclusion you reached is merely based off of personal beliefs you hold. What if you threw the bomb at a mouse and killed it? Sure you killed an innocent third party but I think it was worth it. So while I can mostly agree with what your saying, our fundemental differences in opinion about the worth of fetuses is too different to agree here.

Fair enough, but I have also explained why I believe the fetus is worthy of a right to life.

Is it though? In both situations you are making a conscious choice that causes another person to die. Why should it matter who starts with the bomb. I challenge you to give me a reason why the state of the persons dependence makes any difference. After all, a person's life is in danger!

The main thing is is that it is immoral to shift the problem onto another innocent person. Allowing this would have several implications. It would justify killing to save your own life, commiting crimes and harming other families for the sake of your own etc.

When the bombholder comes to you, you probably should take it, but this is out of personal virtue, the issue is that it was immoral the bombholder to come to you in the first place. In taking the bomb off him, you are exhibiting virtue, but only after the immorality of the bombholder.

The thing is, the point is to eliminate immorality. Because the bombholder is the first one with the bomb, he has to make the first moral decision, so ideally, he should have just let himself die.

Another way to think of **** abortion is this way- Suppose X lends Y $1000. Y then gets robbed by Z. Despite the fact that Y was innocent, he still should pay X back $1000, for he is causedly responsible for X's loss. In this case, X is only in a state of dependancy because of Y. ****-abortion logic would argue that Y doesn't have to pay back X because he was innocent, when clearly he should.

You keep saying this, but I really don't understand what you mean by it. Elaborate?

If you're driving along carefully, taking the necessary precautions, then suddenly a kid runs onto the road and you kill him, because you were doing everything right, you are not held morally accountable, but you physically killed him, so you are causedly responsible.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

In a **** case, the only accountability the mother doesn't hold is a moral one. That baby is only in a state of dependancy because of her.

I sort of understand what you're saying.

The main thing is is that it is immoral to shift the problem onto another innocent person. Allowing this would have several implications. It would justify killing to save your own life, commiting crimes and harming other families for the sake of your own etc.

When the bombholder comes to you, you probably should take it, but this is out of personal virtue, the issue is that it was immoral the bombholder to come to you in the first place. In taking the bomb off him, you are exhibiting virtue, but only after the immorality of the bombholder.

Yeah, but I have argued that you're shifting the bomb onto a thing, rather than a person. But who cares, I feel like handing in the towel, this is very tiring.

The thing is, the point is to eliminate immorality. Because the bombholder is the first one with the bomb, he has to make the first moral decision, so ideally, he should have just let himself die.

Not necessarily, the bomb-holder was just euthanising a person. I think of abortion much like euthanasia, because it's saving the foetus of quite probably a life of hardship and suffering. That is pretty much the only reason a mother would have an abortion.

Another way to think of **** abortion is this way- Suppose X lends Y $1000. Y then gets robbed by Z. Despite the fact that Y was innocent, he still should pay X back $1000, for he is causedly responsible for X's loss. In this case, X is only in a state of dependancy because of Y. ****-abortion logic would argue that Y doesn't have to pay back X because he was innocent, when clearly he should.

Well, it's slightly different. I think that Y would have NO MORE money than that $1000 at least in a number of circumstances, where Y has few options. Let's say they can't adopt the child away, or raise the child due to money problems, a lack of adoptive parents and a full orphanage or non-existent. It's just really sometimes the only option. In this case Y would have only one choice, to default on the loan.

If you're driving along carefully, taking the necessary precautions, then suddenly a kid runs onto the road and you kill him, because you were doing everything right, you are not held morally accountable, but you physically killed him, so you are causedly responsible.

I personally would say it's his fault, he ran out on to the road!

I'm getting tired of this, I don't think we're going many places with this. However it was interesting and I learnt a fair bit, but I'm just getting tired with this, I have places to do and things to be.

 

[Dre89]

I sort of understand what you're saying.



Yeah, but I have argued that you're shifting the bomb onto a thing, rather than a person. But who cares, I feel like handing in the towel, this is very tiring.

Fair enough, my point that it's illogical to defend abortion only in the case of ****.

Not necessarily, the bomb-holder was just euthanising a person. I think of abortion much like euthanasia, because it's saving the foetus of quite probably a life of hardship and suffering. That is pretty much the only reason a mother would have an abortion.

No, most mothers have an abortion because they don't want to have to care for the baby. I understand your point about hardship, but I don't think it's anyone's right to make a decision on someone else's life.

Well, it's slightly different. I think that Y would have NO MORE money than that $1000 at least in a number of circumstances, where Y has few options. Let's say they can't adopt the child away, or raise the child due to money problems, a lack of adoptive parents and a full orphanage or non-existent. It's just really sometimes the only option. In this case Y would have only one choice, to default on the loan.

I guess the difference is that in the case of the loan, Y simply cannot physically pay the loan back at all, whereas in an abortion, you can always continue with the pregnancy until birth.

I personally would say it's his fault, he ran out on to the road!

Right, but it doesn't change the fact that you were the one who ran him over.

I'm getting tired of this, I don't think we're going many places with this. However it was interesting and I learnt a fair bit, but I'm just getting tired with this, I have places to do and things to be.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted member]

There should be absolutely no abortion what so ever. Why it's legal I don't know.

Let's say if a mother got pregnant and lost interest in caring for the baby. Then before the baby is born, the mother can legally kill the baby (A.K.A. Abortion). The chances of that happening is unlikely but when it does happen, it is an sad event, as it show a lack of caring, selfishness, and can cause social and emotional consequences once the mother realize she has done wrong.

If abortion were to made illegal, this wouldn't be such a problem. That way, the mother would have to give it away if she doesn't want to care for the baby, a more humane solution.

 

[BSP]

Abortion is a serious issue, but I think it should remain an option for mothers, but ONLY for ****. Let's look at a scenario:

A man comes to a woman's (she's all alone) door, and tells her he has a delivery. She takes the package and takes her eyes off of him for a second to make sure it's hers, and he pushes her inside, overpowers her, pulls a gun, and orders her not to scream. Of course, the woman wants to live, and she listens to her assailer. He ***** her, then makes a quick getaway, leaving the woman tied up, incapacitated, etc.

As stretched as that situation sounds, it could very well happen. The woman has been *****, and will have a child unless action is taken. My question is how is this the woman's fault in any way? If she protested against her assailer, she would be dead. The woman had no consent in the making of the child; it was all against her will. How is this her fault, and if it somehow is, what could she have done to avoid it? (and lived)

Secondly (this is still talking about ****), what if the mother lacks the resources to take care of the child? If the whole incident is not her fault in the first place, why should she be required to give birth to a child she knows she can't care for? Like Bob Jane said, what if the baby would be doomed to a life of hardship and suffering? Would it be right for the mother to bring the child into the world if all it would experience is sadness?

 

[Deleted member]

@mariobrouser: Even if they did make abortion illegal to all but **** victims, womens who became pregnant but don't want to care for the baby can lie and say that they have been ***** and cannot care for the child. Then they could perform abortion. Even thought that would be illegal, it would still go on. They would have to outlaw all possiblilties of abortion to make any major effect.

Secondly (this is still talking about ****), what if the mother lacks the resources to take care of the child? If the whole incident is not her fault in the first place, why should she be required to give birth to a child she knows she can't care for? Like Bob Jane said, what if the baby would be doomed to a life of hardship and suffering? Would it be right for the mother to bring the child into the world if all it would experience is sadness?

Even if the **** victim couldn't care for the child, they can at least let another adult or couple care for him or her, that is, if they were able to. The **** victim doesn't have to call for abortion, they can let other people able to care to do the job.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@mariobrouser: Even if they did make abortion illegal to all but **** victims, womens who became pregnant but don't want to care for the baby can lie and say that they have been ***** and cannot care for the child. Then they could perform abortion. Even thought that would be illegal, it would still go on. They would have to outlaw all possiblilties of abortion to make any major effect.

Even if the **** victim couldn't care for the child, they can at least let another adult or couple care for him or her, that is, if they were able to. The **** victim doesn't have to call for abortion, they can let other people able to care to do the job.

I think that you are forgetting something, in many cases, finding adoptive parents may not be possible. After that, Abortion would probably still occur even if it was made illegal, it'd just be moved into some backstreet alley, in a ghetto, where unsafe and possibly inhumane processes are used to perform the abortion. Would you rather it happen in controlled circumstances and have it done humanely or would you rather flush it out onto the streets?

I think that while it may not be the moral to perform an abortion in all circumstances, I think that it should be legal. This is for a number of reasons, that you probably have already seen in my previous posts. Basically, woman's right to her own body, not every foetus becomes a child, foetuses don't show the characteristics of personhood in my eyes, and then a bunch of emotional arguments.

 

[Sieguest]

Personally, I believe that abortion should only be legal if done within the first six weeks of the first trimester of pregnancy, reason being that in the first six weeks it is still just a cluster of cells, and not exactly a living organism.
-[URL="http://www.pregnancy-period.com/first_trimester_pregnancy_week_by_week.html]Source[/URL]

Anytime after that, the embryo technically is living and has a right to live. Along with the fact that six weeks is plenty of time to decide to have an abortion.

 

[Dre89]

****-only abortion claims are pointless. It's far more logical to argue that abortion is ok in every case rather than just ****.

It doesn't matter what scenario you argue it, if you suppose that the mother couldn't abort it, and subsequently gave birth to it, would you still kill it? No. Essentially, killing because it's a fetus just becomes an emotional attachment argument, which is illogical.

And then if you say 'well a fetus is not a person', then the whole ****-only idea is pointless because if it's not a person and doesn't have a right to life you would be able to kill it whether it was **** or consensual.

Guest my previous posts in this topic argue why I think your logic is flawed, if you want to continue this debate go back and read them, I don't wanna have to retype them again lol.

 

[Sieguest]

Here goes then...

I'm also arguing that it is a human once the sperm reaches the egg and forms a zygote.

Part of my grounds for arguing this is that people say it is not human, yet I think it is the most human thing of all. A human zygote can only be human, and nothing esle, and every single human in the world was a zygote at some point. Not many things constitute humanity more than that.

A zygote displays no signs of life, and no signs of dependency, there is not even relative consciousness of the zygote's existence. It is just a conglomerate of cells. Using your reasoning one would say that if I have the metals which constitute the ship, that I have a ship, and that's not a logical thought process.

Pregnancy has many stages as you know. At the point that the zygote is formed it is just a few cells and nothing more, on its way down the Fallopian tube, it splits more and becomes more cells, at some point creating an outer shell of protection, and the inner area of cells, this is called a blastocyst. The blastocyst reaches the uterus on day five and on day 6 implants itself on the uterine wall. Only at this point can you claim that the blastocyst becomes dependent on the mother, and still then, it is just a conglomeration of cells, there is no human present, not even an animal. At the point of becoming an embryo, the cells begin to differentiate. There is still no human present, just cells. Only at about week five of pregnancy does the fetus begin taking features relative to a human.

Also make note of the week in pregnancy and the weeks in gestation.
There is a two week difference. At least two weeks before development begins. And even at that, the first two weeks of gestation still only display a conglomerate of cells and not a human. (I'll expound on that further).

Now, the only reason why I believe you can't consider a group of cells human is due to the "unknown" factor. What I mean is, if you found a person who knows Biology and you only showed him/her pictures of what may become a baby in the coming four weeks, he/she could not tell you that that group of cells is a human. As far as that person knows it could come out to be an animal or even something else. With that in mind, calling the group of cells human is an inaccurate assumption. And that until that group of cells begins development of features relative to those of a human, that it is not human, and that abortion is perfectly legal up until that point. (i.e 4-5 weeks)

 

[Dre89]

That wasn't the core of my argument though.

The thing is, most people who defend abortion use the personhood argument. The PA essentially says that there is a distinction between being human, and exhibiting personhood. They argue that fetuses are not of personhood, therefore they do not have the right to life.

Whether you realise it or not, this is essentially what you are saying too.

The problem is, there is actually no difference between a fetus and a born baby. Personhood is achieved when the human is capable of exhibiting traits which distinguish humans from other animals (intellect, moral conscious etc). However, a baby hasn't achieved personhood, therefore by this logic it shouldn't have a right to life either.

Both a zygote and a born baby are predetermined to develop into personhood. The difference is stage of development that they are in. If you apply the PA argument (that is, that there is a distinction between a human with personhood and a human without it), then neither the baby nor fetus have achieved it, therefore neither have the right to life.

The only way you could defend the baby is by arguing that a baby has the potentiality to achieve personhood, however, so does a fetus, so you'd have to protect it too.

Whether a person can tell whether a clump of cells will become human or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it has the right to life or not. That is one of the most abstract arguments I've ever heard, you're essentially using human ignorance as a justification for the termination of a life.

Besides, all humans originally look like a clump of cells. The fact it doesn't look like a mature human has absolutely nothing to do with it. Arguments from aesthetics would justify killing born babies because they don't look like the elderly.

The reality is, the only reason why fetuses are aborted is because of the decreased emotional attachment, which is poor ground to terminate an existence.

 

[SuperBowser]

The problem is, there is actually no difference between a fetus and a born baby.

Aside from the fact there is a physical difference between 16 cells and a baby; a fetus is a parasite on the woman's body, a baby is not.

 

[Sieguest]

That wasn't the core of my argument though.

What?

The problem is, there is actually no difference between a fetus and a born baby. Personhood is achieved when the human is capable of exhibiting traits which distinguish humans from other animals (intellect, moral conscious etc). However, a baby hasn't achieved personhood, therefore by this logic it shouldn't have a right to life either.

@Part in red- Prove it, as I see it, in the first 4-5 weeks
A conglomeration of cells =/= A Human

@Part in dark green- So how can you say I was using the personhood argument, if what I just displayed doesn't even match/meet the criteria of personhood?

My claim is strictly that while a baby is still a clump of cells, that you cannot claim it to be a human because it shows no signs of life (as an organism), and taking the zygote itself as a single factor in question, you cannot prove that it is human at that time despite what predestination say it will be in the future.

The only way you could defend the baby is by arguing that a baby has the potentiality to achieve personhood, however, so does a fetus, so you'd have to protect it too.

Note once more that not even my criteria meet the standard of the personhood argument, so paralleling my criteria to that of personhood is wholly inaccurate.

Whether a person can tell whether a clump of cells will become human or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether it has the right to life or not. That is one of the most abstract arguments I've ever heard, you're essentially using human ignorance as a justification for the termination of a life.

Actually it does, since a clump of cells doesn't display life (of an organism) aside from that of the mother, you cannot declare it human, and since it's not human nor has life of an organism, it seems justifiable for an abortion within the time frame I specified earlier.

In reference to the example of "ignorance"- My point is why you cannot declare the Zygote human.

Besides, all humans originally look like a clump of cells. The fact it doesn't look like a mature human has absolutely nothing to do with it. Arguments from aesthetics would justify killing born babies because they don't look like the elderly.

And that's a time when parents could abort that human, while it displays no life of its own, and therefore cannot claim a right to live, although most parents openly welcome having a child, which kind of leaves what you said as a rather moot point.

Also, the fact that you call my argument one of purely aesthetics shows you truly didn't grasp my point at all. From what I've provided a clump of cells has no life of its own, and therefore is not human. While babies and the elderly are both human. Major difference.

The reality is, the only reason why fetuses are aborted is because of the decreased emotional attachment, which is poor ground to terminate an existence.

I'm sorry, but this is a rather narrow minded, judgmental, and overall poor assumption... if you're going to say something like this, then please justify yourself.

 

[Jam Stunna]

@Part in red- Prove it, as I see it, in the first 4-5 weeks
A conglomeration of cells =/= A Human

@Part in dark green- So how can you say I was using the personhood argument, if what I just displayed doesn't even match/meet the criteria of personhood?

My claim is strictly that while a baby is still a clump of cells, that you cannot claim it to be a human because it shows no signs of life (as an organism), and taking the zygote itself as a single factor in question, you cannot prove that it is human at that time despite what predestination say it will be in the future.

How do you define "life?"

These debates always reach this point, and when it becomes apparent that we can't even agree on that (which is really the crux of the subject), it becomes apparent that there really is no use in debating this topic.

 

[Sieguest]

How do you define "life?"

These debates always reach this point, and when it becomes apparent that we can't even agree on that (which is really the crux of the subject), it becomes apparent that there really is no use in debating this topic.

Well, I can see how one can a different connotation for what life is, but given the denotative meaning of life for the topic at hand...

Select definitions of life for Dictionary.com:

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

the general or universal condition of human existence

Does a zygote exhibit these principles of life? I can see how one can argue that the cells in the zygote reproduce as they split and make more cells, but how would you explain internal change within the time frame I specified of 4-5 weeks, in which it still a clump of cells, developing some internal organs at the end of the 5th week? And does the zygote metabolize and grow by this means? Given that it relies on the mother beginning on day 6, I wouldn't believe it does this.

 

[BSP]

@mariobrouser: Even if they did make abortion illegal to all but **** victims, womens who became pregnant but don't want to care for the baby can lie and say that they have been ***** and cannot care for the child. Then they could perform abortion. Even thought that would be illegal, it would still go on. They would have to outlaw all possiblilties of abortion to make any major effect.

Making abortion illegal would probably cause unnecessary problems, so it would not be a good idea. That being said, I still think it should be an available option because of ****. And, if it wasn't an option, think of all the babies being brought into the world, that are not garunteed a life without extreme hardship.

Even if the **** victim couldn't care for the child, they can at least let another adult or couple care for him or her, that is, if they were able to. The **** victim doesn't have to call for abortion, they can let other people able to care to do the job.

So our solution is to just dump the next child into someone else's hands (who have nothing to do with the situation in the first place)? If abortion is not an option, what do we do with all of these children, especially if the parent(s) can't care for it? Find adoptive parents? Finding adoptive parents could work for a while, but you can't assume that finding people to take another child will be easy. And, would we do that for every single baby born that couldn't be cared for? What would happen when there's no more room, or it becomes extremely difficult to find parents? Would we send them to orphanages? Removal of abortion could possibly increase orphan rates as well.

This site here gives some information about past years and abortions. 45 million abortions occured during a 32 year period. That's a pretty good amount of people that would be here today, and not all of them would have happy lives.

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[

Same site. Most women do have reasonable reasons for abortion. It wouldn't be right to force these people to go through pregnancy and childbirth (painful process too) to have a child that they would just dump onto someone else (or abandon).

****-only abortion claims are pointless. It's far more logical to argue that abortion is ok in every case rather than just ****.

You're right. I'll argue for abortion being an option at all times. I think the amount of valid reasons for abortion are too great to just get rid of the option.

It doesn't matter what scenario you argue it, if you suppose that the mother couldn't abort it, and subsequently gave birth to it, would you still kill it? No. Essentially, killing because it's a fetus just becomes an emotional attachment argument, which is illogical.

That's not really my point. I wouldn't support killing a born baby, but, like guest said, prove that the fetus is no different from a baby at birth.

And then if you say 'well a fetus is not a person', then the whole ****-only idea is pointless because if it's not a person and doesn't have a right to life you would be able to kill it whether it was **** or consensual.

Yes, I realized the flaw in saying only **** cases should be allowed. I corrected it above.

 

[Dre89]

My point is that it is inconsistent to protect born babies but not fetuses, it is more logical to say that neither have a right to life.

The only difference between a baby and a fetus is the stage of development they are at.

Both a baby and a fetus are predetermined to develop into mature humans. A zygote is different from a sperm and an egg, because a sperm and egg are not predetermined to develop into mature humans, unless they join together, making the zygote.

Apart from the differing stages of development, the only difference between the two is that the baby is more 'alive', in that it displays emotions etc. However, this is irrelevant, because animals display emotions etc., but they clearly do not have an untouchable right to life, because we kill and exploit them for food, services and entertainment.

Even if you're an animal rights activist, it is part of nature that animals are frequently predated upon or are victims of territorial killings.

So what we see here is that emotional capacity does not necessarily equate to right to life. Alot of animals are more intelligent than babies, yet do not have an untouchable right to life.

So now we go back to the personhood argument. It is clear that a baby does not exhibit true personhood. Now, considering that a baby is no different to other animals, being even less intelligent than some, by personhood argument logic you could not protect babies.

Again, the only way you could protect babies, and not other animals, is to find something that distinguishes babies from animals. The only thing that there is is that a baby has the potential to achieve personhood, and is predetermined to do so if nothing goes wrong. But, as I've said before, so does a fetus.