The stance that people take on the issue of abortion depends on when they believe that life begins. The person who thinks that life begins at conception will be against abortion; and the person who thinks that life begins when someone is out of somebody else's body will be in favor of abortion rights. I believe that both sides are half-right. The law does not protect life; it protects human life, and human life is not human until it starts to look human. In the first trimester the embryo is a clump of cells, and in the second trimester the embryo looks like a fish. Neither a clump of cells nor a fish qualify as human life. Ethical questions should be asked about aborting the fetus in third trimester, when it starts to look human. But the embryo of the first two trimesters should not be defended as human life. Human life is not human life until it starts to look human. This happens in the third trimester, but not in the first two.
I would have to say that when the fetus is "alive", as in has a nervous system, and a functioning brain, it becomes off limits. That usually sets in around week 12 - 14. They allow people to "unplug" a non-responsive human without a problem, well I don't think it's any different for a non-responsive fetus. There have been many cases of "brain dead" people that do actually wake up before someone makes that argument. So, I believe that until the fetus is responsive, and has a working brain, it isn't alive.
Nobody can for sure when the life of a human being begins.It's always a matter of opinion. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It's a question philosophers have been debating for years and never come up with an answer acceptable to everyone beyond any doubt. The trouble starts when people try to force their opinions on other people. The bottom line is that two entities occupying the same body cannot have equal rights. Any rights given to a foetus are taken away from pregnant women. Women often willingly suspend their rights when they become pregnant in favour of their foetus, but they should never be forced to do that. Whether or not it looks human is neither here nor there. Of course it looks human. It is human. Laws affecting the liberty and well being of human beings should only apply to people. People are born human beings who function at the same basic level as other people. People do not have the right to force other people to donate body parts to keep them alive. I may strongly disapprove of a mother who refuses to donate a kidney to save the life of her child, but she should never need my approval. She doesn't, in fact. So why should a pregnant woman be forced to donate her body to sustain the life of the foetus inside her? Why should she need the approval of society? There are organisations ( mostly religious) who do their best to persuade women not to abort an abnormal foetus, especially in the USA - yet there is no serious attempt to get those opinions made law, because very few people are totally pro life. There are nearly always exceptions based on nothing more than personal opinion that we are supposed to be forced to accept.
When a new human life begins is not really up for debate. That happens at conception. Whether or not a fetus has the same rights as a born person, and rights that trump the mother it lives inside of, is what the issue is. New human life may begin at conception but I believe you're not a PERSON until birth. People are protected by laws. People have rights, SS numbers, and are individuals. A fetus has none of those things and is not an individual, because individuals don't live inside other individuals. And it's not just me that thinks that, it's the way societies have functioned for thousands of years, up to this very day. You don't see folks treating a fetus like it's a person at all. Not in the language, not in the customs, not in the law(though not for lack of trying by crazies). The idea of fetal personhood is perpetuated solely on it's use for opposing abortion and not an inch beyond, even by it's proponents. They don't even believe it, they just see it's usefulness to further their goal.
not for me. I think neither, as far as I am concerned the issue is not when "life" begins but the right of the individual to decide who, what, where and when their body is used by another. As my signature states "From Choice To Consent .. Taking Abortion From What A Fetus 'Is' To What It 'Does'" "Human life" has nothing to do with what they look like.
No,it doesn't. Up until two weeks after conception a fertilised egg can split to form twins, or just turn into a bundle of mismatched cells that are absorbed into the woman's body or are flushed out at menstruation.
It begins when human consciousness begins, I see no reason to debate that. Both of those sides are dead wrong - the activity of the brain is what determines when it begins. It's not based on "looks", it's based on at what point the consciousness of the brain begins Terrible argument, since people with physical deformities such as Down's Syndrome don't "look human" but still have human awareness. If it's defined by neural consciousness, then there shouldn't be anything to debate.
False, an embryo at conception has no brain, therefore it's not a human life. Being alive and being a "human life" in the sense that rights are defined are not the same thing. It shouldn't be an issue if brain activity is used as the metric. And I believe you aren't a person until 21. Black slaves were not protected by laws, rights, or SS numbers. Adult conjoined twins share the body of the other individual - but are both separate individuals because they each have a separate brain and consciousness Gross oversimplification - I'd venture to say you'd be wrong about societies thinking nothing of electively aborting a baby 1 day before delivery. Personhood is dependent on consciousnesses; at some point in the pregnancy the fetus does have a functioning brain and a consciousness - that's not up for debate, it's scentific fact. People like you don't really believe that a late term fetus isn't a person the very millisecond before it's left the womb. You know that it's a baby, but believe that people should be allowed to kill it anyway.
To my knowledge, most all human fetus's look human, once born. Would you then suggest, if that once born baby, doesn't look like full grown human, say 6 fingers or maybe a bigger nose than normal, we should terminate them as well. Just like all life, once it's fertilized, the process leads to an eventual end, in the case of humans, some want to determine when that occurs.
Hahaha you sound like me a couple years ago before I realized I don't have to pretend a fetus isn't a human life in order to argue pro-choice. Once the DNA combines at conception and cell division begins, that's a new human life. By saying it's a new human life, all that is being said is that it is biologically human and it is alive, both of which don't seem to be under question. But being that it is a human life does not mean it is a person because that doesn't occur until birth. I agree, although I tend to believe it is more under the mother's purview regardless. Find enough other people that agree and that can become true as far as the law is concerned. In fact, that's how morality itself works. Consensus. Which was just one of the many tragedies of slavery in this country. That is true, and I would support the decision for either twin to separate themselves if they chose, but unfortunately in those circumstances the birth defect can prevent that from being a possibility. But also in this situation both of these twins tend to be on equal ground. There aren't circumstances where one is the established person and the other a newcomer with no brain activity. That's not what I said. I said that society doesn't treat the fetus inside a woman as a person until it's actually born. Only for the abortion debate does the question of personhood even get brought up, and then it gets tucked back away in it's storage case until the next specifically abortion related debate. I am okay with this position as a compromise with abortion and I've said as much numerous times on this forum(just for your reference). I'm okay with there being a time window within which a woman must choose abortion, as long as there are exceptions for the discovery of birth defects or an endangerment to the mother's health. Actually I do believe that. But I don't have to really wrestle with it because the vast bulk of late-term abortions are done for a medical reason, not because the woman procrastinated, and I support abortions for medical complications at any and all stages of the pregnancy. But like I said, I can easily compromise on my stance about it if someone wanted to have a cutoff date, with the exceptions I noted already. I'd also prefer that the tradeoff include anti-abortion legislation be backed off on both the state and national level in regards to a woman's ability to choose before the cutoff arrives. That means no more waiting periods, unnecessary and invasive procedures, and no under-handed or secret attacks with restrictive laws that have no functional purpose other than making it harder or impossible for a woman to have an abortion in her state. That in return for a strict cutoff.
Incorrect. Trees have a full set of DNA, but aren't considered a life with rights because they have no brain. The higher the level of consciousness, the higher the level of rights we give a member of a species - this is why ants have less rights than dogs, but dogs have less than humans. Human rights are determined by the level of brain activity, not by being a functioning mass of cells. It's not a person because it has no consciousness. It occurs when consciousness begins - before birth. I believe the humanity of negroes is under the slave owner's purview. Morality is based on objective facts, not consensus. When a fetus has a functioning brain, it is objectively a person with a consciousness. If 90% of people were Nazis and believed negroes were subhuman, they would still be human. And therefore they were not human, so there was nothing wrong with killing them. A fetus has brain activity at a certain point in the pregnancy - an embryo does not so it has no rights, but a fetus with a brain does. That depends on the stage of the pregnancy. It shouldn't even be a debate since consciousness and brain activity objectively begin at a certain poin That's eugenics. You're saying that if a fetus would be born a dwarf, it should be killed even though it has it's own brain and awareness? That's a no brainer. Early term abortion should be legal on demand; abortion after the point of brain activity should be illegal except to save a life
Incorrect. We give rights to the things we consider cute. That's why dogs and cats don't get eaten here, but cows and pigs and bunnies and chickens do. Anything that you grow and harvest for food, anything that you're allowed to stuff into tiny cages in factory farm warehouses, can not be considered to have any rights with any meaning. No, they are determined by birth and then arbitrary legal age brackets. That's definitely a major part of it. That's a position I'm okay with. So all those negro slaves lived in the wombs of their owners, literally connected to their bodies, never having been anywhere else? Which is just a scientific designation. It is subjective morality that determines what value being human has. And morality is determined individually and social morality by consensus. They were no different than the slave owners so no argument can be made about any kind of distinction that would set them apart from their white owners. The distinction between a fetus and a born person is a real one. No it doesn't. And it never has. I'm not saying anything about "should" other than it should be the mother's choice either way. Sometimes detection of birth defects doesn't occur until later stages of pregnancy meaning an exception would need to be included should that occur for a woman after the cutoff. To you and I it is. That's not universally true of everyone. I'm mostly okay with that position.
You aren't allowed to kill cows or chickens out of cruelty - people are allowed to kill them for food, but not out of cruelty. People consider butterflies "cute" but killing one would not land you an animal cruelty charge. The concept of species heirarchy is based on the degree of neural activity, even Aristotle understood this. No, the criteria by which we developed the entire concepts of human rights, and determined that humans have rights which chimpanzees do not is based humans having a higher level of neural activity. People who inherited slaves had no say in the matter, and they were directly responsible for the welfare of the slaves via their own resources, and the money or provisions they used their own body to acquire. Morality is based off of facts - the facts of the harm caused to individuals who are murdered are undeniable - someone deciding that it isn't immoral doesn't change the fact of the harm the actions have caused. Morality on the whole is evolutionary derived from cooperative instincts which all animals have, and not up for individual determination on the most fundamental level. They were dependent on the slave owner using his own body to provide food and housing for them against his will, so yes the argument is the same if it doesn't take the human consciousness into account. Once the brain is functioning, human consciousness has begun - that's scientific fact. You're not debating that it's a human consciousness, just whether it should be okay to kill it anway Then the "exception" should extend until the child is 18 years old - since you're completely unconcerned whether or not it's a person with a consciousness, rather just whether or not you consider it genetically inferior. Why should a dwarf have less rights than a "normal person"?
I don't disagree, but brain activity amongst the five branches of the animal kingdom is all high enough that you would think they would entail protection. But yet some of those animals are allowed to be killed for sport, for fun. You're allowed to use a high powered rifle to blow a hole in a woodchuck if you even think it's got an eye on one of your tomato plants. People are allowed to pull fish out of the water and throw them in a bucket where they slowly suffocate. Is that not cruelty and to a born conscious animal no less? And what women do you know of that are getting abortions out of a sense of cruelty? The only constant in any of this is that humanity is leveling it's own judgment on the value of life and that's the exact same thing happening in an abortion debate. By your own words we decide what levels of life gets what protections. By your own words you say it's dependent upon consciousness, but who said that was the objective way to do it? We did. Humans. So that concept is not any higher above any of the other concepts also conceived by humans because it can't be, since it was created by humans. These ideas don't have a priority setting like this is an email or a torrent download where you can set it to be above humanity or high priority and have that be objective. The best we can do is find consensus enough to have the type of society we want to live in. And like I said, it was us that decided that's the way to measure it. We didn't get that rule out of the cosmic handbook. It wasn't handed down to us from a higher being or a higher plane. People who inherited slaves were also just as capable of freeing them the moment those people became their property and compensating them for services rendered and the freedom they stole. Morality isn't based on fact at all, it's based on emotion. It absolutely is. Each being that keeps it own council makes it's own choices. ....against his will.... My friend, I think you have the entire concept of slavery backwards. You realize it's the slaves that are the victims, not the slave owners, right? Exactly, for as long as it remains inside it's mother. But like I've said, I'm completely willing to support compromise on an abortion cutoff. That wouldn't make any sense, you can't have an abortion after birth. And once a person is born, they are their own individual. The mother loses the ability to make those types of decisions for it the moment it leaves her body. That's the game-breaking distinction those silly slavery analogies you drug out always ignore. Both the slave owner and the slaves were born and each was an individual. ...I didn't say they should...
Animals which are hunted are killed for food, not for cruelty. And the hierarchy of nature determines the acceptable degree based on the level of sentience - even a mosquito can feel pain but not the same as that of a chimpanzee The facts that it's based on aren't created by humans, and humans' natural instincts weren't "created", we were born with them - no one has to be "told" that murdering an innocent person is wrong to know it's so. Objective facts override consensus - somethings are objectively more beneficial from the perspective of our evolutionary biology than others. We created it based on observable facts, not just on "consensus". Plus all animals have their God-given instincts - even if someone doesn't believe in God, evolution verifies we have certain ingrained instincts to correct behavior - though these instincts can be disturbed as a result of social conditioning (resulting in bad behavior). Nope, certain choices are more beneficial from an evolutionary POV so I'd say it's pretty axiomatic that they are more moral, since the actual benefits they provide can be objectively verified Some are more correct than others. All animals (humans included) have in-born instincts toward cooperation, and certain behaviors which are beneficial for them and their own kind. This is why even predatory animals like sharks don't just wantonly kill off their own species. All you're doing is quoting nihilist rhetoric which ignores the fact that humans have inborn evolutionary instincts toward productive behaviors, and are not really as "individual" as we like to pretend we are. A slave owner would have had to go through a lot of trouble to get rid of his slaves. It's not like he could just let them free, and they could walk down the street, get a job at Taco Bell, and move into a low rent apartment back int the 1600s. They have a consciousness before birth. Why? She's still legally required to use her own body to provide food, nourishment, and shelter for it against her will. Legally slaves were not individuals. Even before being out of the womb, they still have a brain and awareness. You said an exception should be made to abort people with disabilities - why is that?
I bet that dentist enjoyed his Cecil steaks - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33695872 Life in general only has as much value as another places upon it, Humans as the alpha animal on this planet are the ones who have designated who or what can be killed. Our so called natural instincts did not include co-operation, those evolved, out earliest ancestors lived in small family groups with little to no interaction between groups except in conflict, and yes people do need to be told that killing an innocent person is wrong, our most basic natural instinct is survival and if that meant killing an innocent it would have been done. It is only our culture and societal evolution that has suppressed (to a point) our killer nature. The most basic instinct all animals have is survival, anything after that is merely a means to ensure that survival, be it through conflict or co-operation.. to even bring God into the equation is clutching at straws. choices on an evolutionary level have little to do with morals. Co-operation and behaviours based on the need to survive .. the only thing that nature endowed all species with is survival, everything after that is merely a means to promote that survival. I really don't understand how this is relevant, conscious people get killed everyday, we just find a way to justify it. That is social dependency not biological dependency and social dependency can be provided by any willing person, biological dependency cannot. again so what? disability, no disability really isn't the issue .. what the fetus "is" isn't relevant, what it "does" is.
Yes, and people objected to it. People understand the difference between killing for food and for cruelty. That's just moral nihilism. That is cooperation. They did not just kill, rape, or eat their own kin right or left. [/quote] and yes people do need to be told that killing an innocent person is wrong, our most basic natural instinct is survival and if that meant killing an innocent it would have been done. It is only our culture and societal evolution that has suppressed (to a point) our killer nature. [/quote] Our primary internal nature is cooperation, with killing being a survival instinct only - no one for example is "born" a serial killer, they are made, and serial killing does not benefit one or one's group survival. It is not for individual survival alone, it is for the survival and perpetuation of it's community - people by nature are social animals, like apes are. Apes may fight apes from other tribes, but they don't destroy themselves or their own tribe - and they don't need to be told to behave in an orderly fashion. They are what morality evolved into - the basis of human morality is the evolutionary instinct for one and one's community to survive and thrive. This is true in humans as well. This depends on whether it is objectively justifiable or not. I see little difference. The argument is similar. It is what it does - it thinks, feels and has its own consciousness once it's brain is formed - it does everything by which human life is deemed as having rights and worth.
You were the one who stated "Animals which are hunted are killed for food, not for cruelty" which, as shown is not true. rubbish, it applies to you just as it applies to all humans. You value the lives of your family over the lives of others, and you value the lives of other humans over the lives of other animals. Well yes they did, a son would kill his father to become the "leader" of the group or his brother to inherit, and as a family group a certain amount of incest would have happened . .did they indulge in cannibalism, I have seen nothing that says they did or didn't. cooperation to a point and in our ancestors only within the family group. Basic survival is the survival of oneself, secondly to that is the survival of the family group, thirdly the survival of the extended group and then extends outwards to encompass others, and yes apes do destroy others in their own tribe, male chimps will sometimes kill infant chimps. morals are value judgements based on what one believes to be right or wrong usually enforced by the majority .. not all moral choices are good for the survival of the community. Hence why I said ALL species. Correct, and who was it that made the rules whether it is justifiable or not and abortion is certainly objectively justifiable. you choose to see little difference while there is a great difference. and by being what it is, it does cause injuries to another person, injuries that without consent, in any other situation, would be more than enough to justify self-defence including deadly force. rights and worth to the point where it does not infringe the rights and worth of another person .. what you advocate is granting the unborn rights and worth that no other person has in direct violation of the equal protection clause.
Lets ignore all the other kingdoms of life aside from the animal kingdom since that is the one that contains the lifeforms with the highest consciousness that we know of. What is the difference between shooting a bear or an elk for and shooting your dog? Both have comparable levels of consciousness yet there are no dog hunting licenses available. Both can be eaten for food, but we've decided that the dog isn't an acceptable food source while the bear or the elk are, regardless of the levels of consciousness being pretty much the same. We arbitrarily assign value based on our whims and our needs and our interests. I'm okay with this since it's something we get to do as the apex predator of this planet. But I think we need to understand that we do it and not pretend like we are guided by some higher moral calling. Humanity needs to be honest with itself. Sure they do because that morality is taught. Living things know they themselves don't want to die which, if you have empathy, would tell you that it is therefore wrong to kill something else that's alive. But you are not born knowing it's "wrong" to kill because right and wrong are products of human consciousness and emotion, not the building blocks of it. No argument there but morality is never objective and people don't always choose morality that makes objective sense. Which is really just a fancy way of saying that each lifeform chooses for itself based on it's upbringing and environment. That may be true, but living things and especially living things other than humans don't do things because they have an evolutionary advantage. They aren't even aware of evolution. Nor does evolution factor into human decision making. When's the last time you did something because it had an evolutionary advantage? We have social instincts that make us want to group together like various other animals do, like dogs. That doesn't mean we are born with morality. It means we are born with survival instincts. Sharks don't kill each other because it's "wrong" for them to kill each other, they don't do it because other sharks are not the prey they instinctively hunt. I'd be willing to bet a starving shark would attack another shark if it was desperate enough. Most predators don't choose to hunt things that are on equal ground with them unless they are desperate because that puts the odds of their survival lower and it's more likely that predators that displayed this type of behavior would die out before passing on their genetic material. The slave owner, the person that owns other people, does not get to complain about the hardships of stopping the owning of other people as far as I'm concerned. Nobody made them own slaves in the first place. Those slaves didn't show up one day, tell him that he's now their owner, and then expected him to take care of them. Choices were made and those choices must be owned. But they are not an individual and that's what makes a person a person. Because that's the responsibility one takes on when you choose to give birth according to our laws. If you don't agree with that, it's something that can be changed through the legislative process. The reason a mother gets to choose abortion is because she's the only individual in that equation. Her right to make that choice ends when her child becomes an individual too and that occurs at birth. But you're not an individual before you're out of the womb. Individuals don't live inside other individuals. I didn't say people with disabilities, I said birth defects. If the mother feels she doesn't want to bring a child into the world that will be born with what she might consider a disadvantage, or worse in the case of some defects, it should be her choice to end the pregnancy. In fact, a mother's reason for an abortion shouldn't even be a part of the discussion because it's nobody's business but her own. The exception after the cutoff exists because some defects cannot be detected until later stages of a pregnancy. If they could all be detected before the cutoff, that exception would have no need to exist.
I believe a new life begins at fertilization. It is a human life all along. However, that does not mean the woman should not be able to have it removed from her body if she so chooses. I am against banning abortion at any stage - it is not for the govt. to practice medicine. Besides, women do *not* gestate to the third trimester and then decide to abort "just because". If a woman is aborting at that late stage, chances are the pregnancy has gone bad. ie severe fetal deformity.
I will just point out here, for those who may not be aware, that babies have been born BEFORE the third trimester and survived. Generally the chances of survival are less than 50% though.
This is chilling. Soon the time will come that abortionists will be brought to justice for their crimes. It might be a few more decades at most. Justice will prevail.
