Debates
18 Sep 07
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrouble is though that we all end up with the rights of a baboon.
Your post gave me an idea. Maybe a fetus should have equivalent rights to whatever animal it's nervous system is like. It's well known that fetuses go through developmental stages where first they're like a fish, then an amphibian, etc.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHave you ever seen a picture of an unborn baby after 6weeks from conception? Apparently not since that picture looks a lot more human than fish.
Your post gave me an idea. Maybe a fetus should have equivalent rights to whatever animal it's nervous system is like. It's well known that fetuses go through developmental stages where first they're like a fish, then an amphibian, etc.
If you check the genetic code of an unborn baby, you will also realize that it is a unique human genetic make-up which does not change.
I would think that the nervous system would be 100% human so your argument would prove that an unborn baby is truly human.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by agryson"another human?" What is that supposed to mean?
Very true, two minutes before birth, the baby is effectively another human, .... I think it's a fools errand to try to define a single moment where it becomes human, but if we can define a period of time where this fuzzy line is crossed, and make sure that such procedures take place before that period of time and no later, then the foetus can, IMO, be defined as a part of that womans body to do with as she feels is necessary.
"Its a fools errand to try to define a single moment..."
Almost a good argument except that the unborn baby has the unique genetic make-up of a human at conception given to the child by the mom and dad. That doesn't make it human? It's not like the genetic make-up is given to the unborn child in mid-delivery.
With the genetic make-up the unborn child will continue to develop fully since it has been given that genetic make-up.
It is a fool's errand to find a specific moment since that moment does not exist since when it came into existence it IS human-not that it turns into a human.
18 Sep 07
1 edit
What is this about abortion, why not use the money used to look after these unwanted children, and spend it looking after the unwanted children that are already here ?
Look after the children that are here properly, before you try to prevent a woman from having a child that she doesn't want.
When you've adopted a few kids, then come back and you may have a bit more of an argument.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Wheelytrue. But at the other end of the spectrum to argue that a 1 celled organism, created at the moment of conception, has the same value as a human. SO why not skin cells that we shed by the bucket load. If you argue that the fetus is a "potential person" then why not argue that, by not getting pregnant at every opportunity a woman is denying the existence of other potential people too...
Do you agree with that two minutes before birth?
I'm not sure I do.
At what point does a fetus obtain the rights of a person, and why then? Does it suddenly gain them, or does it slowly gain these rights as it becomes older, thereby demanding greater and greater reason to abort it?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by Wheely2 minutes befre birth is illegal.
Do you agree with that two minutes before birth?
I'm not sure I do.
The time frame needs to be determined by whether or not the baby can survive outside the womb.
I think in the UK the period is 24 weeks - I would like to see that reduced to 18 weeks.
Having said that criminalising those that have later abortions does not really help society these women are vunerable and supporting them at this difficult time is better than prosecuting them.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakSkin cells will never grow up into a person but an unborn baby/fetus/whatever will grow into a bigger person. So no, I will not shed tears for skin cells.
true. But at the other end of the spectrum to argue that a 1 celled organism, created at the moment of conception, has the same value as a human. SO why not skin cells that we shed by the bucket load. If you argue that the fetus is a "potential person" then why not argue that, by not getting pregnant at every opportunity a woman is denying the existence ...[text shortened]... in these rights as it becomes older, thereby demanding greater and greater reason to abort it?
I do not argue that a fetus is a "potential person" as you misconstrued, but rather that a fetus is a person.
To say that a women by not getting pregnant is denying the existence of other people is not related to my argument. I argue that abortion is the killing of innocent human life. If you want to start another forum on when women should get pregnant, go for it. I am only arguing against the silent holocaust.
A fetus/unborn baby is human at the moment of conception when it receives its unique human genetic make-up, cells start dividing, it has metabolism, and reaction to stimuli.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by invigorateWhich is why I support programs that help women when they are pregnant and don't know what to do or don't have much support otherwise.
2 minutes befre birth is illegal.
The time frame needs to be determined by whether or not the baby can survive outside the womb.
I think in the UK the period is 24 weeks - I would like to see that reduced to 18 weeks.
Having said that criminalising those that have later abortions does not really help society these women are vunerable and supporting them at this difficult time is better than prosecuting them.
Society needs to better support women who are pregnant instead of allowing them to do something that they will regret when they realize they ended a human life. There are support groups for women who regret their abortions.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001You're correct in that I am unfamiliar with fetal and embryonic development. It was just a thought. I am sure I read or heard something about the embryo/fetus looking like different animals as it developed. Anyone know about this?
Have you ever seen a picture of an unborn baby after 6weeks from conception? Apparently not since that picture looks a lot more human than fish.
If you check the genetic code of an unborn baby, you will also realize that it is a unique human genetic make-up which does not change.
I would think that the nervous system would be 100% human so your argument would prove that an unborn baby is truly human.
Get off the "human" kick. No one is saying fetuses and embryos aren't humans. You're offering us a straw man.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001And the sperm and egg were human before conception, and the parents were human, etc for millions of years back.
"another human?" What is that supposed to mean?
"Its a fools errand to try to define a single moment..."
Almost a good argument except that the unborn baby has the unique genetic make-up of a human at conception given to the child by the mom and dad. That doesn't make it human? It's not like the genetic make-up is given to the unborn child ...[text shortened]... s not exist since when it came into existence it IS human-not that it turns into a human.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Ok, so if it's the individual genetic material that qualifies the foetus as human, and nothing else. (i.e. the moment the male and female gametes fuse and their DNA crosslinks to form an original human genetic structure) what about the rythm method of contraception?
"another human?" What is that supposed to mean?
"Its a fools errand to try to define a single moment..."
Almost a good argument except that the unborn baby has the unique genetic make-up of a human at conception given to the child by the mom and dad. That doesn't make it human? It's not like the genetic make-up is given to the unborn child ...[text shortened]... s not exist since when it came into existence it IS human-not that it turns into a human.
It doesn't stop the formation of fertilized gametes, it just times that fertilization so that it won't ever have the opportunity to attach to the uterus and gets ejected from the body. A human being (by your definition) getting aborted by natural means because it was fertilized potentially just a single day late.
By your definition, the rythm method is murder since fertilization was specifically timed by the couple to ensure that there was no chance of the zygote getting beyond a few cells.
And even in the course of standard copulation, and fertilization, a significant proportion (I think it's almost half, though I'd need to look that number up) of fertilized eggs never make it beyond a few cells before they get ejected even though they're viable zygotes. While that last one is not murder by your definition (by your definition, it's an accident since no conscious decision was taken by anyone to abort the cells) it is certainly, by your definition, a significant loss of human life globally and thus doctors should be doing everything in their power to prevent this and encouraging the mothers body to bring these zygotes to term. Is that not the case?
Having nothing more than an independant human genome is a very shaky base on which to define humanity.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakI'm not arguing for any of those things. I'm wondering if Shav's flippant statement that it's a womens body, end of story is really the end of the story. I find that a tough question when we are talking about late in a pregnancy. I'm inclined to agree with him though.
true. But at the other end of the spectrum to argue that a 1 celled organism, created at the moment of conception, has the same value as a human. SO why not skin cells that we shed by the bucket load. If you argue that the fetus is a "potential person" then why not argue that, by not getting pregnant at every opportunity a woman is denying the existence ...[text shortened]... in these rights as it becomes older, thereby demanding greater and greater reason to abort it?
19 Sep 07
I think we're looking at the abortion issue all wrong: Abortion is good because it destroys future liberals and future criminals. Since liberal women are more likely to be unwed mothers and rely on the state to provide subsistence and act as a surrogate father, they are more inclined to have abortions. This is good because children in similar circumstances have been brought up in impoverished households with no proper adult role models and because they've been unsupervised a great deal of time, they later take up a life of crime after forming gang affiliations with other children of similar circumstances. By yanking these future offenders out of their mother's womb and flushing them down the toilet, their mothers are doing society a great service: Less crime, less taxes used for police and incarceration.
Another reason why abortion is good is because you can choose the sex of your child. In case you are of limited means and unprepared to bring more than one child into the world, you will want to insure that your precious bundle of joy is a boy. With fetal imaging and ultrasound, it's no longer a problem to determine a baby's sex. And if it doesn't have the right equipment, well it's pretty easy to go to Planned Parenthood and make the unwanted female child go away.