Justification for Abortion

Originally posted by Wheely
OK,

How do we define "alive". I ask this because my kidney can be kept alive and contains my DNA but I presume you wouldn't describe it as a human.

Correct. I would think "alive" would entail that it can think for itself.


In the book "Essentials of Human Embryology" by William J. Larsen, Ph.D.,

It says that the different parts of the brain such as the the fore brain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain are distinguishable by day 19 after conception.

What about the time between fertilization and day 19? Is there no brain and therefore it is not human? Or rather when you have a man and a woman humans that procreate, then therefore it must be human and not alien.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Correct. I would think "alive" would entail that it can think for itself.


In the book "Essentials of Human Embryology" by William J. Larsen, Ph.D.,

It says that the different parts of the brain such as the the fore brain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain are distinguishable by day 19 after conception.

What about the time between fertilizati ...[text shortened]... have a man and a woman humans that procreate, then therefore it must be human and not alien.

Alive would entail that it can think for itself, yet a foetus prior to full neurological development (about 3 months if I'm not mistaken) can't think or percieve for itself. Up unitl that point (a little later actually, but the three months thing is just to be sure) it is a symbiotic part of the mother.
The fact of the matter is that while you refer to it as human, someone made the important distinction between human and a person. If I am brain dead, I am still a human, but my family can turn off the life support because I'm not a person any more, I'm a lump of tissue being artificially kept alive. The same is true of the foetus. Just because the structure of the brain is present after almost three weeks is not an indication that structure is functioning, indeed, the number of cells which it is composed of is incapable of anything apporaching perception let alone consciousness.
Also, please try not to confuse consciousness with being conscious, they're two very different things.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's not that a fetus isn't human, it's that it's not a person.

I got a question about that, I really dont care one way or the other on abortion but my question. (in US law) How come you can have an abortion cause its not considered a person, but if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two counts of murder. One for her and one for the unborn child who is considered a person?

Any law enthusists out there?

Originally posted by Hank Rearden
I got a question about that, I really dont care one way or the other on abortion but my question. (in US law) How come you can have an abortion cause its not considered a person, but if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two counts of murder. One for her and one for the unborn child who is considered a person?

Any law enthusists out there?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the argument is similar to the sea-turtle one, namely that if we consider the foetus as a part of the womans body and she has made the choice to bring it to term, then murdering that woman is not only murdering her but also her child.
The reason that the mother can have an abortion is that it is a decision about her body. By murdering her you are removing that decision from her, and thus murdering the unborn child. It is the choice of the mother which changes the legality of the issue as far as I'm aware.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Correct. I would think "alive" would entail that it can think for itself.


In the book "Essentials of Human Embryology" by William J. Larsen, Ph.D.,

It says that the different parts of the brain such as the the fore brain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain are distinguishable by day 19 after conception.

What about the time between fertilizati ...[text shortened]... have a man and a woman humans that procreate, then therefore it must be human and not alien.

OK, "Something is alive if it thinks for itself".

However, plants are considered alive and so are bacteria. A cancer tumour is also "alive" by similar criteria.

So far we have a definition for a human "Anything that is alive and has human DNA"

But we needed to extend this a bit to become "Anything that can think for itself and has human DNA".

I think this is a fairly good definition for most humans though sleeping ones and unconscious ones will need to be ignored for now.

So the question now is at what point can the foetus think and is it a human before this point?

Originally posted by agryson
Alive would entail that it can think for itself, yet a foetus prior to full neurological development (about 3 months if I'm not mistaken) can't think or percieve for itself. Up unitl that point (a little later actually, but the three months thing is just to be sure) it is a symbiotic part of the mother.
The fact of the matter is that while you refer to it ...[text shortened]... e try not to confuse consciousness with being conscious, they're two very different things.

But, nevertheless, the unborn baby is a human person right? How is it not?

The unborn baby is not being artificially kept alive as someone one life-support is.

My only point is that it is a developing human being, right?

Originally posted by Wheely
OK, "Something is alive if it thinks for itself".

However, plants are considered alive and so are bacteria. A cancer tumour is also "alive" by similar criteria.

So far we have a definition for a human "Anything that is alive and has human DNA"

But we needed to extend this a bit to become "Anything that can think for itself and has human DNA".

I t ...[text shortened]... question now is at what point can the foetus think and is it a human before this point?

Well, is it a bear or alien and then morphs into a human?

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Well, is it a bear or alien and then morphs into a human?

I thought we had agreed up to this point.

You wanted an explanation why some people on this forum don't consider a foetus as human.

We have agreed, or so I thought, using your words that a human being is a living thing that can think for itself and has human DNA.

If you think that a human foetus can think for itself at the moment of conception then I can understand why you can't comprehend others not referring to it as a human.

If, however, you are, at worst, not sure then you must be able to see why many people don't view a human foetus as a human being.

EDIT: many people wouldn't accept your definition of a human but I think you'll agree that by your definition, at the moment of conception, the egg is not a human. I will admit that it could become one if all goes well but it isn't at the point of conception.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
But, nevertheless, the unborn baby is a human person right? How is it not?

The unborn baby is not being artificially kept alive as someone one life-support is.

My only point is that it is a developing human being, right?

Well, now you're connecting the words human and person. They are two different things, there's no argument as to the cells being human. ATY I think referred at one point that a developing embryo at various stages resembles various stages of our evolutionary past, but that is not the same as saying that it is not human. The crucial point is that it is not a person in my view because it is not as of yet an individual being until such time as it has the capability of independant non-random "thought" though that in itself is a fuzzy term.
My analogy with life support stands since the foetus cannot survive without the life-support that the womb provides. I think you missed the distinction I was making when I pointed out that there is a difference between an unconscious person and a human who is not conscious. In one case it is a temporary state of being. As for the foetus, provided all goes to plan, it will eventually become conscious, but until that possibility becomes a reality, what you are dealing with, IMO is a part of the womans body to do with as she feels necessary. (Though a certain degree of input from the father is probably a good idea, though that's an entirely different debate.)

Basically. There is a distinction that you need to make between a person and a human. It is possible to be one without being the other.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
There are too many people in the world.....many people are stupid. Women who get pregnant with a kid they don't want are stupid, Stupid parents produce stupid kids.

Abortion = less stupid people, and more air for us still here.....Q.E.D

Let's not forget there is another person to this equation...

THE STUPID SPERM DONOR!

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
You don't consider abortion to be a crime because you assume the unborn baby to be "not human."

Could you prove to me that an unborn baby is not human?

If I went on a beach and destroyed sea turtle eggs I would get arrested and/or fined because I killed a sea turtle that was growing.

Was that developing sea turtle really just a goldfish that ...[text shortened]... on't give birth to non-human objects or beings.
Humans do it and produce human offspring.

You don't consider abortion to be a crime because you assume the unborn baby to be "not human."

Please reread my first post on page 4.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
I don't think sea turtles stomp on their eggs intentionally. IN the sea turtle's case, it is a pure accident. With humans, we have the brain capacity to understand that we are killing human life. Humans have morals.



It would be illegal for me to abort a fetus without the woman's consent. So why is it legal for the mom to kill human life and not me?

Many animals eat their own young.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Human life is anything that is alive and contains human DNA.

How about recombinant bacteria with human genes in them? Are we allowed to kill those? Or is that murder too?

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Correct. I would think "alive" would entail that it can think for itself.


In the book "Essentials of Human Embryology" by William J. Larsen, Ph.D.,

It says that the different parts of the brain such as the the fore brain, the midbrain, and the hindbrain are distinguishable by day 19 after conception.

What about the time between fertilizati ...[text shortened]... have a man and a woman humans that procreate, then therefore it must be human and not alien.

Correct. I would think "alive" would entail that it can think for itself.

That is not a standard definition. It excludes bacteria, worms etc.

Originally posted by Hank Rearden
I got a question about that, I really dont care one way or the other on abortion but my question. (in US law) How come you can have an abortion cause its not considered a person, but if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with two counts of murder. One for her and one for the unborn child who is considered a person?

Any law enthusists out there?

Getting charged and being convicted are two different things. Can you offer any examples of someone convicted for the murder of an unborn fetus?