Originally posted by PalynkaWell, that depends on your definition of "human being". You can easily and possibly reasonably define "human being" to include embryos.
It concerns the stages of development of the fetus. In short, in earlier stages there is no functioning brain or nervous system so it's clearly not a human being.
Is someone in a "vegetative state" a human being?
Originally posted by PalynkaHumans are made up of cells but cells are not made up of humans...right?
So are the skin cells you kill when you clap your hands.
At what week is it not ok to have an abortion then? A fetus has a brain at atleast week 12, if not sooner..so at what age is it not ok to have an abortion?
Originally posted by whodeyI'll watch both of them burn and throw you in there for good measure. 😀
So lets say you have a cute 5 year old child in a burning building with blonde hair and blue eyes with a twinkle in their eye and, to top it all off, an IQ off the charts. Then in the adjacent building you have a child with down syndrome and is ugly, in fact, the smell a bit.
Who would you save?
Originally posted by sh76Research suggests children don't develop self-awareness until between the ages of 18-22 months.
I don't see that as being such a strong question.
You can be pro-life and still argue that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the potential children.
The fertilized eggs don't have consciousnesses. The child does.
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat are you arguing here?
Research suggests children don't develop self-awareness until between the ages of 18-22 months.
Do you mean we can just bump off a 17 month old with no moral pangs if we get sick of changing diapers? Or, do you mean that a lack of self-awareness does not determine whether it is moral to kill a fetus?
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am somewhat suspicious of any such research because almost all research I have seen regarding animals 'self awareness' and suchlike has been riddled with bias and often blatantly wrong.
Research suggests children don't develop self-awareness until between the ages of 18-22 months.
Originally posted by SleepyguyDo you mean we can just bump off a 17 month old with no moral pangs if we get sick of changing diapers?
What are you arguing here?
Do you mean we can just bump off a 17 month old with no moral pangs if we get sick of changing diapers? Or, do you mean that a lack of self-awareness does not determine whether it is moral to kill a fetus?
Lol, i'm not arguing that, that's taking it a step too far.
sh76 made a point about children, fetuses and conciousness, and that was just a titbit of information i picked up from a tv program last night on BBC. In retrospect i can't recall what my point was. My apologies.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere was a program on the BBC last night regarding conciousness, i'll paste an extract from the BBC website -
I am somewhat suspicious of any such research because almost all research I have seen regarding animals 'self awareness' and suchlike has been riddled with bias and often blatantly wrong.
A fascinating experiment at University of Portsmouth indicates that it is between the ages of 18-24 months that a child's brain develops to a stage when it suddenly becomes conscious of itself as an individual.
To test this each child is placed in front of a mirror and encouraged to play.
At some point the child will probably engage with its image in the mirror.
Once this interaction has been established, the carer takes the child away from the mirror and while wiping its nose the carer surreptitiously places a red dot on the child's face in a place that cannot be seen or felt by the child.
The child is then returned to play in front of the mirror.
In one case Owen, aged 16 months, engaged again with his image in the mirror but at no point was he particularly concerned that the image he saw had a large red dot on its face.
In contrast when 22 month old Bethan saw her image in the mirror her hand immediately shot up to her face as she explored the strange spot that she saw on her cheek.
The strong reaction is an indication that Bethan recognises the image and thinks "that's me".
At some point during the brain development something happens which means we become self-aware - but quite what it is still remains a mystery.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI'm not using this particular example as the only basis for my position. I'm using it to make a point.
again, pro-choice supporters use the most extreme/rare examples to support their position, but the pregnant "10-11 yr old" happens how often? But if it did i have no problem with this person taking the "morning after pill" in these extreme cases.
The other side to the extreme agrument is the fact that legalizing abortions opens the door to late term abortions. Are you going to say a baby at 35 weeks is not a living human?
The morning after pill is designed to terminate a pregnancy, albeit almost immediately after conception.
You may say you consider a fetus at any stage to be a life, but then why would you support litereally murdering a human being simply because a child was raped and got pregnant?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAnd in all that you dodged the question. Although the question is obviously hypothetical it is certainly a fair one to establish moral relevancy.
I find it telling that people who proport to defend abortion, only do so if it is presented in such a way. Another way to present it might be, what if an astoid was coming to wipe away a world with one five year old on it or one million fertilized eggs. Which world would you save? You see, no one wants either world to disappear, therefore, the arguement ne orbid. Especially in a world in which there are so many people wishing they could be parents.
You are claiming the very moment an egg is fertilized it a bonafide human life and to terminate the pregnancy equates to murder. And some of us consider that clump of cells to be just that, a clump of cells.
I have absolutely no problem answering that question. If I had the hypothetical choice to save a five year old child or 1000 fertilized eggs, I would save the child without question.
Which would you do? As Spock said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Would you allow the child to burn to death so you can save 1000 "lives"?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSomeone in a vegetative state is not even in coma. Of course I consider them human beings.
Well, that depends on your definition of "human being". You can easily and possibly reasonably define "human being" to include embryos.
Is someone in a "vegetative state" a human being?