Abortion? The final conclusions?

[King of the Americas]

bob_kark:

You wrote: "A fetus is still a distinct living entity apart from the mother."

How can you claim this, if we take or make the fetus 'apart' from the mother, IT DIES...quickly. A fetus at 5 months can NOT live, exist, or thrive 'apart' from the mother. So, it is most definately NOT a 'distinct living entity'...apart from its host. Which is what makes it a parasite!

I never said that a fetus wasn't "human", I said it wasn't an individual deserving of rights or legal protections.

If you had read my previous posts and responses, you know exactly how I feel toward the treatment of an externally viable fetus... Since all you need do is scroll a little or hit a hyperlink, I won't bother reposting my stance.

Basically though, it all boils down to 'ability'. In that, one's ability that defines one's individuality, or not. Please take the time to read all of my responses within this thread before responding again, just as I have read your responses before posting... This way no one has to repeat themselves.

 

[Francesca R]

So there's a certain level of dependence at which it suddenly becomes a human being in your eyes?

Yes. It's at birth.

What of a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb? Is that a human being?

Only after it's seperated from the mother.

Right . . . so as long as you have not cut the umbilicus yet (and the placenta is still part of the mother's body)—you can smack the baby over the head with a griddle pan a few times if it's not pretty enough?

 

[bob_kark]

bob_kark:

You wrote: "A fetus is still a distinct living entity apart from the mother."

How can you claim this, if we take or make the fetus 'apart' from the mother, IT DIES...quickly. A fetus at 5 months can NOT live, exist, or thrive 'apart' from the mother. So, it is most definately NOT a 'distinct living entity'...apart from its host. Which is what makes it a parasite!

Look, I completely agree that a fetus is not independent. However, a fetus is not the same as the mother, it is not a body part of the mother, it is a seperate "thing" I.E. individual. It may die outside the womb, but that speaks to its dependence, not its individuality.

I never said that a fetus wasn't "human", I said it wasn't an individual deserving of rights or legal protections.

If you had read my previous posts and responses, you know exactly how I feel toward the treatment of a externally viable fetus... Since all you need do is scroll a little or hit a hyperlink, I won't bother reposting my stance.

I'll fully admit I didn't read any of your prior posts. I was simply responding to what you had written to me.

Basically though, it all boils down to ability. In that one's ability defines one's individuality or not. Please take the time to read all of my responses within this thread before responding again, just as I have read your responses before posting... This way no one has to repeat themselves.

In your opinion, it boils down to ability. In my opinion, it all boils down to when "it" becomes a human. I state that because the definition of murder is to kill a human being, not, to kill an independent human being. Now, you may say that humanity is a function of ability. I may not agree with that statement, but I'd agree that your argument is sound.

 

[bob_kark]

Right . . . so as long as you have not cut the umbilicus yet (and the placenta is still part of the mother's body)—you can smack the baby over the head with a griddle pan a few times if it's not pretty enough?

Hey, I was saving that point!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thaiboxerken didn't respond to me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thaiboxerken didn't respond to me.

It's a marvel that anyone does.

DR

 

[Bill Thompson]

I just had a different idea.

If the government wants to get involved in this sort of thing, why not have a campaign educating people that having sex makes babies?

You might laugh but it usually is the last thing on people's minds when they have sex.

Eons ago, I was in a hotel with my girlfriend in a small town in Colorado and they had a lot of anti-abortion propaganda playing on the CCTV in the room. I lost the desire to have sex that night.

 

[KingMerv00]

My take on abortion:

Humans do not protect all life. Plants and animals are killed for our benefit all the time yet going to great lengths to save homo sapiens. Why? Our brain. We separate ourselves from other lifeforms because we are self-aware and have remarkable cognitive powers.

That means that there is a time in fetal development when that lump of cells becomes a human being. It is impossible to tell when exactly but I believe that we should determine when the average fetus attains a sufficiently developed brain and then make the abortion cut off earlier than that to be safe.

What is wrong with my line of reasoning?

 

[Sally]

I just had a different idea.

If the government wants to get involved in this sort of thing, why not have a campaign educating people that having sex makes babies?

You might laugh but it usually is the last thing on people's minds when they have sex.

Eons ago, I was in a hotel with my girlfriend in a small town in Colorado and they had a lot of anti-abortion propaganda playing on the CCTV in the room. I lost the desire to have sex that night.

Wow Bill you sound like a hopeless romantic.

I for one would rather have had some condoms readily available to prevent the pregnancy than be bombarded with anti-choice propaganda. Or perhaps if people were a bit more intune with their bodies. By charting out fluxations in my tempature I know my most fertile days and take extra precaution during those times. At the same time, I do agree education is key but it needs to go much deeper than sex = baby.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's a marvel that anyone does.

DR

Even you?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My take on abortion:

Humans do not protect all life. Plants and animals are killed for our benefit all the time yet going to great lengths to save homo sapiens. Why? Our brain. We separate ourselves from other lifeforms because we are self-aware and have remarkable cognitive powers.

That means that there is a time in fetal development when that lump of cells becomes a human being. It is impossible to tell when exactly but I believe that we should determine when the average fetus attains a sufficiently developed brain and then make the abortion cut off earlier than that to be safe.

What is wrong with my line of reasoning?

Apart from the fact you assume Humans are the only animals capable of self awareness...

I based my initial conclusion on all of those. On the combination of when babies are able to feel pain, When they start having human like brain waves and when they are able to survive outside of the womb. This occurs in the 3rd trimester. This is why I say it should not be allowed (except for health reasons) to have a late term abortion in the 3rd trimester. Anything prior to that should be allowed for any woman.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I just had a different idea.

If the government wants to get involved in this sort of thing, why not have a campaign educating people that having sex makes babies?

You might laugh but it usually is the last thing on people's minds when they have sex.

Eons ago, I was in a hotel with my girlfriend in a small town in Colorado and they had a lot of anti-abortion propaganda playing on the CCTV in the room. I lost the desire to have sex that night.

Most Americans are too stupid to listen and to apathetic to care.

 

[bob_kark]

My take on abortion:

Humans do not protect all life. Plants and animals are killed for our benefit all the time yet going to great lengths to save homo sapiens. Why? Our brain. We separate ourselves from other lifeforms because we are self-aware and have remarkable cognitive powers.

That means that there is a time in fetal development when that lump of cells becomes a human being. It is impossible to tell when exactly but I believe that we should determine when the average fetus attains a sufficiently developed brain and then make the abortion cut off earlier than that to be safe.

What is wrong with my line of reasoning?

Well, sufficiently developed by what standard? A fetus is still going to have a brain on par with many other animals as would an infant. The only thing remarkable about the brain at that stage is that it has the potential to develop into something much greater.

 

[KingMerv00]

Apart from the fact you assume Humans are the only animals capable of self awareness...

I don't assume that. I'm not opposed to giving certain animals some limited rights.

I based my initial conclusion on all of those. On the combination of when babies are able to feel pain, When they start having human like brain waves and when they are able to survive outside of the womb. This occurs in the 3rd trimester. This is why I say it should not be allowed (except for health reasons) to have a late term abortion in the 3rd trimester. Anything prior to that should be allowed for any woman.

Agreed more or less.

 

[KingMerv00]

Well, sufficiently developed by what standard? A fetus is still going to have a brain on par with many other animals as would an infant. The only thing remarkable about the brain at that stage is that it has the potential to develop into something much greater.

So is an infant not entitled to live even after it is born? What is your standard?

 

[bob_kark]

So is an infant not entitled to live even after it is born? What is your standard?

No, I don't believe that at all. If you're interested in my opinion, I started a thread on it many months ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52906

I don't know if I still agree with everything I stated. I'm constantly re-evaluating my position as I think it is such an important issue and I believe it is an inherently difficult judgement to make. But I suppose the basis of my argument falls under the potential of the zygote/embryo/fetus to develop into a child much like a child develops into an adult.

So I suppose my dilemma is when we consider the life to be human. Any line we draw in the sand seems arbitrary to me, so I don't know if I'll ever be satisfied. I just don't enjoy the prospect of killing humans to make the mother's life easier. Of course if her life is in danger or if she's mentally ill, raped, victim of incest, etc... I believe she should be able to have an abortion. Anyway, tough decision all around IMO.

 

[Francesca R]

Any line we draw in the sand seems arbitrary to me, so I don't know if I'll ever be satisfied.

Drawing a line in the sand is not too hard if you do it through legislation by parliamentary ratification (and ideally consult the voters about it). It's tying abortion to constitutional rights to privacy that is the unending mess of legalese. IMO the US went about setting abortion laws in a bad way.

Hey, I was saving that point!

Sorry 'bout that . . . ;=P

 

[steverino]

I just had a different idea.

If the government wants to get involved in this sort of thing, why not have a campaign educating people that having sex makes babies?

You might laugh but it usually is the last thing on people's minds when they have sex.

Eons ago, I was in a hotel with my girlfriend in a small town in Colorado and they had a lot of anti-abortion propaganda playing on the CCTV in the room. I lost the desire to have sex that night.

You're saying that pro-abortion propaganda on the TV have kept you in the mood?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, well, if a being must be sapient in order to become a human being, that would mean we don't become human until we reach 18-24 months. What does it also say about humans with mental defects or in vegetable states? Are they no longer human?


Wait, I thought it was sapience that made them human, this is just getting so confusing. So, a being doesn't become a human until the umbilical cord is cut?

I said sapience was ONE of the factors. The fact that the fetus is directly dependant on the host body of the mother is another factor. The fetus is still human, it's just not an independant being.

Wait, now it's the child's position in space that makes it a human?

Yes.

What? So, even though it is no longer dependent on the mother, it still isn't human? You're not being very consistant. I have to ask, is your opinion based upon logic or is it based upon a desire to have this opinion?

It is still dependant on the mother to give birth to it, thus it's still dependant.

 

[bob_kark]

I said sapience was ONE of the factors. The fact that the fetus is directly dependant on the host body of the mother is another factor. The fetus is still human, it's just not an independant being.

If it is still a factor in your mind, then a 13 month old infant is still not a human. So, is sapience still a factor or have you changed your mind?

Yes.

So theoretically, we could perform a Cesarean section, remove the fetus and have it become human, then reinsert the fetus into the womb and have it become "non-human" again?

It is still dependant on the mother to give birth to it, thus it's still dependant.

Well, you still have to remove the fetus from the womb, whether or not the fetus is still alive, or else the mother will die. Therefore, both mother and fetus are dependent on it exiting the womb. Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it human?