Considering the abortion of early term pregnancies.

[TelecomClone]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j207/Tel3c0m/embryon.jpg
The embyron, some hours after conception.

I am 100% in favor of the legality of early term abortion. There are several components that, when taken in tandem, constitute the impetus behind my position on this issue.


1.) What must first be recognized, above all else, is that the term 'human', as we functionally apply it to ourselves, is an imperfect classification for the purposes of moral navigation. We make arbitrary distinctions between 'human life' and 'a human person' on a daily basis, necessarily valuing the endurance of the former over the latter on a broad scale and the endurance of the latter over the former on an individual scale. We must also, therefore, recognize this preexisting distinction when we attempt analyze issues such as this one. My definition of 'human life', in the broad sense, is any organic system that is a direct biological product of the current expression of the genome that defines our species. My definition of 'a human person', on the individual scale, is threefold:

a) An organic system must be a direct biological product of the current expression of the genome that defines our species.
b) An organic system must possess what we recognize as Human Intellect; primarily as articulated by our analytical and abstract thinking capabilities.
c) An organic system must possess what we recognize as Human Instinct; primarily as articulated by our array of emotion.

An organic system must satisfy all three of these qualifiers in order to be considered 'a Human person'. The early-term pregnancy does not. In fact, the early term pregnancy does not meet any of the salient criteria beyond being an organic system produced by the human genome. In this, it shares a classification with systems such as sperm, eggs, organs, and cells. Such is 'human life' that can not be qualified as 'a Human person', the endurance of which, therefore, arises as less valuable on the individual scale. Thus, in keeping with the distinction that we already draw between the two, destroying or altering 'human life' for the purpose of experimentation or engineering is neither logically nor morally analogous to destroying or altering 'a Human person' for purposes of the same.



2) The Human Intellect, as any animal intellect, is 'naturally' occurring - arising as a reactionary product of our changing environment. Each Human, not wholly unlike some animals, seeks to manipulate his or her environment in a manner that he or she perceives as being in his or her best interests. These interests are, ultimately, rooted in the survival instinct shared by all known life. Similarly - Humankind, by virtue of its Intellect, also seeks to manipulate 'human life' in a manner that it perceives as being in its best interests; evidenced, for example, by our medicinal and surgical practices in any of their various expressions or levels of development.

As the sum of human knowledge grows, fed by our continuing efforts to learn about ourselves and our empirical surroundings through careful observation, experimentation, and analysis; and as facilitated by the increasing ability of our technologies to preserve that knowledge; we find ourselves ever-better equipped to manipulate our environment as well as our 'human life' to ideals perceived as being to our advantage. Our 'naturally arisen' propensity for advantageous manipulation extends in continuous fashion, and we are immediately presented with the next summation of this highly successful function: taking active control over our own biological composition and processes, that we might physically react to our environment with all of the versatility and speed that our Intellect presently allows. As far as the success of biological function goes, rapid adaptation is endemic to any surviving organic system. Not surprisingly, the continued experimentation upon (destructive or otherwise) and manipulation of our 'human life' has historically proven to be an exceptionally valuable practice from the Human perspective. We should not confuse this with the severely deleterious effects that destructive experimentation upon 'a Human person' have historically had upon basic function.



3) Apprehension about any action is ultimately based in a 'fear' of the immediate or protracted series of results thereof - the important distinction lies in discriminating between rational 'fear' and irrational 'fear'. When an issue isn't of great importance to begin with we generally need not pay as much attention to this sorting of the two, but this issue deals with precedents that are central to our function as a species; we should, then, take great care in separating rational fears from irrational ones - acting only upon the rational. I see no rational reason to fear this act, and certainly none to prohibit it.


What are your views on early term abortion? Is a zygote for instance a Human person? Why or why not? What is its ethical significance? How should it be treated?

[meshou]

So... flamewar number three? Two-ish?

[TelecomClone]

Mods are splitting out of hand flamewars into Purgatory now, are they not? Discuss.

[meshou]

Mods are splitting out of hand flamewars into Purgatory now, are they not? Discuss.Is it one yet? I saw "abortion" in the title.

Anyway, I think you're mostly preaching to the chior. The laity, however, is hostile and hasn't learned a thing.

[Nadiar]

Primarily this discussion comes down to the definition of "what is a soul?"

If you believe that a baby represents a Soul, then it is immoral to 'kill' it.

While I believe in a 'soul' I don't believe that souls have a right to life. So I'm okay with early-term abortion, and okay with later term abortions when it starts endangering the mothers life.

[ben from below]

Regarding your three criteria, personally, i accept that those are what defines a human being, and that a zygote does not possess those qualites. But, at what point do we begin to possess them. Embryo? Fetus? Birth? Except for birth, these stages are all somewhat arbtrary, based on either a length of time or the number of cells present. You escape the problems of such differentiation by saying the thing is a life as soon as the sperm hits the egg. I have no problem with early term abortion or performing research on fertilized eggs in prusuit of rapid adaptation as you suggest, but the fuzzy boundaries seem to be among the biggest ethical problems.

[TelecomClone]

Primarily this discussion comes down to the definition of "what is a soul?"

If you believe that a baby represents a Soul, then it is immoral to 'kill' it.The soul argument does not work well because soul arithmetic does not add up properly. For instance, the early term cellular growth can split into two identical wholes - essentially prototwins - which would equal two souls. You've got two growths that can at this point go on to develop fully and be born as healthy twins. Alternatively however, those two wholes can recombine later on such that there is again only the single organism growing - rendering 1 Soul + 1 Soul = 1 Soul. So what happened to the second soul in this case? Nothing died... was it 'unmade'? Do you have two souls in one body? As you can see, this simply does not function. Therefore the "soul" can't possibly be applied to neonatal growth.




But, at what point do we begin to possess them. Embryo? Fetus? Birth? Well, for starters, the organism could not fulfil criteria b unless it had a fully matured fetal brain. So that's to rule out the vast bulk of the early and mid term pregnancy, effectively covering "early term abortion."

[last_caress]

Souls. :rofl:

[booyalab]

I think this thread should be in the form of a poll, with the question- "do you regret not being aborted in the early term of your mother's pregnancy?"

I have a hunch that it would be a landslide, but for those who'd answer yes..it's never too late to right past wrongs.

[last_caress]

I'll bring the rusty tire iron.

[Wiki]

Nice setup for an argument where both sides are right until one believes two wrongs make it right and acts upon this belief.

[Pooja]

I am pro-choice. Here's one of the many reasons why:
You have to consider Parfitt's "harm principle" in relation to abortion. For example, if
Premise 1: 14 year old "Susie" was to have a baby, and NOT be mentally, emotionally, and financially ready for it
Premise 2: 25 year old Susie was to have a baby, IS completely prepared for it.

Conclusion: Susie has a moral right to have an abortion at age 14 (assuming she became pregnant), and wait until a later age when she's more prepared.

* due to her lack of maturity and preparedness at that young age, and the fact that she will be more likely to have those things 11 years later, she should wait to have the baby. Only then, will the baby be guaranteed a minimally satisfying life. One of the assumptions here, is that in the end, Susie will have 1 baby either way. And it's basically saying that if she can provide a more optimal life for the baby, then she has the right to do so.

disclaimer: I didn't pay a lot of attention in biomedical ethics last semester...and I didn't get an A (I got a stupid A-).... So I probably screwed up in the arguement somewhere.

[joft]

I think this thread should be in the form of a poll, with the question- "do you regret not being aborted in the early term of your mother's pregnancy?"
if enough people born to poor parents regretted not having been born into richer families, would that make a very good argument for outlawing poor people from having sex?

[Nemesis]

I don't even think it's about souls or what is or is not classifiable as a human. The bottom line (for me at least) is that that little tiny group of cells, is something that has the potential to become a human.

If you don't want your baby, put it up for adoption. Don't destroy it and waste so much potential.

On the other hand though, I'm not so naive to not be aware of the problem that abortions will happen wether they are legal or not, so if someone is going to have an abortion, at the very least I'd want it done in the hands of capable medical staff.

[joft]

It has the potential to become a stillborn, deformed mutant, murderer, serial rapist, child molester, or even another ENFJ.

widening the time scale in which we take considerations to base our moral judgments on is probably not a good idea. the pollution that you alone directly cause in your life time has the potential to destroy so many tons of biomass, which were organisms that could have kept on reproducing (so you're essentially destroying all that potential future biomass which could have multiplied to who knows how much before the earth dies). if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car and get charged with manslaughter, should you also be punished for all the potential that person and all the descendents they could have had that was lost?

that potential can only be actualized by a sustained sequence of outside events continuing to bring it to pass, such as the mother staying alive, and eating, and breathing herself, and so on. all these additions are required or the potential will never be fulfilled. every egg cell has the potential to become another organism with the addition of a compatible sperm cell. why do we draw the line at that one point in the sequence of events? there are plenty of fertilized eggs which never reach their potential because of "natural" causes. if it is morally wrong to bring it about purposefully, why are we not expending more effort in saving every possible pregnancy from being naturally aborted (the estimate is somewhere between 30-50% of all pregnancies)?

[Nemesis]

It has the potential to become a stillborn, deformed mutant, murderer, serial rapist, child molester, or even another ENFJ.
The odds are vastly against that, so that's a red herring argument right there.

widening the time scale in which we take considerations to base our moral judgments on is probably not a good idea. the pollution that you alone directly cause in your life time has the potential to destroy so many tons of biomass, which were organisms that could have kept on reproducing (so you're essentially destroying all that potential future biomass which could have multiplied to who knows how much before the earth dies). if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car and get charged with manslaughter, should you also be punished for all the potential that person and all the descendents they could have had that was lost?
Oh please. I could make that same argument as to why you shouldn't abort a child.

that potential can only be actualized by a sustained sequence of outside events continuing to bring it to pass, such as the mother staying alive, and eating, and breathing herself, and so on. all these additions are required or the potential will never be fulfilled. every egg cell has the potential to become another organism with the addition of a compatible sperm cell. why do we draw the line at that one point in the sequence of events? there are plenty of fertilized eggs which never reach their potential because of "natural" causes. if it is morally wrong to bring it about purposefully, why are we not expending more effort in saving every possible pregnancy from being naturally aborted (the estimate is somewhere between 30-50% of all pregnancies)?
So basically your argument against it is that the baby could possibly die, so why not make it definite.

[songbird36]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j207/Tel3c0m/embryon.jpg
The embyron, some hours after conception.

I am 100% in favor of the legality of early term abortion. There are several components that, when taken in tandem, constitute the impetus behind my position on this issue.

What are your views on early term abortion? Is a zygote for instance a Human person? Why or why not? What is its ethical significance? How should it be treated?

I agree that an early term fetus is not a "person" as such, but it is still a growing, or evolving, human. The fact that it isn't yet a person doesn't mean it is morally or ethically right to kill it. I don't believe a fetus has "rights" and therefore I don't believe a rights-based argument against abortion holds water. However I do believe that unless there are compelling circumstances requiring abortion, it is wrong to end a life, whether that life is fully-formed, or still evolving.

[tinribz]

Face it N, you were pwned, end.

'its wrong to end a life"? That is rather a sweeping and naive statement, you will be eating sunbeams then?

I think what J is saying is the fetus is part of the mother's body to do what she wants with until it is a caperble of self sustaned existance. And even then it is a world away from any type of conciousness we experience. Not a perfect but acceptable / best border line.

[joft]

To me, the tragedy of this whole issue is that people are trying to empathize with something that cannot feel, be aware of, understand, or reciprocate their empathy, meanwhile the mothers are suffering

[Lee]

I think this thread should be in the form of a poll, with the question- "do you regret not being aborted in the early term of your mother's pregnancy?"

I have a hunch that it would be a landslide, but for those who'd answer yes..it's never too late to right past wrongs.Reagan? That argument suffices as a witty retort, but falls apart under scrutiny.

First, because it begs the question, pro-choice advocates wouldn't consider that bundle of cells to be anyone, they didn't exist at that stage, so their mother would not have been aborting them.

Second, because a bundle of cells is a potential person, but so is a flirtatious glance across a room, so every flirtatious glance should be followed by intercourse just to avoid murder charges.

The argument doesn't work because it implicitly presupposes some of the exact premises under question, in this case 'At what point does a bundle of cells have the right to life?'

[booyalab]

Reagan? That argument suffices as a witty retort, but falls apart under scrutiny.

First, because it begs the question, pro-choice advocates wouldn't consider that bundle of cells to be anyone, they didn't exist at that stage, so their mother would not have been aborting them.

Second, because a bundle of cells is a potential person, but so is a flirtatious glance across a room, so every flirtatious glance should be followed by intercourse just to avoid murder charges.

The argument doesn't work because it implicitly presupposes some of the exact premises under question, in this case 'At what point does a bundle of cells have the right to life?'


An embryo isn't just a 'bundle of cells'. A geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a sperm and an egg, but can't distinguish between the (fundamental) DNA of that embryo and the resulting person. Flirtatious glances dont have their own DNA, or a heartbeat, or brain wave activity. Physicians used to use the cessation of the heartbeat as a sign of death, now they use cessation of brain wave activity. An embryo has a heart after 18 days and brain wave activity after 40.

[Nemesis]

Face it N, you were pwned, end.
I submit that perhaps you should know what the hell it is you're saying was pwned before you actually say so.

'its wrong to end a life"?
That's not the question I posed, or even attempted to answer.

That is rather a sweeping and naive statement, you will be eating sunbeams then?
What?

I think what J is saying is the fetus is part of the mother's body to do what she wants with until it is a caperble of self sustaned existance.
I, myself, and many others disagree, and that's an even more sweeping and naive statement than saying that "ending a life is wrong."

And even then it is a world away from any type of conciousness we experience.
So? Cat's don't experience consciousness on the same level we do. You still get punished for killing a cat.

Not a perfect but acceptable / best border line.
Are you intoxicated by any chance?

[Nemesis]

To me, the tragedy of this whole issue is that people are trying to empathize with something that cannot feel, be aware of, understand, or reciprocate their empathy, meanwhile the mothers are suffering
That's wrong on two levels.

First of all, how in God's name is it a tragedy that someone is trying to empathize with it?

Second, there are many women who suffer pregnancy who carry the baby to full term. The only purpose it serves to say that these women are suffering is to demonstrate that the mothers who end the pregnancy because they are "suffering" are whimps.

*DISCLAIMER* I fully understand that pregnancy is anything but easy as is the choice between ending an unborn child's life or carrying it full to term.

[Lee]

To me, the tragedy of this whole issue is that people are trying to empathize with something that cannot feel, be aware of, understand, or reciprocate their empathy, meanwhile the mothers are sufferingPeople also insist that objects that look conveniently designed must have a designer and that they do not believe in coincidencies. People love to anthropomorphize, to apply conscious intent to unconscious events, they assume that the sun must move across the sky because someone is pulling it or that a poor crop yeild must be the work of a witch.

People love to see consciousness and intent where there is none, whether it be in cartoons, cuddly animals or robots. Humans are such social animals that the first question we ask is often not how? but instead who?

People also like the idea that living things have an essence that seperates them from non-living things. Modern science tells us that consciousness, the mind (or the soul?) do not just puff into existence oneday fully formed, but are part of a gradual systematic process. It runs against our intutitions and more importantly against our religious doctrines.

[Nemesis]

Reagan? That argument suffices as a witty retort, but falls apart under scrutiny.

First, because it begs the question, pro-choice advocates wouldn't consider that bundle of cells to be anyone, they didn't exist at that stage, so their mother would not have been aborting them.

Second, because a bundle of cells is a potential person, but so is a flirtatious glance across a room, so every flirtatious glance should be followed by intercourse just to avoid murder charges.
Not true. When sperm and egg come together, you DO have an organism in your body that grows seperate from yours, except for a few necessary functions that it cannot carry out on its own. A flirtatious glance across the room is anything but sex, and doesn't yield anything living.

[booyalab]

Not true. When sperm and egg come together, you DO have an organism in your body that grows seperate from yours, except for a few necessary functions that it cannot carry out on its own. A flirtatious glance across the room is anything but sex, and doesn't yield anything living.

it's obviously alive and separate from the mother, but...unlike a turnip, it will either eventually obtain legal rights and popular recognition as a 'human' or it's heartbeat or brain activity will cease.

[CoHo]

A flirtatious glance across the room is anything but sex, and doesn't yield anything living.

Altering your hormones will modifiy cell-division in your body. Cells are living creatures too asshole.

[Nemesis]

Altering your hormones will modifiy cell-division in your body. Cells are living creatures too asshole.
:)

[Pooja]

This thread made me dig out my old bioethics notes, and I found pages and pages of random doodles, AND, the following arguement (made my me, on an old exam. Don't know where I got it from. I got a "B" on that arguement. Don't know why, except that the prof. was an a$$):

Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them.

Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers.

Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses.

Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.

Premise Four: Females own their fetuses.

Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses.

[joft]

First of all, how in God's name is it a tragedy that someone is trying to empathize with it?
the same reason why unrequited love is tragic. having a devoted, loyal, intense emotion toward someone or something that doesn't even know you feel that way, doesn't feel that way about you, and in the case of a human at that stage of development isn't even capable of knowing you feel that way or feeling that way in return. meanwhile there are mothers bringing children into this fucked up world, in many cases without fathers, and feeling the social pressure and stigmatization of the whole legal debate surrounding whether or not they can legally stop this thing from happening to/inside them. and where's the empathy for them? why so much concern over the effects of the whole issue on highly undeveloped pre-born humans and so much disregard for the effects on fully developed, cognitive, emotional, and usually socio-economically disadvantaged mothers?

yeah show us those pictures of the mutilated fetuses as though that proves something. but would you hug that thing? would you do it without wearing rubber gloves or worrying about soiling your modest conservative blouse in amniotic fluid?

[booyalab]

Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them.

Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers.

Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses.

Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own.

Premise Four: Females own their fetuses.

Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses.

The definition of ownership is almost as controversial as the definition of a 'person'. One could conclude it's ok to destroy any slaves, children, employees, animals, subjects, etc. on a whim. Even if everyone holds premise 3 to be self evident, at least half of them probably wouldn't feel the same way about the second part of premise 1.

[Nemesis]

the same reason why unrequited love is tragic. having a devoted, loyal, intense emotion toward someone or something that doesn't even know you feel that way, doesn't feel that way about you, and in the case of a human at that stage of development isn't even capable of knowing you feel that way or feeling that way in return.
How in God's name is that an argument for pro-choice. You're saying those fetuses can't return the love, or even know that they are loved for the time being, so why ever give them the chance to know and return it?

meanwhile there are mothers bringing children into this fucked up world,
Sounds more like a personal issue with humanity than an argument in favor of abortion, which, I might remind you, using you're logic, doesn't mean the fetus can or will share that issue.

in many cases without fathers,
So? They don't have fathers, so they'll automatically fail at life? Many people born to unwed mothers succeed financially and psychologically happilly in life.

and feeling the social pressure and stigmatization of the whole legal debate surrounding whether or not they can legally stop this thing from happening to/inside them.
I'm very sorry that that has to happen.

and where's the empathy for them?
Pro-choice advocates.

why so much concern over the effects of the whole issue on highly undeveloped pre-born humans and so much disregard for the effects on fully developed, cognitive, emotional, and usually socio-economically disadvantaged mothers?
Why not?

yeah show us those pictures of the mutilated fetuses as though that proves something. but would you hug that thing?
Too bad no one will ever get the chance to.

would you do it without wearing rubber gloves or worrying about soiling your modest conservative blouse in amniotic fluid?
I'm not conservative.

[Lee]

A geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a sperm and an eggObviously, it would be proposterous to claim otherwise, everyone knows that gametes have 23 chromosomes each and that the developing embryo is built using the genetic instiructions held in both chromosomal pairs after fertilisation.

However, this has nothing to do with whether the embryo should be given the right to life. You have countless cells and bundles of cells fall off your body everyday, each one contains your DNA, distinguishable from the sperm and ovum responsible for the developing embryo that would eventually become you.


but can't distinguish between the (fundamental) DNA of that embryo and the resulting person.That doesn't even make sense. DNA does not determine the resulting person, DNA can do nothing by itself.

If a geneticist tested the DNA of any randomly selected cell and compared it to the original fertilised embryo it'll probably be identical, but so what? that does not mean that the entire developmental process of that particular organism is bound up in that original genetic code.

If you had to have your leg amputated, how many individual sets of your genetic code are in that leg? billions? what does this mean, is your amputated leg still alive? do we give it a right to life enshrined in law?


Flirtatious glances dont have their own DNAMaybe so, but skin flakes do, as do amputated legs, or saliva swabs.


or a heartbeatA heart beat is simply an indication that blood is circulating, not that the creature is alive. We can keep the heart of many bodies beating, even though they are brain dead, should we expend resources doing this because beating heart = right to life?


or brain wave activity.A ringworm has neurons and can be said to have 'brainwave activity,' as do insects and many tiny microscopic organisms.

'Brainwave activity' is entirely misleading anyway, the cerebral cortex does not develop until much later, that is the seat of consciousness and those ideas, thoughts, feelings and personality we call life. Early embryo development begins with a sheet of nervous tissue folding into a strip, most of that strip is the spinal cord, while the tip begins to develop into the brain stem.

These areas of the brain carry out the simplest regulatory computations to keep the body developing and operating properly, such as regulating heart rate. They have bundles of motor and sensory neurons also leave the spine and inervate the body, but at this stage, there is no higher brain function to feel anything.

Having neuronal activity does not imply consciousness or that quality of being alive, unless you want to extend the right to life to ladybugs, ants, grasshoppers and ringworms.


Physicians used to use the cessation of the heartbeat as a sign of death, now they use cessation of brain wave activity. An embryo has a heart after 18 days and brain wave activity after 40.But the 'brain wave' activity of a developing embryo is far removed from the brain activity of developed human, simple computational activity cannot itself be taken as evidence of life. If we remove brain tissue and keep it functioning in a dish, it will still perferm computations while sustained, is it alive? did the person whose brain we took it out of lose a little bit of life?

Fact is, many of the neuronal processes that occur in your brain are utterly unconscious, and/or responsible for completely mundane feedback loops that regulate biostasis.

Just think about it, if life = brain activity, then people who have an entire hemisphere removed have lost half their life? is their life worth less? most brain damage isn't that severe, but strokes and diseases like Parkinson's and Huntingdon's completely destroy portions of brain, are those people less alive?

Doctors use brain activity as a sign of life for practical purposes, no activity must eventually be considered death, but would the activity of a small ganglion by the spinal cord qualify as life? what if the entire brain was silent, except for a small visual processing area even though there was no input?

In theory we could completely remove the cerebral lobes, leave behind just enough to keep the body functioning. Of course there is no person left, no consciousness, just a body and a few bit of brain left making sure that things keep ticking over as long as the Doctor does his part. Sure enough, there is brain activity (technically) so is that person alive?

[booyalab]

Obviously, it would be proposterous to claim otherwise, everyone knows that gametes have 23 chromosomes each and that the developing embryo is built using the genetic instiructions held in both chromosomal pairs after fertilisation.

However, this has nothing to do with whether the embryo should be given the right to life. You have countless cells and bundles of cells fall off your body everyday, each one contains your DNA, distinguishable from the sperm and ovum responsible for the developing embryo that would eventually become you.

That doesn't even make sense. DNA does not determine the resulting person, DNA can do nothing by itself.

If a geneticist tested the DNA of any randomly selected cell and compared it to the original fertilised embryo it'll probably be identical, but so what? that does not mean that the entire developmental process of that particular organism is bound up in that original genetic code.

If you had to have your leg amputated, how many individual sets of your genetic code are in that leg? billions? what does this mean, is your amputated leg still alive? do we give it a right to life enshrined in law?

Maybe so, but skin flakes do, as do amputated legs, or saliva swabs.

A heart beat is simply an indication that blood is circulating, not that the creature is alive. We can keep the heart of many bodies beating, even though they are brain dead, should we expend resources doing this because beating heart = right to life?

A ringworm has neurons and can be said to have 'brainwave activity,' as do many insects and tiny microscopic organisms.

'Brainwave activity' is entirely misleading anyway, the cerebral lobes do not develop until much later, they are the seat of consciousness and those ideas, thoughts, feelings and personality we call life. Early embryo development begins with a sheet of nervous tissue folding into a strip, most of that strip is the spinal cord, while the tip begins to develop into the brain stem.

These areas of the brain carry out the simplest regulatory computations to keep the body developing and operating properly, such as regulating heart rate. They have bundles of motor and sensory neurons also leave the spine and inervate the body, but at this stage, there is no higher brain function to feel anything.

Having neuronal activity does not imply consciousness or that quality of being alive, unless you want to extend the right to life to ladybugs, ants, grasshoppers and ringworms.

But the 'brain wave' activity of a developing embryo is far removed from the brain activity of developed human, simple computational activity cannot itself be taken as evidence of life. If we remove brain tissue and keep it functioning in a dish, it will still perferm computations while sustained, is it alive? did the person whose brain we took it out of lose a little bit of life?

Fact is, many of the neuronal processes that occur in your brain are utterly unconscious, and/or responsible for completely mundane feedback loops that regulating biostasis.

Just think about it, if life = brain activity, then people who have an entire hemisphere removed have lost half their life? is their life worth less? most brain damage isn't that severe, but strokes and diseases like Parkinson's and Huntingdon's completely destroy portions of brain, are those people less alive?

Doctors use brain activity as a sign of life for practical purposes, no activity must eventually be considered death, but would the activity of a small ganglion by the spinal cord qualify as life? what if the entire brain was silent, except for a small visual processing area even though there was no input?

In theory we could completely remove the cerebral lobes, leave behind just enough to keep the body functioning. Of course there is no person left, no consciousness, just a body and a few bit of brain left making sure that things keep ticking over as long as the Doctor does his part. Sure enough, there is brain activity (technically) so is that person alive?

so you dont think a fetus is even alive? :wtf: EVERYONE knows it's alive. The Court that made abortion legal knows it's alive, the debate is over the viability of it's life. The US Supreme Court defined viability (Roe v. Wade, 1973) as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

[Edmond Zedo]

REMEMBER DREDD SCOTT.

[tinribz]

Nemesis, I was responding to two posts you numpty, and this cat thing? I'm not up on American law but in this country if you kill someone’s cat you are prosecuted for destruction of someone else’s property (assuming it was done humanely), if it is your own cat you can do what you want with it's life (humanely).

Plants, insect, animals have no rights to life, that is a human monopoly, else the prisons would be full of farmers. Whether that is right or wrong maybe a different argument. But solving that one might shed some light on this. Obviously a fetus is an organism and by definition alive, it is also human. The core argument is what has the right to life? Plants / bacteria don’t new born babies obviously do. The dividing line is somewhere between. I believe morally you have to concede other animals have it too, it must to come down to levels of intelligence, irrelevant of species or stage of development.

If I was king it would be say gold fish brain size? Or is all animal life sacred from the moment of conception?

[Lee]

so you dont think a fetus is even alive? :wtf: EVERYONE knows it's alive. The Court that made abortion legal knows it's alive, the debate is over the viability of it's life. The US Supreme Court defined viability (Roe v. Wade, 1973) as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."The question is 'At what point is a developing organism alive?' or if you would prefer 'At what point does a developing organism acquire a right to life?' for practical purposes they are the same question. Though we might academically aknowledge that an ameoba is alive, nobody would treat it as alive.

Calling it alive (or giving it the right to life) based on criteria such as 'heart beat' or 'neuron activity' or 'unique DNA' logically result in absurdities.

The problem is that development is a continuous process, it doesn't neatly go in stages and on shedule suddenly become a living, conscious, feeling baby. Whatever line we draw for the point of legal abortion will always be a slightly arbitrary, especially since not all developing embryos are going to agree to develop at the same rate.

However, it is also moronic to consider many early stages of embryo development as human, people grope for possible 'reasons' which only lead to ethical absurdities. Many simply fall back on blind faith in religious teachings, which by its very nature is impossible to rationally criticize.

Part of me would love to just make abortion illegal, because that'd teach 'em for not factoring in the costs of their actions, they ought to learn to take responsibility. But the other part of me cannot see any good reason to give the right to life to a cell upon fertilisation*, and I do not think any third-party has the right to dictate what a woman does with her own uterus.

As for what window I would consider the cut-off point, I haven't really decided yet.

*Even this seemingly simple stage is riddled with complications that make it anything but the clean binary switch people look for.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis, I was responding to two posts you numpty, and this cat thing? I'm not up on American law but in this country if you kill someone?s cat you are prosecuted for destruction of someone else?s property (assuming it was done humanely), if it is your own cat you can do what you want with it's life (humanely).
Okay, well American law makers obviously feel differently.

Plants, insect, animals have no rights to life, that is a human monopoly, else the prisons would be full of farmers.
We make exceptions here for things that we need to survive. IE: meat.

Whether that is right or wrong maybe a different argument. But solving that one might shed some light on this. Obviously a fetus is an organism and by definition alive, it is also human.
Agreed.

The core argument is what has the right to life? Plants / bacteria don?t new born babies obviously do. The dividing line is somewhere between. I believe morally you have to concede other animals have it too, it must to come down to levels of intelligence, irrelevant of species or stage of development.
That is not the core argument I made, and I'm too tired and lazy to type it out again. You'll have to go back and read.

If I was king it would be say gold fish brain size? Or is all animal life sacred from the moment of conception?
What? I don't know about animals, but as far as I'm concerned, even if it can't sustain itself, think, feel or love, that single cell of a fertilized egg has the potential to become human, and as such, is sacred.

[CoHo]

It's too bad this thread didn't have an early term abortion

[Nemesis]

It's too bad this thread didn't have an early term abortion
Are you kidding? This thread totally deserves a partial-birth abortion it's so bad.

[tinribz]

Okay, well American law makers obviously feel differently.
The status of the domestic cat in common law is very clear: cats are property. However, the common law standing of the cat has changed over the years from being one of property with no intrinsic value, to being valued chattel. William Blackstone, in applying theories of property argued by Hobbes and Locke, provides one of the first common law definitions of the legal status of the domestic cat in his famous ?Rights of Things? in 2 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (U. Chicago Press 1979) (1769). He distinguishes between animals raised for food and those ?kept for pleasure, curiosity or whim [such as cats]?because their value is not intrinsic, but depending on the caprice of owners?? Further, he argues that with regard to animals classed as ?domitae? (tame by nature), ?[A] man may have as absolute a property as in any inanimate beings.? [2 COM. ? 393] Although the cat may have benefited from Blackstone?s assessment that it was a thing of property, it no doubt suffered from his failure to attribute any value to the animal.
The American interpretation of the legal ?thinghood? of nonhuman animals was provided by James Kent in COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (12th ed., 1896). Kent considered any animal regarded as ?tame? to be the subject of absolute property. More recently, Steven Wise?s Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals, 23 B.C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. 471 (1996) has documented the historical development of the legal status of nonhuman animals. The standing of the cat under the law as property, and eventually the subject of larceny, has developed considerably since Blackstone?s era. No longer are cats viewed as valueless property, instead ?the domestic cat is not a thing of naught, but the property of its master, and as such, entitled to the shelter of the law.? [AGNES REPPLIER, THE FIRESIDE SPHINX 179 (1901) quoting an unknown 1865 decision of Monsieur Richard, Juge de Paix of Fontainebleau]



We make exceptions here for things that we need to survive. IE: meat. Firstly you don't need meat to survive, secondly you don't need fur coats or cosmetics to survive, thirdly you think there are retirement homes for cows that run out of milk?


That is not the core argument I made, and I'm too tired and lazy to type it out again. You'll have to go back and read.Yet again your pomposity assumes everything I write is directed at you.


What? I don't know about animals, but as far as I'm concerned, even if it can't sustain itself, think, feel or love, that single cell of a fertilized egg has the potential to become human, and as such, is sacred.
So an adult chimp has less right to life than a cluster of human cells the size of a pin head. Yet again you miss the point and are lost in rhetoric. Ask yourself what makes humans so special, try looking at the bigger picture. I ask you again, where is the dividing line?

[Nemesis]

Firstly you don't need meat to survive,
Humans are omnivours, we need both meat and vegetation to survive.

secondly you don't need fur coats or cosmetics to survive,
Who said that we do?

thirdly you think there are retirement homes for cows that run out of milk?
What the hell are you talking about?
Humans are omnivours, we need both meat and vegetation to survive.

Yet again your pomposity assumes everything I write is directed at you.
Did you or did you not respond to me, and say that "N, you got owned?"

So an adult chimp has less right to life than a cluster of human cells the size of a pin head. Yet again you miss the point and are lost in rhetoric. Ask yourself what makes humans so special, try looking at the bigger picture. I ask you again, where is the dividing line?
I saw you're point, and I didn't think it was very much of a revelation. I think the reasons that the human fetus deserves more rights is because our evolutionary purpose is to keep the species going. Frankly, I don't care about the chimp.

[meshou]

Humans are omnivours, we need both meat and vegetation to survive.Devil's advocate: Maybe in nature. However, we can now be comparably healthy without, and in the wild, we didn't eat near as much as we do now. Think once a month instead of morning noon and night.


Who said that we do?I think this ties into the nessicity for animal cruelty. Most isn't.


Humans are omnivours, we need both meat and vegetation to survive.Need is awful strong. We need protien to do any sort of well, but we live, and there are now plentiful sources of protein which are not red meat (or meat at all).


I think the reasons that the human fetus deserves more rights is because our evolutionary purpose is to keep the species going. Frankly, I don't care about the chimp.The threats to our species is overpopulation and impending scarcity of resources. Compare this to a chimp's relitive sofistication and capacity to suffer (which a fetus does not have), chimp wins.

[Nemesis]

Need is awful strong. We need protien to do any sort of well, but we live, and there are now plentiful sources of protein which are not red meat (or meat at all).
People who eat no meat, and use different sources of protien are rarely as healthy as people who eat meat in healthy moderation.

The threats to our species is overpopulation and impending scarcity of resources. Compare this to a chimp's relitive sofistication and capacity to suffer (which a fetus does not have), chimp wins.
Oh, puh-lease. In that case, maybe we should focus on getting people to use contra-freaking-ception.

[meshou]

Oh, puh-lease. In that case, maybe we should focus on getting people to use contra-freaking-ception.Oh, I agree. But since I'm living in a world where access astoundingly shitty, I have to consider early term abortion as one option.

[Nemesis]

Oh, I agree. But since I'm living in a world where access astoundingly shitty, I have to consider early term abortion as one option.
Or, perhaps, abstinence.

[meshou]

Or, perhaps, abstinence.I'd say abstinence has almost as high a failure rate as a condom. Worse in people who are not rich and educated, as they can't afford birth control, and don't know what it is.

[Nemesis]

I'd say abstinence has almost as high a failure rate as a condom, if not higher.
Technically, no, since abstinence implies that you don't have sex, not that you don't intend do have sex.

[meshou]

Technically, no, since abstinence implies that you don't have sex, not that you don't intend do have sex.Abstienence education/ vows/ what have you do not work, and so few people practice it who do intend to that it's laughable. People have sex, and will do so whether they think they will or not. It's best to look at solutions on that level.

[Nemesis]

Abstienence education/ vows/ what have you do not work, and so few people practice it who do intend to that it's laughable. People have sex, and will do so whether they think they will or not. It's best to look at solutions on that level.
I have, and I don't think that abortion is the best option.

[meshou]

I have, and I don't think that abortion is the best option.And I can respect you for that. For me, I could not look in a woman's face and tell her that her reasoning is wrong, and that she must bring a child to term.

[Eileen]

According to my (indeed subjective) ethical system, the destruction of human life is a moral wrong, and so abortion is a moral wrong. However, according to the selfsame system, bringing a child into a harmful/abusive/impoverished situation is also a moral wrong. It is not my business to say that a woman should choose one moral wrong or the other; that's her decision. Sometimes people end up in shitty situations, and they have to choose what they can live with. I don't think there's a good answer for every problem... sometimes there's an answer that's the better of two bad options.

[Ivy]

According to my (indeed subjective) ethical system, the destruction of human life is a moral wrong, and so abortion is a moral wrong. However, according to the selfsame system, bringing a child into a harmful/abusive/impoverished situation is also a moral wrong. It is not my business to say that a woman should choose one moral wrong or the other; that's her decision. Sometimes people end up in shitty situations, and they have to choose what they can live with. I don't think there's a good answer for every problem... sometimes there's an answer that's the better of two bad options.

This pretty much sums up my stance as well.

I would add that, instead of working against abortion, I wish more pro-lifers would work on eradicating the social conditions that lead to it being the most attractive choice. Not too likely, but a girl can dream, right?

[Pooja]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/SDhanger.jpg