[confusedexcited]

(Original post by tufc)
I see life as beginning when the heart starts beating.

why? that seems quite an arbitrary organ to select

[callan]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
When you have an abortion and lose those cells what life is ended? No human life because as you said cells are not equal to humans. Its no different than losing your skin cells, or having a period, or masturbating.

EDIT: This is still referring to early on in the pregnancy.

But those cells will indeed become life, they are set on the path to becoming equal to human life, and by aborting them you indeed deny the right to become a life, a life that will have rights.

[sanaindaclub]

(Original post by When you see it...)
What magically happens several months into the pregnancy which is so obvious that any further debate is unnecessary?

I meant that until the stage where its possible for the foetus to survive without the mother, the mother should be able to abort. It cant be murder if the foetus couldnt survive without her anyway.

[tufc]

(Original post by unclej)
i know it doesnt but it has the potential for one, just like a feotus.

So you accept that aborting something with a heartbeat is wrong?

[Aoide]

So a person who would die without medical treatment isn't alive?

Are ou trying the miss the point?
A human body can sustain itself and will continue to live until part of the body fails.
A bundle of cells removed from the mother cannot keep itself a alive.
When we judge life we don't look at the individual but the type of organism- all humans count as alive, all sperm do not count as alive.

[tufc]

(Original post by confusedexcited)
why? that seems quite an arbitrary organ to select

That's the defining symbol of life across the world; it's the organ that constantly maintains every other organ.

[boba]

(Original post by tufc)
So you accept that aborting something with a heartbeat is wrong?

I realise it wasn't me you were addressing but I am going to put forward my view on this anyway.

a working heart seems like such an arbitrary unimportant thing to be the distinction of whether or not the foetus is at that point a living person. hearts can be replaced and the person is still the same person, pigs hearts can even function inside people and they remain human. The function of your heart can be temporarily transferred to machines during surgery and such, and artificial hearts can be used to bridge the gap while waiting for a transplant. So I really don't understand the importance placed on the heart above other vital organs in determining life. The heart is just a muscle.

I would argue that the point at which the brain starts to fully function is much more important as everything that makes you you is in your brain and pretty much every other part can be replaced.

[jordanosborn]

I'd class life as beginning when the foetus starts to respond to stimuli. Can react to it's environment, feel pain etc. Which is believed to be at around 24 weeks of development.

[tufc]

(Original post by Aoide)
Are ou trying the miss the point?
A human body can sustain itself and will continue to live until part of the body fails.
A bundle of cells removed from the mother cannot keep itself a alive.
When we judge life we don't look at the individual but the type of organism- all humans count as alive, all sperm do not count as alive.

And if you deprived a post-birth human of food, oxygen etc., he/she would die too.

[unclej]

not neccesarily wrong, not as wrong as contoling womens bodies by stopping abortions leading to back street illegal abortions

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by callan)
But those cells will indeed become life, they are set on the path to becoming equal to human life, and by aborting them you indeed deny the right to become a life, a life that will have rights.

Where does this 'right to become life' come from? and what has it? Because sperm and eggs both have potential to become life. So by your logic periods are morally wrong, and so is masturbation. And just because a sperm and egg meet does not mean that a life will develop, it is highly possible but not guaranteed.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Where does this 'right to become life' come from? and what has it? Because sperm and eggs both have potential to become life. So by your logic periods are morally wrong, and so is masturbation. And just because a sperm and egg meet does not mean that a life will develop, it is highly possible but not guaranteed.

It has pretty much been established that the only life that has any true meaningful value that deserves 100% protection in this world is human life. So the question is when does that embryo become human? I don't think you can come up with a satisfactory differentiator between a foetus at 20 weeks and humans, that means we should remove the universal protection we offer.

[miser]

Nice video. But primarily I believe that murder is wrong because of the suffering it causes. There's obviously no moral dilemma involved in wiping a bit of Dettol over your kitchen surface for example. So long as it's reasonable to believe that having an abortion does not cause the foetus to suffer, then I don't believe its moral rights have been violated.

[Pitt1988]

(Original post by tufc)
I see life as beginning when the heart starts beating.

Why? Why is the heart more specific to life than brain functionality? Than having a liver, kidneys, intestine or spinal column?

Is this some sort of parallel with some personal views of yours that the 'soul' is in the heart or something? Or simply that it is pumping its own blood, different to that of the mothers? Because to me, the heart is of equal importance than any other part, it doesn't represent life.

[anthonyfl]

Abortion at 24 weeks is wrong. The child is physically a full baby at that point, he or she just has to gain strength.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
It has pretty much been established that the only life that has any true meaningful value that deserves 100% protection in this world is human life. So the question is when does that embryo become human? I don't think you can come up with a satisfactory differentiator between a foetus at 20 weeks and humans, that means we should remove the universal protection we offer.

Having a right to a life that already is possessed is different than the 'right to become life' that this person is advocating for. And I agree that is the question. So far there are many differing answers.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Having a right to a life that already is possessed is different than the 'right to become life' that this person is advocating for. And I agree that is the question. So far there are many differing answers.

Well yeah but the heart starts beating at 6 weeks... that is the marker we generally use among our species to determine whether someone is alive or not.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well yeah but the heart starts beating at 6 weeks... that is the marker we generally use among our species to determine whether someone is alive or not.

Thats not necessarily true. People who are brain dead are also considered dead even if the heart is still beating. The debate is highly complex but it boils down to is the right to life to the person, or the organism (they are not one and the same).

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by boba)
I've just actually watched her video and while it doesn't seem to contain any actual argument for pro life it is very sad. being forced into abortions and choosing them are completely different and I can't begin to imagine how horrible she must feel if she truly believes that abortion is evil and wrong knowing that she was forced into one. Her father sounds like a truly horrible person.

I believe that people should have the choice, but it should always actually be a choice.

I think her father was probably doing it for her own good.
A baby at 15 is likely to completely ruin somebody's potential future prospects.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Thats not necessarily true. People who are brain dead are also considered dead even if the heart is still beating. The debate is highly complex but it boils down to is the right to life to the person, or the organism (they are not one and the same).

If we take your brain dead example, if that person was almost certain to make a full recovery no one would ever let you pull the plug. I think the pro-choice side in this debate tries it's very hardest to get away from the fact that what is being terminated is in fact a human. The fact that many many women go through this procedure and we end up spending millions each year counselling them for it, telling them that it was fine etc. when they know in their hearts it was wrong and selfish, is testament to this.