Abortion Watch

Poll: Should we change the current abortion limit of 24 weeks?
Abortion should be illegal under all circumstances! (16)
5.08%
Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc. (65)
20.63%
It should be reduced to 12 weeks (44)
13.97%
It should be reduced to 20 weeks (48)
15.24%
The current 24 week limit is fine! (91)
28.89%
Abortion should be legal should up to 28 weeks! (20)
6.35%
Abortion should be legal throughout the entire pregnancy! (27)
8.57%
Not sure! (4)
1.27%
This discussion is closed.
Ethelred the Unready
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#581
Report 11 years ago
#581
(Original post by Tufts)
Good point.
Bad point. :rolleyes:

Advice: Contribute something to discussion rather than writing "good point" under any point which takes the pro-abortion stance. I'm pro-abortion as well, but I'm completely tired of your unsubstantiated remarks.
0
simon-uk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#582
Report 11 years ago
#582
(Original post by Artemidoros)
Abortion should be illegal, except in certain cases such as rape, a threat to the mother's life and etc.

Why? What's the harm in allowing abortion?

Admittedly I've not read this whole thread, but since my appearance here I've noticed that the pro-lifers have commented on the posts of others, but haven't advanced any arguments of their own.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#583
Report 11 years ago
#583
(Original post by Simon Rigelsford)
UniofLife - how do you come to that conclusion?

The point Rothbard was making that we all have a right to own our own bodies, and we have a right to control our own bodies even if someone else suffers from us doing so.

What applies to our bodies also applies to our property.

However, to draw the conclusion that we are entitled to do whatever we want to whoever we want on our own property if that principle is to be applied consistently is wrong.

You gave your guest permission to come onto your property. If you don't want him on your property any longer, then you are perfectly entitled to tell him to leave. (Even though he is only on your property because you invited him in.) If he refuses to leave, then the property owner is justified in using as much force is required (but no more) to get him out.

Similarly, in the case of abortion, a woman cannot "tell" her foetus to leave her womb, nor is there any way for her to get the foetus out of her womb without killing it. So she is entitled to kill it. (Even though it is only in her womb because of her own actions.)

Simple as that.

However, I don't see why even those who reject my libertarian arguments should be opposed to abortion.

Before 18 weeks, foetuses cannot feel pain.They have no preferences. The vast majority of foetuses aborted are genetic trash. What is the problem?

The only reason, I suppose, against abortion is the religious idea that "God" somehow decided which sperm to fertilise the egg, and so to kill the foetus would be to kill something that "God" created. But since I don't accept such superstitious nonsense, this argument is not worth debating.

The other reason against abortion is the same as the reason why, earlier in this century, there was such a large anti-birth control movement: a hatred of promiscuous women. I think that has more to do with opposition to abortion than any of the usual arguments we hear.
I arrived at the conclusion from following the argument put forward. You posted a quote that compared the baby to a now unwanted guest. And the quote claimed that it is reasonable to eject someone from your property so it is reasonable to eject a baby from the womb. And if it dies as an inevitable and direct result of that ejection, so be it. Thus, if I eject someone from my house (even if I first invited them in) and they died as a direct and inevitable result of that ejection, so be it. So if I choose to push them from a window, so be it.

And now you make another comparison. This time you state that since the child cannot be told to leave it is reasonable to force it out in any way, even if that leads directly and inevitable to its death. Using this argument, if I have a party and some guests come, and get drunk and pass out. I cannot ask them to leave so I should be entitled to force them out and if they die as a direct and inevitable result of that (say it is incredibly cold outside) that should be fine. Can you really accept this?

You go on to make another claim, that before 18 weeks the child cannot feel pain and thus it is OK to kill it. This must be an irrelevance because you are not permitted to kill comatose patients who cannot feel pain, or indeed patients under anaesthetic (sp?) who also feel no pain.

The argument against abortion is not that God chose the sperm or egg or some such. It is simply that the child is a human being and we do not kill human beings without proper justification.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#584
Report 11 years ago
#584
(Original post by UniOfLife)
The argument against abortion is not that God chose the sperm or egg or some such. It is simply that the child is a human being and we do not kill human beings without proper justification.
The crux is that many people disagree with that definition. A significant period after conception you can still split the collection of cells in half ( or even three parts ) and have each half develop into a full grown human. Identical twins and triplets arise in a similar manner. Also, being human is about more than your body, is it even reasonable to think of something that doesn't have a brain as human?

This is why you have varying opinions about when abortion is acceptable and not. A lot of people simply don't see it as reasonable to expect a woman to go through with a pregnancy simply because some, often on religious grounds, have chosen to arbitrarily define an early embryo as human. Indeed, some people ( including myself ) would even argue it as being irresponsible to allow an early blastocyte to develop to the stage where it becomes a baby capable of feeling pain, remorse and fear, without making sure you have someone who is prepared to look after it.

Granted, I agree this is not an objective opinion, and thus I am not going to enforce this view on others. This is why I think the choice should be down to the person it affects the most, the mother. Granted, eventually you must draw a line, but the point at which you do so should not be based on a knee-jerk semi-religious argument with an arbitrary definition of what it means to be human. It ought to be based on a rational considerations of the consequences and implications of where you put it. The vast majority can agree that allowing abortion right up until birth is not reasonable. Most people are also able to see that a collection of cells so primitive that you can split it in two without killing it is clearly not equivalent to a human child.

It is the region in between that is troublesome. What about before / after the heart starts beating? What about before/after the first neural cells start appearing. What about before/after the major structures of the brain can be distinguished? These are NOT trivial questions. If you think you have an obvious answer to them you are probably ignorant of the issues involved. Sure, relying on abortion as a contraceptive is irresponsible, but at least in my opinion so is deciding to give birth to a child based on an arbitrary definition rather than rational consideration. If you do that then you might just as well flip a coin.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#585
Report 11 years ago
#585
(Original post by Jonatan)
The crux is that many people disagree with that definition. A significant period after conception you can still split the collection of cells in half ( or even three parts ) and have each half develop into a full grown human. Identical twins and triplets arise in a similar manner. Also, being human is about more than your body, is it even reasonable to think of something that doesn't have a brain as human?

This is why you have varying opinions about when abortion is acceptable and not. A lot of people simply don't see it as reasonable to expect a woman to go through with a pregnancy simply because some, often on religious grounds, have chosen to arbitrarily define an early embryo as human. Indeed, some people ( including myself ) would even argue it as being irresponsible to allow an early blastocyte to develop to the stage where it becomes a baby capable of feeling pain, remorse and fear, without making sure you have someone who is prepared to look after it.

Granted, I agree this is not an objective opinion, and thus I am not going to enforce this view on others. This is why I think the choice should be down to the person it affects the most, the mother. Granted, eventually you must draw a line, but the point at which you do so should not be based on a knee-jerk semi-religious argument with an arbitrary definition of what it means to be human. It ought to be based on a rational considerations of the consequences and implications of where you put it. The vast majority can agree that allowing abortion right up until birth is not reasonable. Most people are also able to see that a collection of cells so primitive that you can split it in two without killing it is clearly not equivalent to a human child.

It is the region in between that is troublesome. What about before / after the heart starts beating? What about before/after the first neural cells start appearing. What about before/after the major structures of the brain can be distinguished? These are NOT trivial questions. If you think you have an obvious answer to them you are probably ignorant of the issues involved. Sure, relying on abortion as a contraceptive is irresponsible, but at least in my opinion so is deciding to give birth to a child based on an arbitrary definition rather than rational consideration. If you do that then you might just as well flip a coin.
You are absolutely correct. But the point is this (in my opinion anyway). At some point the cells are not human and at some point they are. You can start from the beginning working forward and realise that the point at which you call it human is arbitrary and therefore allow abortion for longer until some point where you feel it is clear that the child is human.

Or, you can start from the end and work your way backwards. This would be to say that the child is human and work backwards and realise that the point at which you call it not human is arbitrary and therefore not allow abortion after a point at which it is clear that the child is not human.

There can be a religious aspect to this but there does need to be. We all put the lives of humans above the suffering of the mother. One point I would stress is that the person it affects the most is not the mother but the child. Obviously, under your definition it is not yet a child but it definitely will be and so it is it that is most affected by any decision about abortion. Again, this relates to looking forwards or backwards. And, if we look backwards, we realise that the argument you make about being wrong to give birth if no one is ready to look after it, is wrong. The child would rather be looked after by the state than be not born at all.

In short, I think that a lot of this discussion does boil down to whether your point of view is "this is not a child, when does it become one?" or "this will be a child, when is it not one?" That isn't necessarily a religious question.
0
Donald Duck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#586
Report 11 years ago
#586
(Original post by yawn)
Rape is never the fault of the child; the guilty party, not an innocent party, should be punished. Additionally the violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. Furthermore, abortion does not bring healing to a rape victim.

Remember, a child is a child regardless of the circumstances of his conception...and what about already-born people who are "products of rape"?




It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother's life. When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life.

Abortion for the mother's life and abortion for the mother's health are usually not the same issue: And in case you didn't know, abortion to save the mother's life was legal before convenience abortion was legalised, and would continue to be if abortion was made illegal again.



A mistake that results in the killing of another human life? Most young teenagers are scared to find they are pregnant. There is plenty of support to help her through the pregnancy and afterwards, whether she chooses to keep her baby or not.



There are very, very few pregnancies (less than 2%) that are carried out for reasons other than social inconvenience.



Can you still justify it to me, in view of my responses to your post, stargirl?

Did you know this?



And now, we see this happening with some women having multiple abortions.
I know that this post is kinda far away from yours, but I would still like to comment on it. To be honest, I agree with Zoecb, about 4 posts above the quoted one from you.

There are practical and theoretical parts to abortion, I'll start with the theoretical. Firstly, I'd like you to determine what is a "baby". For me, a "baby" is a human being, from the moment it leaves the woman's body till it can walk. Therefore, killing a foetus is not killing a baby. To me a living creature is something which can perceive the world around it and adapt to it, and a human being is a species of living creatures. As a foetus inside a woman does not actually perceive the world around it or adapt to it, the woman does and therefore there is no need for the foetus to, it is not a human being. As the problem with abortion would be the killing a human being, that is not actually happening. It is just preventing a human being to come to earth, which is the same as using a condom, not having sex with someone when you both want to, etc.

I also believe that, certainly at a young age, people should get a second chance. Getting pregnant can be a mistake, perhaps life changing, and I think people deserve second chances, so the person getting the child does as well. I dont think it matters if to do so, you would have to obstruct another human being to come to life, as its not alive, or even a human being, yet. I don't believe that there could ever be enough support to help someone through that experience, and erases the effects of it.

Another point is that I believe that a woman 'owns' her body. She can do with it whatever she wishes. She can damage her brains and liver, by being an alcoholic. She can fall and brake a leg. She can choose to cut her tonsils and plenty of women do. If she'd want to, she could stand on a railroad until a train drives over her and kills her. So she can take out parts of her body if she wanted to, which could kill those parts, including a fetus.

Now for the practical parts of it, follow my logic for a second.
1 If a woman wants an abortion, she does not want a baby in her current situation.
2 If a woman does not want a baby in her current situation, it could be due to many reasons, but usually ends up being unable to take care of the child, or simply doesn't want it, therefore not love it.
3 If a mother cannot take care of a child or does not love it, the child will, in over 99% of all cases, not be a well balanced and happy human being, causing problems in society. These problems could range from violence, mental problems, addicts, etc. resulting in misery for others and themselves.
4 It is morally wrong to cause misery if it is not absolutely necessarily "for the greater good".

Therefore, standing up against abortion is wrong.

There are a few other points to consider, such as:
-The world is already overpopulating, so why make it unnecessarily worse?
-We live in a free society, this is freedom
-This way the new generation will actually be better people than the previous.

Dont hesistate to awnser on my comments.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#587
Report 11 years ago
#587
(Original post by monagro)
I know that this post is kinda far away from yours, but I would still like to comment on it. To be honest, I agree with Zoecb, about 4 posts above the quoted one from you.
May I start my response to your points by saying that they have been addressed more than five times on TSR threads about abortion, including this one. However, for your benefit and since you seem not to have noticed them I shall address them again.

There are practical and theoretical parts to abortion, I'll start with the theoretical. Firstly, I'd like you to determine what is a "baby". For me, a "baby" is a human being, from the moment it leaves the woman's body till it can walk. Therefore, killing a foetus is not killing a baby. To me a living creature is something which can perceive the world around it and adapt to it, and a human being is a species of living creatures. As a foetus inside a woman does not actually perceive the world around it or adapt to it, the woman does and therefore there is no need for the foetus to, it is not a human being. As the problem with abortion would be the killing a human being, that is not actually happening. It is just preventing a human being to come to earth, which is the same as using a condom, not having sex with someone when you both want to, etc.
You can say that 'theoretically' you do not consider the person growing in the uterus to be a baby. OK, that's you opinion. Medical/scientific opinion is that the person growing in the uterus is a human life and abortion kills human life - end of.

I also believe that, certainly at a young age, people should get a second chance. Getting pregnant can be a mistake, perhaps life changing, and I think people deserve second chances, so the person getting the child does as well. I dont think it matters if to do so, you would have to obstruct another human being to come to life, as its not alive, or even a human being, yet. I don't believe that there could ever be enough support to help someone through that experience, and erases the effects of it.
Getting pregnant can indeed be a mistake and as you say, everyone deserves a second chance. Since we are considering whether it is moral to kill human life for the sake of what amounts to convenience, we need to agree that the best course of action is for the child to be placed for adoption. There are so many couples who want to adopt a baby. You talk of erasing the effects of an 'ill-timed' pregnancy as though there was only one life involved. There are two...and how can you erase the effects of pregnancy by taking one of those lives any more than giving birth and either keeping your child or allowing a couple to have a child that will be much loved?

Another point is that I believe that a woman 'owns' her body. She can do with it whatever she wishes. She can damage her brains and liver, by being an alcoholic. She can fall and brake a leg. She can choose to cut her tonsils and plenty of women do. If she'd want to, she could stand on a railroad until a train drives over her and kills her. So she can take out parts of her body if she wanted to, which could kill those parts, including a fetus.
Again, I will reiterate: The life growing within the mother is not her body . He/she has a very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There is even a 50-50 chance he/she might be a different gender!

Now for the practical parts of it, follow my logic for a second.
1 If a woman wants an abortion, she does not want a baby in her current situation.
2 If a woman does not want a baby in her current situation, it could be due to many reasons, but usually ends up being unable to take care of the child, or simply doesn't want it, therefore not love it.
3 If a mother cannot take care of a child or does not love it, the child will, in over 99% of all cases, not be a well balanced and happy human being, causing problems in society. These problems could range from violence, mental problems, addicts, etc. resulting in misery for others and themselves.
4 It is morally wrong to cause misery if it is not absolutely necessarily "for the greater good".
If that included in your four points is the case, we should see a reduction in reported cases of child abuse or neglect. Check out the stats and see how child abuse cases have sky-rocketed since the Abortion Act of 1967. To be fair, there are many possible explanations for the incredible statistical increase: more people willing to report abuse, more accurate reporting of abuse, stress of economic conditions, increase in drug use in adults, the pressures of single parenting etc. But one possible cause could be that abortion creates the mentality of "disposable children." If children are viewed as having no value in the womb, it follows that may be viewed with little value outside the womb.

However complex the causes of child abuse, pro-abortionists cannot argue that abortion on demand (which is essentially what we have) has reduced the statistics on child abuse since 1967. Although raw statistics are hard to come by, sources that are available give an estimate of a three-fold increase in this period.

It is apparent and undeniable that we can eliminate child abuse by simply killing all abused children. This would guarantee success. It would permanently remedy the specific failures of parenting classes. We could stop worrying about the recidivism associated with family counseling. We could avoid the controversy of child removal. We could avoid the problems associated with foster homes.

Taking the lives of all abused children answers every problem except one: It destroys the very people we are trying to protect. And that makes it the most absurd answer possible. It is the answer so abhorrent, no one would suggest it, or want to suggest it.

And yet it is the answer plastered over bumper stickers everywhere. Yes, we all want every child to be a wanted child. But the bumper sticker gives only one unspoken way of achieving this goal: kill the unwanted children. It is the only answer that destroys the very children we are trying to protect.

Once you understand this, you understand the absurdity of all pro-choice arguments that claim to benefit the children they want to abort. They attempt to treat a curable malady with a deadly treatment.

Therefore, standing up against abortion is wrong.
I think I've countered that accusation ^ and in addition, nothing you have said convinces me that you are right and I am wrong.
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#588
Report 11 years ago
#588
I can't see how anyone can consider a foetus prior to 50 days worthy of any rights, prior to 50 days it should be treated as exactly what it is, a clump of paracitic cells. I also can't see how anyone can consider a foetus after 50 days any less than human. As far as I'm concerned the possibility of survival outside the mother is completely irrelivant and an entirely artificial and unhelpful method of deciding when it's ok to kill. And for those who are citing property rights, the right to live overrides them, sorry.
0
Donald Duck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#589
Report 11 years ago
#589
Medical/scientific opinion is that the person growing in the uterus is a human life and abortion kills human life - end of.
Where do you gain these 'scientific/medical" facts from? These are not facts, they are opinions and therefore there is no end to it.

As previously stated, we don't "kill" a human life, as its not there yet. To live, you have to be able to experience and therefore perceive things, which isn't true here. Abortion is not problem free, you'll always be curious about your child and the child for its mother. Also, it would be taking the chance for adoption away from other children who really need it, such as African orphans.

Again, I will reiterate: The life growing within the mother is not her body . He/she has a very different chromosome structure with a separate circulatory system and often a different blood type. There is even a 50-50 chance he/she might be a different gender!
Anything inside a body belongs to that body, no matter if you're mathematical speaking or biological. Cancer can have a very different chromosome structure, but its still your body, just like bacteria are.

But one possible cause could be that abortion creates the mentality of "disposable children." If children are viewed as having no value in the womb, it follows that may be viewed with little value outside the womb.
Fistly, those statistics youre referring to, I always like to see what exact statistics, so its not something comparable to fox news. I'd also like to point out that during the last 100 years, the amount, quality and honesty of statistics has been going up, so I really wouldn't trust anything before WW2, as things were just not noted down. At least in western europe, I am certain children dont have to work anymore before they're 16 and the amount of violence against children has gone down tremendously.

I see it the other way. Children do not become 'disposable', it just lowers the amount of unwanted children (who still exist). As less children are unwanted, the average child will be taken better care for.

I am understanding that your point against abortion is that instead of letting them live a crap life, we kill them. I'd say abortion would stop them from ever getting here in the first place, so you don't actually kill them as they cannot be killed yet. However, this way you do get the advantages you have said, no child abuse, no etc.

I think the main difference between us is that I do not consider anything a human being which does not perceive the world around it or adapt to it (which is how we measure if he/she perceives it). You stated that I am wrong by the science books. Apart from really wanting to see where you got that information from, a human being (in its current stage of evolution) is a homo sapiens. If you translate that, you got 'wise man' and how can you be wise if you never experienced anything?
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#590
Report 11 years ago
#590
I think the main difference between us is that I do not consider anything a human being which does not perceive the world around it or adapt to it (which is how we measure if he/she perceives it). You stated that I am wrong by the science books. Apart from really wanting to see where you got that information from, a human being (in its current stage of evolution) is a homo sapiens.
It really doesn't matter what you or I think. Medical/scientific consensus is that from the moment of conception, the conceptus is human life. I'm presuming from your own stated criteria that a human being becomes a human being some time after the date of his/her birth.

Do a google search and ask "when does human life begin." I have already produced so much evidence to back up that consensus that I'm not going to do it again.

The debate was not centred on how wide the goal posts are, and giving opinions on when a human has sentience and awareness and such like and therefore, in your view, more validity. It was centred on the killing of human life.

Anyone feel a sense of deja vu? :rolleyes:

the amount of violence against children has gone down tremendously.
Not so, my friend. You can find statististics which evidence the increase in child abuse in the UK from the Dept. of Health (formerly supplied by the National Statistics database), the NSPCC and quite a few other reputable sources.
yawn
Badges: 13
#591
Report 11 years ago
#591
In stark contrast to the poll results on this thread, the great majority of women are opposed to attempts to liberalise the law on abortion, a survey revealed last month.

Six out of ten are against plans to make it easier to get abortion early in a pregnancy by cutting the number of doctors who must give their approval from two to one.

And three out of four want to see a scheme to allow nurses to perform abortions alone and without doctors blocked.

The poll was taken by ComRes among 1,001 adults by telephone at the beginning of September. The newly-released findings show that 59 per cent of women disagree with proposals to make abortion available on the recommendation of one doctor rather than two during earlier stages of pregnancy. Slightly fewer men, 57 per cent, take the same line.

Three quarters of women oppose any proposal to allow nurses alone to perform abortion. Some 68 per cent of men agree.

Nearly nine out of ten women agree that abortion 'has very serious consequences for the health of women'.

Eight in ten think it is better for women to be persuaded to accept alternatives than to go through with an abortion.

More than seven out of ten women say abortion that is too easily available 'cheapens the value of young life'.

The findings showed that seven out of ten women would like to see the time limit at which abortion is allowed in Britain to be halved.
That would mean the current 24-week limits would be cut to match the European average of 12 weeks.

The growing controversy on abortion follows figures in the summer which showed the number of abortions performed in Britain last year topped 200,000. Around one in four pregnancies now ends in a clinical termination.

The survey also found nine out of ten women want doctors to be legally obliged to offer counselling and alternatives to abortion for pregnant women seeking a termination. Eight out of ten said abortion law should be regularly reviewed to keep up with changes in our understanding of how babies develop.

The run-up to the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act, which made termination legal on October 27, 1967, has already produced political fall-out.
Labour MP Jim Dobbin said : "The survey shows changes in attitudes out there among the general public that mirror what I feel is happening politically.
"I have started to hear changed views from members of my own party who have traditionally been pro-choice. Gradually people are starting to think about these issues in some depth." He added: "It is significant that an opinion poll commissioned in the run-up to the 40th anniversary shows that, rather than becoming desensitised, the public are becoming increasingly concerned about abortion and the numbers of abortions, which have risen year on year."

Interesting, eh?
ssk2
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#592
Report 11 years ago
#592
Let's face it, you're not gonna change my opinion that a bunch of cells in a woman's body is not a child and I'm not gonna change yours. Very little point continuing the debate...
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#593
Report 11 years ago
#593
(Original post by ssk2)
Let's face it, you're not gonna change my opinion that a bunch of cells in a woman's body is not a child and I'm not gonna change yours. Very little point continuing the debate...
I'm assuming you are posting this to me. That's fine, if you don't want to carry on the debate - you can leave now, since that's your prerogative.

However, to contest what is your own personal opinion (which obviously accommodates your own views of abortion) I provide this quote from Dr. Jerome Lejeune, internationally know geneticist and a former professor of genetics at the University of Rene Descartes in Paris:

Thanks to a refined sonar-like imagery, Dr. Ian Donald, from England, a few years ago succeeded in producing a movie featuring the youngest star in the world, an 11-week-old baby dancing in utero (in the uterus). The baby plays, so to speak, on a trampoline! He bends his knees, pushes on the wall, soars up and falls down again. Because his body has the same buoyancy as the amniotic fluid, he does not feel gravity and performs his dance in a very slow, graceful, and elegant way, impossible in any other place on the Earth. Only astronauts in their gravity-free state can achieve such gentleness of motion. (By the way, for the first walk in space, technologists had to decide where to attach the tubes carrying the fluids. They finally chose the belt buckle of the suit, reinventing the umbilical cord.)

When I had the honor of testifying previously before the Senate, I took the liberty of referring to the universal fairy-tale of the man smaller than the thumb. At two months of age, the human being is less than one thumb's length from the head to the rump. He would fit at ease in a nutshell, but everything is there: hands, feet, head, organs, brain, all are in place. His heart has been beating for a month already. Looking closely, you would see the palm creases and a fortune teller would read the good adventure of that tiny person. With a good magnifier the fingerprints could be detected. Every document is available for a national identity card.

With the extreme sophistication of our technology, we have invaded his privacy. Special hydrophones reveal the most primitive music: a deep, profound, reassuring hammering at some 60-70 per minute (the maternal heart) and a rapid, high-pitched cadence at some 150-170 (the heart of the fetus). These, mixed, mimic those of the counterbass and of the maracas, which are the basic rhythms of any pop music.

We now know what he feels, we have listened to what he hears, smelled what he tastes and we have really seen him dancing full of grace and youth. Science has turned the fairytale of Tom Thumb into a true story, the one each of us has lived in the womb of his mother.

And to let you measure how precise the detection can be: if at the beginning, just after conception, days before implantation, a single cell was removed from the little berry-looking individual, we could cultivate that cell and examine its chromosomes. If a student, looking at it under the microscope, could not recognize the number, the shape and the banding pattern of these chromosomes, if he was not able to tell safely whether it comes from a chimpanzee being or from a human being, he would fail in his examination.

To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.
Elmo_321
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#594
Report 11 years ago
#594
Yawn, all that article shows is that an 11 week old baby moves around in the womb and that it looks very like a new-born baby in miniature. I mean come on.. the fetus is "dancing"?! No it's not. The article just anthropomorphises an organism that is, in terms of qualities/attributes, as human as a mouse.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#595
Report 11 years ago
#595
(Original post by Elmo_321)
Yawn, all that article shows is that an 11 week old baby moves around in the womb and that it looks very like a new-born baby in miniature. I mean come on.. the fetus is "dancing"?! No it's not. The article just anthropomorphises an organism that is, in terms of qualities/attributes, as human as a mouse.
It's more than "just a bunch of cells" though, isn't it? And how do you know that the foetus is not dancing? He/she could well be keeping time with the 'music' of his/hers mother's heartbeat.

Incidentally, a mouse isn't a human being, it's a mouse.
Elmo_321
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#596
Report 11 years ago
#596
(Original post by yawn)
It's more than "just a bunch of cells" though, isn't it? And how do you know that the foetus is not dancing? He/she could well be keeping time with the 'music' of his/hers mother's heartbeat.

Incidentally, a mouse isn't a human being, it's a mouse.
Yes it is more than a bunch of cells at this point. I think it however has the moral importance of say a mouse. Considering it's capabilities are at about mouse level.

Maybe the fetus is dancing. Or maybe it is tuning into the inter-galactic rhythms of Mars . My point was, was that just because the fetus is jumping around a bit (although granted I haven't seen the video) the conclusion drawn is that the fetus has a sense of enjoyment, perhaps rhythm?, fun etc. These conclusions are completely unwarranted! All we can conclude unless we do a brain scan or something, is that the fetus is moving around a lot!

Also perhaps it would be helpful for me to say that I don't think being "human" in the moral sense, has anything to do with DNA, arms, legs or fingerprints. It has to do with our capabilities as humans. Reason, sense of future, love, happiness. The dancing mouse fetus (sorry )has next to none of these
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#597
Report 11 years ago
#597
And yet every human being, including the unborn has a right to life under the 1948 Geneva Convention.

Funny how a desire to abort the unwanted changes the perception that suddenly the unborn is somehow inhuman. :confused:
Elmo_321
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#598
Report 11 years ago
#598
(Original post by yawn)
And yet every human being, including the unborn has a right to life under the 1948 Geneva Convention.

Funny how a desire to abort the unwanted changes the perception that suddenly the unborn is somehow inhuman. :confused:

The Geneva Convention isn't the last word on morality..

I don't have a "desire" to abort the unborn. I have simply formed an opinion on the moral worth of a fetus. And seperately formed a conclusion on what it is about being "human" that gives humans moral worth. I don't think human moral worth is obtained by merely possessing human DNA. How can a certain genetic make-up give the you the right to life and more moral worth than a species with a different DNA? It's just like racism. Indeed it's speciesm. Putting moral worth on an arbitrary characteristic- skin colour, DNA, sex... its all the same. This leads me to believe that it is the attributes humans possess that are important, morally.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#599
Report 11 years ago
#599
(Original post by Elmo_321)
This leads me to believe that it is the attributes humans possess that are important, morally.
In that case, let us start with the proposition that there are at least three different facets to the human condition - physical, mental and emotional.

So, when did your life begin? Your life did not begin the day you became viable. Your humanity is not dependent on current medical technology or your present geography. There is nothing in our moral tradition to suggest that those who are physically dependent on others are less human. On the day you became viable, the fundamental structure of who you are mentally, physically and emotionally was not created.

So where does that leave your argument?
Elmo_321
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#600
Report 11 years ago
#600
(Original post by yawn)
In that case, let us start with the proposition that there are at least three different facets to the human condition - physical, mental and emotional.

So, when did your life begin? Your life did not begin the day you became viable. Your humanity is not dependent on current medical technology or your present geography. There is nothing in our moral tradition to suggest that those who are physically dependent on others are less human. On the day you became viable, the fundamental structure of who you are mentally, physically and emotionally was not created.

So where does that leave your argument?
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. To me it doesn't matter "when life began" or at what point one becomes viable. What gives a fetus, or anything for that matter, moral worth in my opinion, are the characteristics it possesses.

Peter Singer is an australian philosopher who explains it better than I do:

"The central argument against abortion may be put like this:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human foetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.

To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly."


So I agree with Singer that it is persons not humans that should be given a moral status. Why should merely being a member, as Singer says, of a specific species automatically bestow upon you moral value?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (172)
18.59%
No (560)
60.54%
Not really bothered about them (193)
20.86%

Watched Threads

View All