Baby born at 21 weeks survives-should we revisit abortion laws?

Rock Climber

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm

Tiny little thing and she lives In my opinion hoovering a baby like that out of it's mothers body would be murder.

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland save extraordinary circumstances i.e. there is a threat to the mothers life, so while it is interesting, it doesnt really matter in the Irish context.


Glad the baby is doing well

Rock Climber

Ok,I did mean abortion anywhere in the world...
I know it's not strictly allowed in Ireland save for the circumstances you mention but I'm interested in thrashing out views on the general idea of abortion given that it's now been shown that it's legal to hoover a young viable life out of a womans body and kill it.
Viability has improved obviously with modern medicine in that now you could have a perfectly viable 6 month gestation baby that needs a lot of care and survives but has the law in say the UK on his or her side viability wise and a tiny version of the same life at 22 weeks hanging on in peril untill it passes a 28 week or later "threshold" for to be legally safe from abortion.

Seems wrong to me.

InFront

I agree with you, legislation needs to catch up with modern medicine on a very immediate level.

However, on a sort of ethical level : the embryo who has been implanted on in the uterus for just one month is also a viable creature, in that conscious human interference is not what is keeping him alive. The embryo, later as a fetus, is being kept alive by an unconscious background of nature: the same as you or I are being kept alive. If left to nature, this unborn baby will grow into an adult and reproduce.
So killing him, to me, seems just as wrong as killing a baby who would be viable upon immediate extraction.

I have never heard a good pro-abortion argument apart from incidences where the mothers life was at risk, or where the child would suffer a disability which would destroy his or her quality of life, or the mother's quality of life: in these cases the question becomes very complicated and abortion might be the best option.

But as for aborting a child who nature would have let live, even an embryo, this is something I find difficult to understand.

Dontico

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

since irish and british doctors share medical info allready, it make sence to me that the gov should informed when an irish person gets an abortion. sentance should 18years community service. or jail.

yeah i'm pro-life. want to murder me over it?

seamus

I've always thought that the maximum waiting period for an abortion should be the earliest known birth, where the child was healthy*

In this case, if the UK maximum time is 24 weeks, then this should start a process of revising that down to 21 weeks.

*To qualify this, a child born in these circumstances would have to show an ability to survive on their own as a human being. A 20-week feotus for example, that's born and kept alive, only to die 6 months later because it can't support itself wouldn't qualify. Likewise, a 20-week old feotus which managed to grow and survive, but showed little brain activity, or massive brain damage/deficieny, also wouldn't count.

Nevyn

Define survive on it's own, unattched to the mother or sustained in inucbator, on a resperator and dialysis machine ?

InFront

Abortion in the first case, murder in the latter three, in the case of a dependent infant.

Define survive on your own without oxygen or blood perfusion.

PoleStar

Just to stick in a medical point

Please let me clarify before I do that I am anti abortion

However I do think that the issue of the baby surviving at 21 weeks will raise some important medical, ethical, and socio-economic issues.

The chances of a normal baby leaving the hospital when born at 24 weeks gestation are in the region of 5%. Of these many go on to suffer developmental difficulties and psychological problems. Thus while this baby certainly is a little miracle no doubt and lets all use our good Karma and hope things go well, the issues are not always as simple as they seem.

seamus

Thaedydal wrote:

Define survive on it's own, unattched to the mother or sustained in inucbator, on a resperator and dialysis machine ?

Sorry, I didn't clearly define that. I don't mean "Pull it out and stick it on the table there. If it breathes, it's good. If it dies, f*ck it." If the child has been born, then obviously we should do everything we can to maximise its survival. But if the child fails to develop sufficiently to pose any chance of functioning on its own, then it can't be considered a "successful 20-week birth".
Thus I don't think such a birth could be considered a case for lowering the maximum gestation period before abortion, like the one we are discussing can be.

I don't think I explained my point correctly.

Of course this whole debate will flare up again as soon as someone manages to bring a child to full term in a lab. "Why do we have to abort, why not just extract the zygote?".

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that irish people can go over thier and murder OUR children.

We can do that? Because there are a group of kids down the road that are fecking annoying ...

Gurgle

Rock Climber wrote:

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

Its the same old question really; Where do you draw the line?

Some countries allow abortions up to 9 months - The child does not become human until it draws its first breath.

The 'viable independant life' idea is often bandied around, but evn then you have to consider what level of medical intervention still allows the life to be considered independant.

This child born at 22 weeks spent over 3 months in intensive care, presumably in an incubator with intravenous feeding.

But then you could extract a fertilized egg and allow the child to grow in an artificial womb.

But imagine if every abortion clinic in the USA were instead moving the embryo to an artificial womb and from there to an orphanage. The cost be staggering, and the social problems of tens of thousands of children being raised in orphanages.

So clearly there is much more considered when they make their legislation than a viable human being. As with everything else, the driving forces are money and convenience.

My personal belief is that conception is the moment when a human being is created and it should have every legal protection from then on. Where a mother's life is under a direct medical threat due to a pregnancy is (in this country) and should be everywhere the only situation where abortion is allowed.

But you've got everything from international law to a woman's right to travel and her right to her own body standing in the way.

There will never be a perfect solution to unwanted pregnancies.

At long last, in Ireland over the last 10-15 years the social stigma of unmarried mothers has gradually decreased. It used to be considered a sign of a disadvantaged upbringing (read: white trash), but I can think of a dozen qualified working professionals who are unmarried mothers.

Unfortunately the rest of the world isn't so enlightened. Its still considered better to have an abortion in secrecy than to be talked about (or worse) for being an unmarried mother.

Zombrex

Rock Climber wrote:

It's time abortion wasn't allowed beyond 10 weeks as you now run the risk of killing a viable human being.

As Gurgle asks, how do you define a viable human being?

Eventually medical science will allow a zygote to grow artificially to full term outside of a woman's womb. Since we can already artificially join a sperm with an egg that means we will be able to form life independently of a woman's body.

So then do we classify masterbation as a crime because we could technically store and eventually produce a child with each and every one of those sperms completely independent of nature?

At the end of the day we need a better definition of a human being than simply a human organism that can be grown artificially.

humanji

Dontico wrote:

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that Irish people can go over their and murder OUR children.

since Irish and British doctors share medical info already, it make sense to me that the gov should informed when an Irish person gets an abortion. sentence should 18years community service. or jail.

yeah I'm pro-life. want to murder me over it?

You see, if hateful people like you would put more effort into getting rid of any stigma related to unwanted pregnancies instead of vilifying those who have abortions, then maybe, just maybe, people won't be inclined to have abortions.

Personally, I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, in that I don't like abortions, but it's really not my place to generalise and decide that no one can have one.

(oh and isn't abortion is legal in Britain? So why would they be imprisoned for not breaking the law? Extremist views aren't really going to solve anything, are they?)

Rock Climber

"Define a viable human being" ... Thats a handy avoidance term for people who don't want to deal with the nuisance that some aborted babies scraped out and thrown in an incinerator or wherever may have actually lived-Or for people who are de sensitised enough to just regretably not care.

There is a reason why it was pegged at 24 or 28 weeks or whatever in reasonable states and that was to be definitive on the fact that you were throwing out a bunch of cells at that stage with no viability.
The medical care required outside the womb is irrelevant as the basis for the cut off number of weeks is generally as above to rule out the implication that you were aborting a baby as opposed to just a potential baby.

Now it's been proved that at 21 weeks you cannot rule out viability,that shoots that argument for 24 or worse 28 weeks out of the water.

Nevyn

I don't mean "Pull it out and stick it on the table there. If it breathes, it's good. If it dies, f*ck it."

Nope they stick it on a weighing scales
and there is a wiegth under which they will not do invasive proceedure and it is left to fail to thrive.
This is becoming more and more of an issue with pregancies caused by IFV and thier failure to gestate to term
( being 32 weeks when the lungs are full developed ).

delly

Dontico wrote:

the problem with abortion laws in other countries is that Irish people can go over their and murder OUR children.

Yeah, are you going to look after said children then or do we all take turns. Seriously regardless of which side of the table I fall on regarding abortion, where do you get off on calling unborn children as your own or collectively that of the Irish people?

Zombrex

Rock Climber wrote:

"Define a viable human being" ... Thats a handy avoidance term for people who don't want to deal with the nuisance that some aborted babies scraped out and thrown in an incinerator or wherever may have actually lived

No, actually it is a question. An important one at that.

If in the near future we get to the point where a individual sperm and an individual egg can be artificially grown to a full term baby without ever needing to be in a natural womb, would you consider masturbation to be the killing of a human being. If you don't, then how do you define a human being?

Because at some point in the near future science will probably make it possible to artificially (without a natural womb) bring to full term something you probably don't consider a human being, for example a sperm.

So the ability of science to simulate the natural process of the womb is largely irrelevant to the question of what is or what isn't a human being.

These are important questions.

Rock Climber wrote:

Or for people who are de sensitised enough to just regretably not care.

Sensitivity is rather irrelevant. It either is or is not a human being.

Rock Climber wrote:

There is a reason why it was pegged at 24 or 28 weeks or whatever in reasonable states and that was to be definitive on the fact that you were throwing out a bunch of cells at that stage with no viability.

It is a bunch of cells, and this baby without modern medicine would have died within a few minutes of being "born". What the doctors did was attempt to simulate the woman's womb as much as possible to allow the foetus to continue to grow to full size.

I would imagine within the next 50 years it will be possible to grow to full term a human embryo, which is just a bunch of cells.

Rock Climber wrote:

Now it's been proved that at 21 weeks you cannot rule out viability,that shoots that argument for 24 or worse 28 weeks out of the water.

Not really. The argument has always been at what point can the baby survive on its own. This baby didn't survive on its own, it survived with a hell of a lot of medical help. As I said, soon it will be possible to bring a few day old embryo to full term.

Rock Climber

Wicknight wrote:

No, actually it is a question. An important one at that.

If in the near future we get to the point where a individual sperm and an individual egg can be artificially grown to a full term baby without ever needing to be in a natural womb, would you consider masturbation to be the killing of a human being. If you don't, then how do you define a human being?

You see there you go again falling into the trap of infinities to justify ignoring a nuisance concept ie that you might be justifying the killing of a live baby inside the mothers womb.
You may aswell say to me that the microscopic piece of dust here on this desk is probably going to contain enough male and female DNA at some point in the future to create a baby-ergo I must not use my hoover on it.

Let me clear that fallacy up straight away,we are talking morals here.
Why are we talking morals? Because morals or more precisely the enormity of what you would be legalising came into the equasion in deciding the number of weeks AFTER which a government decided to make abortion illegal.
Is it moral to decide that a baby that is naturally created inside the womb and who can with the aid of modern medicine live to be a grown adult should die at it's parents whim?..Is it the right thing to do to allow that less rights than a baby a few weeks longer in the womb ?

I'm asking should laws on this be revisited and a more realistic cut off point applied.I'm not at all talking about the theoretics of cloning and the rights or wrongs of that.

Sensitivity is rather irrelevant. It either is or is not a human being.

Well a sperm or an Egg will never be a human being.
Thats all irrelevant to what should be a cut off point in the natural process of development inside a womans womb.

It is a bunch of cells, and this baby without modern medicine would have died within a few minutes of being "born". What the doctors did was attempt to simulate the woman's womb as much as possible to allow the foetus to continue to grow to full size.

I would imagine within the next 50 years it will be possible to grow to full term a human embryo, which is just a bunch of cells.

What? Read the article, it was born at 21 weeks.

Not really. The argument has always been at what point can the baby survive on its own. This baby didn't survive on its own, it survived with a hell of a lot of medical help. As I said, soon it will be possible to bring a few day old embryo to full term.

No you are wrong there.
many if not the majority of babies at 30 weeks or earlier don't go home the day after they are born or the week after for that matter for a reason-yes because many of them need the miracle of modern medicine.
They are the lucky ones though legally speaking because their parents didn't exercise the ir legal right say in the UK to flush them down the toilet say at 22 weeks.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

If in the near future we get to the point where a individual sperm and an individual egg can be artificially grown to a full term baby without ever needing to be in a natural womb, would you consider masturbation to be the killing of a human being. If you don't, then how do you define a human being?

Spermatids are not human beings, no matter how long you preserve them. A human being arises from a spermatid successfully fertilising an ovum. If it implants and develops, yes, that's a human being. Just because it isn't sitting up straight or kicking a football yet doesn't make it non-human.

Would you describe a baby as nonhuman 12 hours before it enters the birth canal? Where do you draw the line?

Because at some point in the near future science will probably make it possible to artificially (without a natural womb) bring to full term something you probably don't consider a human being, for example a sperm.

I doubt that. But it's like suggesting we'll one day be able to make a baby from a vile of blood - it's not a reasonable speculation.

soon it will be possible to bring a few day old embryo to full term.

You mean in a lab? How? Again, that's not a very reasonable speculation.

seamus

InFront wrote:

I doubt that. But it's like suggesting we'll one day be able to make a baby from a vile of blood - it's not a reasonable speculation.

Actually, it's entirely different. We can already start the growth process without human intervention in a lab. And as this story demonstrates, we can remove the child 20 weeks later and maintain the growth process without the human womb. All that has to be done is to bridge that gap. At the speed that medical science is progressing, it sounds like perfectly reasonable speculation to me. After all, the embryo only needs some warm fluid, nutrition and excretion.

On the other hand, attempting to get a red blood cell to grow into a human being on its own is a much more difficult, if not impossible prospect.

InFront

seamus wrote:

All that has to be done is to bridge that gap.

Im talking about the suggestion about growing a spermatid into a baby in a lab. There's a whole load of pretty massive gaps there, not just the embryological one. That's why it is unreasonable.

On the other hand, attempting to get a red blood cell to grow into a human being on its own is a much more difficult, if not impossible prospect.

But as you know of course, there are more than simply red blood corpuscles in a sample of blood - you have actual cells in there too, and these are packed with DNA.

How is the "sperm cell developing to human" step reasonable, and not "blood cell developing to human"? This is a sort of scientific suicide mission, I don't know of anyone who would describe it as a reasonable hypothesis.

Gurgle

InFront wrote:

How is the "sperm cell developing to human" step reasonable, and not "blood cell developing to human"? This is a sort of scientific suicide mission, I don't know of anyone who would describe it as a reasonable hypothesis.

Going back to inter-cert science here (thats junior cert to you youngsters under 30), but a sperm cell only has half a set of DNA while a fertilized egg has a full, complete, unique set.

Comparing a fertilized egg to a sperm or a blood & tissue sample is pointless.

rock climber

I'd personally have put the abortion cut off point at 3 months anyway, since I think that's when the first proper brain waves from a fully formed brain are emitted.
My argument in general is sentience. It's arguable as to whether a fetus just before birth is sentient. It's arguable all the way back to when it has a formed brain and before that it's not, IMO. My little finger has human dna but I doubt people would have a fit at me if I chopped it off. Be a different story if it had a brain, though!

Someone said there'll never be a perfect solution to unwanted pregnancies. I pretty much agree. The only way is to stop the unwanted pregnancies occuring in the first place. And if the pro-lifers who waste every saturday morning showing dead baby pictures and trying to use shock tactics would instead campaign for better sex ed and contraception etc, we might actually make some progress. It'd keep both sides happy.

rock climber wrote:

killing of a live baby inside the womb

Well, you can hardly kill a dead baby now can you? And it's not a baby when it's inside the womb, it's a fetus. Or an embryo.

because their parents didn't exercise the ir legal right say in the UK to flush them down the toilet say at 22 weeks.

If only I had a link to the study I found indicating that the majority of abortions in UK are far earlier than this, and any later ones are supposed to be from Irish women having trouble getting over there in the first place...

seamus

InFront wrote:

Im talking about the suggestion about growing a spermatid into a baby in a lab. There's a whole load of pretty massive gaps there, not just the embryological one. That's why it is unreasonable.

Well interestingly enough, it has been shown recently that it is in fact possible to begin asexual reproduction using two sets of DNA from the same mother. That is, as you know the ovum and the sperm both contain half of the genetic codes. Scientists have quite recently managed to take the DNA out of one egg, implant it into anther egg, and begin the gestation process. This egg has a full set of 46 chromosomes, and theoretically could grow to full term. Now it's not a massive leap to think that you could theoretically do the same with two sperm (or even a single sperm, just duplicate its DNA strands). However, to do it with a single sperm, any children developed would probably have some serious medical conditions (and in the case of males, they would have massive medical deformities). But the possibility is not only reasonable, it's close - within the next 100 years.
Developing children from a vial of blood however is completely impossible.

A quick refresher on this (for anyone's benefit):
The male and female gametes contain a complete set of codes for all cells in the body. Given a fertilised ovum, it's possible to develop any type of cell that you wish, all you need to do is select the right genetic markers. This is the whole debate about stem cell research. You extract a stem cell, and you can instruct this cell to grow into whatever body part you wish.

All other cells however, only know how to make more of themselves. No matter how hard you try, you can't tell a skin cell cell to spontaneously start growing into a heart or a set of lungs, or a pair of eyes. So given a vial of blood, you'd be extremely limited in the types of cells you'd find.

Zombrex

Rock Climber wrote:

You see there you go again falling into the trap of infinities to justify ignoring a nuisance concept ie that you might be justifying the killing of a live baby inside the mothers womb.

Groan ... It is always "a live" A sperm cell is alive. Your hair cells are alive.

I cannot justify the killing of a human being because if it is a human being then it should not be killed.

But if it isn't a human being then it is no different than killing a hair cell or a sperm cell (both of which are alive and human).

So the issue is how does one define a human being and why do they define it that way. I would imagine you will say a human being is defined after conception. I would simply ask why?

Rock Climber wrote:

You may aswell say to me that the microscopic piece of dust here on this desk is probably going to contain enough male and female DNA at some point in the future to create a baby-ergo I must not use my hoover on it.

That is the extention of your argument, which appears to be that if we can artificially grow the baby to full term we should not abort it. That is a rather ridiculous way to decide if abortion should be allowed because soon medicial science will have to ability to a sperm and egg cell into a human child without any natural womb, and even turn any cell into a child without any natural womb.

Rock Climber wrote:

Is it moral to decide that a baby that is naturally created inside the womb and who can with the aid of modern medicine live to be a grown adult should die at it's parents whim?

It depends on if you classify that foetus as a whole human being with rights of a human being.

You say "naturally created inside the womb" as a requirement to be a human being. My whole point is the issue of what if the baby was created artificially outside of the womb? What if the sperm and egg and foetus never go near a womb. Would it then be ok to abort it?

What about the sperm and the egg that you used to artificially create this zygote. Surely if the zygote is considered human being then the sperm and the egg together must also be considered a human being as the zygote is nothing more than the two joined together?

Rock Climber wrote:

I'm asking should laws on this be revisited and a more realistic cut off point applied.

And my point is that the age at which the foetus can survive without a womb is largely irrelavent to the question of if the foetus is human being, with all the rights that that entails. You cannot define what is or what is not a human being based on if we can keep it alive and grow it because eventually we will be able to keep alive and grow anything from anything.

Rock Climber wrote:

Well a sperm or an Egg will never be a human being.

They won't without human medical intervention. But then this unborn foetus would never have been a human being without human medical intervention. If this had taken place 100 years ago, or in the middle of the Amazon, they child would have died within a minute.

You are saying that if we can artificially grow this foetus to full term then it is to be consided a human being and it is immoral to terminate it. Why does that not also hold for a sperm and egg, since soon we will be able to artificially grow them to full term as well.

Rock Climber wrote:

Thats all irrelevant to what should be a cut off point in the natural process of development inside a womans womb.

Rock Climber wrote:

What? Read the article, it was born at 21 weeks.

I'm well aware of that fact. I'm also well aware of the fact that the child was placed in an artificial incubator and kept alive by modern medice. Without this she would have died within a few minutes.

Rock Climber wrote:

No you are wrong there.
many if not the majority of babies at 30 weeks or earlier don't go home the day after they are born or the week after for that matter for a reason

This baby did not go home the day she was born nor a week after she was born. She went home 4 months after she was born, which is close to 9 months after conception when she would have been born naturally anyway. She was artificially kept alive in a neo-natal ward for those 4 months as she grew.

If your requirement for when abortion is immoral is that the foetus should be able to survive on its own this this foetus when born at 22 weeks failed that requirement, just as an embryo would at 1 week. In fact a sperm cell would have survived for longer on its own that this child.

Gurgle

Wicknight wrote:

What about the sperm and the egg that you used to artificially create this zygote. Surely if the zygote is considered human being then the sperm and the egg together must also be considered a human being as the zygote is nothing more than the two joined together?

Thats just the usual nonsence trotted out by the pro-abortion 'right to choose' brigade, justifying convenience abortion.

By your logic, you could make a heap of soot, mix in some water, drop a rusty nail on top and give it a vote.

You have to define a point where a collection of cells becomes a human being.

I define it at conception as any other point is arbitrary.

I believe in the right to choose - If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

Cue the rape-pregnancy arguement...

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Spermatids are not human beings, no matter how long you preserve them.

I would agree. But then I don't think a zygote is a human being either.

I have always defined a "human being" as the ability to produce thought and the consciousness produced by this ability. Before the brain or nervous system has develop I consider a foetus to simply be a human, not a human being with all the rights that that entails, in the same way I don't consider your kidney to have rights separate or above the rights of you as a person.

InFront wrote:

A human being arises from a spermatid successfully fertilising an ovum.

Well technically a single cell zygote arises from a sperm successfully fertilising a ovum. This zygote is still simply a single human cell, as the sperm and the egg were. It grows into a human, but then so does a sperm and a egg.

InFront wrote:

If it implants and develops, yes, that's a human being.

Is it only a human being after it implants? What changes if it implants? What if you artificially stop it from implanting?

InFront wrote:

Would you describe a baby as nonhuman 12 hours before it enters the birth canal? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line based on how I define the distinguishing feature of humanity to which rights are bestowed, that being the ability to form conscious thought and that consciousness itself. Basically the brain.

Before anyone gets smart and says something like "Oh so you would be on for killing people in their sleep since they aren't conscious", I do not mean the ability to be awake. I mean that conscious formed in the brain by the unique sets of neural pathways that form thought and memory. A sleeping or unconscious person still retains these in their brain even when not physically awake.

Think of it this way. If I give my kidney away to someone else, I'm still "me". If I give my heart and liver, my lungs or my left arm away to someone else, I'm still "me" (ignoring Metal Gear Solid plot twists).

On the other hand if my brain was transferred into another body completely, "me" goes with it. I would now be that person, and my old body could be completely destroyed without destroying "me".

What it means to be human is our conscious thought, stored and created by our brain. That is what I believe rights are bestowed up (my rights go with me to my new body, my old brainless body has not rights)

A foetus 12 hours or 12 days before it is born possesses a full formed brain and no doubt possesses the ability to form consciousness in this brain.

Now I, nor science, can say when exactly the ability to form consciousness is first created by the developing foetus.

But it can be safely said that a foetus that has yet to form a nervous system, spinal cord or brain does not possess consciousness, nor the ability to form consciousness. Terminating a foetus at this early stage I have absolutely no objection to. Terminating at a later stage I've more issue with.

InFront wrote:

I doubt that.

Why?

5 years ago this child would probably have died. 20 years ago the idea that a foetus born at 22 weeks could survived would have been laughed out of the hospital.

InFront wrote:

But it's like suggesting we'll one day be able to make a baby from a vile of blood - it's not a reasonable speculation.

Some day (though probably not the near future) we probably will. After all blood cells contain the DNA necessary to create a fully developed human organism.

InFront wrote:

You mean in a lab? How? Again, that's not a very reasonable speculation.

Using what is known as an Artificial Womb or Artificial Uterus. They are still a bit off, researchers say that they might be able to produce a rat in an artificial womb in the next 10 years. Human wombs would naturally be another 25 or so years after that. But the the idea seems pretty solid, certainly not impossible.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/dc8d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

The whole point of this, and my original post, is that with advances like this, it becomes nonsensical to suggest that a human being should be defined based on the ability of a sperm/egg, a zygote, or a foetus to survive and grow to full term.

Zombrex

Gurgle wrote:

Thats just the usual nonsence trotted out by the pro-abortion 'right to choose' brigade, justifying convenience abortion.

No, its what is known as a question. If you have an answer then simply state it.

Gurgle wrote:

By your logic, you could make a heap of soot, mix in some water, drop a rusty nail on top and give it a vote.

I'm not sure what you think "my logic" is if you believe that.

Gurgle wrote:

You have to define a point where a collection of cells becomes a human being.

I know. My actually point is that defining it at the point of conception is rather unjustified, as a human cell is still a human cell after conception.

At the end of the day you are killing a human cell. If it is wrong to kill a single human cell after conception why is it totally fine to kill millions of them before conception?

The argument that the zygote can develop into a human being doesn't hold up, because the sperm and the egg can also develop into a human being if nature takes it course.

What clouds the issue is that for thousands of years we have been artificially aborting our sperm cells, so at this stage we don't even see this as anything particularly strange or wrong about doing this, and therefore the idea that these cells are actually alive doesn't bother us. But when we think of a zygote we think of a little baby. Biologically that is nonsense.

It also kinda sounds nice in a Platonic kind a way, two cells join to form a new cell (awww), but that is just sentimental nonsense. And defining something as important as the legal rights of a human being on a theory simply because it sounds nice is not a good idea.

Gurgle wrote:

I define it at conception as any other point is arbitrary.

From a biological point of view the point of conception is pretty arbitrary as well.

Conception is simply one stage on the long biological cycle of life. You could just as easily say that once a sperm cell has been created in the testicals it should not be destroyed, or say that a zygote can be destroyed before it multiples and develops into an embryo.

Gurgle wrote:

Cue the rape-pregnancy arguement...

I never support the argument that rape is a justifiable reason to have an abortion where otherwise it would be prohibitated, any more than I think a rape victim should be allowed kill their 5 year old.

Gurgle

Wicknight wrote:

I know. My actually point is that defining it at the point of conception is rather unjustified, as a human cell is still a human cell after conception.

At the end of the day you are killing a human cell. If it is wrong to kill a single human cell after conception why is it totally fine to kill millions of them before conception?

...From a biological point of view the point of conception is pretty arbitrary as well.

Conception is the occurance where the genetic makeup of an individual human being is completed, the full DNA set begins to grow into that human being. Fuel and matter are supplied by the host but the life and growth are from the DNA in that cell.

How can any point in life be less arbritary?

Wicknight wrote:

The argument that the zygote can develop into a human being doesn't hold up, because the sperm and the egg can also develop into a human being if nature takes it course.

The Zygote is a human being. It doesn't require any further information to complete its growth, just nutrition, same as we need outside the womb.

Neither the sperm or egg can develop into a human being, neither contains enough DNA.

Nevyn

So what is the proposal if a fetus can become viaible and survive with drastic intervention at 21 to 24 weeks should we look at offering the option to wome who want abortions to wait until then then and induce labour and let them sign away thier parental rigths so that if the fetus turned baby after brith survives it can be put up for adoption ?

Should the 'State' pay for the medical costs to make this happen ?

Gurgle

Thaedydal wrote:

So what is the proposal if a fetus can become viaible and survive with drastic intervention at 21 to 24 weeks should we look at offering the option to wome who want abortions to wait until then then and induce labour and let them sign away thier parental rigths

Yes, that would be better than abortion.
Better to let it go to full term, deliver normally and then put the child up for adoption.
But only 'dirty' girls get pregnant and give their babies up for adoption, here in the 1950s.

Nevyn

A pregnacy that is 5/6 months ie 20 to 24 weeks can be hidden a full term one can't and that is a factor that plays into were or not a woman aborts.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote:

Well, you can hardly kill a dead baby now can you? And it's not a baby when it's inside the womb, it's a fetus. Or an embryo.

I usually stay out of these types of debates because I've seen these debates here so many times.
You have two sides and a bit of middle ground.
One side gets all technical and biological about a cluster of cells and the other side get all emotional about the baby.

I simply don't agree with the tautology that you can simply dismiss right up to birth what is inside that womb as not being a baby.
To do so is a cop out ESPECIALLY Bluewolf when you put it in such black and white terms.
Of course it's a baby at 8 months,of course it's a baby at 6 months.
Prior to that,I'd have a personal stand point and go on the scan,if it looks like a baby then in my book it is a baby.
If it can kick its Mum,it's a baby.

Personally I don't like abortion,but I can live with people choosing it ie I'd be pro choice as long as I'm not involved.

Zombrex

Gurgle wrote:

Conception is the occurance where the genetic makeup of an individual human being is completed, the full DNA set begins to grow into that human being.

And ...?

I've never understood that line of reasoning. Your DNA is in every single cell in your body. Yet you don't care if your skin cells die, or your hair falls out. If your kidney is given to someone else none of your rights as an individual are transferred to that person, or to that kidney. He isn't in anyway you.

If DNA code itself defines a "being" then what happens when a zygote splits and becomes twins? Say the "being," with all the rights that that entails, created when the zygote forms is called Bob. Bob, being a human being, with all that that entails, has to right to life so aborting him is not possible. But then a few days later the embryo then splits, forming two individual beings called James and John. What happened to the individual known as Bob? Is Bob dead? Is either James or John actually Bob? Which one?

Gurgle wrote:

Fuel and matter are supplied by the host but the life and growth are from the DNA in that cell.

But they are also from the DNA from the sperm and the egg. You cannot make a zygote without DNA from a sperm and DNA from an egg. Fuel and matter are supplied to the sperm and egg causing them to join to produce the zygote. As I already said, that formation of the zygote is simply a stage on the cycle of reproduction. It isn't even the first stage.

Gurgle wrote:

How can any point in life be less arbritary?

Lots of points are less arbritary. If the zygote doesn't start replicating no embryo forms. If the zygote or embryo splits then two individual embryo's form (surely rights cannot be bestowed before this point if the individual has not yet been defined) If the sperm and egg are not formed no zygote can form in the first place. If the embryo does not implant in the lining of the womb the embryo will simply be flushed out of the body and die.

humbert

InFront wrote:

Spermatids are not human beings, no matter how long you preserve them. A human being arises from a spermatid successfully fertilising an ovum. If it implants and develops, yes, that's a human being. Just because it isn't sitting up straight or kicking a football yet doesn't make it non-human.

Would you describe a baby as nonhuman 12 hours before it enters the birth canal? Where do you draw the line?


I doubt that. But it's like suggesting we'll one day be able to make a baby from a vile of blood - it's not a reasonable speculation.


You mean in a lab? How? Again, that's not a very reasonable speculation.

You do seem to be suggesting that it becomes murder when the foetis/baby can survive without the mother, even by artificial means. I think the arguement is flawed.

po0k

Until the child is 8 years old, he/she isn't a person.

humbert

humbert wrote:

You do seem to be suggesting that it becomes murder when the foetis/baby can survive without the mother, even by artificial means. I think the arguement is flawed.

Why?
Murder is a relative term these days but why is in fronts argument construing that killing something that could survive outside the womb albeit with assistance might be murder(or at least as close a concept as to be morally questionable) flawed ?

Reading this thread there seems to be a school of posters who are applying the what if this and what if that to the question in introducing lab experiments ,cloning etc
Thats fine.
However it's completely removed from the question of what one is justified doing with the contents of a womb at various stages of its progression which seemed to be what this thread is about.

Nevyn

There has been of later the arguement from the point of view of property law and body modifaction.

That a woman's womb is her property and what she decides to do with it and have done to it is her choice the same as the rest of her body.

Should preganty drug addict be locked away and kept clean for the good of thier baby ? should pregant women who eat unpasturised cheese be charged with atempted murder ?

A baby has not rights until it is born.

Zombrex

Tristrame wrote:

Why?
Murder is a relative term these days but why is in fronts argument construing that killing something that could survive outside the womb albeit with assistance might be murder(or at least as close a concept as to be morally questionable) flawed ?

I don't want to speak for humbert, but from my position it is a flawed argument because it ignores the question of if the foetus is or is not a human being or not.

A human being is not defined by its ability to not die, or at least it shouldn't be.

Tristrame wrote:

However it's completely removed from the question of what one is justified doing with the contents of a womb at various stages of its progression which seemed to be what this thread is about.

Actually it isn't.

The argument that this foetus that is born at 22 should force us to re-evaluate abortion is flawed because it is not relevant to the issue of is the foetus is a human being or simply something that is living that is human (like your kidneys)

Medical science changes all the time. Because we have some how managed to allow a 22 week old foetus to grow to full term should be irrelevant to the question of if that foetus is considered a human being. Defining a human being based on what medical science is currently able to do is a deeply flawed argument, not least because medical science changes all the time.

This becomes clear when one considered that we will soon (ie with 100 years) most likely be able to bring anything to term, from a 22 week old foetus to a zygote, to a sperm and unfertilised egg.

If we take the logic from this thread then one must say that in this case a sperm and egg must be protected because they can be artificially brought to full term.

I've already stated my beliefs about what is a "human being" as opposed to simply "human." But if someone believes that conception is the moment when a "human being" instead of simply a living thing that is human, is created, then all this is rather a non-issue. The life is a human being from the very moment of concept, and the argument that it isn't therefore abortion is ok, is lost (there are other arguments but I won't go into them here)

I imagine that this article was introduced in an attempt to sway pro-abortion people. My argument is that I'm pro-abortion and the ability of a foetus to grow to full term isn't how I define a human being, nor do I think it should ever be used as a benchmark to define a human being.

Doing so is deeply flawed reasoning.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I don't want to speak for humbert, but from my position it is a flawed argument because it ignores the question of if the foetus is or is not a human being or not.

But Damn it, thats only quantifiable on a belief system ergo what you believe is your own belief and mine is mine.
You have no qualms whatsoever it seems with see'ing what looks like a baby and what according to this article at 21 weeks is a viable baby being killed.
To each their own.

A human being is not defined by its ability to not die, or at least it shouldn't be.

Again thats a belief,either subscribed to or not.I'd rather not personally.

Actually it isn't.

The argument that this foetus that is born at 22 should force us to re-evaluate abortion is flawed because it is not relevant to the issue of is the foetus is a human being or simply something that is living that is human (like your kidneys)

You are constantly taking bits of tissue and comparing them to the whole.
Thats not like and like.

Medical science changes all the time. Because we have some how managed to allow a 22 week old foetus to grow to full term should be irrelevant to the question of if that foetus is considered a human being. Defining a human being based on what medical science is currently able to do is a deeply flawed argument, not least because medical science changes all the time.

Why is it flawed? Is it flawed because of its consequences? The consequences being that it allows more people to live?
You must have terrible trouble with the hypocratic oath then as that has the same consequences albeit dealing with the decision to allow life at a later stage?
No? I reckon you wouldn't as you draw a distinction between whats in the womb and whats outside it.
Thats fair enough but hey,it's a belief system.
One either subscribes to it or not.

And before you question the relevancy of that,it's already been brought up that the legislation at least in Britain anyway was drawn up with a cut off point so evidently that government (and others) brought a moral definition into it-otherwise they'd agree to abortion up to birth.
Thats the question of the thread is it not? In fairness to you,you've explained your beliefs mean you would say no, the age of the unborn abortion cut off point should not be revisited.
Your belief says so.
Other peoples belief would see that as a disregard of what they consider a baby.
I'd be of that view to a large extent aswell but it's your choice.

This becomes clear when one considered that we will soon (ie with 100 years) most likely be able to bring anything to term, from a 22 week old foetus to a zygote, to a sperm and unfertilised egg.

If we take the logic from this thread then one must say that in this case a sperm and egg must be protected because they can be artificially brought to full term.

Thats a separate process and an entirely separate argument/debate to discussing what you should be able to do with what is naturally formed in a womb.

If you want my opinion,I'd legislate in that area allowing babies to be made in that way an irreverseable process.
Then it would only be done legally for the purpose of giving someone that wanted a baby who couldnt otherwise get one ie their desire.

Thats the difference I see, theres no such thing as abortion then of an artificially created baby.Such a scenario wouldn't arise.
I don't think theres an appetite for "lab" creating babies in society for medical experiments either thankfully so I'd imagine most western societies wouldn't allow that.

I've already stated my beliefs about what is a "human being" as opposed to simply "human." But if someone believes that conception is the moment when a "human being" instead of simply a living thing that is human, is created, then all this is rather a non-issue. The life is a human being from the very moment of concept, and the argument that it isn't therefore abortion is ok, is lost (there are other arguments but I won't go into them here)

I imagine that this article was introduced in an attempt to sway pro-abortion people. My argument is that I'm pro-abortion and the ability of a foetus to grow to full term isn't how I define a human being, nor do I think it should ever be used as a benchmark to define a human being.

Doing so is deeply flawed reasoning.

I suppose if it works for you then it works for you but I doubt you'd get that definition past most of the Irish or British public otherwise abortion would be on demand up to birth or out past 6 months anyway.

InFront

seamus wrote:

Well interestingly enough, it has been shown recently that it is in fact possible to begin asexual reproduction using two sets of DNA from the same mother. That is, as you know the ovum and the sperm both contain half of the genetic codes. Scientists have quite recently managed to take the DNA out of one egg, implant it into anther egg, and begin the gestation process. This egg has a full set of 46 chromosomes, and theoretically could grow to full term. Now it's not a massive leap to think that you could theoretically do the same with two sperm (or even a single sperm, just duplicate its DNA strands). However, to do it with a single sperm, any children developed would probably have some serious medical conditions (and in the case of males, they would have massive medical deformities). But the possibility is not only reasonable, it's close - within the next 100 years.
Developing children from a vial of blood however is completely impossible.

When did the point shift to two sperm cells?

Anyway, your point is that within 100 years you will have one sperm fertilising another sperm?
No blastocyst cavity, no morula, no paraxial mesoderm - how's it going to develop? I can't believe I'm even asking that question. How would the neural tube and groove arise - this baby would have no nervous system, no means of nutrition, no amnion, no foetal membranes, no cartilage of the head, no ciliary muscles... it wouldn't be a baby.

We have no cure for the common cold, and you're away making babies from spermatids? Careful they don't fertilise in your testes! I'm not even annoyed at that suggestion Seamus, just bewildered why you would put it forward.

A quick refresher on this (for anyone's benefit):
The male and female gametes contain a complete set of codes for all cells in the body. Given a fertilised ovum, it's possible to develop any type of cell that you wish, all you need to do is select the right genetic markers. This is the whole debate about stem cell research. You extract a stem cell, and you can instruct this cell to grow into whatever body part you wish.

All other cells however, only know how to make more of themselves. No matter how hard you try, you can't tell a skin cell cell to spontaneously start growing into a heart or a set of lungs, or a pair of eyes. So given a vial of blood, you'd be extremely limited in the types of cells you'd find.

Well actually the nerves of your eyes and your epithelium both have a common precursors - the ectodermal cell.
Anyway, no offence, but what have stem cells got to do with this? I hope that's what you're getting confused on here. As you say, other cells simply know how to divide and repeat.
A sperm cell just cannot fertilise a sperm cell, or else why couldn't a blood cell?

Originally posted by Wicknight
Well technically a single cell zygote arises from a sperm successfully fertilising a ovum. This zygote is still simply a single human cell

Well a zygote is a collection of cells, it isn't just one. You and I are merely collections of cells too.

But it can be safely said that a foetus that has yet to form a nervous system, spinal cord or brain does not possess consciousness, nor the ability to form consciousness.

That is correct, and I agree with you that when abortion is necessary,as it can be, that it should be cerried out before this time.
But your argument is that 'anything goes' before this time. Where, again, do you draw the line? Gastrulation? Cleavage? Implantation? An implanted zygote will develop a nervous system if left alone without human interference, both parents have given their authority for life, and now the body has the intention of giving life and the parents have to bear that responsibility. A human zygote is a human being. Human life starts off with sexual intercourse, not a delivery room in Holles Street. .

seamus

OK, lets just pull it back a bit.

I think what you were trying to say was that a sperm cell cannot be considered a living human, whereas a fertilised ovum can.

My point was that it will be possible (in a reasonable amount of time), to
a) Grow a human foetus right through from fertilisation to birth in an artificial womb, thereby creating a whole new argument in the abortion issue
b) Artificially begin the process starting with nothing but an unfertilised ovum.

So where is the line between "lone gamete" and "human being", and how does that line shift given the two scenarios above?

InFront

Ah well that is a different scenario altogether, and you're right, that is a reasonable hypothesis. As long as it is a question of a sperm and an oocyte as opposed to two spermatids.
I would say that it is potentially human upon fertilisation, and that implantation in a potentially artificial womb is just as valid as implantation in a live womb. The only difference is that because you have subjected the embryo to a new environment, it is your obligation to provide for its welfare until any successful removal.

But what benefit is there of artificially growing a child in a lab-womb beyond embryonic stage? I'm sure there are some I just haven't thought of any.

Zombrex

Tristrame wrote:

You have no qualms whatsoever it seems with see'ing what looks like a baby and what according to this article at 21 weeks is a viable baby being killed.
To each their own.

I'm not sure what you mean? What it looks like is rather irrelevant. What matters is what it is. I have no qualms with a doll being "killed" either, despite the fact that it looks like a baby. The important bit is that it is not a human being, so therefore there is much less value placed on a doll than an actual human child.

At 21 weeks the foetus has already developed a brain and nervous system, so I would have strong issues with a foetus that old being aborted. But what it looks like has got very little to do with that.

Tristrame wrote:

Again thats a belief,either subscribed to or not.I'd rather not personally.

Ok. I don't really care. I imagine you haven't thought about it that closely, or the consequences of that belief, but you are right you are free to believe it if you so wish.

Tristrame wrote:

You are constantly taking bits of tissue and comparing them to the whole.
Thats not like and like.

That depends on how you define the "whole" At the end of the day all we are is cells. You say the whole organism is important. But what does that actually mean? If you lose your legs and arms you aren't the "whole" you were before. Does that mean you are not the same person you were before?

If the "whole" is not a fixed thing then the question becomes what can you lose from this "whole" and what can you not lose. You can lose an arm and still be the same person. You can lose a heart (heart transplant) and still be the same person.

What you cannot lose and still be you is your brain. You can see this with people who have brain damage. They are often not the same person they were before.

The brain holds "you" The "whole" is largely irrelevant to that as you can lose pretty much any other part of your body, your arm your leg your lungs, your heart, your kidney your liver your skin, and still be you.

Also (and this is the important bit) if you lose your brain but everything else is fine you are not you any more. Brain dead patients are not kept alive on life support, even if they can. The entire rest of the body is irrelevant to the question of the "being." If a patient is brain dead then the being itself is dead, even if the entire rest of the body is functioning perfection (albeit artificially kept alive)

Rights are bestowed on the being, and the being is stored in the brain. Everything else is simply cells.

Therefore a foetus that has not yet developed a brain has not yet developed the primary organ to which rights are bestowed. It is cells, no different to any other human cell. The primary property of a being, the consciousness, has not yet developed, and as such neither has a human being. The human zygote is no different than a human sperm or a human egg. None of them possess the capability to produce consciousness and therefore do not have the rights that such a capability bestows.

Tristrame wrote:

Why is it flawed?

I'm not sure where to being ...

It is flawed because medical science changes all the time. If you bestow rights based on this the status of a person would also be constantly changing. A foetus one year has rights that a foetus the previous year doesn't based on what science can do for the foetus at a certain time. That is a ridiculous way to decide the issue of what rights a foetus does or does not have.

The rights of a living thing should be defined by the properties of the life itself, not something external to that such as the current status of medical science.

Aside from being quite unworkable (does a foetus have different rights based on what hospital it is in, or what country it is in, based on the sophistication of the medical care where it is born), it is also highly immoral, in my opinion.

Tristrame wrote:

You must have terrible trouble with the hypocratic oath then as that has the same consequences albeit dealing with the decision to allow life at a later stage?

The issue of what is a human being as opposed to simply a human life does have far reaching issues for the hippocratic oath. For example, if a patient is brain dead but it is possible to sustain their life using artificial methods, does it break the hippocratic oath (do no harm) to terminate the life support. The original hippocratic oath forbade abortion and euthanasia (and surgery), and would probably have struggled with the concept described above.

Tristrame wrote:

No? I reckon you wouldn't as you draw a distinction between whats in the womb and whats outside it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the hippocratic oath, but no I don't draw a distinction between what is in the womb and what is outside the womb. In fact that is my whole point.

You cannot define a human being based on where it is (if it is in the womb it is a being, if it is outside the womb it isn't). That makes absolutely no sense to me. What changes in the physical make up of the life form based on where it is that would actually alter whether or not it is or is not a human being and is bestowed rights?

Tristrame wrote:

In fairness to you,you've explained your beliefs mean you would say no, the age of the unborn abortion cut off point should not be revisited.

It shouldn't be revisited simply based on that fact that this child survived. This child surviving to full term external to the womb doesn't make it any more or less of a human being at 21 weeks than another foetus that died with in an hour.

Also I find the idea that because this a 21 weeks this foetus looked like a baby therefore we should not abort rather bewildering. What did people think a 21 week old foetus looked like?

Tristrame wrote:

Your belief says so.
Other peoples belief would see that as a disregard of what they consider a baby.

Well then I imagine they haven't thought very hard about what they consider is a baby. As I said before, what do people think a 21 week old foetus looks like?

Tristrame wrote:

Thats a separate process

I must say this is one thing that annoys me.

People seem to think that once conception happens thats it just keep straight on and you have a child. Biologically it doesn't work like that. There are still a large number of things that have to happen in the 9 months after concept before you get a child popping out, and a large number of points where nature will go "no actually, no child this week" These steps are no less important that the step of the sperm joining with the egg.

Because we as humans control when we have sex we have lost sight of the fact that as far as nature is concerned the sperm coming together with the egg is no more a big significant step than the zygote dividing, or the embryo attaching to the womb wall.

We think well we control when conception happens, and then nature takes over. Therefore it is perfectly grand for us to decide to stop that stage happening, but once conception has happened for us to stop it would be treading on natures turf.

What we forget is that from natures point of view it is all natures turf. A million years ago two mammals having sex was a automated a process as the embryo attaching to the wall. It is all natures turf. We tread on it any time we uses a condom or masturbate.

To say that the sperm and egg aren't important at all, but that the zygote, is nonsense. I'm sure if nature cared she would kick our ass for that.

Tristrame wrote:

theres no such thing as abortion then of an artificially created baby.Such a scenario wouldn't arise.

Of course it could. And to abort it you simply stop if growing. It dies on its own.

Tristrame wrote:

I don't think theres an appetite for "lab" creating babies in society for medical experiments either thankfully so I'd imagine most western societies wouldn't allow that.

That is rather irrelevant. Doing it or not doing it doesn't change the fact that it can be done.

Tristrame wrote:

I suppose if it works for you then it works for you but I doubt you'd get that definition past most of the Irish or British public otherwise abortion would be on demand up to birth or out past 6 months anyway.

Seriously are you actually reading my posts? Because this is only one of the times that your reply seems to have very little to do with the bit you have quoted from me? I wasn't too bother about the other times but I can't make heads or tails of this. I'm not even sure what you mean by "that definition" since in the bit you quoted I was arguing against a definition. Are you agreeing with me in a very round about fashion?

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

But your argument is that 'anything goes' before this time. Where, again, do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line in whether or not it is necessary to brush your hair seeing a you kill a large number of human cells when doing so. The reason you brush your hair is irrelevant because no value is placed on the human cells you are destroying. You don't need a good reason to do so.

If the foetus isn't a human being then the reasons for aborting it are rather irrelevant. Any reason is fine, as with brushing your hair.

If the foetus is a human being then the reasons for aborting it are equally irrelevant, no reason is ever justifiable (except maybe to save the mothers life), not rape or incest or mental disability.

InFront wrote:

An implanted zygote will develop a nervous system if left alone without human interference

That isn't quite true. An implanted zygote will develop into a full term child if left alone from human interference and if nature is smiling on it. Equally, before humans had the ability to choose to not have sex a human egg and sperm would develop a full developed child if nature smiled on them too.

As I explained above the ability for humans to control when they have sex has clouded the issue some what. We think that we control the first bit, and the second bit after conception, is natures job. Therefore we think we are prefectly entitled to do anything we want with the building blocks of a potential child so long as we do it at our end. Kill a sperm? No problem, that is our bit, it doesn't matter if that sperm could have gone on to produce a child if we had had sex. We have to choose to have sex and if we don't then nature doesn't care, it is our responsibility. But we should not tread on natures domain, once conception happens then we dare not go near the process that can produce a potential child.

What we don't realises is that we are already treading on natures domain. We "abort" potential children all the time, but think nothing of it because we consider that bit to be within our domain of control. Yet once conception happens then that is natures domain and we shouldn't interfer.

Biologically it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is how we as humans have become accustom to viewing reproduction.

InFront wrote:

A human zygote is a human being.

Why?

To what characteristic of a human do you bestow the rights of a human being to and does the zygote possess that characteristic?

And just to preempt my obvious follow on question, if a person is brain dead, with no hope of recovering higher brain functions, do you feel it is ok to let that person die by removing artificial life support. If so, then what characteristic of a human has that person lost that you no longer bestow the rights of a human being to them.

InFront

Thaedydal wrote:

A baby has not rights until it is born.

No rights? That goes beyond any legislation that I am aware of, even where abortion is legal. A baby being destroyed in the birth canal before delivery, for example, is a mother's right??

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

Where do you draw the line in whether or not it is necessary to brush your hair seeing a you kill a large number of human cells when doing so.

Wicknight, in fairness, that's 6th class debating.
Ectodermal cells of the body are not going to give rise to human life. A developing embryo attached to the wall of the uterus, if left unchecked, will be a walking, talking, crying, moving, sentient baby. Human intervention decided to create that situation, knowing the repercussions.

If the foetus is a human being then the reasons for aborting it are equally irrelevant, no reason is ever justifiable (except maybe to save the mothers life), not rape or incest or mental disability.

Abortion is permissible soon after implantation is a small number of exceptional circumstances.

That isn't quite true. An implanted zygote will develop into a full term child if left alone from human interference and if nature is smiling on it.

The same with a newborn. The point is irrelevant because it is down to the physiology and biochemistry of early embryonic development. You wouldn't say it's okay to kill toddlers because some can die of cot death anyway.

As I explained above the ability for humans to control when they have sex has clouded the issue some what. We think that we control the first bit, and the second bit after conception, is natures job. Therefore we think we are prefectly entitled to do anything we want with the building blocks of a potential child so long as we do it at our end. Kill a sperm? No problem, that is our bit, it doesn't matter if that sperm could have gone on to produce a child if we had had sex.

Correct. A sperm itself will not form a baby. Ever.

What we don't realises is that we are already treading on natures domain. We "abort" potential children all the time, but think nothing of it because we consider that bit to be within our domain of control.

Not using sperm for fertilisation is aborting children? Wicknight...

To what characteristic of a human do you bestow the rights of a human being to and does the zygote possess that characteristic?

Don't understand this question, can you clarify it?

And just to preempt my obvious follow on question, if a person is brain dead, with no hope of recovering higher brain functions, do you feel it is ok to let that person die by removing artificial life support.

Yes, as long as there is family consent.

If so, then what characteristic of a human has that person lost that you no longer bestow the rights of a human being to them.

Nature has finished with the body. Man is hanging onto it.
In the case of a baby, nature is developing the body the same as an 'external' child, man is the one who puts an artifical stop to the natural process.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Wicknight, in fairness, that's 6th class debating.
Ectodermal cells of the body are not going to give rise to human life.

As I explained a few posts ago I fail to see the relevance of that fact. What something will be is largely irrelevant to what it is. A zygote will become a human being given certain circumstances. So will a sperm and an egg. Neither are a human being though because neither possess the characteristic of humanity that makes us special and to which we bestow rights, ie consciousness in the brain.

As I've been trying to explain, saying something will turn into something else is pointless. A sperm will turn into a 50 year old man given certain conditions and 50 years 9 months. If we through our intervention stop this from happening have we not aborted that 50 year old man's life?

InFront wrote:

Abortion is permissible soon after implantation is a small number of exceptional circumstances.

Such as? The only exceptional circumstances I can see, assuming one believes that life beings a conception, is threat to the life of the mother. All other circumstances are attempts to justifying murder.

InFront wrote:

The same with a newborn. The point is irrelevant because it is down to the physiology and biochemistry of early embryonic development. You wouldn't say it's okay to kill toddlers because some can die of cot death anyway.

True, but then I don't and never have used the argument that it is the stage in development alone that is important to the question of if the foetus is a human being or not. I consider destroying a fertilised egg on par with destroying the sperm and egg that would have fertilised that egg. In fact I would consider that exactly the same, as the end result is exactly the same.

It is easier to think of this going back the other way. Saying Bob is a 38 year old man. he might claim that if his mother had destroyed his embryo shortly after she found she was pregnant he would never have existed. Which is true of course. But equally if the sperm that created him had been destroyed he would never have existed either. So what is the difference? The end result is exactly the same, no Bob.

InFront wrote:

Correct. A sperm itself will not form a baby. Ever.

Neither will a zygote. Without the natural process of reproduction the zygote would die within a few hours. The zygote cell itself is dead within a few days as far as I know, replaced by hundreds of new cells.

You cannot seperate out the sperm from the reproductive cycle and say that a sperm on its own won't make a baby. Without the reproductive system a fertilised egg on its own won't make a baby either.

InFront wrote:

Not using sperm for fertilisation is aborting children? Wicknight...

Yes, exactly. Again look at Bob above. If the sperm that made Bob had instead ended up in a dirty tissue in his fathers bin Bob would not exist. There is no difference between that and if Bob's mother had aborted him 2 weeks after fertilisation. Either way Bob doesn't exist, his potential life is aborted before it even starts.

InFront wrote:

Don't understand this question, can you clarify it?

Ok, I assume you believe that humans have different rights to other animals on Earth, such as foxes, bacteria and oak trees. Why? What characteristic do we possess that grants us certain rights that other living things do not possess?

Once we have established this characteristic that makes humanity unique the question then becomes does the foetus possess this characteristic?

InFront wrote:

Yes, as long as there is family consent.

Ok, so the next question is why? That person has lost the characteristic that we bestow rights of a human being on. So what has he lost? His DNA is still present, he hasn't lost his unique DNA. His body is still "whole", it is right there in front of the doctors. Yet for some reason this human who is clearly whole and alive, no longer has the right to continue living, yet before he wound up in this state he did possess that right

InFront wrote:

Nature has finished with the body. Man is hanging onto it.

Nature finished with this baby, man decided to hang on to the baby and bring it to full term when in the wild the baby would have died. So the argument that once nature decides its finished with you we should just give up doesn't hold. We keep people alive artificially all the time. Why not this man? What has he lost that we no longer wish to keep him alive? Is this the characteristic that defines a person has a being with rights?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean? What it looks like is rather irrelevant. What matters is what it is. I have no qualms with a doll being "killed" either, despite the fact that it looks like a baby. The important bit is that it is not a human being, so therefore there is much less value placed on a doll than an actual human child.

In your opinion,in your belief.
In other words it is not a fact,it's not a possible provable fact like many beliefs.

At 21 weeks the foetus has already developed a brain and nervous system, so I would have strong issues with a foetus that old being aborted. But what it looks like has got very little to do with that.

We've nothing to argue with then as we seem to be at the same opinion but for different reasons.

Ok. I don't really care. I imagine you haven't thought about it that closely, or the consequences of that belief, but you are right you are free to believe it if you so wish.

I could say the exact same about what you said with equal validity between the two of us.

That depends on how you define the "whole" At the end of the day all we are is cells. You say the whole organism is important. But what does that actually mean? If you lose your legs and arms you aren't the "whole" you were before. Does that mean you are not the same person you were before?

I am the whole when I am a communicative being.For sure theres a grey area if I'm on life support and brain dead.For that I'd expect my next of kin to take the doctors best advice.

If the "whole" is not a fixed thing then the question becomes what can you lose from this "whole" and what can you not lose. You can lose an arm and still be the same person. You can lose a heart (heart transplant) and still be the same person.

Your life.

What you cannot lose and still be you is your brain. You can see this with people who have brain damage. They are often not the same person they were before.

This tangent you are on now is only vaguely related to the subject matter of the thread but entirely related to the explanation of your belief system as regards why you personally don't think we should revisit abortion laws.

You're right in my opinion about the head,you wouldn't be human in my opinion without it.

The brain holds "you" The "whole" is largely irrelevant to that as you can lose pretty much any other part of your body, your arm your leg your lungs, your heart, your kidney your liver your skin, and still be you.

Yes I can see that you are explaining your position here.

Also (and this is the important bit) if you lose your brain but everything else is fine you are not you any more. Brain dead patients are not kept alive on life support, even if they can. The entire rest of the body is irrelevant to the question of the "being." If a patient is brain dead then the being itself is dead, even if the entire rest of the body is functioning perfection (albeit artificially kept alive)

You used the kidney example as an equivalent to the bunch of cells as you put it that is in the womb.
I put it to you that you werent comparing like with like,But then I'm quite happy in a thread such as this to hear alternative beliefs on various subjects.
They're quite interesting to me-even the ones I fundamentally disagree with.

Rights are bestowed on the being, and the being is stored in the brain. Everything else is simply cells.

And the brain is made up of what exactly?
If it's simply cells why has it rights? You are drawing a line is it?

Therefore a foetus that has not yet developed a brain has not yet developed the primary organ to which rights are bestowed. It is cells, no different to any other human cell. The primary property of a being, the consciousness, has not yet developed, and as such neither has a human being. The human zygote is no different than a human sperm or a human egg. None of them possess the capability to produce consciousness and therefore do not have the rights that such a capability bestows.

I'm not convinced that a baby in its mothers womb cannot feel pain in it's own right at some stage so I'd disagree with that.

I'm not sure where to being ...

It is flawed because medical science changes all the time. If you bestow rights based on this the status of a person would also be constantly changing. A foetus one year has rights that a foetus the previous year doesn't based on what science can do for the foetus at a certain time. That is a ridiculous way to decide the issue of what rights a foetus does or does not have.

Why is it ridiculous? You can't just say it and not give a reason or is this another belief of yours ? Fine if it is.

Aside from being quite unworkable (does a foetus have different rights based on what hospital it is in, or what country it is in, based on the sophistication of the medical care where it is born), it is also highly immoral, in my opinion.


The issue of what is a human being as opposed to simply a human life does have far reaching issues for the hippocratic oath. For example, if a patient is brain dead but it is possible to sustain their life using artificial methods, does it break the hippocratic oath (do no harm) to terminate the life support. The original hippocratic oath forbade abortion and euthanasia (and surgery), and would probably have struggled with the concept described above.

I don't know you tell me-After all it's you thats making the argument that you should change nothing due to medical science ergo a life support should be left on indefinitely.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the hippocratic oath, but no I don't draw a distinction between what is in the womb and what is outside the womb. In fact that is my whole point.

You cannot define a human being based on where it is (if it is in the womb it is a being, if it is outside the womb it isn't). That makes absolutely no sense to me. What changes in the physical make up of the life form based on where it is that would actually alter whether or not it is or is not a human being and is bestowed rights?

Again we are back to you expressing your opinion.You are not giving me a reason for it because it is simply your belief.
To each their own.

It shouldn't be revisited simply based on that fact that this child survived. This child surviving to full term external to the womb doesn't make it any more or less of a human being at 21 weeks than another foetus that died with in an hour.

To you it doesn't but thats based on your moral choice/make up.
To me it makes a very important difference, it is a difference of viability or potential viability.I wouldnt be happy with it being lawfull to extinguish a foetus that could be at a stage that when out of its mothers womb could live a long adult life.

Also I find the idea that because this a 21 weeks this foetus looked like a baby therefore we should not abort rather bewildering. What did people think a 21 week old foetus looked like?

TBH I'd find it rather unsettling to see what looks human at that stage being aborted.

Well then I imagine they haven't thought very hard about what they consider is a baby. As I said before, what do people think a 21 week old foetus looks like?

Well looking at the picture in the article in the first post-a tiny human...

I must say this is one thing that annoys me.

People seem to think that once conception happens thats it just keep straight on and you have a child. Biologically it doesn't work like that. There are still a large number of things that have to happen in the 9 months after concept before you get a child popping out, and a large number of points where nature will go "no actually, no child this week" These steps are no less important that the step of the sperm joining with the egg.

Because we as humans control when we have sex we have lost sight of the fact that as far as nature is concerned the sperm coming together with the egg is no more a big significant step than the zygote dividing, or the embryo attaching to the womb wall.

We think well we control when conception happens, and then nature takes over. Therefore it is perfectly grand for us to decide to stop that stage happening, but once conception has happened for us to stop it would be treading on natures turf.

What we forget is that from natures point of view it is all natures turf. A million years ago two mammals having sex was a automated a process as the embryo attaching to the wall. It is all natures turf. We tread on it any time we uses a condom or masturbate.

You've a completely different belief system to me,I'll say that for you.In fact though as I pointed out,We don't seem to be far off (for Vastly differing reasons) in certain areas of this debate-WE are anathema to each other on a lot of it including the bit above that I made small (for emphasis).
Where I am odds on that piece is that you described nature and I've no truck with what nature does even though a mis carriage is sad and heart breaking for the parents.
It is different though as its not an un natural interference with the unborn in the way abortion is.

To say that the sperm and egg aren't important at all, but that the zygote, is nonsense. I'm sure if nature cared she would kick our ass for that.

I've not said sperm isn't important or the EGG.
I just wouldn't be in favour of giving them rights.

Of course it could. And to abort it you simply stop if growing. It dies on its own.

Read again what I said, I was hypothesising what I would allow as lawfull.I would not allow it to be lawfull to start the process of growing without finishing it at the end with the end result.
Something could go wrong of course in the interim but It would be unlawfull to deliberately kill that foetus once you've created it.I was making the point of strict regulation which is the way I reckon most western societies would do it if they allowed babies to be created outside the womb or cloning of human beings.
As I said earlier I think there wouldnt be much tollerence for breeding babies for medical experiments.

That is rather irrelevant. Doing it or not doing it doesn't change the fact that it can be done.

It's only irrelevant to your belief as obviosly if the majority of the public didnt want medical experiment involving the creation to term or half way to term of babies then it's not irrelevant to them.

Seriously are you actually reading my posts? Because this is only one of the times that your reply seems to have very little to do with the bit you have quoted from me? I wasn't too bother about the other times but I can't make heads or tails of this. I'm not even sure what you mean by "that definition" since in the bit you quoted I was arguing against a definition. Are you agreeing with me in a very round about fashion?

Simple.
I was comparing our vastly different belief systems-yours as expressed in your posts.
I couldnt have known what your beliefs are in relation to this subject if you hadn't posted them.

BostonB

There's another angle to this that I think is not being considered. There are medical conditions that occur that do not pose a risk to the mother, but mean the child will go full term die at or shortly after birth, or will have very little quality of life when born. The most obvious examples of this is anencephaly, chromosome diseases etc. There are many shades of grey with such problems. But for the sake of argument, if you assume the quality of life will be zero, you still have to carry the child to full term and deliver the child and sustain them for an unknown length of time. In such situations you are still bound by the same laws as someone carrying a normal child. Sometimes that entirely appropriate, but I don't think it always is.

In no order and not for or against, just adding some grey into the balck and white arguments thus far.

....transplant centers routinely reject anencephalic donors because they are not considered dead under state laws and medical society standards. By the time they are legally dead, their organs are useless for transplanting. Difficult Moral Decisions...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DEED6113CF93AA25753C1A961948260

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/217156_janedoe23.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40574

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40574