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

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

InFront

I'm aware that you're getting the brunt of the other point of view so I'll try to keep this short.

Wicknight wrote:

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

How can you not differentiate between embryo and sperm cell. Do you see that an embryo doesn't just 'form' without human decision? This is how it differs to another cell, like epithelium or myocardium.
An embryo can form once humans have given their intent for that to happen by engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse, or in sexual intercourse with the risk of fertilisation attached. 40 weeks later (or maybe 22), you have a baby in your hands.

As I've been trying to explain, saying something will turn into something else is pointless.

Do you accept that a human zygote can go on to become a man or a woman if left to nature, and that we have no reason to say otherwise in the normal mother?
Tristrame mentioned miscarriages. Surely you would not deny that pairs who lose babies at five or seven or thirty-seven weeks, have lost children, really? Would you think it is silly for them to name the child any more than to name an unfertilised oocyte? And why?
I'm not trying to put some sort of emotive blackmail to you with that suggestion, I'm really just interested in an honest answer on it.

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 difference is this: if the sperm was destroyed, it would be demonstration of an intent not to form a child. There would be no 'contract' with nature, sperm will not walk themselves out the door to the nearest oocyte. Therefore, there would be no zygote or embryo to have an obligation to, Bob would be imaginary.
However, if you put a sperm in an oocyte, you are saying "Here I am going to ask nature for a baby". If you destroy this baby you asked for, the 'contract' is dishonoured on your part because you have reneged on your intent, and you have taken it into your own hands to block the natural embryology that would result in a human: Bob very definitely existed for a period of time. And if it were not for you, he would be here today. (poor Bob).

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.

Without the reproductive system, you won't have an egg, nor will you have a sperm, nor an embryo.

So it is taken for granted that if the above exist, the necessary conditions exist for human development, and ought not be denied.

What characteristic do we possess that grants us certain rights that other living things do not possess?

A greater intellectual capacity for learned behaviour and potential for strategic intelligence.

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

Not from the beginning, nor is it something the newborn young person has from the beginning of course. Are newborns 'safe' from being killed?

What if we give a newborn a general anaesthetic, can we kill it, do we have that right? It won't survive on its own. It's just cells.

Nature finished with this baby, man decided to hang on to the baby

Can you explain this statement, how does nature give up on the baby in a premature pregnancy?

Now take a baby at 40 weeks in an incubator. It has come to full term, you could say nature has given up on it just like the 21 week old. If left alone it will die, is it not ethical to do so? Even via anaesthetic to block neural transmission to the brain?

humbert

I think you believe there is a design to nature which shouldn't be interfered with at any stage rather than debating at what point after conception does the product(I'm not trying to be callous just avoiding arguments over definitions/semantics) become "a person".

InFront

Is that right,
do you have an opinion on the topic yourself? All you've said in both posts is that my opinion is faulty.

coffee_cake

Tristrame wrote:

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.

Getting emotional about "killing babies" does not help either side. The only definitions I've ever seen of "baby" (except dictionary.com) make no mention of a fetus.
If I'm wrong about the terms, that's fine.
And you'll notice that I did not "dismiss" anything in my post; I didn't say it should have no rights until birth etc. I simply quibbled over the term.


I won't add much more, wicknight seems to be saying exactly what I would say if I was arguing.

Zombrex

Tristrame wrote:

In your opinion,in your belief.
In other words it is not a fact

Issues of morality are never "fact", they are always opinion. It is wrong to kill is not a fact, it is an opinion. It is immoral to murder school children is an opinion not a fact.

Tristrame wrote:

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

My argument is that deciding the question of if the foetus is a human being based on the ability of the foetus to survive externally to the mothers womb, is a flawed and dangerous method.

Tristrame wrote:

I am the whole when I am a communicative being.

That is a rather cyclical definition since you define a "being" as the whole.

Can you define a "communicative being" without defining it in terms of the whole. I'm also not sure how a zygote can be considered "communicative"?

Tristrame wrote:

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.

They can only decide because your rights have altered in the first place. Your next of kin cannot simply decide that you should die no at this present time when you are perfectly fine.

Tristrame wrote:

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?

The cells themselves, on their own, are not important. It is what those cells do that is important.

Tristrame wrote:

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.

In what way can a foetus with no nervous system or spinal cord/brain "feel" pain. That would be the same as saying your kidney feels pain, or your hair feels pain.

Tristrame wrote:

Why is it ridiculous?

I've stated why it is ridiculous, a few times. The status of what is a person would be constantly changing based on the current medical advances of the time, and the medical care the mother has access to at the time. A 22 week old foetus in the UK in 2000 could have completely different status and rights as a 22 week old foetus in Somalia in 2007. One is considered a human being, the other is not simply because the medical staff might be able to keep the UK foetus alive but not the Somalian one. The properties of the babies, the stage of development, which would be very similar, are ignored and their status as human beings are defined based on external abratary factors.

Tristrame wrote:

I don't know you tell me

You brought up the hippocratic oath. I've never taken it nor have I considered it in great detail.

Tristrame wrote:

-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 you mean by this.

I've never stated that life support should be left on indefinitely after say brain death, and my argument that the fundamental property of a human being is its ability to produce consciousness in the brain would lead to just the opposite conclusion.

Tristrame wrote:

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

If you would actually read my posts you will see I'm giving your plenty of reason. You cannot define that status of a human being based on where they physically are because none of the characteristics of the human alters based solely on where they are. A human being is a human being based on the characteristics it holds, not where it physically is. If these characteristics don't change then neither does the status of the human being change.

If you disagree with that assessment of morality, if you think that the rights of a human being can alter based on its location please put an argument forward. Simply saying that this is just my opinion and you don't agree without saying why or what your opinion is is rather pointless for a discussion.

Tristrame wrote:

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.

Would you feel fine about extinguishing a 22 week old foetus that couldn't survive outside of the mothers womb?

Do you think that abortions far passed 22 weeks are ok in places such as Central Africa where the hospitals do not have the ability to sustain a baby born premature let lone one born 4 months premature.

Tristrame wrote:

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

Well as I said in a previous post I find it rather unsettling that people make decisions about something as important as the status and rights of a human being based on how cute, or close to a baby, something looks. What did you think a foetus looked like?

Tristrame wrote:

It is different though as its not an un natural interference with the unborn in the way abortion is.

It is actually an unnatural interference, that is my whole point. It is not natural to use a condom, or to take the pill. It is actually not particularly natural to put so much though into having sex, which humans but few other species actually do. Most other species' sex lives are controlled by instinct.

Tristrame wrote:

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

Why?

Surely the sperm has the right to progress on its natural cycle to become a full term baby, nature willing of course. If we stop this, unnaturally, are we not aborting that potential baby?

Say in one reality I have sex with my girlfriend/wife and one of my sperms joins with her egg and produces a baby boy, that grows to full term and we name him Tim.

Now, say in another reality I decide to use a condom instead when having sex with my girlfriend/wife and my sperm that would have gone on to form Tim is stopped by the latex and dies 30 minutes later as the temperature of the condom drops in my bin (ie it is unnaturally aborted before it can fertilise the egg). Tim never happens because I stopped the sperm from fertilising my wife's egg.

Have I not just aborted Tim? How is this different from aborting when he is a fertilised egg in my wife's ovary, or aborting Tim when he is a embryo in my wife's womb? The end result is the same, no Tim.

Tristrame wrote:

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.

As I said not allowing something to be done is irrelevant to the fact that it can be done. In fact it is a recognition of the fact that it can be done.

Tristrame wrote:

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.

That still doesn't explain what your meant in your previous post, as you are attributing to me a belief that I don't have and then arguing against said belief. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

How can you not differentiate between embryo and sperm cell.

Because the end result is exactly the same, an adult human.

InFront wrote:

Do you see that an embryo doesn't just 'form' without human decision?

I understand that but I find that fact largely irrelevant. I can stop my future child (call him Tim) forming by using a condom to abort my sperm cell or by my wife aborting the fertilised embryo. The end result is exactly the same, no Tim.

InFront wrote:

An embryo can form once humans have given their intent for that to happen by engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse, or in sexual intercourse with the risk of fertilisation attached. 40 weeks later (or maybe 22), you have a baby in your hands.

Again that is irrelevant to the status of the human being. From a biological point of view the intent of the humans doesn't matter. If a woman is raped by a mad man the biological process is exactly the same. If a woman has semen splashed by accident on her groan and a sperm manages to find her womb the biological process is exactly the same.

If you abort a sperm cell there is no baby. If you abort the zygote there is no baby.

InFront wrote:

Do you accept that a human zygote can go on to become a man or a woman if left to nature, and that we have no reason to say otherwise in the normal mother?

Yes.

InFront wrote:

Surely you would not deny that pairs who lose babies at five or seven or thirty-seven weeks, have lost children, really?

I'm not sure what you mean. They have lost potential children, but then so have I if I use a condom when having sex with my girlfriend. The loss felt by a potential parent is very subjective to what they want and how attached they have become to the idea of their child. A woman who really wants a child but has a miscarriage might be far more upset than a woman who really doesn't want a baby and who uses the morning after pill to prevent fertilisation, despite the fact that the end result is exactly the same, no baby.

InFront wrote:

Would you think it is silly for them to name the child any more than to name an unfertilised oocyte?

They can name their child anything they want, why would I mind? I know people who have named their children that they haven't even conceived yet.

I wouldn't confusing the actual biological reality (its a clump of cells) with the emotional feelings of the future parents (its our child). A woman who is told she cannot have children can weep for children that never even existed, and I would certainly not call that silly or dismiss it. Equally a woman who is told she is not pregnant can weep with relief about being told that and be very thankful that she is not having a child.

All this is, in my opinion, quite irrelevant to the issue of if the foetus is considered a human being with rights. I would be very concerned if that rights of a human, and human, were decided by the feelings its parents had towards it.

InFront wrote:

The difference is this: if the sperm was destroyed, it would be demonstration of an intent not to form a child.

I'm pretty such an abortion would also be considered intent not to form a child.

The problem from my point of view with your argument is that it works on the assumption that a fertilised egg is a "child", and that the sperm and egg cells that formed that fertilised egg aren't. So from your point of view the "child" has already been formed.

My point is that if one works on that basis there is no reason to say that the sperm and egg aren't also the "child" Bob is the sperm and egg as much as he is the fertilised egg or the zygote. You cannot make Bob without the sperm and the egg.

InFront wrote:

However, if you put a sperm in an oocyte, you are saying "Here I am going to ask nature for a baby".

Who says that? I'm pretty sure everyone who doesn't want a child doesn't actually say that at all.

InFront wrote:

If you destroy this baby you asked for, the 'contract' is dishonoured on your part because you have reneged on your intent

Ok, you are kinda going into religious areas about asking for a child and honour and stuff. Which is fine, but I probably should bow out of that aspect of the discussion because I'm not religious.

InFront wrote:

Without the reproductive system, you won't have an egg, nor will you have a sperm, nor an embryo.

That is kinda my point. From a biological perspective the fertilised egg is of no greater importance than the sperm and unfertilised egg in producing the end result, a child.

InFront wrote:

A greater intellectual capacity for learned behaviour and potential for strategic intelligence.

I'm not sure I could agree with that. Surely mentally disabled people would fall short of that definition? Also couldn't super computers fall into that definition?

InFront wrote:

Not from the beginning, nor is it something the newborn young person has from the beginning of course. Are newborns 'safe' from being killed?

They are safe with my definition, which is different to yours.

Intelligence is not in my opinion the important characteristic of humanity, it is instead consciousness, the ability for the brain to be aware of its own existence and produce thought, that is important.

The actual intelligence of the human would be irrelevant to that, as I feel even a mentally disabled person with very limited intelligence by average human standards, seems to possess the ability to produce thought (at least we can't say they don't)

I would ask why new born babies (and mentally disabled) are safe from being killed within your definition since they don't (and in the case of disabled possibly never will) possess the characteristics you mention above.

InFront wrote:

What if we give a newborn a general anaesthetic, can we kill it, do we have that right? It won't survive on its own. It's just cells.

I'm not following? What will giving it anaesthetic do?

If you inflicted serious brain damage on the new born so that it losses its higher brain capacity and the ability to form consciousness and thought, then it would be fine to terminate it, but you would probably get in trouble for causing it to lose its ability to form higher brain functions in the first place.

Also I would point out that the ability of something to survive on its own has never been a determining factor for me in if a life is considered a human being or not. In fact that was the point of my original posts, I think that is a particularly bad and dangerous way to determine if something is a human being or not.

InFront wrote:

Can you explain this statement, how does nature give up on the baby in a premature pregnancy?

Pretty simply, the baby dies. Before modern medicine a baby born 4 months premature would have died very quickly in the wild.

InFront wrote:

Now take a baby at 40 weeks in an incubator. It has come to full term, you could say nature has given up on it just like the 21 week old. If left alone it will die, is it not ethical to do so?

No it isn't ethical to do so because the ability of the baby to survive shouldn't have anything to do with the question of if the baby is considered a human being or not. In my opinion once the foetus has formed the ability to produce consciousness (thought) it is a human being and before that foetus has formed the ability to produce consciousness it isn't a human being. This is because the ability to produce consciousness is the characteristic that defines a human being.

The ability of the foetus to survive once that has happened is irrelevant to the fact that it has happened. This is the same as a terminally ill patient, or a soldier who has just been mortally wounded, retains their full rights as a person up to the very moment they die. At no point does the ability of the person to sustain itself, either naturally or artificially, effect their status as a human being.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Issues of morality are never "fact", they are always opinion. It is wrong to kill is not a fact, it is an opinion. It is immoral to murder school children is an opinion not a fact.


My argument is that deciding the question of if the foetus is a human being based on the ability of the foetus to survive externally to the mothers womb, is a flawed and dangerous method.

But you are not making an argument for your opinion,you're saying it's ridiciculous and you are expressing your opinion/belief system.

That is a rather cyclical definition since you define a "being" as the whole.

Why?
Theres little point in exchanging one line expressions of belief.

Can you define a "communicative being" without defining it in terms of the whole. I'm also not sure how a zygote can be considered "communicative"?

It kicks or it might be thinking of kicking
Theres also quite a bit of research that children remember music heard whilst in the womb.

The cells themselves, on their own, are not important. It is what those cells do that is important.

To turn that on it's head it's what the zygote is on it's own that is important ,its what it does when left to nature-it gets born,it becomes an adult usually.

In what way can a foetus with no nervous system or spinal cord/brain "feel" pain. That would be the same as saying your kidney feels pain, or your hair feels pain.

I fundamentally disagree.
A baby leaving the womb can feel pain just as it can in the moments before it leaves the womb.
There are various opinions on when it becomes capable of feeling the pain.

I've stated why it is ridiculous, a few times. The status of what is a person would be constantly changing based on the current medical advances of the time, and the medical care the mother has access to at the time. A 22 week old foetus in the UK in 2000 could have completely different status and rights as a 22 week old foetus in Somalia in 2007. One is considered a human being, the other is not simply because the medical staff might be able to keep the UK foetus alive but not the Somalian one. The properties of the babies, the stage of development, which would be very similar, are ignored and their status as human beings are defined based on external abratary factors.

But thats the same for adults in different countries.
Children starve to death in Africa and die form all sorts of diseases due to lack of food,the lack of a developed society and the lack of medical care.
Introducing it specefically to support what is human is a misnomer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I was simply using your methods of logic and applying them to the life support switch situation.In theory a person could be on life support and wake up after a number of years.
The life support system is a medical advance.
Using your logic, that person should have died.

If you would actually read my posts you will see I'm giving your plenty of reason. You cannot define that status of a human being based on where they physically are because none of the characteristics of the human alters based solely on where they are.

Thats not a reason/definition.How is it in anyway related to the discussion of what is possible with a foetus?You've given an opinion again but no reason.

A human being is a human being based on the characteristics it holds, not where it physically is.

Well actually you are introducing a bias there.
The bias that I pointed out to you earlier and that is your disregard for the natural potential of an unborn.
The question of the thread was should an already morally based cut off point for abortion be revisited now that evidence has been shown that the premise that the cut off date was based on is no longer valid.

If you disagree with that assessment of morality, if you think that the rights of a human being can alter based on its location please put an argument forward. Simply saying that this is just my opinion and you don't agree without saying why or what your opinion is is rather pointless for a discussion.

But I've stated my view all along,I've even stated it's similar to yours but for different reasons.

Would you feel fine about extinguishing a 22 week old foetus that couldn't survive outside of the mothers womb?

No.
Not now.
You see I've revisited my view based on this evidence

Do you think that abortions far passed 22 weeks are ok in places such as Central Africa where the hospitals do not have the ability to sustain a baby born premature let lone one born 4 months premature.

Not now no.
Just as I don't think their lack of facilities/food and water in certain circumstances is right either.
It's an unfortunate by product of humanity that governments spend more on arms in certain cases that they do on the welfare of their own people.

Well as I said in a previous post I find it rather unsettling that people make decisions about something as important as the status and rights of a human being based on how cute, or close to a baby, something looks. What did you think a foetus looked like?

That view would be so un analogous to my view and belief system as to be undebateable.
But how and ever-to each their own I say.

It is actually an unnatural interference, that is my whole point. It is not natural to use a condom, or to take the pill. It is actually not particularly natural to put so much though into having sex, which humans but few other species actually do. Most other species' sex lives are controlled by instinct.

I've already explained my position on individual sperms and eggs.

Why?

Surely the sperm has the right to progress on its natural cycle to become a full term baby, nature willing of course. If we stop this, unnaturally, are we not aborting that potential baby?

Oh I see,I know you do sometimes have your own cut off points,you had one there with the brain.So where would you like your cut off point to be going down that road?
Are you going to suggest that because my phone wasn't working yesterday that it's Eircoms fault that I didn't flirt with call centre girl and we wont have a chance to go out together and potentially create a baby?

Eircom you are such an abortionist....

I do have to agree with the OP at this stage when he said this is all a convenient excuse to avoid the nuisance of having to deal with something that society as a whole could and does sometimes make a moral calling on that differs from your own.

Say in one reality I have sex with my girlfriend/wife and one of my sperms joins with her egg and produces a baby boy, that grows to full term and we name him Tim.

Now, say in another reality I decide to use a condom instead when having sex with my girlfriend/wife and my sperm that would have gone on to form Tim is stopped by the latex and dies 30 minutes later as the temperature of the condom drops in my bin (ie it is unnaturally aborted before it can fertilise the egg). Tim never happens because I stopped the sperm from fertilising my wife's egg.

Have I not just aborted Tim? How is this different from aborting when he is a fertilised egg in my wife's ovary, or aborting Tim when he is a embryo in my wife's womb? The end result is the same, no Tim.

It's probably Eircoms fault to be honest.

As I said not allowing something to be done is irrelevant to the fact that it can be done. In fact it is a recognition of the fact that it can be done.

Which is relevant to why society usually takes a moral calling on it.

That still doesn't explain what your meant in your previous post, as you are attributing to me a belief that I don't have and then arguing against said belief. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Really? You couldn't grasp that your belief (as expressed in the post I replied to) as to what constitutes a human being and your completely different belief based replies to the OP's question is/are anathema to mine and that I said so in reply to your post?
Do you understand what I said now that I've repeated it ?

Zombrex

Tristrame wrote:

But you are not making an argument for your opinion,you're saying it's ridiciculous and you are expressing your opinion/belief system.

Yes I am, you are just ignoring it.

Tristrame wrote:

Why?

As I have already explained, it is cyclical because you define a human being as the "whole" and then define the "whole" as a human being. That is cyclical.

Tristrame wrote:

Theres little point in exchanging one line expressions of belief.

Well then don't, expand on your positions.

Tristrame wrote:

It kicks or it might be thinking of kicking

A zygote doing kick, since it doesn't have legs.

Tristrame wrote:

Theres also quite a bit of research that children remember music heard whilst in the womb.

That would suggest memory and possibly thought. I'm not sure it suggests communication. For a being to be considered communicative it must possess the ability, or at least inclination, to communicate in some form or fashion.

Tristrame wrote:

To turn that on it's head it's what the zygote is on it's own that is important ,its what it does when left to nature-it gets born,it becomes an adult usually.

The ability to grow and to replicate is found in nearly all forms of life. Yet you (i imagine) consider a human zygote to be of higher value than a zygote of another species. If you are basing that on the abilities of the zygote that would appear to make little sense, since a human zygote does little more than a zygote from any other mammal species.

Tristrame wrote:

I fundamentally disagree.
A baby leaving the womb can feel pain justy as it can in the moments before it leaves the womb.

I'm not sure the relevance of that, since a foetus days or weeks before it is born has a well developed brain, spinal cord and nervous system.

A zygote doesn't, it doesn't have any form of nervous system at all.

Tristrame wrote:

There are various opinions on when it becomes capable of feeling the pain.

I've heard of none that suggest the foetus can feel pain before it has first developed a nervous system.

Tristrame wrote:

But thats the same for adults in different countries.

That is not the same for adults AT ALL

All adults in all countries are considered human beings, with full rights, under the UN Declaration of Human Rights (and various other moral declarations).

The medical health care in the individual country, city or individual hospital, has absolutely no effect on that status what so ever.

Tristrame wrote:

I was simply using your methods of logic and applying them to the life support switch situation.In theory a person could be on life support and wake up after a number of years.

Not if they are brain dead. If a person has suffered serious damage to the brain so that only low level functions still operate, they are considered legally dead, as they will not wake up or function again, and the right to life for that person no longer applies because the right to life is bestowed upon the being not the body.

Tristrame wrote:

The life support system is a medical advance.
Using your logic, that person should have died.

No, by my logic (and modern legal definitions in most western countries) that person is already dead.

If the brain is damaged to the point that higher brain functions such as memory consciousness and thought are no longer possible then the person is considered legally dead, even if the body itself (the heart the lungs the kidneys the hair the skin) is still alive and functioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

Tristrame wrote:

Thats not a reason/definition.How is it in anyway related to the discussion of what is possible with a foetus?You've given an opinion again but no reason.
Well actually you are introducing a bias there.

The reason is that the characteristics of the life form don't change. If it is a human being in room A, with all the rights the entails, it is still a human being if you move it into room B because the life form itself has not changed, only its location has changed.

The relevance is that if a foetus at a certain stage of development is considered a human being in the womb it most also be considered a human being outside the womb (say for example if it is moved to an artificial womb or incubator) as the characteristics of the foetus itself have not changed.

Tristrame wrote:

The bias that I pointed out to you earlier and that is your disregard for the natural potential of an unborn.

I disregard the natural potential of a potential child everytime I use a condom to stop said potential child coming into existence. I hold little regard for something that does not exist yet, since it doesn't actually exist, as I'm sure most people here do if they thought about it.

Tristrame wrote:

The question of the thread was should an already morally based cut off point for abortion be revisited now that evidence has been shown that the premise that the cut off date was based on is no longer valid.

I'm not sure that ever was the premise of the cut off date. If it was then I would strongly object to using the ability of the foetus to survive externally to the womb as a guide to the issue of if abortion is moral or not.

Tristrame wrote:

No.
Not now.
You see I've revisited my view based on this evidence

Ok, would you be perfectly fine with a 2 week old embryo, that could not possibly survive outside the womb at the moment, artificially or otherwise, being aborted?

As people are so found of asking me, where do you draw the line?

Tristrame wrote:

Not now no.

I don't understand what you think has changed by this case?

This was a 22 week old foetus, a 22 week old foetus has always been like a 22 week old foetus, for the last 100,000 years or so. What did you think a 22 week old foetus was like, and why would you have been happy to abort it until this case happened? What do you think has changed?

Tristrame wrote:

Are you going to suggest that because my phone wasn't working yesterday that it's Eircoms fault that I didn't flirt with call centre girl and we wont have a chance to go out together and potentially create a baby?

Perhaps you didn't understand that my question was an attempt to display the illogical nature of your position.

I don't think using a condom is immoral, but neither do I think that aborting a embryo that has not yet developed a brain is immoral. You on the other hand appear to think that using a condom to abort a sperm is fine, but aborting a embryo is not because the embryo has the potential to develop into a child. Does the sperm not also have that potential?

I'm asking you how do you reconcile the idea that abortion a sperm is fine, but aborting a embryo is completely different. Surely, using your own logic, the sperm has as much right to develop naturally into a potential child as the zygote or embryo does?

Tristrame wrote:

It's probably Eircoms fault to be honest.

Are you unwilling or unable to answer?

Tristrame wrote:

Really? You couldn't grasp that your belief (as expressed in the post I replied to) as to what constitutes a human being and our completely different belief based replies to the OP's question is/are anathema to mine and that I said so in reply to your post?

I'm not sure what you mean by anathema. Doesn't anathema mean a curse or something that is hated?

Anyway, you said -

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

Please explain what definition you are referring to, since the only definitions in the piece of my post that you quoted were a definitions by other people, not me.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

I can stop my future child (call him Tim) forming by using a condom to abort my sperm cell or by my wife aborting the fertilised embryo. The end result is exactly the same, no Tim. .

Except a condom doesnt abort anything, it prevents conception. Abortion is when an already conceived embryo or feotus is destroyed.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. They have lost potential children, but then so have I if I use a condom when having sex with my girlfriend. .

Your sperm is genetic material, it is not a child, a woman does not lose a child every time she menstruates. She loses the egg also genetic material, not a child.

Wicknight wrote:

A woman who really wants a child but has a miscarriage might be far more upset than a woman who really doesn't want a baby and who uses the morning after pill to prevent fertilisation, despite the fact that the end result is exactly the same, no baby. .

There could be various differences in the health, hormonal and emotional at results of losing a baby depending on how developed the child is. The morning after pill is also preventative,not abortive.


Is the question here about the relationship between feotal viabnility and its rights to life? If so it seems there is no way of measuring a set week at which to determine such a thing.

When I went to my first hospital visit I was told that at 16 weeks if i feel contractions to go straight up to delivery but before that to go to emergency because at 16 weeks there's a lot they can do -which frankly startled me to hear.

Additionally, it is my understanding that there are variables in the rates of how they develop.




.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Except a condom doesnt abort anything

Well if you want to get technical on semantics I didn't mean it in the Latin "to miscarry", but then when a military commander says "abort the launch" I doubt he means "miscarry the rocket" either

metrovelvet wrote:

Your sperm is genetic material, it is not a child, a woman does not lose a child every time she menstruates.

That all depends on how you define "a child", which ultimately at the heart of the discussion. If a fertilised egg is "a child" why is the sperm and egg a few seconds before fertilisation not "a child" also?

At the end of the day the end result of aborting a fertilised embryo or destroying the sperm and egg that would form that embryo, are the same :- No baby.

metrovelvet wrote:

The morning after pill is also preventative,not abortive.

The morning after pill can prevent an already fertilised egg attaching to the womb wall. If one defines "a child" as a fertilised egg then that is causing the unnatural death of a child, which would probably fall under murder.

metrovelvet wrote:

Is the question here about the relationship between feotal viabnility and its rights to life?

Not as far as I'm concerned I think that is a very poor way to measure if a foetus is a human being or not.