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

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I am, you are just ignoring it.

Ah the ultimate resort when faced with a nuisance.

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.

So? That has what to do with whether a 21 week foetus should be aborted which all your nuisance avoiding tangents on other questions other than the one of this thread are dealing with...

Well then don't, expand on your positions.

Eh? I'll explain my beliefs just as you will yours.The only difference is you feel the need to talk about zygotes sperms and eggs.You feel the need to explain that throwing them away is akin to throwing away a zygote-maybe it is,but it's definitely not akin to throwing away a 21 week old foetus in my belief,especially on the news of the article.

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

Ah I was only being humorous with you suggesting it would be thinking about it.I could have said it had the potential to be thinking about it.It would be remiss of me not to concede that a zygote can't communicate.
That said where have I been argueing for the life of a zygote in the womb ?
I appreciate that you are establishing your belief that there should be no revisiting of abortion laws merely because a 21 week foetus born a baby has survived.
That position I can understand but disagree with for the reasons I stated.
We have different cut off points which is why I introduced the futility of the Eircom extreme cut off point as an example in repy to your Tim and Tim.

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.

It has received and retained a communication-that I would consider communicative.If it kicks it's also communicating.

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.

I suggest you take what I imagine about that to a more relevant thread to be honest.
The original question was about revisiting abortion laws.
Your whole zygote tangent is merely you explaing the grounding for your belief.
It does nothing for my belief which is based on what I see as having happened ie the possibility of sustained life out side the womb for what is inside it is a big no no when it comes to allowing it to be aborted ie deliberately killed.
It's a big no no when it's got to that stage.

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.

Again why are we discussing a zygote in relation to my beliefs?It's relevant to yours from the stand point that your cut off point is the here and now legal position on abortion say in the UK ie No to revisiting it because well the zygote is next for protection.

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

and the purpose of this thread was to inquire about the 21 week old foetus-Can it feel pain? I'd suggest it can given that it can be born and it can survive sucessfully.

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.

Which is a defined moral legal standpoint just as is the decision of the UK government to decide how many weeks a foetus can be in the womb before it develops the right not to be aborted.It's morality being brought into the law making around abortion in deciding at what point it's ok or not to abort-just as it is morality thats applied into what you quoted there.

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.

A comotose person wouldn't be long before they became brain dead and everyway dead without the respirator no?

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

There are plenty of people who were on respirators who would have died with out them and subsequently woke up.

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.

You do love your distractive tangents don't you?
What has this got to do with the initial question other than a seemingly unending need for you to justify your belief by taking us down the road of no cut off's?
I've accepted your belief ages ago and understood it for what it is,like mine just a belief.

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.

Again we disagree.
As you know I've revisited that notion as I've seen that a foetus currently that would have no protection inside the womb at 21 weeks say in the UK can live.
My belief system would oppose denying any 21 week foetus the same right now.

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.

Different cut off points again between you and me.
I don't equate or attach a right to an individual sperm or an Egg in the same way that I would a 21 week foetus.

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.

Why was there a cut off date if it wasn't because the majority opinion would be uneasy at allowing abortion later than currently allowed in the UK?

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?

Thought I explained that earlier.I'd legislate for the cloning making for strict regulation ie no breeding of babies for the crack like and I'd make the production of a baby artificially a process of no return.

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

Dont? or don't want to? or don't simply agree with my analysis of it?
The benefit of the doubt being applied,I'll say it's the last one?

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?

What has changes is two things (1) I've been shown what it looks like and (2) I've been shown that it can become a viable baby born at that age.

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.

Cut off points as I said earlier based on what i think is right or wrong.

Does the sperm not also have that potential?

Slightly more potential than my date with the call centre Girl probably but well beyond what I'd consider a reasonable cut off point.

I wouldn't ask a pregnant lady to lift 4 stone bags of spuds-why do you think I wouldn't?
I'll tell you why,it would be out of consideration of the fact that it might damage her unborn.
If it was four stone bucket loads of sperm and she wasn't pregnant I wouldn't lament the loss of one or two of the buckets unless of course I'd paid money for them and ran a sperm bank or something.

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?

Simple enough.I follow nature.If I don't masturbate,then nature will do away with my sperm and yours as it does with the eggs.
It rarely does away with an embryo unless something medically goes wrong.

Are you unwilling or unable to answer?

I've answered you alright,I've told you what I think of using the position of sperm as being anything near the equivalent of a well developed foetus.I used Eircom as an nth degree example of where we'd end up going on that route which ironically is not unrelated to where you are on this-apart from our different cut off points.

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

Yeah I guess I'd hate to abort a 21week old foetus now that I've seen this article.

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.

Certainly.
You've more than adequately defined your position regarding the question of the thread and I've disagreed with it.
Is that not an acceptable use of the word definition?
Your definition [read: defined position if it's easier] on this issue is anathema to mine.
Perhaps you thought I was talking about the long posts on what is and isn't human,I wasn't.

b3t4

I don't know why but I was thinking about this for a while and something came to me. It's another angle to look at this which I like.

When a woman gets pregnant she would generally not tell anyone for the first three months. This being due to there being a high risk of miscarriage in these months. For these three months the woman is relying on nature to not abort.

So up to three months and sometimes after that nature can decide that circumstances aren't right for the pregnancy to continue and aborts. So my thoughts are that women should be allowed up to three months to abort if the circumstances aren't suitable. Basically it'd be mimicing nature. Nature generally has it's head screwed on therefore mimicing it isn't all that bad an idea I reckon.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

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?.

Because there is no conception and technically we are not talking about children,we are talking about feotus and embryos. What I think you are trying to determine is at what point either becomes a human life.

Wicknight wrote:

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. ?.

Infertility and celibacy also bring the same result. What is your point here? The argument is around post NOT pre conception.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Murder is a legal term. In countries where abortion is illegal, yes it would be murder, on other countries it would be killing, like killing a deer or taking a shoe to a cockroach.

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Yes it seems impossible and impractical.

Zombrex

Tristrame wrote:

Ah the ultimate resort when faced with a nuisance.

I'm not sure if I would call your method of "discussion" a nuisance Tristrame.

Other words spring to mind :rolleyes:

Tristrame you seem to have no real interest in having a discussion on the issue of abortion or discussing (or even defining) your position, and half the time I cannot understand your posts at all (you seem to reference and then discuss things I didn't even say).

Continuing to reply to your posts would seem to be a large waste of energy on both our parts.

As Token out of South Park would say "That's it, I'm out"

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

What I think you are trying to determine is at what point either becomes a human life.

I preferr the term "being" when attempting to take about what rights are bestowed up, because technically a liver cell, sperm cell or a brain dead person are human and alive.

To me the issue of abortion hinges on two important questions

1 - What is the special property of a human that gives it the special rights that we have over the rights of other animals?

2 - At what point in the development of a human does that property appear.

As I've stated before I believe that the property of humanity that we bestow special rights to is the human consciousness, the ability to think and be aware of ourselves.

I believe that until that property has formed a human being has not yet formed, and destroying a fertilised egg is no different than destroying a sperm, because neither possess that property and as such an individual human being has not yet been created.

metrovelvet wrote:

Infertility and celibacy also bring the same result. What is your point here?
The argument is around post NOT pre conception.

I'm pointing out that destroying a sperm and egg that are going to form has exactly the same result as destroying the fertilised egg the make 5 minutes later.

This is in relation to the argument that a fertilised egg is a potential human child, where as a sperm or egg arent

Therefore the argument that is it fine to destroy the sperm and egg before they have formed yet not ok to destroy the fertilised egg because that has the potential to grow into a human makes little sense, since the sperm and the egg have the same potential, and without the sperm and the egg you wouldn't have the fertilised egg in the first place. Destroying either has the same end result (no human)

metrovelvet wrote:

Murder is a legal term. In countries where abortion is illegal, yes it would be murder, on other countries it would be killing, like killing a deer or taking a shoe to a cockroach.

That was my point ... if one defines a human being as being created from the moment of conception then a morning after pill is as much abortion as aborting the foetus 6 months later.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

As Token out of South Park would say "That's it, I'm out"

LoL

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

I preferr the term "being" when attempting to take about what rights are bestowed up, because technically a liver cell, sperm cell or a brain dead person are human and alive. .

How so?

Wicknight wrote:

1 - What is the special property of a human that gives it the special rights that we have over the rights of other animals?.

Why are you bringing animals into this? Do you think that it will set some dangerous precedent where if one minute abortion is criminalised the next minute your facing the death penalty for eating a cheeseburger?

Wicknight wrote:

As I've stated before I believe that the property of humanity that we bestow special rights to is the human consciousness, the ability to think and be aware of ourselves.?.

Well you cant measure that in utero. And I would argue on a more misanthropic day that most of humanity does not have the quality you are talking about.

Wicknight wrote:

I believe that until that property has formed a human being has not yet formed, and destroying a fertilised egg is no different than destroying a sperm, because neither possess that property and as such an individual human being has not yet been created. .?.

You dont know that. Besides which, when human life begins is a biological decision isnt it and not a philosophical one.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm pointing out that destroying a sperm and egg that are going to form has exactly the same result as destroying the fertilised egg the make 5 minutes later..?.

It takes about three days for fertilisation and implantation to occur. And depending on when you destroy the fertilised egg, it may very well not have the same effect. Not all MAPs work [or RU486 and there are consequences to the woman's body.

Wicknight wrote:

Therefore the argument that is it fine to destroy the sperm and egg before they have formed yet not ok to destroy the fertilised egg because that has the potential to grow into a human makes little sense, since the sperm and the egg have the same potential, and without the sperm and the egg you wouldn't have the fertilised egg in the first place. Destroying either has the same end result (no human) ..?.

No. Because the sperm and egg are clearly only POTENTIAL human life, whereeas what people are arguing is that a fertilised egg is ACTUAL human life.

InFront

Originally posted by Wicknight
They can name their child anything they want, why would I mind?

So it is a child then? Because if a woman miscarries, and names the dead baby, going by your comparisons earlier it would be the same thing as naming a sperm 'John' or keratin 'Ann' in your opinion. You must think that it is a very silly thing to do.

Say a pregnant woman is involved in a motor accident, and loses her unborn child but suffers no functional damage to her reproductive tract.
That, in your eyes, is nothing more than an inconvenience, as she now has to start the process from step 1 again, as if pregnancy is a game of snakes and ladders.

But, by your mindset, any sentimentality or sadness over the loss of the child is not warranted. There is no sadness, it's just a bit of hassle.

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.

That's not the biological or medical perspective, it's yours. A zygote is the first entity in the creation of human life and is vastly different to the spermatazoon or the oocyte.

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.

But an unborn baby at 40 weeks is not conscious in that it is not aware of its own existence more than a dog or nearly so, nor can he think or produce thought. Like an animal, he has no words to think with.the process is not there, he only has that potential. So why don't you agree with abortion in late pregnancy?

In my opinion that potential he has is enough to confirm that he is valid human life, as is a two week old embryo that you regard as a clump of cells.

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.

Because as I made clear, I include the potential to develop human intelligence if left to nature.

Just in terms of intellectual disability, there are cases where abortion can be permissible and I did say that already. A previous poster mentioned anencephaly, there is no doubt but that it is one such example.

However you have to be very careful with mental retardation. If one could be sure that the neurological disfunction was to such an extent as to render the individual incapable of intelligence on a human level, or incapable of learning or adapting goal-orientated behaviour as befits a human, then abortion would be allowable in the early stages of pregnancy. the neural tube is developed around the third week, so there is some leeway there. But disability is misleading, because in the extreme vast majority of cases of intellectual disability, we are really talking about more of an intellectual setback than actual inability.
These individuals do still display a level of intelligence that is beyond what we see in other species, and that is what makes them, like us, unique to non-humans.

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

If you administer the general anaesthetic to a newborn infant, you have in your hands an oblivious clump of cells with no conscience or ability to conceive ideas or feel pain. just like an embryo.

People do much of their development after birth, especially neural development, and a newborn's development is actively dependent on this progression by nature, just as is the case with the embryo.

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.

The point is that nature will progress, liver cytochromes will destroy the anaesthetic and the kidneys will progressively remove the remaining compound from the body. But you have said that it is pointless to ask "what nature will bring about". So why not, while the child is under anaesthetic, destroy it?

Or say we anaesthetise the baby before extraction from the uterus in late pregnancy?

This is because the ability to produce consciousness is the characteristic that defines a human being.

What if it is a colt? Colts and fillies are extremely well developed in neurological terms, they are so well developed that they walk within hours of birth. They are also conscious beings.

If you don't bring intelligence, or the potential to develop intelligence along with strategic learning into this, what exactly is a human? What is a horse?

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

So it is a child then?

In the context you are talking about "it" is what they want them to be, since to them the construct of "their child" is more important than what it physically is.

That is why I used the example of a woman crying for her "child" after she have been told they cannot conceive. The child doesn't physically exist, and never will, but it is the idea in the woman's mind that is important, and I certainly would tell that woman she is being stupid for weeping over a child that never existed.

As I mentioned the emotional feelings of the parents towards the foetus are rather irrelevant to the question of if the foetus is a human being.

InFront wrote:

Because if a woman miscarries, and names the dead baby, going by your comparisons earlier it would be the same thing as naming a sperm 'John' or keratin 'Ann' in your opinion.

Well it depends on the age of the foetus. But yes, if the foetus was a zygote or early embryo it would be exactly the same.

InFront wrote:

You must think that it is a very silly thing to do.

Not at all. As I mentioned parents can become emotion for children that do not yet exist. Do you think that is silly?

InFront wrote:

Say a pregnant woman is involved in a motor accident, and loses her unborn child but suffers no functional damage to her reproductive tract.
That, in your eyes, is nothing more than an inconvenience, as she now has to start the process from step 1 again, as if pregnancy is a game of snakes and ladders.

My eyes are rather irrelevant. The woman might be very distraught or she might not mind at all, it depends completely on the woman's attitudes towards her pregnancy.

InFront wrote:

But, by your mindset, any sentimentality or sadness over the loss of the child is not warranted. There is no sadness, it's just a bit of hassle.

InFront I respect you as a poster and I think your posts are very informative and well thought out. But I can't help be a bit put off this discussion with you by comments like this. Please point out where I have stated that any sentimentality or sadness over the loss of a child, a foetus or even an unconceived child is not warranted. As I've stated I've know of women who have become very emotional and upset simply because they have been told then cannot have children, and have weep for their lost children (their words). I know of women who have wept after getting their period because they thought they were pregnant and had become attached to a child that also never existed.

If you think it is illogical and unnecessary to cry over the loss of a child that does not yet exist that is fine, but that is your opinion, not mine. I don't, I can completely see why a person would do this, and I understand it completely. And I would never suggest that the person just get over it.

InFront wrote:

That's not the biological or medical perspective, it's yours. A zygote is the first entity in the creation of human life and is vastly different to the spermatazoon or the oocyte.

"First entity" in what list? Are you saying that the sperm and egg are not alive? How do you define alive?

InFront wrote:

But an unborn baby at 40 weeks is not conscious in that it is not aware of its own existence

You know that how exactly?

InFront wrote:

In my opinion that potential he has is enough to confirm that he is valid human life, as is a two week old embryo that you regard as a clump of cells.

Would that not rule out mentally disabled who have no potential to develop a human level of intelligence as human beings?

InFront wrote:

Because as I made clear, I include the potential to develop human intelligence if left to nature.

Does a sperm not have the potential to develop human intellligence if left to nature?

InFront wrote:

Just in terms of intellectual disability, there are cases where abortion can be permissible and I did say that already.

Sorry, just to be clear, you think it is ok to abort some intellectually disabled children?

InFront wrote:

If one could be sure that the neurological disfunction was to such an extent as to render the individual incapable of intelligence on a human level, or incapable of learning or adapting goal-orientated behaviour as befits a human, then abortion would be allowable in the early stages of pregnancy.

Why the early stages and not the later? Or even why not after the child is born? What changes?

If the foetus never develops the ability to produce intelligence to a human level then surely under your definition it never becomes a human being, and the point you destroy it would be rather irrelevant as a human being is not being destroyed?

InFront wrote:

If you administer the general anaesthetic to a newborn infant, you have in your hands an oblivious clump of cells with no conscience or ability to conceive ideas or feel pain. just like an embryo.

That isn't true. If it were anyone who goes into hospital would come out brain dead, which wouldn't be do the hospitals reputation very good.

InFront wrote:

The point is that nature will progress, liver cytochromes will destroy the anaesthetic and the kidneys will progressively remove the remaining compound from the body.

Then you haven't destroyed the brains ability to produce consciousness.

InFront wrote:

But you have said that it is pointless to ask "what nature will bring about". So why not, while the child is under anaesthetic, destroy it?

Because the consciousness exists and the brain still has the ability to function with it.

It is the difference between simply turning off your computer and wiping the harddrive, smashing the CPU. Putting a person unconscious doesn't destroy the consciousness. When the person wakes up they are still the same person. The only thing that destroys the consciousness is brain damage, and if a person suffers brain death (smashing the CPU) the person can no long function with this consciousness.

InFront wrote:

What if it is a colt? Colts and fillies are extremely well developed in neurological terms, they are so well developed that they walk within hours of birth. They are also conscious beings.

I was unaware of that fact.

It was my understanding that science has yet to determine what consciousness actually is, and have no scientific way to measure and test for it. There are some tests such as the mirror test that dolphins and chimps have passed (they realise that the animal in the mirror is them), but I was unaware that colts had passed this test. If they have then colts need special protection under the law, just as animals such as dolphins and the great apes do.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

"First entity" in what list? Are you saying that the sperm and egg are not alive? How do you define alive?

They are alive only in that they respire and nothing more, they are themselves useless when preserved in the body under any conditions.
When the successful product of the sperm and the oocyte, the zygote, is preserved in the body under natural conditions, you'll get a baby.

The zygote is undeniably the first step in that process, the DNA contained within it, like the embryo and the foetus, is new. It is the very same DNA that the baby lying in a cradle will be made up of - as long as there is no human interference with the child.
So this is why I say it is not the conventional biological/ medical opinion that the zygote is of is of no greater importance than the sperm and the oocyte or that it is not the first step of embryonic development, it only your opinion.

I think most scientists agree that we are physically created upon fertilisation or else implantation, the only debate usually tends to be from what point there is a right to life. Dianne Irving from Princeton University describes your statement as a common myth.

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions—and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being.

Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings—they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

According to consultants, is a ritualistic occurance that during the gynaecology rotations in teaching hospitals, many students (not everyone) develop anti-abortion views - and that is not even a religious thing.
If you have an eight week old miscarried embryo, and open up the sac, looking right back at you, you expect to see some tiny irrecognizable clump of embryonic tissue.
While it may be embryonic tissue, it is exactly like a miniature baby - arms, legs, ears, eyes, mouth, nose, fingers and toes, you can see the heart which before death would have been beating. The thing has ankles, it has all of its organs, including a brain.
By your logic, it's okay to dump that child in a wheelie bin or flush it down the toilet, it doesn't matter, because it's litter and isn't really a human in your view. You say it isn't human because it isn't conscious. I think that is a big mistake.

As you point out, of course we shouldn't judge human life on physical appearance. The point is simply that thirty weeks before he is born, the path that nature intends for this embryo is visibly established. How can you maintain that just because he is unconscious, we can kill him (or her)? Just as he has gone on to develop human features, he will go on to develop consciousness and intelligence.

I happen to have noticed (and really I couldn't agree with you more on this) that you think fox hunting is cruelty.
Could you explain why a fox, which in farming terms is vermin, deserves life more than a human embryo which if left undisturbed, will be a crying baby in a delivery room?

Does a sperm not have the potential to develop human intellligence if left to nature?

No, never.

Sorry, just to be clear, you think it is ok to abort some intellectually disabled children?

As I said it depends what you mean by intellectually disabled. If you mean a child with a "normal" intellectual disability, which is the extreme majority of cases, no I don't. They can, and do, live happy lives and they do demonstrate intelligence. They feel pain, exhibit goal-orientated behaviour, both learned and innate, I haven't heard a convincing argument for abortion.

However, in the case of anencephaly, for example, there is neither intelligence nor response to neural stimuli or pain receptors. There is no potential for this to come about, and it is really just a question of pulling the plug. This should happen sooner rather than later for the sake of the family. I also say sooner rather than later in terms of specific religious reasons.
I don't think this ought to be turned into a religious debate, but in Islam for example, the soul is commonly thought to be attributed to the body at 40 days based on the Qur'an. This is in line with scientific knowledge, the baby starts reflexing around then as well. Anyway, that altogether, is my explanation why I say "sooner rather than later".

If the foetus never develops the ability to produce intelligence to a human level then surely under your definition it never becomes a human being, and the point you destroy it would be rather irrelevant as a human being is not being destroyed?

The child was never going to become conscious/ intelligent/ responsive or demonstrate reflex. I think it is safe to say that an early abortion could be okay, given the circumstances.

Then you haven't destroyed the brains ability to produce consciousness.

Anaesthesia doesn't destroy consciousness, it halts it. Consciousness will return because nature will restore it with no human intervention (liver enzymes, kidneys, heartrate will bring about consciousness)

In the case of the pregnant mother, her baby is not yet conscious, but nature will bring it about, just like nature brings about consciousness in the anaesthetised adult.
Why is it not okay to kill an anaesthetised newborn who will become conscious, but okay to kill the unborn baby, who will become conscious also?

metrovelvet

Can someone please explain what they mean by conciousness? Do you mean self awareness, being awake, what?

Dontico

Gurgle wrote:

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.

unfortunately alot of people prefere money over human life.

i personally see the potential of raising the 4000(not tens of thousands) in the way/image the government wants. thousands of children raised soley to lead in the miltary. it would make the SS look like scouts.

Dontico

Wicknight wrote:

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?

i hate it when people think thats actually a proper arguement.

i'm only going to address this once and once only.
sperm by it self doesnt make a human.
sperm dies and is remade every 72 hours. it is not posible for me to inpreganate that many women. although i would like to.

Dontico

b3t4 wrote:

I don't know why but I was thinking about this for a while and something came to me. It's another angle to look at this which I like.

When a woman gets pregnant she would generally not tell anyone for the first three months. This being due to there being a high risk of miscarriage in these months. For these three months the woman is relying on nature to not abort.

So up to three months and sometimes after that nature can decide that circumstances aren't right for the pregnancy to continue and aborts. So my thoughts are that women should be allowed up to three months to abort if the circumstances aren't suitable. Basically it'd be mimicing nature. Nature generally has it's head screwed on therefore mimicing it isn't all that bad an idea I reckon.

but what if nature decides to let the unborn live?

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

They are alive only in that they respire and nothing more, they are themselves useless when preserved in the body under any conditions.
When the successful product of the sperm and the oocyte, the zygote, is preserved in the body under natural conditions, you'll get a baby.

Can you get a baby without a sperm or egg?

After all we are arguing a potential child here. The characteristics we both agree are important for humans exist in the human brain, which neither a sperm nor a zygote possesses. So the argument is that the zygote will turn into a creature with a human brain. But you cannot make this creature without the sperm that made it either. So surely the sperm that made it is just as important as the zygote that made it?

InFront wrote:

Dianne Irving from Princeton University describes your statement as a common myth.

Dr Dianne Irving is a medical ethicist and is a well know anti-abortionist who's papers are well known and quoted amoung conservative and religious anti-abortionists, but not exactly well regarded in science. As one liberal American blogger put it -

"She is a regular contributor for Life Issues, a right-wing anti-abortion site. Taking apart her work would be a project in and of itself. But suffice it to say that none of it is peer-reviewed or resembles scientific research in any way, shape, or form. She is simply a right-wing ideologue posing as an objective researcher. In other words, a GOP propagandist using her degree to pass her work off as 'science.'"

http://eternalhope.blog-city.com/eric_keroack_and_his_racist_enabler_pals.htm

You can see this in the piece you posted where Dr. Irving doesn't actually answer the question, she simply says they are different. She does appear to admit though that the sperm and egg are alive, but not "beings" She says there is a medical difference, which is pecular since a "being" is more of philosophical idea than a medical one. I would be intersted in seeing how she explains that one. But as the blogger points out above, she has reason to say this.

Depending on how one defines "life" will effect if one defines sperm as alive. Sperm, by itself, cannot replicate, nor does it consume food. But it can replicate and consume food when combined with the egg, which is why I always think of the two together. Another way of thinking about it is that sperm can clearly "die", where they get to a point where they cannot function anymore.

InFront wrote:

By your logic, it's okay to dump that child in a wheelie bin or flush it down the toilet, it doesn't matter, because it's litter and isn't really a human in your view.

What do you do with your sperm after masterbation?

InFront wrote:

You say it isn't human because it isn't conscious. I think that is a big mistake.

I've gathered that

InFront wrote:

As you point out, of course we shouldn't judge human life on physical appearance. The point is simply that thirty weeks before he is born, the path that nature intends for this embryo is visibly established.

I'm not really interested in paths, or destiny, or potential. Beings that do not yet exist do not concern me as I'm not a spiritual person, nor do I believe in the soul or the idea that out there is a soul waiting to enter a body.

I certainly understand that people come to the discussion from a more spiritual position. Its just that I don't. I'm a materialist.

The only thing that concerns me is the question "Does a human being exist at this point in time." Whether or not a human being will exist some time in the future is completely irrelevant to that. People don't concern themselves with the potential human beings that could exist if they don't use a condom, I don't concern myself with the potential human being that could exist if the zygote is allowed to reach full term. The human being, as defined by there consciousness, does not exist yet, just as it doesn't exist yet when the sperm is 5 seconds away from joining with the egg.

Once consciousness has been formed a human "being" has been formed. This being must be protected with all the rights available.

InFront wrote:

How can you maintain that just because he is unconscious, we can kill him (or her)?

The same way I maintain that a sperm doesn't possess consciousness so it is ok to kill it as well, as I'm sure most people here do.

InFront wrote:

Just as he has gone on to develop human features, he will go on to develop consciousness and intelligence.

What the zygote will do is largely irrelevant. What matters is what it is at this moment in time. Has a human being been created yet? No, ok lets stop this before one is created. That is the logic used for a using a condom to destroy sperm as much as destroying the zygote.

Most people have absolutely no problem stopping a sperm from going on to develop a conscious human being because they figure that said human being does not yet exist so nothing is being lost, which is true. Terminating a 2 week old foetus is exactly the same, said human being does not yet exist so nothing is being lost.

InFront wrote:

I happen to have noticed (and really I couldn't agree with you more on this) that you think fox hunting is cruelty.

I do

InFront wrote:

Could you explain why a fox, which in farming terms is vermin, deserves life more than a human embryo which if left undisturbed, will be a crying baby in a delivery room?

Because a fox possesses a brain and probably on some low level, also some form of awareness, at least the ability to experience pain and suffering.

A foetus with no functioning brain doesn't. The fact that it will at some point in the future if everything goes ok and nothing is interupted, doesn't change that fact.

Once a foetus has developed a functioning brain then it is immoral to abort it, because it is at that point that human being comes into existence.

InFront wrote:

No, never.

Notice I didn't say "on its own", since in my opinion "on its own" is just a get out jail free clause that pro-life supporters rather nonsensically put into their argument so they can use a condom or masturbate without feeling guilty about stopping a potential life from existing.

It is biologically impossible to create a human naturally without a sperm cell. Every single person on this planet developed from a sperm cell. Without those sperm cells no one would be here.

InFront wrote:

However, in the case of anencephaly, for example, there is neither intelligence nor response to neural stimuli or pain receptors. There is no potential for this to come about, and it is really just a question of pulling the plug.

I would agree with that but then anecephaly is being born with a large part of your brain missing and most die either at birth or soon after. That isn't really an mental or intellectual disability. I was more talking about some classified with a "profound mental disability", possessing an IQ less than 20, and requiring constant care. Since they have only a tiny fraction of normal human intelligence would aborting them be ok?

InFront wrote:

I don't think this ought to be turned into a religious debate, but in Islam for example, the soul is commonly thought to be attributed to the body at 40 days based on the Qur'an. This is in line with scientific knowledge, the baby starts reflexing around then as well.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in line" with scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge doesn't recongise the "soul" so how can the idea that the soul enters the body after 40 days, or that this is signified by the baby kicking, be in line with scientific knowledge?

InFront wrote:

The child was never going to become conscious/ intelligent/ responsive or demonstrate reflex.

And if they can become conscious and demonstrate reflex, but not intelligence, or at least not intelligence on a human level. If you would be against abortion then then surely intelligence at a human level is not important for defining a human being.

InFront wrote:

Anaesthesia doesn't destroy consciousness, it halts it.

Well then why do you think I would think it would be ok to kill this child?

If the consciousness still exists then it hasn't been lost and the human being still exists. Killing it would be highly immoral, as it is the destroying of human consciousness that I define as the immoral act.

If on the other hand the consciousness has been destroyed (in that the brain is damaged and can no longer able to form this consciousness) and the person is brain dead then what is lost if they are killed or allowed to die naturally. The "being" is already gone.

InFront wrote:

In the case of the pregnant mother, her baby is not yet conscious, but nature will bring it about

Yes but it hasn't yet. Nothing has yet been created, so nothing is lost if this just doesn't happen.

The key point is the "nothing has been lost" bit. Killing a human being is immoral because you are destroying a human consciousness. That is special, and it deserves rights bestowed upon it. Once it has been created if it is lost it is a tragedy.

But if it has not yet been created yet then what is lost by simply not creating it.

It is similar to the difference between destroying a great work of art and the painter simply deciding that today he isn't going to paint. No great work of art is produced that day, but that is not the same as a great work of art that already exists being destroyed. One is just a painter taking a day off work, the other is a huge tragedy. The reason is because little value is placed on works of art that do not yet exist (but might some day) and works of art that do exist now in this moment.

InFront wrote:

, just like nature brings about consciousness in the anaesthetised adult.

But the consciousness, the unique thoughts and memories of this person, exist before the person is put under anaesthetic. It is halted while they are under, but it still exists. And it still exists afterwards, so no murder has taken place. If one the other hand you destroyed the brain removing the ability to produce this consciousness again, or with some magic machine completely scrambled the persons brain so all their memories and thoughts were reset, then you would have destroyed this person, even if you left the body in a perfect state with a new brain.

Using the analogy above, this is like putting the painting in a storage closet for a year. The painting still exists even if no one can see it, and it stil has value.

InFront wrote:

Why is it not okay to kill an anaesthetised newborn who will become conscious, but okay to kill the unborn baby, who will become conscious also?

Because the consciousness of the anaesthetised newborn exists and you aren't destroying it. The consciousness of a foetus who has not yet developed a functioning brain, doesn't exist yet.

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

i hate it when people think thats actually a proper arguement.

Personally I "hate" (ok probably too strong) the way that some anti-abortionists just drop in "by itself" into the argument as a get out of jail card because they want to use condoms and masturbate without feeling guilty about preventing a potential life.

Why is "by itself" relevant, since nothing in biology happens "by itself". The zygote doesn't develop "by itself" into anything, the zygote by itself would die very quickly.

If someone is going to have a strong pro-life belief based on the idea that the potential child is what is important then they should at least have the courage of their convictions to stand behind that argument to its full conclusion, even if that leads to suffering inconvenience on their part.

Dropping in clauses and irrelevant definitions to simply get around having to do that is in my opinion rather distasteful, as distasteful as arguments like abortion is murder unless the woman is raped, or that abortion is ok so long as the child's parents are poor.

You either stand by your convictions or they don't mean anything.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Can someone please explain what they mean by conciousness? Do you mean self awareness, being awake, what?

It sometimes can be hard to define, which is why I tend to air on the side of caution. For example I was against that woman in America having her feeding tude removed soley based on the idea that she had lost higher brain activity because I wasn't sure they could be sure that she actually had.

Really it is a combination of your self awareness, your memories, your thought and your current experience. You know you exist right, in that you are thinking right now about how you exist. You are aware that you exist. That is consciousness. Not the conclusion that you exist, that is more intelligence, but simply the fact that you are able to think in this manner.

Some claim that babies don't experience this. I would question that conclusion, as it seems based on measuring it to the standards of developed human brain. I don't think one could take the risk of saying that babies are not conscious on some level. Which is why my cut of point is saying that the adult, child or foetus must not have any signs of higher brain functions, and in the case of humans who have already created consciousness, it must be shown that this has been lost forever, not just at the moment.

Basically as soon as a foetus has developed a functioning brain that is it, it is too risky to allow an abortion to go ahead because one cannot be sure that one is not destroying a being that possesses a consciousness.

metrovelvet

Dont you think thats a rather elusive way of determining whether or not a person should be killed?

You cant measure this in utero either because babies develop at different rates.

And you have to consider techological factors, like what if the machines aren't advanced enough to pick up on these qualities?

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Notice I didn't say "on its own", since in my opinion "on its own" is just a get out jail free clause that pro-life supporters rather nonsensically put into their argument so they can use a condom or masturbate without feeling guilty about stopping a potential life from existing.
.

You've got to be kidding me. The argument doesnt start until the sperm meets the egg and conception has occurred.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. The argument doesnt start until the sperm meets the egg and conception has occurred.

That is precisely why the "on its own" clause is placed in, so the argument can be moved up to conception and one doesn't have to worry (or consider) about killing a sperm or egg.

As I said, in my view that is an ethical cop out. It is not the natural conclusion of the argument that a zygote is important and deserving of rights because it will eventually develop into a fully developed human. The natural conclusion of that argument is that the sperm and egg that form the zygote are equally important as the zygote itself, since you cannot form a zygote without the orginial sperm and egg.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Dont you think thats a rather elusive way of determining whether or not a person should be killed?

Well in my opinion it is the most logical.

All others end up going to ethical dead ends. For example if one defines a human being as a unique set of DNA formed in the zygote then why doesn't every human cell, which contains that DNA, not have the same rights. If one defines a human being as the whole organism then why is it ok to terminate the life support of a brain dead patient, or a foetus with server brain damage. If one defines a human being as a being that possess human levels of intelligence then what about those that suffer from server mental disabilities. If one defines a human being as the stages of biological reproduction that will eventually produce said human why is the sperm and egg that will and have to produce the zygote not protected under the same rights as the zygote itself, since you cannot form a human without them.

metrovelvet wrote:

You cant measure this in utero either because babies develop at different rates.

That is largely irrelevant. Convenience isn't a factor. If you cannot measure this at a certain point you have to air on the side of caution and move back to a point where you can measure it.

metrovelvet wrote:

And you have to consider techological factors, like what if the machines aren't advanced enough to pick up on these qualities?

Again convenience isn't a factor in the ethical determination, and I'm rather surprised that you would think it is.

If it cannot be determined if the foetus has a functioning brain, but it is known that such a fact is possible, one must air on the side of caution and not proceed with the abortion because one cannot be sure that they are not destroying a human being.

Just like when turning off a life support machine the doctors must be sure that the patient has suffered brain death (brain damage that is irreversable and will never produce consciousness again) equally the doctors must be sure with the abortion that the foetus is not yet a human being.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

That is largely irrelevant. Convenience isn't a factor. If you cannot measure this at a certain point you have to air on the side of caution and move back to a point where you can measure it.

Again convenience isn't a factor in the ethical determination, and I'm rather surprised that you would think it is. .

Thats my point- you cant measure it. It has to be at the moment of conception, the starting line. There is no other way.

Wicknight wrote:

If it cannot be determined if the foetus has a functioning brain, but it is known that such a fact is possible, one must air on the side of caution and not proceed with the abortion because one cannot be sure that they are not destroying a human being..

Right. So again we're talking about the moment of conception.

Wicknight wrote:

Just like when turning off a life support machine the doctors must be sure that the patient has suffered brain death (brain damage that is irreversable and will never produce consciousness again) equally the doctors must be sure with the abortion that the foetus is not yet a human being.

They cant ever be sure that someone is completely brain dead. Technology changes all the time as does medicine, and a day may come where damage is not always irreversible.

Abortionists do not care if its a human being. And doctors -their comcern is first the mothe so they will perform one if it is to save the mothers life.

Dontico

Wicknight wrote:

"She is a regular contributor for Life Issues, a right-wing anti-abortion site."
...........

The only thing that concerns me is the question "Does a human being exist at this point in time."

shouldnt label pro-life as a right-wing agenda. it has nothing/little to do with economics, most of the time.

now to get physics and philosphy rolled into one.
time is relitive, comrade.

Dontico

Wicknight wrote:

Dropping in clauses and irrelevant definitions to simply get around having to do that is in my opinion rather distasteful, as distasteful as arguments like abortion is murder unless the woman is raped, or that abortion is ok so long as the child's parents are poor.

You either stand by your convictions or they don't mean anything.

condoms isnt preventing life more than women refusing to have my baby wheni ask them to. which i ask more frequent than most.

i'm against abortion for those that have been raped or who are poor.

JC 2K3

Here's a question for you all: Why is it wrong to kill unborn babies?

Say you accept conception as the beginning of life, why is destroying this life so wrong?

Think about it, who is harmed if a baby is killed before birth? The parents might be slightly upset(although largely to do with guilt induced by society's attitude towards abortion IMO), but considering they're the ones who make the decision it shouldn't matter.

Now I know the baby is killed and we tend to perceive killing as bad, but why is it necessarily bad? The only reason I can see for it being bad is that if people could go around killing each other it would cause immense upset to relatives/friends of those killed and could be detrimental to the functioning of society.

However, if "murder" was allowed simply in the case of unborn babies I can't see any harm being done to society - unless there was a population shortage or something, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

Call me "immoral" if you wish, but morality is subjective and laws are in place to protect society. Abortion clearly has no detrimental effects on society. Sentimentalists and religious people might argue against it, but neither of these should influence laws in any way.

metrovelvet

JC 2K3 wrote:

Say you accept conception as the beginning of life, why is destroying this life so wrong?

.

That is probably the heart of the problem. We destroy life everyday, pulling plugs, wars, death penalties, assasinations, drugs, cigarettes and addictions. Genocides come and go and some we justify and others we condemn.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

So surely the sperm that made it is just as important as the zygote that made it?

Well we've both made our opinions known on that one, I think I understand your viewpoint now, though I still disagree.
I do just have one more question on it though - I presume you accept that this is a new "growing human creature" even if you don't want to use the word child? And that it is unlike anything else of the woman's body, with new genetic identity in its DNA, and therefore characteristic of an individual - albeit one in a state of paralysis?

Dr Dianne Irving is a medical ethicist and is a well know anti-abortionist who's papers are well known and quoted amoung conservative and religious anti-abortionists, but not exactly well regarded in science

I'm not aware of her personal background apart from embryology, but you must mean 'not well regarded in philosophy' surely. The embryology in the linked page is perfectly sound, there's nothing wrong with it that I can see, so I'm not sure why you suggest otherwise. Whether she would be regarded with much esteem in an arts faculty amongst philosophers, I don't know. Whatever about her ethical conclusions, there's nothing wrong with the scientific facts.

Sperm, by itself, cannot replicate, nor does it consume food...
But it can replicate and consume food when combined with the egg, which is why I always think of the two together.

There are scientists who dedicate their academic careers to explaining how sperm (alone) consume food, as do oocytes (alone) by way of biomolecular metabolism - just as we do.
Also, sperm cells do replicate in spermatogenesis, as oocytes do in oogenesis.
The crucial difference is that nothing will ever come of that unless you bring them together, knowing a baby will be the procuct. Or at least, a new human creature with its own DNA and ability to produce intelligence.

There's a bit of a contradiction here below so I'll just ask both...

I'm not really interested in paths, or destiny, or potential... The human being, as defined by there consciousness, does not exist yet... Once consciousness has been formed a human "being" has been formed.

In the first case here, then this goes back to the foetus in the womb. I thought you were against abortion in late stage pregnancy? The late foetus in the uterus is just not a conscious baby looking around him or crying or seeing etc, nor has he ever been. He wouldn't pass any consciousness tests, or be self aware, why not kill that?

What if you get a very eager anaesthetist who during a caeasarian section administers a narcotic anaesthetic to the mother as opposed to an inhalant. Or does something innocent like forgets to keep up her blood pressure or gives too high a dose of epidural, whatever -
In those cases, there's going to be an unconscious baby brought out of the womb as opposed to a conscious one.

Would it be fine, with parental consent and all of that, to take it away, still out under the anaesthetic, and cut off its airway? Of course the answer is no. I have a big problem with this consciousness point.

You simply have to include potential to develop consciousness/ intelligence.

Basically as soon as a foetus has developed a functioning brain that is it... This being must be protected with all the rights available.

This is the contradiction with the previous posts - the functioning brain is there by 40 days, maybe earlier.
Are you saying that you're against abortion from day 40, when the embryo is about one third the size of your baby finger? I thought you didn't mind 8 week embryos being aborted?

Once a foetus has developed a functioning brain then it is immoral to abort it, because it is at that point that human being comes into existence.

A functioning brain does not equal conscience or consciousness though, it just indicates the potential to develop that. The first day you get a neuron firing on the primitive liver doesn't mean the baby is a ware of anything, or is self aware at all. It indicates potential for that by a gradually developing central nervous system that first appeared in week 3 with the neural tube.

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote:

If you work backwards, it can possibly have consciousness right back until the brain is formed. Before it has a functioning brain, it can't be conscious. So, formed brain should be the starting line I think.
Which is about 3 months according to what I've read.

1.Why conciousness as the determining factor? Why an intellectual quality to determine life?

2. They may only be able to detect it at three months. If more advanced technology comes around who knows. And also embryos and foetuses develop at different rates.

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

condoms isnt preventing life

That seems a bit silly think to say, considering the whole purpose of a condom is to prevent life.

If a condom isn't preventing life why do millions of guys around the world who don't want a kid wear one every night with their girls and wives?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Thats my point- you cant measure it. It has to be at the moment of conception, the starting line.

You can't measure it to a high degree of accuracy, but you can meassure it. If a life form doesn't have a functioning brain it doesn't have consciousness.

metrovelvet wrote:

Right. So again we're talking about the moment of conception.

No, because at the moment of conception the foetus doesn't have a brain. No brain, no consciousness. The only time things get tricky is around the time the brain starts to "wake up" (for want of a better term). It then becomes tricky to tell if the parts of the brain associated with higher functions have started to become active and to what degree.

metrovelvet wrote:

Abortionists do not care if its a human being.

Who are "abortionists"? Do you mean doctors who carry out abortions?