I am unconvinced of the ethics of abortion at any stage.
A1-Assumption: All termination of human life is wrong.
A2-Assumption: A fetus is a human life.
A3-Assertion: Therefore the termination of a fetus is wrong.
Secular evidence in support of A1?
laws against murder, genocide, as well as general international conventions and public opinion against war.
personally, I believe this to be generally true.
Secular evidence in support of A2?
Evidence in support of fetuses being human. What else would they be?
Evidence in support of fetuses being alive? My plants are alive and they do a lot less than a fetus does.
Specifically:
Fetuses have at a very early stage (3 weeks after fertilization) a heart rate. Soon after they begin to have neural activity and movement (8 weeks later). A heart rate and neural activity within the first trimester.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
Comments on this? I am generally uncertain about my views on pro-choice anymore. Evolution, I never really believed for an instance that there was the possibility that it wasn't true. But abortion.... that is another story.
A1-Assumption: All termination of human life is wrong.
A2-Assumption: A fetus is a human life.
A3-Assertion: Therefore the termination of a fetus is wrong.
Secular evidence in support of A1?
laws against murder, genocide, as well as general international conventions and public opinion against war.
personally, I believe this to be generally true.
Secular evidence in support of A2?
Evidence in support of fetuses being human. What else would they be?
Evidence in support of fetuses being alive? My plants are alive and they do a lot less than a fetus does.
Specifically:
Fetuses have at a very early stage (3 weeks after fertilization) a heart rate. Soon after they begin to have neural activity and movement (8 weeks later). A heart rate and neural activity within the first trimester.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
Comments on this? I am generally uncertain about my views on pro-choice anymore. Evolution, I never really believed for an instance that there was the possibility that it wasn't true. But abortion.... that is another story.
i'm con-life
I'm pro death.
Pro-baby-murder over here.
huh, not much of a discussion. more of a bunch of value statements.
what did you want? they all seem to dislike the "a1-assumption."
personally, i dislike "a2-assumption." you haven't shown me that a fetus is a living human being. a heart beat means nothing to me.
a turtle's heart will beat for days after being decapitated. ten minutes after being decapitated, the turtle is brain-dead. i personally think this is a non-living state.
personally, i dislike "a2-assumption." you haven't shown me that a fetus is a living human being. a heart beat means nothing to me.
a turtle's heart will beat for days after being decapitated. ten minutes after being decapitated, the turtle is brain-dead. i personally think this is a non-living state.
I'm all about the A1-assumption, it's the A2 that I have issues with.
lr - would you say that plants are alive?
what about someone who has experienced brain death at a hospital?
or are you only concerned with 'life' only in as much as the concept applies to things with cognitive abilities?
what about someone who has experienced brain death at a hospital?
or are you only concerned with 'life' only in as much as the concept applies to things with cognitive abilities?
as long as there's a parasite-host relationship between the fetus and the mother, the host should be free to kill the parasite whenever she wishes. generally, i'm against killing, but killing parasites is cool with me
I support euthanasia.
The way I see abortion in some cases... is letting a child be born into a poor environment is more or less an act of child abuse which will stunt a childs development and contribute to growing problems in our society. Abortion is a catch for that sort of thing. And not only do I support a parents right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I support the right for the state to forcefully terminate a pregnancy in certain situations.
The way I see abortion in some cases... is letting a child be born into a poor environment is more or less an act of child abuse which will stunt a childs development and contribute to growing problems in our society. Abortion is a catch for that sort of thing. And not only do I support a parents right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I support the right for the state to forcefully terminate a pregnancy in certain situations.
fs> would you say that plants are alive?
i suppose; sure.
fs> what about someone who has experienced brain death at a hospital?
the human's body may be functioning, but its brain is not functioning. i would avoid applying a label such as "living" or "dead" to the entire being. i'd rather say that the body is living and the brain is dead.
fs> or are you only concerned with 'life' only in as much as the concept applies to things with cognitive abilities?
well, i believe that's when killing a living being becomes unethical--when the being is conscious of its own life. so beetles and plants and fetuses can all be flushed down the toilet as far as i'm concerned.
note: i agree with bluet. i don't even think that a fetus is a living being. i think it's a parasite.
i suppose; sure.
fs> what about someone who has experienced brain death at a hospital?
the human's body may be functioning, but its brain is not functioning. i would avoid applying a label such as "living" or "dead" to the entire being. i'd rather say that the body is living and the brain is dead.
fs> or are you only concerned with 'life' only in as much as the concept applies to things with cognitive abilities?
well, i believe that's when killing a living being becomes unethical--when the being is conscious of its own life. so beetles and plants and fetuses can all be flushed down the toilet as far as i'm concerned.
note: i agree with bluet. i don't even think that a fetus is a living being. i think it's a parasite.
damn I need to crack out my old ethics textbooks for this thread, bbl
I am with lr so far in this thread.
Until the thing becomes its own, separate being (by being born, cut out, whatever) it is simply a part of the mother. As such, she should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, including getting rid of things growing in her.
Speaking of things growing in people...how do you feel about surgically removing cancerous tumors? They are also "alive" and thriving without the consent of their host.
It sounds like what makes a fetus unethical to terminate in your mind, fsmart, is cognitive ability. And I support luke's statement that a fetus is not conscious of its own life. So, in my book, fetuses get disqualified from consideration.
Speaking of things growing in people...how do you feel about surgically removing cancerous tumors? They are also "alive" and thriving without the consent of their host.
It sounds like what makes a fetus unethical to terminate in your mind, fsmart, is cognitive ability. And I support luke's statement that a fetus is not conscious of its own life. So, in my book, fetuses get disqualified from consideration.
lr and ET> killing a living being becomes unethical--when the being is conscious of its own life.
i am not sure if I like the sound of consciousness being the basis for the preservation of life. how old does a baby have to be before it becomes conscious? it seems to me that a child only becomes self-aware after being born for several months. up to that point is it just disposable?
of course i don't know at what point a human being becomes self-aware, but self-awareness in any sense greater than that similar to intelligent animal species is surely not arrived at earlier than the first 16months for most children. if it is ethical to put animals to sleep, would it not also be ethical to terminate the lives of young children up to some age (say before 16 months)?
then the problem of the slippery nature of consciousness comes into play. is there some moment that a child goes from nonconscious to conscious? all we can observe is the physical external responses to internal mental processes.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html
"Between week six and ten, fetal bodies burst into motion, achieving graceful, stretching, and rotational movements of the head, arms and legs. Hand to head, hand to face, hand to mouth movements, mouth opening, closing, and swallowing are all present at 10 weeks (Tajani and Ianniruberto, 1990). By 14 weeks, the complete repertoire of fetal movements seen throughout gestation are already in evidence (deVries, Visser, and Prechtl, 1985). Movement is spontaneous, endogenous, and typically cycles between activity and rest. Breathing movements and jaw movements have begun. Hands are busy interacting with other parts of the body and with the umbilical cord.
From this early stage onward, movement is a primary activity, sometimes begun spontaneously, sometimes provoked by events. Spontaneous movement occurs earliest, probably expressing purely individual interests and needs. Evoked movement reflects sensitivity to the environment. For example, between 10 and 15 weeks g.a., when a mother laughs or coughs, her fetus moves within seconds."
according to this link (from a source that should perhaps be seen as suspect) the fetus exhibits substantial movement from a early stage, even movement that seems to be independently associated with external stimuli. we cannot tell what is going on within the tiny mind of the fetus. who is to say that it is not consciously self-aware in some primitive sense?
besides using consciousness as a basis for the ethical preservation of life, seems further suspect. under what basis is it unethical not to euthanize people who fall asleep? at certain parts of the sleep cycle one could easily argue that those people are no long conscious. yet we don't run around killing them. why? perhaps because we know that they are going to wake up in a few hours and they will once again be conscious. well what happens if someone is in a coma, and you know that person is definitely going to be conscious in 2 years. you won't see many people running around arguing that those people should be killed. yet, if you wait for 2 years with a fetus, that fetus in all likelihood is going to be fully conscious. so the only difference that i can see between the comatose guy and the fetus is that the guy in the coma is being protected because he showed consciousness in the past. however if that same guy experienced brain death it would be okay to dispose of him?
seems a bit contrived... so because the person exhibit consciousness before the coma and is expected to be conscious after that he warrants ethical consideration?
----------------
as for the defining of fetuses as parasites... this seems a purely rhetorical device. why would we not give equal consideration of life to a parasite as any other form of life?
websters
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
def 1 irrelevant, I believe. 2, just because an organism is parasitic does not mean that it is unworthy of life. as for 3, almost all children up to a latter stage would be considered parasites. how useful is a 7 year old? would the parasitic status of 7 year olds entitle us to flush them down toilets?
also with regards the parasite comment. yes, it is true that much of the pregnancy fetuses cannot survive without a host body. yet fetuses have been birthed at just under 5 months and survived, 4 months early. at what point does a biological parasite become an independent human being? are breast fed babies less biologically dependent? and is the only difference between a breast fed parasite and a non-breast fed baby of one month just in that the mother is no longer feeding it from her body? but if that mother kills her parasite then that would probably be considered wrong.
---------------
et > surgically removing cancerous tumors?
seems a bit dramatic to me. but anyhow, if I believed that a tumor I had exhibited, or would soon exhibit consciousness then of course I would have to carefully evaluate the value of my life over that of the tumor-being that would emerge from my body. but naturally we are not talking about a tumor that is likely to kill you and will never have consciousness. we are talking about an organism that is growing and in all likelihood will not cause the death of the host and will develop into a creature that would be according all of the rights and privileges of all other human beings when fully developed. so, frankly if i thought the pernicious tumor was worthy of consideration, of course i am going to think that something much less deadly would be all the more worthy of consideration
---------------
nny > letting a child be born into a poor environment is more or less an act of child abuse
not much of a justification for killing fetuses really unless we also don't mind the idea of running around killing young children born into non-optimal homes. you think a child is going to grow up in a bad home, so you kill the child before it has a chance to experience that theoretical abuse? what kind of a ethical plan is that? why don't we just gas all of those poor damned Palestinian children, they certainly are not going to grow up in anything but a 'poor environment'?
i am not sure if I like the sound of consciousness being the basis for the preservation of life. how old does a baby have to be before it becomes conscious? it seems to me that a child only becomes self-aware after being born for several months. up to that point is it just disposable?
of course i don't know at what point a human being becomes self-aware, but self-awareness in any sense greater than that similar to intelligent animal species is surely not arrived at earlier than the first 16months for most children. if it is ethical to put animals to sleep, would it not also be ethical to terminate the lives of young children up to some age (say before 16 months)?
then the problem of the slippery nature of consciousness comes into play. is there some moment that a child goes from nonconscious to conscious? all we can observe is the physical external responses to internal mental processes.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html
"Between week six and ten, fetal bodies burst into motion, achieving graceful, stretching, and rotational movements of the head, arms and legs. Hand to head, hand to face, hand to mouth movements, mouth opening, closing, and swallowing are all present at 10 weeks (Tajani and Ianniruberto, 1990). By 14 weeks, the complete repertoire of fetal movements seen throughout gestation are already in evidence (deVries, Visser, and Prechtl, 1985). Movement is spontaneous, endogenous, and typically cycles between activity and rest. Breathing movements and jaw movements have begun. Hands are busy interacting with other parts of the body and with the umbilical cord.
From this early stage onward, movement is a primary activity, sometimes begun spontaneously, sometimes provoked by events. Spontaneous movement occurs earliest, probably expressing purely individual interests and needs. Evoked movement reflects sensitivity to the environment. For example, between 10 and 15 weeks g.a., when a mother laughs or coughs, her fetus moves within seconds."
according to this link (from a source that should perhaps be seen as suspect) the fetus exhibits substantial movement from a early stage, even movement that seems to be independently associated with external stimuli. we cannot tell what is going on within the tiny mind of the fetus. who is to say that it is not consciously self-aware in some primitive sense?
besides using consciousness as a basis for the ethical preservation of life, seems further suspect. under what basis is it unethical not to euthanize people who fall asleep? at certain parts of the sleep cycle one could easily argue that those people are no long conscious. yet we don't run around killing them. why? perhaps because we know that they are going to wake up in a few hours and they will once again be conscious. well what happens if someone is in a coma, and you know that person is definitely going to be conscious in 2 years. you won't see many people running around arguing that those people should be killed. yet, if you wait for 2 years with a fetus, that fetus in all likelihood is going to be fully conscious. so the only difference that i can see between the comatose guy and the fetus is that the guy in the coma is being protected because he showed consciousness in the past. however if that same guy experienced brain death it would be okay to dispose of him?
seems a bit contrived... so because the person exhibit consciousness before the coma and is expected to be conscious after that he warrants ethical consideration?
----------------
as for the defining of fetuses as parasites... this seems a purely rhetorical device. why would we not give equal consideration of life to a parasite as any other form of life?
websters
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
def 1 irrelevant, I believe. 2, just because an organism is parasitic does not mean that it is unworthy of life. as for 3, almost all children up to a latter stage would be considered parasites. how useful is a 7 year old? would the parasitic status of 7 year olds entitle us to flush them down toilets?
also with regards the parasite comment. yes, it is true that much of the pregnancy fetuses cannot survive without a host body. yet fetuses have been birthed at just under 5 months and survived, 4 months early. at what point does a biological parasite become an independent human being? are breast fed babies less biologically dependent? and is the only difference between a breast fed parasite and a non-breast fed baby of one month just in that the mother is no longer feeding it from her body? but if that mother kills her parasite then that would probably be considered wrong.
---------------
et > surgically removing cancerous tumors?
seems a bit dramatic to me. but anyhow, if I believed that a tumor I had exhibited, or would soon exhibit consciousness then of course I would have to carefully evaluate the value of my life over that of the tumor-being that would emerge from my body. but naturally we are not talking about a tumor that is likely to kill you and will never have consciousness. we are talking about an organism that is growing and in all likelihood will not cause the death of the host and will develop into a creature that would be according all of the rights and privileges of all other human beings when fully developed. so, frankly if i thought the pernicious tumor was worthy of consideration, of course i am going to think that something much less deadly would be all the more worthy of consideration
---------------
nny > letting a child be born into a poor environment is more or less an act of child abuse
not much of a justification for killing fetuses really unless we also don't mind the idea of running around killing young children born into non-optimal homes. you think a child is going to grow up in a bad home, so you kill the child before it has a chance to experience that theoretical abuse? what kind of a ethical plan is that? why don't we just gas all of those poor damned Palestinian children, they certainly are not going to grow up in anything but a 'poor environment'?
> 2, just because an organism is parasitic does not mean that it is unworthy of life.
this is where we disagree, i guess
this is where we disagree, i guess
a fetus is by definition not a biological parasite because it is of the same species as the host.
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
source http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
also http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553247/parasite.html
but even if it was, i don't see the basis for an argument that deprives the parasite from due consideration as a life form.
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
source http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
also http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553247/parasite.html
but even if it was, i don't see the basis for an argument that deprives the parasite from due consideration as a life form.
fs> it seems to me that a child only becomes self-aware after being born for several months. up to that point is it just disposable?
it's as disposable as any other equally-advanced living beings.
fs> if it is ethical to put animals to sleep, would it not also be ethical to terminate the lives of young children up to some age (say before 16 months)?
using consciousness as the basis for human dignity, then sure.
fs> who is to say that it is not consciously self-aware in some primitive sense?
no one! no one really knows which beings do or do not possess self-awareness. but action independent of stimuli seems like a weak criterion. have you ever watched a fly or an ant? they also seem to possess this element, which i would simply call "randomness."
fs> as for the defining of fetuses as parasites... this seems a purely rhetorical device. why would we not give equal consideration of life to a parasite as any other form of life?
i believe that i am entitled to my body, and nothing else can claim any right over my body. you are suggesting that other things in the world may be entitled to my body. i suppose i just believe in individual autonomy and a human's right to his or her own body.
it's as disposable as any other equally-advanced living beings.
fs> if it is ethical to put animals to sleep, would it not also be ethical to terminate the lives of young children up to some age (say before 16 months)?
using consciousness as the basis for human dignity, then sure.
fs> who is to say that it is not consciously self-aware in some primitive sense?
no one! no one really knows which beings do or do not possess self-awareness. but action independent of stimuli seems like a weak criterion. have you ever watched a fly or an ant? they also seem to possess this element, which i would simply call "randomness."
fs> as for the defining of fetuses as parasites... this seems a purely rhetorical device. why would we not give equal consideration of life to a parasite as any other form of life?
i believe that i am entitled to my body, and nothing else can claim any right over my body. you are suggesting that other things in the world may be entitled to my body. i suppose i just believe in individual autonomy and a human's right to his or her own body.
okay, I guess I am fine with all of that. I am not entirely sure I have a personal ethical basis outside of pragmatics why murder should not be legal. I mean I have a pretty weak personal support of A1. I will have to think that one over a bit.
as for a human having the right to his or own body. sure, you have the right to your body. the only problems arise when your body is now shared by another life. that life now has a part of its body which is connected to your body. to what extent does that new life have a right to its own body?
please note i am not questioning whether women should have the right to have abortions. i am just wondering if it is ethical or not.
as for a human having the right to his or own body. sure, you have the right to your body. the only problems arise when your body is now shared by another life. that life now has a part of its body which is connected to your body. to what extent does that new life have a right to its own body?
please note i am not questioning whether women should have the right to have abortions. i am just wondering if it is ethical or not.
I haven't seen any mention about viability in this thread. I believe that abortion isn't exactly an ethical matter to begin with as the mother has complete control in this situation. Say I impregnate a women and I don't want her to have the abortion, no matter what I say, I cannot convince her otherwise to reconsider once she's made a final decision. It's living matter inside another being. I understand that some people are opposed to late-term abortions, because viability is a significant factor in pregnancy. Since this is a secular and objective discussion, isn't it futile to discuss the ethical ramifications of the subject matter?
What if the fetus endangers the health of the mother? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Edit - I think viability is a key factor in abortions. If the fetus is not viable, I see no reason why an abortion should be denied. Once, a fetus is viable, I still think it is up to the mother.
Addition - I still don't get why laws are made for < 2% of abortions
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons … rt2002.png
What if the fetus endangers the health of the mother? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Edit - I think viability is a key factor in abortions. If the fetus is not viable, I see no reason why an abortion should be denied. Once, a fetus is viable, I still think it is up to the mother.
Addition - I still don't get why laws are made for < 2% of abortions
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons … rt2002.png
i guess my views would be that if the fetus endangers the life of the mother and is not viable than i can see no reason why it should not be aborted.what is the point of both mother and fetus dying?
as for laws which only effect <2% of abortions (1.4% by the link) is still about 18,382 fetuses (1,313,000 * 1.4%) over twenty months old. the number of murders committed a year is only 16,929. for those who believe that those fetuses are alive and warrant consideration, of course that is going to be a big deal. as for viability, I can't say much about it for fetuses at an earlier stage, but of those fetuses of age equal to or greater than 20 months. This says the standard is approximately 23 months. (http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571)
but if a mother where to wait a week or month and then a fetus becomes viable. seems to make the whole issue rather arbitrary.
----
i am sorry, i don't see your point about a mother having complete control, so this not being a 'ethical matter'.there are plenty of situations where i 'have complete control' yet those situations warrant ethical consideration. i think rather that most situations that warrant ethical consideration are those situations when i would have 'complete control' and the only thing that would prompt me or prevent me from doing something would be my own ethical consideration. or do you mean, as a guy, i am incapable of making an ethical judgment about the decisions of a woman?
----
gatz>'Since this is a secular and objective discussion, isn't it futile to discuss the ethical ramifications of the subject matter?'
are you saying that ethics is only for the religious? or that ethics plays no part of objective discussions?
as for laws which only effect <2% of abortions (1.4% by the link) is still about 18,382 fetuses (1,313,000 * 1.4%) over twenty months old. the number of murders committed a year is only 16,929. for those who believe that those fetuses are alive and warrant consideration, of course that is going to be a big deal. as for viability, I can't say much about it for fetuses at an earlier stage, but of those fetuses of age equal to or greater than 20 months. This says the standard is approximately 23 months. (http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571)
but if a mother where to wait a week or month and then a fetus becomes viable. seems to make the whole issue rather arbitrary.
----
i am sorry, i don't see your point about a mother having complete control, so this not being a 'ethical matter'.there are plenty of situations where i 'have complete control' yet those situations warrant ethical consideration. i think rather that most situations that warrant ethical consideration are those situations when i would have 'complete control' and the only thing that would prompt me or prevent me from doing something would be my own ethical consideration. or do you mean, as a guy, i am incapable of making an ethical judgment about the decisions of a woman?
----
gatz>'Since this is a secular and objective discussion, isn't it futile to discuss the ethical ramifications of the subject matter?'
are you saying that ethics is only for the religious? or that ethics plays no part of objective discussions?
Is it already to a abort a child because you know the child has a defect? Such as downs syndrome?
under what basis would defects change the ethical ramifications? 1) if a child is never to achieve self-awareness then you could argue that it should not be worthy of ethical consideration. 2) if a child is going to die very shortly after birth and a lot of pain, you could argue that pragmatically you are sparing a child from pain and only speeding up something that was inevitable (of course death is inevitable for all people) 3) if you think death is better than the life of a person with a birth defect (I know I couldn't live with six toes) 4) if you base your values on some kind of societal pragmatics. that is, if you believe that individuals should generally do what is best for most people rather than just the individual. the good of the many trumps the good of the one.
did i miss any?
did i miss any?
you would really choose death over having 6 toes?
:P
cool!
haha
That's neat!