Yup its another abortion question... this time the huge debate most people have over this
please keep things as civil as possible. if anyone calls anyone names here i will delete your answer or comment. I will keep my opinion to myself for now though some may already know where i fall on this issue...
I'm asking this to see what most think here on this debate
Jesus Doug, I say ONE thing about the fantasy questions, and you jump straight to abortion? What, are you trying to give me palpitations? I’m only kidding sweetie, it’s a very thought provoking question, thanks for asking it! Now, before we even THINK about when life begins, let’s look at when life ends… We used to think life ended when the heart stopped! Then we learned that with an external pacemaker and a ventilator we can keep the heart beating, and the lungs oxygenating the brain almost indefinitely! Furthermore, as long as there is adequate brain activity, there is always a possibility that the patient may wake-up! However, the SECOND that brain waves stop, the patient is dead, there is no life whatsoever, and no chance of the patient EVER waking up! Once brain death is established, a person is dead! Period! So I believe that a better indicator of when life begins than mere “cellular activity” is the presence of brain waves? I mean the grass on your front lawn has cellular activity, and obviously grass is not “life”! If a person has active brainwaves they are alive, if not they are not alive, it’s just THAT simple! So why not go with, when a fetus has measurable brain waves, they are alive? And we KNOW that in fetal development, brain waves are detectable at 12wks? Look we know that life and death are opposites, and we know that life ends with the cessation of brain waves! So why then should life NOT begin with the initial detection of brain waves at around 12wks? It just makes sense! Also, not for nothing but for thousands of years, Jews have believed that the soul enters the body at? You guessed it… 12wks! So my brain wave hypothesis satisfies both my logical, scientific brain, as well as that tiny flickering ember of faith that still exists somewhere within me. It’s just a thought, and it’s just one girl’s opinion.
It really does not. Again, it is not getting to the essence, but is looking at the symptoms, so to speak.
Grass is not life? If it is not living, what is it then? A man in a coma has flatline brain activity - does that not mean he is no longer alive?
We do not allow the destruction of eagle eggs by law? Why? To preserve eagles in the wild. They are eagles at a certain stage in the developmental and evolutionary process. We preserve the eggs because we want to save eagles and keep them in the wild. If we apply the "brain wave" thesis, you can smash eagle eggs all day long. After all, the egg is not the bird in its final form, but in a stage of development to its final form - and that egg is very much alive in the sense that it continues to grow and develop.
From the moment of conception in the womb, the thing that is there is living, growing and developing. It cannot do the latter two if it is not the first.
Sorry to be so brief, but I am in a bit of a rush. Hope that helps though.
Yeah definitely agree. Medically you are not alive if you don't have brain activity. But again my take it's up to the individual persons opinion on what they think for their pregnancy and theirs alone when the life of their embryo/fetus/zygote/baby begins. (I feel like I have to specify theirs and theirs only a lot 😂)
Hey @Razp_Sorbet I was the woman who actually hypothesized the brain wave theory. I am also a young woman who required an abortion when I turned 13 because I was raped! Unfortunately my rape was also incest, and as a result of it, both my life and my ability to have future children were in grave danger. I understand that as a man these days, you are constantly told that you don’t get a say in this issue, and bless your heart for being sensitive and deferential to women on this matter. But nothing in the hypothesis means if you agree with it, you are taking any choice away from women. It’s just a theory regarding when human life MAY begin. I believe @Still-alive was simply asking what you thought about the IDEA that the moment when human… let’s just say “existence” begins, is both opposite and equal to the moment when that life, or “existence” ends! Under my hypothesis, the ability to accurately, medically, and scientifically, test whether or not that moment where we begin to exist as sentient human beings has happened yet or not, and it is an objective standard, that removes all doubt, and bias! The fear so many of us have with the thought that anyone could ever be forced to carry her rapist’s child against her will is unimaginably profound. But to be clear that was not what @Still-alive asked. I believe he was asking, (to paraphrase) since the main argument against abortion is that it “ends a human LIFE”, and state legislators may soon write laws governing how long we have from conception until abortion is illegal, whether or not you agree with the hypothesis that if human life ends when brain waves stop, then human LIFE begins when brain waves START, It has nothing to do with whether you PERSONALLY believe we should have the choice to abort or not, just whether brain waves would be an objective, unbiased, non-arbitrary determiner of where the line should be IF State legislators decide to force us to live within a limited timeline? Sincerely, Laura.
***Correction***. As, I frequently use a 3rd party character counter, to tailor my longer answers to fit within to 2000 character limit, I don’t see “pink” or “blue” and for some reason, I inadvertently wrote that you were a man! You have my sincerest apologies, it was fatigue based carelessness. Nothing more, nothing less, but I still feel awful for having made that mistake! Im sorry!. Regardless, the main points are however, still valid, and my hope is that the explanation clears up any confusion that if you ought-right agree with the hypothesis, you are somehow taking choice away from women, you are not. Thanks for understanding, Laura.
@Razp_Sorbet Im sorry, I’ve had finals all this week and thus very little sleep! I guess my sleep deprived mind simply misunderstood. I just thank goodness, I’m at LEAST still polite! Communicating w/o the benefit of either verbal cues, like tone, OR non-verbal cues is hard enough on a great day, but throw in 2hrs to 3hrs of sleep paper night… Good lord platforms like Twitter bank on that dynamic causing fights (and thus more “engagement”) along with the minuscule amt of text allowed, and fights are all but guaranteed. But being THIS fatigued just is not healthy!
I have to be honest, I’m surprised! I thought way more people would stick to the lines “if there is a heartbeat there is life” or “cells dividing means human life”! Neither of which are necessarily true! So, yeah I’m actually pleasantly surprised.
Medically pregnancy begins at implantation, but they count the gestation from the woman's last period. Hence why the 6 week ban is stupid because at "6 weeks pregnancy" you're technically only about 4/5 weeks.
People who say it begins at conception don't know that 60-70% of fertilized eggs will not implant. These are not considered miscarriages either.
In my personal opinion it's up to the individual to decide when a fetus is considered alive for them. But they should only decide for themselves and nobody else, everyone has a different opinion, different beliefs and it's kinda shitty to push your beliefs onto someone else.
Oh I would also like to explain that the "heartbeat" that you see around 6 weeks is not actually a heart beat as the heart is not actually formed at that stage, it's a flutter caused by what may eventually become the hearts pace maker firing off electrical signals. It's not audible. The heart is not fully formed till about 10 weeks. Also the heart is not an indication of life, every organ in your body works for the brain not the heart. Your heart can still be beating if you are braindead but you are not considered alive.
A thing cannot be other than what it is. When a human egg and a human sperm meet, the only thing that will ever result is human. It will not become a duck or a cow or anything else.
It is what it must be at any point of its development. To point to some sub-category that defines humanity is problematic. If, for example, it is argued that a fetus is not human because it cannot talk, you immediately strip away the humanity of the person in a coma or the deaf mute.
The essence of the abortion debate to which you allude is that once the definition of "human" becomes not a fact, but a subjective moment in time, lots of bad things begin to happen. That definition becoming controlled by those with the power to exercise and impose it and thus an ethic of subjective power and not moral principle comes to dominate the culture.
A fetus cannot be anything other than a human life. It cannot be other than what it is and if it was not human it would have to have the capacity to become something other than a human being. This it does not have and therefore it cannot be other than what it is - a human being at a point in the natural aging and growing of a human being.
The argument that a fetus is not a human being is problematic. If it is not, then at what point does it become human? What then is the physical difference one second before that instant and one second after? Moreover, what is the moral distinction one second before that moment and one second after?
The last question is pertinent. First, because it is assumed that humans have an inherent worth and that they have rights that inhere in their humanity. "Worth" and "rights" are not physical but philosophical and epistemological phenomena. Therefore, there must be something consistent with physical development that conduces to a moral outcome. It is therefore essential to know what that is and when it happens.
Typically, some will argue that consciousness is the defining factor. That, however, is problematic. The man in a coma lacks consciousness - awareness of self and surroundings. If it is argued that a man in a coma MIGHT recover, then potentiality is the criteria. The problem being that the fetus shares - from the moment of conception - that same potentiality.
A thing does not lose its defining moral and physical characteristics just because of where it is any moment in time. Physical development is transitory, but a being does not lose certain essential characteristics. A fetuses' DNA is as human as an adult. There is no difference at any point in time from conception to death. To repeat, the fetus has NO potential to become a duck. It cannot be other than what it is.
As to the example that a human being by even the 5th month will not survive on its own. That too is a flawed argument. By that logic, the man in a coma is not human as he will not survive absent means to sustain his life. Suddenly your definition of "human" is based on very slippery soil. Humanity being defined by its capacity to survive.
By that logic, the infant is similarly doomed. After all, he too cannot survive absent the conditions that make his survival possible. This again leaving his humanity to be defined by those with the power to provide such conditions.
Further, "worth" and "rights" are either objective and inherent, in which case they cannot be justly taken at the convenience of another being. Alternatively, they are subjective and relative to time and circumstance. In which case, they can be taken as easily from a newly conceived child as from a black man in the pre-Civil War south or a Jew in 1930s Germany.
The problem at the moment is that the culture claims that it believes that life has inherent worth and inherent rights. However, it places freedom and therefore will above such beliefs in practice. As Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Thus do rights become not inherent to the human being, but a subjective judgment that can be taken by those with the power to take it.
@CaptainOverthink Thank you. I hope that I have given you something to consider and take it as a high compliment that I have caused you to take your own views under further consideration.
Thanks so much and if I may also say, I appreciate someone who has the kind of intellectual self-discipline to consider such issues and refine them. In this case, even if you do not end up coming around to my perspective on this matter, I give you heartfelt compliments. The world, right now, needs more like you.
I see too many cases where people don't seem to be open to change their minds about anything. Not even when evidence or logic is presented.
People just say they need to witness things themselves, I think people today don't trust enough. Or maybe there's just too many sources of information, each with their own echochamber attatched.
As for abortion.. I guess it's now in the same category where I put Veganism. I can't see a reason as to how it's not the most moral way. I mean I get the abortion question is about human lives but intellectually animal lives are just as deserving.
Still, while being honest. Human nature.. is a part of nature itself. Nature is cruel (or fair🤔). But everything conscious can choose a path.
I'm just trying to figure out where my moral responsability lies. Maybe there is none and instead of chasing the ultimate pacifist way of life we should balance with what is realisticly fair in a free society.
But then again, what is a balanced society? I'm not sure humanity has ever had that. We're still chasing for it. Although for the moment this last generations seem hell bent on taking things apart without realizing that the consequences of making too many changes too quickly aren't completely clear until somewhere about 75 years later when all the new loopholes have been exploited for all the wrong reasons.
@CaptainOverthink Well, just briefly, I only want to touch on one point.
You write: "I mean I get the abortion question is about human lives but intellectually animal lives are just as deserving."
Really? So if you exterminate mice in your home or insects or such, you are committing a crime? They have rights, by your logic - including a right to be in your home. After all, they have a right to food, shelter, etc. You are merely their equal and therefore you either yield or society and life is the war of all against all.
Not sure you had not better think that through a little more. May I also suggest you acquaint yourself with Aristotle and Aquinas. Man is unique among all creatures. He alone is capable of moral choice. If he abdicates that obligation - and he often does - bad things are apt to follow.
I admit that it was a poorly formulated awnser. I was tired and shouldn't have been on the phone. No excuse, but an explaination. Also no need to awnser if it's too much of a hassle, I am going slightly off topic afterall.
It's not so much about the rights. Rights are our human ways of holding guidlines of order in our society. It's a reflection of our seriousness to commit to a reasonable standard considering the trade-offs like on abortion where the trade-off is a degree of freedom. Rights are a result of our western culture in combination with our baseline ability to be moral. My point is rights and morals are not the same and that rights walk the line where morals meet necessity.
It wouldn't be realistic to think about humans and animals as equals in such a way, which is also part of the reason we don't. But it's also because we just recently had to think in terms of survival in a different way than we do today in the modern west. The necessity for meat is absent for the vast majority of people today, all that is left is old habits that in a industrialized society means factoryfarming animals as if they where plants. As if they had no thoughts of their own.
While philosofers of old are well worth listening to on many fronts, they are by no means right by default on all accounts. Just like Darwin and Einstein weren't right on everything either. There are many areas of study where we simply didn't know any better, and still don't.
Aquinas argument is based on the assumption of a god's design. I'm agnostic so I can't jump to such a simplistic solution as god designing classes of creatures where one is designed to exploit and another's purpose is to be exploited.
As for reasoning, animals don't reason anywhere near the same level as humans but they do _some_ reasoning. And there have been many examples of animals making moral choices for another that has no real direct benefit to themselves. It's not something that is commonly witnessed even today when we have wildlifecameras and everyone have their own cameras
It's not super clear yet and it's a hard field to study but from what we can tell it seems there is less and less separating humans from other animals.
Choosing to have hundereds of 10x worse than auschwitz for animals is a moral choice we're making every time we don't check where our meat is coming from. To stop entierly might be too unrealistic but surely we can find a moral balance even if that means prices for meat goes up 10x.
Animals might be acting less on reasoning and more on instincts and emotions than we do but we are all born with no choice of how or explaination why. We all experience pain, joy, sorrow, betrayal, fear and rage. We remember and are shaped by our memories. We might not share rights but morally I'd argue that animals has as much a cause to be alive and have their own agency as we do.
We might be inevitably higher in the hierarchy but it doesn't take away the fact that we are more alike than different.
@CaptainOverthink Two quick points as I will admit, pal, that at this point I am having a hard time following you.
First, on Aquinas, while he was writing on the presumption of the existence of God, he endures because the principles he articulated are not predicated on the existence of God. If you had not, you should read him and look to discern the principles he articulates.
As to rights being merely utilitarian, that is not correct, They inhere in humans because humans alone have the capacity to discern, define and exercise them. The sheep has no rights. If the wolf eats him, the sheep does not protest that his rights are being violated. Indeed, that is simply nature at work.
If you do what you just did - define rights as merely utilitarian, you do EXACTLY what I was arguing as regards abortion. You are defining rights according to who has the power to define and exercise them. That might work in the USA. Not so good in Nazi Germany.
No, rights are something than inhere in nature. Not nature as the "moderns" define it, i. e., that which happens spontaneously. Rather "nature" as defined by the ancient Greeks, inhering in man because man is distinct from nature and alone can stand outside the "laws of nature."
Not sure how I missed that last point on animals, but you are confusing the commonalities with the essence.
No, humans share similarities with animals, but they are above and distinct from animals. Animals do not think or reason. Humans do. THAT is the essential difference.
Again, to use your rights example, animals have NO rights - at all. There is nothing in their nature that conduces to them having rights. That difference is critical.
Again, I point you to history. When Hitler defined the Jews as not human. When Marx said man is nothing but a cog in the class war, bad things resulted. In each of those cases, man became mere animal, mere thing.
If you erase the things that make humans distinct from animals, you ignore the differences and the difference matter. We are the totality of what we are. Not mere add ons. Define part of human nature away, and you define away humanity.
Our discussion is a great part in rethinking it. Your feedback is a boon, truly you're putting my mind in motion. Thank you. Not saying I am convinced just yet, though. That is a longer process outside the scope of our interactions.
As you suspect I have in fact not read either, I have read short summaries on both. I hadn't heared of aquinas before you mentioned. Aristotle's work has been on my readinglist a long time but I am a slow reader that's easily distracted. Getting around to it at some point I hope.
I'll recognise you seem to have superior logical ability to mine, I really do enjoy irl-convos with types like you, great brain workout. Though I guess it's not as stimulating for you.
I'm not sure how we could know what the animals think of 'rights'. Can't it be assumed that if animals fight/run for their lives when the wolf comes then that is partially because they think they deserve to be alive? Or do they have to be reasoning so far as to articulate it for it to be so?
Is it the same if say a wildfire burns a human alive or if a lion or bear happen upon a human and in the unlikely case they decide to have a bite of human flesh for dinner, do we complain about our rights being violated then as well? Or do we only have those rights within our own spiecies?
You're saying humans have rights because it is in our nature to infer that we do?
If this is true, then if we visited a triblal civilisation that's had little to no contact with the known world (like a jungle-tribe in the amazonas) they would infer themselves to have the same rights as we do. No?
But to see human as animal don't mean we're less valuable or less different. It just means we shouln't be so quick to objectify another living creature as ripe for exploitation. I'm not saying we devalue humanity to the standards we currently hold for animals but that we elevate animals to be more than an object. It doesn't take away humanity.
Is there in your mind a function to have culturally infered rights? Or am I just being unreasonable now? I'm just trying to understand. No offence.
@CaptainOverthink You have a lot here and I am not sure that I can capture it all, but here I think is the key point when you write: "Is it the same if say a wildfire burns a human alive or if a lion or bear happen upon a human and in the unlikely case they decide to have a bite of human flesh for dinner, do we complain about our rights being violated then as well? Or do we only have those rights within our own species?"
The animal has no right. Period. If the animal attempts to kill you, we kill it. If the animal is a source of food, we kill it.
As Aristotle pointed out, human being have rights and are unique because they, and they alone, have the capacity to reason and discern morality. The animal has no power of reason - it acts on instinct - and cannot, therefore discern morality.
Animals are a part of nature. Humans are in nature, but not of nature. They stand outside of nature and are distinct in that way.
Oh, and by the way, you do yourself a huge disservice. Let me just say for the record, it is rare on this site that I run across someone like you. Intelligent, discerning, knowing both what you know and the limits of what you know and willing to learn more and unfailingly polite and respectful.
Believe me, I say this hand on heart, talking with you has been a privilege and I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. You may not come out where I am on this question - and in fairness if you don't I would see that as an error. However, it would be an honest error made by a man earnestly seeking truth. I could pay you - and you deserve - no higher compliment.
I would come out on your side of the argument if I could replicate the logic and come out in the same place. I try not to push other's opinions unless I trusted them enough to know they knew better.
It sounds as if there would be something remarkable and profound to read these books as there clearly is something I am missing here. Seems a dead end to go on without sharing some of the same reference-points as we come back to what Aristotle said again and again.
Do you believe we came from apes and are related to them? In accordance to evolution, at the very least primates has the potential to become reasoning. Regardless of how unrealistic it would be, should we look at them the way we look at infants that had yet begun to reason, like in the womb or a person in coma?
@CaptainOverthink On the last, you wrote, "I'll recognise you seem to have superior logical ability to mine..." I merely meant that you should give yourself more credit. You are, as I wrote, a thoughtful and intelligent man, courteous as well.
Logic depends on the premises and we are debating the premises. However, whatever else, we disagree, but that does not mean that I think the less of you. You come to your views through honest analysis and serious thought. That is more than most and you deserve high praise.
As to this: "Do you believe we came from apes and are related to them?"
Sure do. (By the way, as an aside, the theory of evolution was actually first postulated by St. Augustine. Long before Darwin was an apple in his mother's eye. Suffice to add that it is not inconsistent with religious belief.)
Anyhow, yes, we are descended from primate ancestors but unlike primates, we transcended our origins. We became more than the sum of our parts, so to speak. This suggesting, in turn, that we are something more and not mere "naked apes."
Oh yeah maybe I am going at the humbleness a little hard there. I was just making sure I didn't come on too strong. It's a common mistake online as people read into text and adds their own assumption on the vibe of conversation as if the convo was face to face but it's not. Not sure if the vibe they assume is dependant on their own state of mind or if people just naturally have trouble with people that hold separate views.
That is seriously high praise. Thank you. You seem quite the philosofer yourself, I must say.
I didn't know st Augustine had those thoughts first. I feel like I have my work cut out for me as the potential depth of knowladge and reference points just keep on revealing themselves.
Would you mind mentioning some specific books/texts that you think should be read by everybody?
@CaptainOverthink Happy to do so. However, it would help if you would specify some areas of interest. For example, politics or economics or what have you. I can tell you that the book that really got me started in a deeper level of understanding - and understand, politics was and is my thing (not to mention my career) - was George F. Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft."
Highly recommend it. Will is a Ph. D. from Oxford and "Statecraft as Soulcraft" is some serious political philosophy. From there it inspired me to read other (and older) philosophers - again, especially in the political realm. To be sure, I had read a bit of political philosophy even as far back as high school, but Will's book - which came out the year I graduated from high school - seemed to "scratch me where I itch" and after that I was on my way.
Anyhow, I will be happy to recommend other books, but as starter, so to speak, I suggest the Will book. It is short, though dense, and a bit easier to read than some of the classics. Not an easy read, but a good starting place.
The older I get the more politically engaged and interested I get. But it's hard to pinpoint specific interests, I am a very open person by default and tend to find most subjects worth looking into.
Interests off the top of my head.. Psychology Astronomy Physics Biology Zoology Technology Theology (Metaphorically) History Military strategy Philosofy Mycology Archeology... yeah it's broad and not much help.
But I think I'd need to read something that could help me improve my logical thinking. If that's even possible. Maybe a course would be better on that aspect?
But sure will have a look at Statecraft as Soulcraft. It's great help and I appreciate you taking time and thought.
@CaptainOverthink Wow pal! That is a long list. Not trying to put you off, but let's try this. Start with "Statecraft as Soulcraft" and get back to me when you finish it.
It will be a book that we will then have read and can discuss. Then we will see where that discussion takes us and I recommend books from there.
Seriously, not trying to put you off. Some of those areas you listed, honestly, I don't have much to recommend. In others - especially history and philosophy - I could give you a VERY long list. Not sure how much help that would be.
Just to let you know, about 7 years ago when we moved, the movers estimated the weight of my book collection at over 2 tons. So, I am not without resources. However, to know what to recommend to you when I don't know you that well would probably be like playing darts in the dark and hoping to hit the target.
So let's start at the same point and go from there.
Hehe yeah that sounds like a plan! Though you'll have to be patient. I do read slowly. But I look forward to going through the points in the book.
I should say though, the fact that I am into a lot of stuff means I am an expert in neither. I keep up with the news, reads studies and takes online courses for fun.
Had I not been so open or had a better upbringing maybe I'd made a career out of one or two. Instead I focus my career (Aspiring chef) on what I know I need to learn faster, like being sociable on lower conversations and fit into society better.
@CaptainOverthink Pal, you have nothing to apologize for. You are intellectually curious, you are polite, you may not be as well read as you want to be but you are definitely intelligent. I have nothing but compliments to send your way and I look forward to an honest and interesting discussion.
Take as long as you need to read the George Will book. Oh, and as to being a chef, being as my s/o says that I could burn water, you already have a gift that well exceeds mine. Beside, you are arguably more essential:
Politics is an acquired taste. EVERYONE needs to eat.
Not apologizing this time😄 Just making sure you don't think too high of me 😅. Being a chef might not be the most fancy but it's in line with where I need to be, plenty of working/travel opprotunity and I get to meet people on every level.
Biology counts single procaryotes (1-2 micrones large lipidic sacks of few proteins, sugars, lipids, and nucleic acids) as alive and even something as small as viruses is a kind of controversial topic of whether they are alive or "alive" (since they exhibit life functions only when inside of a host cell). Not to mention the space program searches for life in form of bacteria.
So for me, as a biologist, once the development of zygote begins, it is a new potential human life. Chromosomes were combined into a new gene vessel and if given enough time, the vessel will become independent human.
And as for the argument "embryos can't survive on their own and thus it isn't life" - many human conditions cause us to be unable to survive on our own without the medial intervention (such as late stage cancer, coma, dialysis for failed kydneys,...) and we still wouldn't want to pull the plug because "they can get better and become independent". And forget that embryo can't survive only outside of its natural environment (womb). We can't judge fish by its ability to climb trees and so we shouldn't base human life definition on its ability to survive on its own (since newborn can't survive on its own and it takes several years of development until kids are truly independent).
According to some of the most powerful people on the planet it doesn't even matter there is no law there is no debate it's whatever they think they were b o u g h t we were sold there are laws against them doing what they just did they are no better than the politicians but we just witnessed is a wake-up call this is what are dirty politicians do each and every single day They do back room deals with corporations lobbyist with people who are trying to change the world to take it to a different direction to take control what we just witnessed is the most disgusting thing and we just seen it first-hand the highest elected officials doing backroom deals and these guys are the ones did create the laws that are supposed to be fair and follow the law to the T you can see now that there is no law there is no justice we are all being railroaded people we need to wake up Each and every day our rights are being taken away from us from our politicians the puppets whose strings are being pulled by Rich corporations rich people that have agendas to change the world to get rid of the poor they don't want little businesses he want one big Corporation they don't want one 15 hamburger fast food places they want one they want their people in office so they can control and take us down the road they want to take us
Look I am 100% pro-life 100% that is for me and for me only that is my choice in my choice only for me
But I'll be damned if there is a woman that is pro-choice trying to get into an abortion clinic because she was raped and there are people blocking her or believe her I will step in front of her and I will tell everybody to fuck off I will back her play because that's her choice that's her life she did not ask for that to happen she has the right to do whatever she wants to do
It begins at Implantation onto the uterine walls. Although the egg/seed has already been established, unless it has a place to grow and thrive, it will not continue and be removed by normal bodily functions.
I disagree with conception, because although it can be argued, conception by itself does not provide the nutrients and structure needed for development. As a result, until it is implanted, it just gets flushed out by the body under normal functions.
Disagree with heartbeats, because the development has already been well underway. It checks off more of the boxes needed for birth/independent development, but life has already begun. The same goes for birth, although you could say this is the first true time a being has to maintain its own homeostasis to continue to live.
Overall, I can understand the rational for each stage of the process, as everything needs to work in tandem with one another. It gets even muddier once you take the same terms and apply them elsewhere. (Ex: Are people on ventilation machines truly "alive" at that point? If not for the machines, would they be able to maintain their body by themselves?) Similar arguments can be applied at other stages of others bodies, so the terminology does have to be pretty robust in a legal sense at least.
I believe @ heartbeat. We determine death by the loss of the beating heart, so I think it's a good place to determine life as well.
Along these same lines, fetuses often start thumb sucking as early as the 10th week. This is believed to be an emotional response, yet, their brains have not yet developed. This means the brain is in no way involved in initiating or controlling the thumbsucking; the baby just does it naturally and continues until 2-3 years old. This leads me to believe that it is at LEAST at or before the 10th week.
Technically, life begins with conception. But that "life" is still it. It doesn't count as a functional human being with morals, rights, and protections. If I do so much as lightly scratching my hand, tons of cells die. Does that mean I'm a murderer, no.
The entrance into getting those rights begins at birth. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and so on aren't functioning living things yet. It's up to the mother to decide whether she views the "it" to be a soon-to-be-person, or not.
There should never, under any circumstance, be a situation where a pregnant person has the ideals of others pressure them into not getting an abortion. Especially since the effects of pregnancy vary from person to person, it's up to the person to decide whether or not they're willing to brave those risks.
Technically it's at moment of conception, run the fertilised egg through pcr and it will come out as human. If on the other hand you take the biblical stance it's when blood flows. The question of when you become human is as much a social one as a biological one. Personally I'd say it's when the thalamo-cortical complex in the brain has developed and consciousness begins. You could even argue it's not until well after birth that we become "human" as we are are not self aware until about two therefore more animal than human.
Scenario: A 7-month pregnant woman is driving down the highway and is killed by a drunk driver. Consequently, her unborn child is also killed. Technically the unborn child's birth has been aborted.
Can the driver be charged with double homicide? Or, if Roe v Wade is overturned, could the driver be charged with performing an abortion? Or both?
Do you see how complicated this question is? Is the fetus viable? At 7-months? Probably. But said fetus never had the opportunity to take that first breath.
When you can have a beer without asking permission :)
I don't think that only biological functions play a role here. Without gaining consciousness or self awareness, a ''human'' is not complete. So, a fetus or embryo to me is in some kind of ''grey-zone''. A little like: yes, alive, bit not yet a human.
But as it has the potential to be one one day, I would not categorically refuse to give it a chance. Nor do I (categorically) ignore ''good reasons'' that make an abortion discussable. If we humans who 'made it' were more mature, we would not even need to think about abortion.
Science doesn't really care when does the life start. That's why there's no standarised definition of life. Science views creation of human as a proccess of constant changes, not as a moment. The egg is fertilised, heart, brain and all other parts of body develop ( baby's growing in size all the time) then the baby comes out of the womb and after that the baby is still growing in size all the time. After that you develop teeth, then reproduction organs start working etc. until you're +/- 20.
There's no border point in science. Pointing the border moment is a political way of taking care of this topic, not scientific.
At conception of course... that's not to say there's no time by which it's acceptable in some cases to have an abortion. But let's not take away humanity from those children, if you do it then own up to it. That's the least you can do as an adult who wants to be considered human. Otherwise there's not much to aspire to anyways.
It's not about when it's alive. A cancer tumor is alive.
The question is, When is it a baby? If you can deep freeze it for months, its not a baby. Therefore it has to become a baby at some point after it hits 120 cells. Definitely NOT at conception.
I don't know how anyone can say at 9 months. We aren't talking about the debate on when a baby is a baby but when life begins. A fetus moving in the womb is clearly alive. It's a living thing regardless of if you believe it's a human being or not. We're fully of bacteria that live inside of us. They are alive and well, yet they remain inside of us. I believe it starts at conception myself.
When does life begin specifically I'd say it's when the baby is out but as for when abortions are ok I'd say it's fine as long as it doesn't feel pain yet which to my knowledge happens between the 6 and 20th week as for exactly when I'm not sure I'm no doctor but my ethics are clear just dont cause pain
When the soul becomes assigned to the fetus, and I bet you want to know what THAT IS, RIGHT? It doesn't matter if you don't believe that answer. Even if you do believe it, you'd choose a time frame that suited your stance.
It's irrelevant. All I can say is that "ensoulment" occurs at a later time than people believe, however, this is not in my eyes a "justification" for abortion, it's simply a metaphysical fact as I know it. It's also something between you and your maker, no idiot lawmaker running around on the planet has a clue about what he/she is talking about as far as I can tell.
Because humans don't have two hearts, but more importantly a line needs to be drawn, we are constantly making concessions for poor decision making and at some point we as a society need to be able to say "We've done enough, it's time to take responsibility for your decisions"
That's a very interesting question. A sperm is a single-celled organism (I looked it up) so it's alive. It's not exactly human, but it is of a human. That's something to think about before you sleep with your brother's wife.
When you become self aware, so before birth but after conception. Not sure exactly when that happens but you need the complexity of a brain and some senses for sure. Before that it's life but not really human life.
Most Helpful Opinions