Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
At what point, from conception does a ''phetus'' become a human being?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
And do you know when that is? Is there any thinking and feeling inside the womb?
During a pregnecy there comes a point when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. At that point it should be considered murder to abort. (IMO)
Do we want to make up for them?
Do we know how to make up for them?
What activity actually makes up for them?
Seems to me genuine remorse is good start, and just as we were selfish enough to take a life, be unselfish enough to something that gives something of yourself. That may or may not be enough, but at least one tries wholeheartedly.
jan.
Signal,
You're right, but each individual must account for his or her action.
No crime has been commited if each participant were of the legal age, and were consenting.
Why?
Is this a hypothetical scenario?
Okay, I see your point.
But what if the man doesn't see the child as unwanted, but has no say in the decision to kill the child?
What power does he have to stop the abortion?
Maybe in some cases, but not all.
In some instances it is legally clear.
Having sex is not the crime, getting pregnant is not the crime (under legal circumstances).
But they actually contributed to the death.
The man got the woman pregnant, he didn't kill anyone.
The unborn child doesn't have to die.
If the man was HIV, and had unprotected sex with a woman knowing this, and as a result the woman has an abortion,
then the man can be said to have had something to do with the decision to kill the unborn child.
jan.
You're right, but each individual must account for his or her action.
No crime has been commited if each participant were of the legal age, and were consenting.
Why?
Is this a hypothetical scenario?
Okay, I see your point.
But what if the man doesn't see the child as unwanted, but has no say in the decision to kill the child?
What power does he have to stop the abortion?
Maybe in some cases, but not all.
In some instances it is legally clear.
Having sex is not the crime, getting pregnant is not the crime (under legal circumstances).
But they actually contributed to the death.
The man got the woman pregnant, he didn't kill anyone.
The unborn child doesn't have to die.
If the man was HIV, and had unprotected sex with a woman knowing this, and as a result the woman has an abortion,
then the man can be said to have had something to do with the decision to kill the unborn child.
jan.
Last edited:
Sure.
In the case of sex, I think such an understanding is too narrow.
That would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
No, but he helped to create the circumstances in which an unwanted pregnancy occured. That makes him an accomplice.
He is also an accomplice if he has sex while not desiring children, or if he has sex with a woman for whom he has reason to believe she doesn't want to have children or is of unstable character (ie. she may change her mind from first wanting to have children, to not wanting them).
The simplest solution would be that before each intercourse, the man and the woman sign a contract in which they specify their intentions regarding the children that may be conceived.
That would legally clarify the situation. Of course, to most people, it would also be absurdly bureocratic.
But in essence, traditional marriage vows are such a contract, binding the man and the woman for all cases of intercourse within marriage.
(In Japan, for example, abortion was for some time illegal for married women, but not for unmarried women.)
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I agree with you but then you have these other people that, well, apparently do not. There is no law against torturing ants for example.
The right to live: Hunting, weeding your garden, stock animals.
The right to freedom: Zoo animals, Stock animals.
Above are just some mundane examples, but there are many many much worse examples.
An example of this is where the State organizes care for abandoned or neglected children.
Another example is the general limiting of women's rights and obligations, and giving more rights and obligations to men. (So, for example, a woman isn't sentenced for her crimes with the same gravity of penalty as a man would for the same crime; or men have to pay taxes and women don't.)
A democratic and egalitarian system is actually quite unfair. Because in such a system, a woman has to take full and sole responsibility for her pregnancy, even though the pregnancy is something that she cannot commit herself. In such a system, men do not face any similar predicaments, and are simply better off.
Here's an example I think we can all relate to.
An expectant mother, who very much wants her child is murdered. Is it legally considered a double murder?
If it isn't I think it should be.
An expectant mother, who very much wants her child is murdered. Is it legally considered a double murder?
If it isn't I think it should be.
I, again, didn't read the entire thread, so if I'm treading old ground, feel free to inform me.
As far as abortion goes I have absolutely no moral qualms about it before the twenty third week, the reason being that before that time the fetus is not capable of suffering in the least. Before that time the fetus' nervous system is too undeveloped to feel pain, happiness, sadness, or process any thoughts. The fetus doesn't even respond to any outside stimuli before that time. Such a being can't be considered a person without making a complete mockery of the word. There is no personality, no thoughts, no memories, no suffering. The potential mother, on the other hand, may be suffering incredibly due to the pregnancy. Leaving the physical effects aside, a single mother going through an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is likely going through such a roiling turmoil of emotions that suffering is the only word that can really describe it.
After that time it gets a little dicier in that the fetus has actually developed the ability to suffer to an extent, still not as much as the mother but that doesn't negate the fact that it can potentially suffer. However, I still tend to side with the mother's right to abort if she chooses for the same reason that the SCOTUS did, I see the rights of the mother as taking precedence over any rights the fetus can be considered as having.
As far as abortion goes I have absolutely no moral qualms about it before the twenty third week, the reason being that before that time the fetus is not capable of suffering in the least. Before that time the fetus' nervous system is too undeveloped to feel pain, happiness, sadness, or process any thoughts. The fetus doesn't even respond to any outside stimuli before that time. Such a being can't be considered a person without making a complete mockery of the word. There is no personality, no thoughts, no memories, no suffering. The potential mother, on the other hand, may be suffering incredibly due to the pregnancy. Leaving the physical effects aside, a single mother going through an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is likely going through such a roiling turmoil of emotions that suffering is the only word that can really describe it.
After that time it gets a little dicier in that the fetus has actually developed the ability to suffer to an extent, still not as much as the mother but that doesn't negate the fact that it can potentially suffer. However, I still tend to side with the mother's right to abort if she chooses for the same reason that the SCOTUS did, I see the rights of the mother as taking precedence over any rights the fetus can be considered as having.
Sounds good to me.
Jan Ardena,
You completely ignored my previous reply to you earlier in the thread, where I explained to you why abortion is not necessarily murder.
Let me say it again, in the hope that this time you'll actually take in the information rather than ignoring it.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. If abortion is legal, then the killing of a foetus cannot be murder under the law.
Ignoring the legal aspect, you might argue that, morally, murder is the (morally) wrongful killing of a person. In that case, you need to decide (a) whether a foetus is a [enc]person[/enc] or not and (b) whether the killing is morally wrongful or not. Until then, you can't say such a killing is murder.
The particular wording of the relevant legislation various from place to place. In some places, abortion may fall under the local legal definition of murder. In some other places, abortion may be a legislated exception to the murder law. In yet other places, abortion may not qualify as murder (e.g. if murder is defined as killing a person and a foetus is not considered a person).
Note that the terms "person" and "human being" are not synonymous in moral philosophy.
You completely ignored my previous reply to you earlier in the thread, where I explained to you why abortion is not necessarily murder.
Let me say it again, in the hope that this time you'll actually take in the information rather than ignoring it.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. If abortion is legal, then the killing of a foetus cannot be murder under the law.
Ignoring the legal aspect, you might argue that, morally, murder is the (morally) wrongful killing of a person. In that case, you need to decide (a) whether a foetus is a [enc]person[/enc] or not and (b) whether the killing is morally wrongful or not. Until then, you can't say such a killing is murder.
The particular wording of the relevant legislation various from place to place. In some places, abortion may fall under the local legal definition of murder. In some other places, abortion may be a legislated exception to the murder law. In yet other places, abortion may not qualify as murder (e.g. if murder is defined as killing a person and a foetus is not considered a person).
Note that the terms "person" and "human being" are not synonymous in moral philosophy.
Nor are they synonymous in law. We know this because when the basic foundation for our laws were written we had slaves. Slaves were known to be human beings(hell, some of the time they were even of the very same nationality as the slave owners), yet they were not counted as "people" when it came to murder or property ownership laws(for that matter women often weren't either). The murder of a slave, someone who wasn't legally recognized as a person, was handled under property law in a manner similar to vandalism. The equation of "human being" to "person" has no basis in our law or in philosophy.
I didn't ignore your post James.
In this post you make a relevant point which relates to the thread.
So what are your views on the question the thread poses?
jan.
Well if we're talking about the question in the title of the thread as opposed to the much more interesting and debatable topic of the ethics of abortion then the answer is simple. A fetus at any stage of development, from conception onward, is human. It has human DNA and is undergoing human embryological development, therefore it is human. However this is rather boring and does nothing to clear up the abortion issue.
You see, technically a malignant tumor is human as well. It has human DNA as well and undergoes a completely natural development which is similar to our embryological development. In fact, the only real difference between a fetus at early stages of development and a tumor is that a fetus is likely to become a fully fleshed out human, that's really the only difference between the two.
As both tumors and fetuses are both human by the same terms the only reason that many think that it's alright to excise a tumor and not a fetus is that they value the fetus more than the tumor(if they value it at all). As far as I stand the woman has far more value to me than the fetus does, even if it did happen to be mine.
You see, technically a malignant tumor is human as well. It has human DNA as well and undergoes a completely natural development which is similar to our embryological development. In fact, the only real difference between a fetus at early stages of development and a tumor is that a fetus is likely to become a fully fleshed out human, that's really the only difference between the two.
As both tumors and fetuses are both human by the same terms the only reason that many think that it's alright to excise a tumor and not a fetus is that they value the fetus more than the tumor(if they value it at all). As far as I stand the woman has far more value to me than the fetus does, even if it did happen to be mine.
Abortion isn't murder, guys. It's a great way to make protein shakes.
Arioch,
More importantly, it is a human being.
Long and boring it may be, but it helps to understand some things.
Isn't the embryo stage, just another stage of the human being, the same as baby, toddler, and so on?
Is it a human being?
Well, erm, I'm inclined to think that's quite an important distinction.
Okay.
jan.
More importantly, it is a human being.
Long and boring it may be, but it helps to understand some things.
Isn't the embryo stage, just another stage of the human being, the same as baby, toddler, and so on?
/
Is it a human being?
Well, erm, I'm inclined to think that's quite an important distinction.
Okay.
jan.
@Jan Ardena --
Sure, whatever.
It doesn't, however, fit the legal or moral definition of a person until after twenty three weeks or so. Until that time it can't feel, think, display emotion, remember, respond to outside stimuli, or any of the other things that differentiates a person from....say....a rock. While you may not consider this to be an important factor, it most certainly is as a fetus before that age is literally incapable of suffering in any demonstrable way.
Not really. That a fetus is human is demonstrable, however that alone doesn't grant it rights. We deprive many humans of their rights, and quite justly too. While we have strict laws protecting children we also deprive them of many their rights because they have not matured enough to be aware of the responsibilities that go hand in hand with said rights. Another group whose rights we abridge are felons, and I would argue that such an abridgment is also just as they've shown that they will use their rights to harm others and we have a moral duty to protect them.
So saying that a fetus is human doesn't really do anything to further the discussion.
Not really. While you are in the womb you are undergoing a process called embryological development which includes many drastic changes that are impossible at any other point in your life. The process usually ends just before birth.
I don't really care. Human is human, and given recent technological advances we're coming up to a time where we will be able to turn a cancer cell into a zygote.
Go right a head, but I don't.
Sure, whatever.
It doesn't, however, fit the legal or moral definition of a person until after twenty three weeks or so. Until that time it can't feel, think, display emotion, remember, respond to outside stimuli, or any of the other things that differentiates a person from....say....a rock. While you may not consider this to be an important factor, it most certainly is as a fetus before that age is literally incapable of suffering in any demonstrable way.
Not really. That a fetus is human is demonstrable, however that alone doesn't grant it rights. We deprive many humans of their rights, and quite justly too. While we have strict laws protecting children we also deprive them of many their rights because they have not matured enough to be aware of the responsibilities that go hand in hand with said rights. Another group whose rights we abridge are felons, and I would argue that such an abridgment is also just as they've shown that they will use their rights to harm others and we have a moral duty to protect them.
So saying that a fetus is human doesn't really do anything to further the discussion.
Not really. While you are in the womb you are undergoing a process called embryological development which includes many drastic changes that are impossible at any other point in your life. The process usually ends just before birth.
I don't really care. Human is human, and given recent technological advances we're coming up to a time where we will be able to turn a cancer cell into a zygote.
Go right a head, but I don't.
Jan Ardena,
If you didn't ignore my first reply, you'd know that I answered the question in the thread title in that reply. To repeat: a foetus is a human being from the moment of conception.
A foetus does not, however, have the same rights as an adult at conception. A foetus is not a [enc]person[/enc] at conception (actually it's not even a foetus, but let's not split hairs).
What's the moral significance of the category "human being"?
Yes. Do you think an embryo is therefore the same as a baby, toddler, adult?
If you didn't ignore my first reply, you'd know that I answered the question in the thread title in that reply. To repeat: a foetus is a human being from the moment of conception.
A foetus does not, however, have the same rights as an adult at conception. A foetus is not a [enc]person[/enc] at conception (actually it's not even a foetus, but let's not split hairs).
What's the moral significance of the category "human being"?
Yes. Do you think an embryo is therefore the same as a baby, toddler, adult?