Who knows anything about biology? A fetus is not a human being. It is not a counciouss being, it cannot comprehend it’s own existence, it cannot even comprehend pain! The reason that a fetus reacts when it is poked or why it kicks is simply a spinal reaction, it has nothing to do with it being alive. There is a similar premise with seeing a dead person open his eyes of raise his leg. Does that fact that he does such mean he is alive or has come back from the dead? Of course not. It is a muscle reaction (in this case), although the premise is slightly different with a fetus, they are essentially the same. A fetus is about as alive as jello.
Any Prolifer who has not had a religious point of view pounded into them or preached to them on a weekend basis has been very very very quiet. The fact of the matter is that abortion is only objectionable from a religious point of view. All biological evidence goes against the “prolife movement”. Unless you believe humans have souls which are granted at the moment of conception, there is no scientific reason to be against early term abortions.
Missed this (damn hastiness brought upon by three Mountain Dews and an exhausting evening…).
That’s blatantly wrong. I challenge you to find anyone who LIKES abortions. I challenge you to think of an abortion as a fun activity for a lazy summer’s day.
I object to abortions, and I’m hardly religious, pal. I don’t like 'em. I think they’re pretty gross and unpleasant. Like dentistry or open-heart surgery.
Firstly, I’d like to address this comment because your second point is based on a misconception.
Not true. I am living proof of this. I disagree with abortion because, whilst I don’t believe that life begins at conception, that the potential for life does. The practise of snuffing out that potential is not particularly appealing to me. Also, as Spoofe says, nobody likes abortion. I know three people who have had them and they have all been deeply affected by the trauma of the proceedure. So no, abortion is not only objectionable from a religious point of view.
How about just the simple the right to exist? From the moment of conception, all genetic information is present and all the physical characteristics for life are contained in that newly developed code. No new genetic information is added during the life of that individual. Thus fertilisation marks the spatiotemporal beginning of a new human being. I believe that the sanctity of life can exist separately from the concept of a soul and as such I feel that since first trimester fetuses have all the potential to develop into a living breathing human being they should be granted this sanctity in the same way as you or I.
It is a human being simply because its genetic code and DNA structure is unique to that of human beings. Technically, a fetus are human beings.
Cite please. Whilst it’s undoubtable that early fetuses cannot feel pain because the receptors have not yet developed the above statement really does imply that you believe an unborn baby to be no less than a vegetable, right up until the moment of delivery. A baby does not simply sprout a brain stem on contact with the outside world. That appendage and others relating to it are formed within the womb and we should accept the premise that once those appendages are formed a baby can use them, to a small extent, to explore it’s in utero surroundings. Think about this; when a baby kicks inside the womb, is it a simple reflex action or is it a primitive attempt to explore its surroundings and define its boundaries?
It has everything to do with it being alive. Rather than your dead man analogy which is inaccurate because the spasms (which sometimes occur shortly after death have a specific cause which is very different, usually simply jst a sign of the onset of rogor mortis) I prefer the analogy that the spinal reaction of a fetus is that of your knee when the doctor taps it with a hammer to test for reflexes. Besides, if, as you assert “It (a fetus) is not a human being” then how do you explain these movemts at all? It signifies the development of motor neurones to me, that suggests life.
umm… wouldn’t it be more precise to say (and believe) that, for lack of a better term at 2:30 in the morning, “humanity” does not begin at conception, but the potential for humanity does? Personhood, perhaps? Because it is without question that a fetus is a living thing. So is an embryo. So is a zygote. So is the egg and the sperm. They are alive, they are living cells. It is not possible, within the human body to make life from non-life. All our cells are living.
FTR, I’m unreservedly pro-choice and I think the OP was not worthy of response.
An embryo is alive—it is not a clump of dead tissues within the placenta. At 7 months gestation, this product of human conception is viable, it can survive, although not optimally, outside the womb. When someone produces a painful stimuli on your body,ip,it is still simply a spinal reaction—how do you suppose the nerve impulse travels to your brain? I can’t speak for the pro-lifers; I’m pro-choice myself, but your stand is very easy to argue with. Your facts are incorrect and you seem ill-equipted to debate effectively. You have been invited to the Pit and I think you should go. You don’t need facts or a biology book or anything new to add if you’re in the Pit. And after they have their way with you, you can pout there without annoying anyone else.
I think he was meaning to ask “Who here is well informed about the subject of biology?” and not implying that “nobody can know anything about biology”.
There are times when a root canal or open-heart surgery is appropriate and there are other times when it isn’t. Like any other surgery, abortion is not something that should be taken to lightly.
In any case, I am pro-choice and not very religious.
My personal stance on abortion depends on the circumstances, but I’ll see if I can cover the most common ones:
Abortion as a form of birth control - Probably the most irresponsible use of abortion. However I think it ok if performed in the first trimester or so when the fetus is basically just a little bag of cells. Lets face it, no form of birth control is 100% effective and accidents do happen. What possible good would come from making some 17 yr old girl have a child she can’t afford to raise?
Medical problems - Abortion is fine if the kid will be born with some sort of genetic defect. There is no reason to have some child who will need constant medical care until it dies. it just creates an unnecissary burden on the parents and the rest of society.
Incest - Shouldn’t be having kids in the first place. Probably would be a freak anyway.
abortion in cases of rape - Certainly wouldn’t want to raise a child that was forced on me be someone else.
Well, I’m sure we can agree that there’s quite a difference between “not particularly appealing” and “save all fetuses”; you place yourself in the former group, I gather? I believe our esteemed colleague was trying to say in the OP that “abortion is only morally repugnant…” or something of the like; “objectionable”, clearly, isn’t the right way to phrase it.
Snuffing out potentials. Indulge me in a hypothetical, if you will:
A couple cannot have a child naturally, so they go for fertility treatments. Fertility drugs are given, eggs are harvested. Of the harvested eggs, let’s say eight achieve fertilization. Three are placed in the woman’s uterus, because it’s unlikely that more than one will attach. One does implant, the other two does not.
Question 1: Did the mother and father snuff out potential life when the extra zygotes failed to attach?
Question 2: Is the mother morally obligated to attempt to implant the remaining zygotes, or is she snuffing out potential life by allowing the lab to rinse them down the drain?
Biology doesn’t have a lot of black and white areas, oh me brothers and sisters…
ARe you kidding? I LOVE abortion! I can’t WAIT to have one someday-they’re so cool! I mean, why would you NOT want to have one!
Whatta ya wanna bet this is some 9th grader taking bio for the first time who wants to show off his “knowledge?”
Well Sparky, you’re off to a rather auspicious start here…with so many holes in your logic that even fellow pro choice folks are chuckling at you. Just looking at ONE of your statements “abortion is only objectionable from a religious point of view”…let me introduce you to Nat Hentoff
I’m pro-life, but cannot endorse iodine’s arguments. A minor weakness is that some of his criteria apply to infants as well as fetuses: An infant cannot comprehend its own existence.
The major weakness in iodine’s argument is that his criteria are unsupported. Iodine gives no basis as to why those particular criteria should be determinative of humanity.
As has been pointed out by other posters, a fetus is like a baby in some ways, and there are some differences. IMHO it is somewhat arbitrary for our society to choose whether or not the fetus (or a fetus at a certain development age) should be accored the protections due a human being.
First of all, if you are under the age of 16(which is difficult to tell), forget the rest of this post. We can rack up your thread to inexperience in life. Very understandable.
Did you register just to post that post iodine poison? Do you think no one has thought of these ideas before?
There is this little search button up in the right corner. Click it. Type abortion and select Great Debates and “Subject Only” and go for it. Then, watch in amazement as you behold the vast discussion held on this topic(and that’s only recently).
Your rant is more motivated by the desire to start a fight than develop a debate(hence, the use of the phrase “betcha can’t”). You have no original ideas. You have no tact. And most obviously, you have no writing style.
By the way, it really is a bad sign when people in agreement with you cringe at the idea of your presence in the world. It’t not only that you exist in an ignorant bubble, but that you are out there puffing yourself up as an expert and trying to convert people to a cause you don’t understand.
I don’t post long posts often(yes, this is long for me), but I really feel serious about this one. :o
If I were you(and believe me, I have made huge errors on this board), I would just apologize humbly and forget the whole thing. We are really very nice here, myself included.
BTW try taking iodine’s criteria for being a human being and applying them to old people with Alzheimers’s or other forms of senility. This line of argument could lead to euthanasia.
