The debate "Should abortion stay legalized and if so why is it not considered murdur" was started by
November 29, 2018, 1:59 am.
By the way, csmithwick is disagreeing with this statement.
35 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Brynn posted 17 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 5 arguments, Seejay posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
csmithwick posted 5 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, byniched posted 1 argument, Brynn posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
Brynn, TheExistentialist, kritika_143, Coriander, goodlo, jemiju, Seejay, TJ and 27 visitors agree.
csmithwick, byniched, JDAWG9693, zain, BlackPetals and 20 visitors disagree.
it controls it's own blood pressure
it's made of cells
it responds to the environment
it reproduces as much as a any preteen
it evolves over generations.
(I remember it a little different from what I remember but it ticks of all the boxes)
even if you cross out the blood pressure, how are you gonna call it dead with any part of that list?
"The products of these metabolic pathways are crucial to maintain a regulated internal environment in the cell (aka homeostasis)"
"homeostasis is being able to maintain internal functions regardless of external functions"
all life is defendant on the external environment. if the temperature changes you'll die from hypo/hyperthermia. if gas levels change you'll suffocate. so we must not be alive either since we are defendant on a very specific external environment to survive...
you completely avoided my point that things that arent alive (from rocks to corpses) make no attempt at any homeostasis. the fetus maintains it's own blood pressure and circulation. name any nonliving thing that does something similar.
"Don't you have to be alive before you can be considered dying?"
yes, and they are alive. they were alive when they were sperm and egg, after they became an embryo, and at every point in between. cells are alive.
Don't you have to be alive before you can be considered dying? So you have to maintain some level of independent homeostasis to do so. Fetuses do not do this until around the 3rd trimester. So no even if it's futile it's not homeostasis because homeostasis is being able to maintain internal functions regardless of external functions ie. the mother.
the difference between living and nonliving is not perfect homeostasis, but any homeostasis, even futile ones.
a non living thing doesnt fail at homeostasis, it doesn't even try. whether it's a rock, or a previously living corpse, there is zero attempts at homeostasis.
failing to maintain homeostasis means you are alive, just dying. and once you die, any and all homeostasis attempts cease.
at some stages they can eliminate their own waste. it is not too uncommon for the baby to poop inside of the mother which can cause a medical emergency. other then that, the waste elimination you are talking about is the same as a person on dialysis.
none of this changes their regulation of their blood pressure, which is homeostasis. your example of transplant fetus is a bit silly since there are many organs we cant transplant successfully even without the unique conditions of pregnancy stages.
Also if it was the fetus doing all this homeostasis work you should be able to transfer a fetus from one womb to the next with it surviving.
Right but fetuses have no way of getting rid of the waste in their system which is a key part of homeostasis
the mothers body provides the nutrients but it does not provide the blood pressure, just like the body provides the electrolyte environment for the cells but the cells regulate the movement of those electrolytes across their membranes.
maternal and fetal blood do not mix so it is impossible for the pressure to come from the mothers heart
you can't give me any stage of an embryo or fetus that doesn't correlate with a living human being
exactly and killing someone is abortion
Stop calling it murder. Murder is when it's illegal to kill someone.
abortion is murder from conception
They aren't maintaining homeostasis. It's the body they live in doing it for them
not all airway protections are conscious.
what of people who lose agency? like coma?
Fetuses have a basic level of agency.
so what do you call it when liver cells maintain electrolyte and water equilibrium across their membranes?
or when fetuses maintain their own blood pressure and circulation?
No both a zygote and liver cell does not maintain homeostasis.
you keep saying that, but I disagee. it follows all criteria
and it definitely checks off any box a liver cell would.
Nem a zygote doesn't follow the 7 characteristics of life
In the most basic sense, Agency is the ability to act consciously act (moral agency is the ability to make moral judgments). So while we don't know when consciousness arises, we can assign agency with the ability to maintain life functions (i.e. the ability to protect an airway, etc...).
I havent seen a single definition of life that excludes either fetus or liver. and I cant imagine how a liver would fit the definition and the zygote does not.
at what point do they get agency?
If you would have bothered to read the whole statement you would have realized why I made that comparison.....
It is the possibility of human life, which equals future personhood and agency. That, I believe, you cannot kill.
Lol bacteria are a different species. People don't care about killing other species
I don't think the concept of "Life" matters for this conversation. A bacterium is "alive" but taking antibiotics isn't mass murder. What this debate is about is how do we grant "rights" like the "Right to life". A zygote doesn't have personhood or agency, so why would it be granted "rights" above other cells which have the same level consciousness and agency?
I have yet to see a definition of life that includes zygotes and excludes my liver cells.
It's not a living organism and while yes the definition of life provided by biology is a hypothesis it is the most accurate definition out there that manages to encapsulate all organisms without including things like my liver. Cells that aren't individual organisms are 'living' in the sense that they can start to fail and stop functioning and therefore die.
I agree with that, but if its living then it must fit the definition of life? (which is just a hypothesis tho)
A fetus is living but not a living organism. So in general I default to saying it's not a living organism because that's what people care about is whether or not it's "human"
No that's not correct.
I'm quite certain that it does, but I'm trying to figure out your position.
is it not any form of life? or is it just not an organism? in just your last 2 posts you made both of these statements claims.
also a while ago you said "a dying skin cell must be alive since it is dying, but with a fetus there is nothing to kill"... so a fetus is less alive then a skin cell is your claim, correct?
And it is below the biological definition of life because it simply doesn't adhere to it.
When I was saying that I was saying there isn't an organism to be killed
"And yes the question is if it is biologically alive. Because making something that's alive not alive is killing it. But there's nothing to kill with a fetus."
you seem to claim the fetus is even below the biological definition of life, not just the definition of organism.
They're both living just not a living organism. Goodness read my arguments
so a skin cell is living but a fetus is not?
And yes the question is if it is biologically alive. Because making something that's alive not alive is killing it. But there's nothing to kill with a fetus.
A cell is biologically alive but it's not a biological organism. There's a difference.
The question isn't whether or not a zygote is biologically alive though. It's whether or not terminating one is considered murder. The link you provided does nothing for this debate. It simply established the fact that a cell is biologically alive. However, how does that endow it with the rights of a person?
What basis do you have for that what definition of life makes it start at conception
No it doesn't start at conception
Live starts at the moment of the conception
If we're going to be arguing based philosophical principals, we have to first say what type of "life" is entitled to rights and what level of moral consideration. I think you'd agree that bacteria, amoeba, worms, insects, etc... are not entitled to the same rights and moral considerations as persons. I think that you'd also agree that a(n) appendix, kidney, spleen, gallbladder, etc... also aren't subject to the same moral considerations as persons. Please correct me if the previous assumptions are wrong.
If the previous stands, we have established that life is not subject to the same moral consideration and rights as persons and that life that carries human DNA isn't by default subject to those considerations either. So we must establish the criteria of what is subject to rights and high levels of moral consideration.
When we talk about rights and moral consideration, whether teleological, consequentialist, deontological, or something else, we have to ground it in agency. Since we cannot establish a basis for rights outside of agency with any sort of consistency or blind acceptance of magical thinking (i.e. the supernatural), agency is the only real measure by which we can grant rights/moral consideration with any sort of consistency.
Agency is necessary for rights to apply to an individual as a prudent rational agent who must have freedom and well-being will assert a “prudential right claim” (a claim that he/she is subject to moral consideration/rights). Having demanded that the freedom and well-being of an Agent be respected by others, consistency requires that the Agent also recognize and respect the freedom and well-being of other persons/Agents (social contract theory). We must also not grant every agent the same right/moral considerations, rather we proportionate people's rights to their level of normative agency. In the real world we utilize this concept all the time and it even forms the basis for our laws. Children for example; their rights grow as they develop greater agency and responsibility while the elderly have "rights" removed as their agency and responsibility diminishes.
What of a fetus then? It has no agency and therefore isn't subject to moral consideration in the same way his/her mother is as she has agency. Due to that we must put the rights of the mother and the moral consideration they carry above those of the fetus. The Fetus is essentially a life without agency and therefore, a life without rights.
I'm sorry if your skin cells start dying you say they're dying. So yes .. your skin cells are living. Goodness. Also a fetus is not living because it does not follow the 6 characteristics of life.
Each cell is not "alive" individually, they are collectively living. Also, you should distinguish between scientific life and philosophical life because this is NOT a scientific question; we know how to abort. This is an ethical question, meaning you are required to use philosophical definitions with your argument. That being said, there are multiple and I would be interested in hearing yours. What constitutes "a life" and why is a fetus not one?
Sorry let me specify. Tell me how it is a living organism because there is a difference between being alive and being a living organism. For exam, the cells in your body are living but not a living organism. You are the living organism.
It's not stupid because it's true. Tell me how a fetus is living.
okay brynn, that is just the stupidiest thing anyone could have every said. are you kidding me.
that's the thing. the mother is apparently at fault for having sex, but the father isnt questioned. he doesnt get pregnant so he can go and make sex all he wants everywhere, no responsibilities. the woman however must restrain herself. that is a big double standard considering the desire for sex is a basic instinct of all life.
and it being "already alive" is an understatement. there is no point at which it becomes alive because there is no point when it was not alive. even before conception both the sperm and the egg were both alive. life is continuous. so being alive isnt that big of a deal, every cell, every tumor are always alive. and they all have human DNA. for something to be murdered it has to be a person, an individual. and I dont believe that happens until the upper parts of the brain turn on. the regions that give us consciousness.
You don't kill anything when you have an abortion so I don't understand your point.
on top of that, if the mother does not want the child, then why did she make a decision to get together with someone and have sex to create that child? I understand that making the child may not have been intentional but that is the consequence that stems from the mother's bad decisions. So therefore what gives her the right to kill her own child because of a wrong choice that she made?
my question to that gentleman is how is abortion not considered murdur? sure the baby is not yet born but by killing it you are preventing it from birth and having a life. the baby is already alive therefore you are taking its life, and it is fully intended. therefore murdur.
it is the definition, google it.
that is a very technical and morally shitty definition of murder
okay, let me ask you this, if murdur was legal, therefore i could kill you or you could kill me and no puishment it enforced by the law, would you?