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.
116 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 80 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 7 arguments, Seejay posted 3 arguments, sairam posted 1 argument, molly posted 1 argument, DollarStoreDildo posted 1 argument, District9 posted 1 argument, tmjcb99 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
csmithwick posted 5 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 19 arguments, byniched posted 1 argument, Brynn posted 6 arguments, poopy posted 1 argument, Debate_Master1011 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Brynn, TheExistentialist, kritika_143, Coriander, goodlo, jemiju, Seejay, TJ, ammu, lala, Harryson, molly, Rijavana, Pranay321, DollarStoreDildo, TJefferson, Argument_fightme, seefus, District9, district10, tmjcb99, cringyuh, Ayushkoul, eva_pet35, steven1223 and 91 visitors agree.
csmithwick, byniched, JDAWG9693, zain, BlackPetals, Andrewchaney69420, Argnier555, wilsoergel76, poopy, WiseWords, MatthewTurner03, Debate_Master1011, SMNR, InfinityMachine, OUTSMARTED, Consitution101, SanjayKumar, hollieg, fireball4thewin, Delta_Force01 and 60 visitors disagree.
consider the reasons of getting an abortion though... is it really better to allow a child to be born and raised in an already overpopulated world, where they will either be with the birth parents (whom, if they considered abortion, obviously weren't ready to be parents) miserably, probably getting abused or exposed to traumatic childhood in one way or another, or they will go into the already overflowing system of fostercare, which won't be much better.
Long as the child is not developed I do not see a problem as it doesnt yet qualify as a child
The question is doesn't actually make sense. A fetus is not a child, it is a fetus. In the same way a seed is not a tree. A fetus might some day become a child, but it isn't one yet. Therefore terminating it cannot be considered murder.
As to your second part of why someone would do, lots of reasons. Carrying a baby to term and giving birth is a huge expense of time, energy, pain and potential heath problems. Even if you weren't going to keep it, it would still have a massive effect on your life that many people would prefer to avoid. It is much simpler to just terminate the pregnancy.
Children are our future, and they are precious. I don't understand why anyone would kill an innocent living child. What did they ever do to you? Abortion is cruel and should be illegal and/or considered murder.
everything is a bundle of cells yet we dont cry murder over everything. so that argument is very valid.
it's absolutely human, but is it an individual with it's own will? it certainly is late in the pregnancy, but it certainly isnt very early on
the fetus has no emotions, can't feel pain, and hasn't positivity or negatively contributed to society
abortion is most certainly murder if it's not human then what is it also everything is a bundle of cells so don't come at me with that argument
I agree with that, however the party of pro life is also the party against any social investment, including for orphanages. in the current state of our orphanage system, I would never support banning abortion, regardless of the definition of life. we can barely take care of the orphans currently existing, by banning abortion we would create a tsunami that will turn an already broken system into a hellhole.
Then, we will have to respectfully disagree. But, I would encourage you do more for supporting foster care instead of abortion, because I do agree that it is not as good as it should be. But, I still think that it is better than death.
electrical activity in specific areas of the brain are the only way we have to objectively determine consciousness.
I don't want to throw away any humans, and would completely agree to banning abortion if we properly fund our orphanage system and offer support to mothers so that the pregnancy wont determine their entire life. however, I don't think that future (potential) humans are on the same level as current (actual) humans.
Monitor lizards, anoles, and iguanas are the main ones, showing basic cognitive abilities and even a social structure.
And, what makes it okay to throw away the future human and not a current one? Also, do you care if it is conscious or just has electrical activity in the brain?
based on this article, I would say 16 weeks is already individual. that's 4 months. but it's one article.
this is a better article. it also points to 16 weeks. so far that seems to be my number. but with life, everything is variable. 16 weeks is an estimated average. this is a physical thing we can test for as real, objective criteria.
as to when, I can tell you the landmark, but not the specific time frame it happens on.
the part of the brain that seems to deal with concious choice is the frontal cortex. the front part of the outer (wrinkly) layer. the more advanced, reasoning happens in the tip, the prefrontal cortex.
the brain is very complex and interconnected, but it is also very specialized. even if consciousness is spread beyond just the frontal cortex, it is formed within that last layer, with lower layers mostly for regulating heart and breathing rate, balance, etc. (fact).
the brain has electricity at 6 weeks, (same time frame as the heart if I'm not mistaken, and a more sound argument). but I'm not sure how much of the brain is formed. once it has electricity, and a cerebrum, it's very likely a person.
So, what's your stance?
My stance is that, ideally, there would be no abortions except in medical emergencies (which comprises about 0.04% of abortions (in the U.S., which is where I am)), which would be equivalent to a miscarriage. In practice, though, I would be willing to concede that abortions can legally be allowed in the cases of medical emergency, rape, and/or incest, only because that still only makes up about 1.8% of abortions. But, it would have to be undeniably proven that there was rape or incest, and maybe even a required investigation into who.
I agree and disagree on this because it is a truly hard topic. This is about ones life. I agree because If one was at a party and didn't know a guy used a condom yes then I believe it's their choice and that's okay but imagine if u were never created because someone chose an abortion instead of having you. Thats were I disagree.
Or, one can think of it like a contract or a promise. If I promise you a promotion, it would be wrong of me to take away your future promotion for no other reason than just because I wanted to. Similarly, it is wrong to take away that future person before it arrives.
Some lizards, yes.
Regardless, how old must an embryo be to no longer be aborted, then, might I ask?
although I can make arguments for killing food, animal rights isnt without merit.
Then, is it not okay to murder most mammals, some birds, some fish, and some lizards?
dogs and cows yes.
fish... depends. they were the original and not all stayed simple.
however most animals, as well as other life (and early fetuses) is a no.
the key difference is in the definitions of sensation and perception, at least from a physiological point of view.
non life has things happen to it with now internal reaction.
simple life has sensation, which is when a stimulus hits a receptor, it triggers an electrical signal and a chain reaction.
perception however, is even that electrical signal is interpreted into a conscious experience. and not all life does this. for example a reflex, like knee jerk, is sensation only. you will believe it, but only after already reacting to it without knowledge or choice.
bacteria, bugs, most likely lizards are practically automata. after that it gets mucky. most mammals and many birds are definitely sentient. so yes, much of our meat is sentient. also calamari.
That would mean that dogs and cows and fish are equal and that we can no longer kill them, if sentience is all that is required.
Fetuses have experiences, too. Everything in the universe has experiences whether it's sentient or not. And, I still think you're opting for sapient or sophont. I don't wanna be nitpicky, but that distinction is important.
the reason behind my view stems from a realization that our bodies are pretty much irrelevant to who we are as people. the heart is a glorified pump, liver and kidneys are filters with a few extra functions, etc. you can replace all of them and still be you.
what I mean is that if we were to upload someone's consciousness to a machine or the web, the person would now be in the machine while the body would be an empty husk. the person would no longer be human, no longer have a single cell or ounce of human DNA, but would still be the same person with will and personality. the body, even if maintained in a vegetative (brain dead) state, even with lower reflexes still functioning, may be human, but the person is gone.
an early infant is not a responsible member of society, but it is definitely an individual with it's own experience seperate from its parents. it has already begun to experience the world and built its personality and personhood. it is sentient.
I never suggested morality or rationalization as a requirement. I believe that would be your solfence or however it is spelled. I said simply sentience, aka the ability to experience the world consciously, or a history of experiencing the world previously.
so whether they are a newborn or mentally challenged, even a fetus after the upper brain turns on, they are a person in my theory.
What about mentally deficient humans, then? Some (not most, but some) of them don't have a sense of morality or ability to rationalize. Should we be allowed to murder them as they fall into the same category of not being an individual person (more or less)? Or, should we be able to kill early born infants? Also, I would argue that regular infants are not yet an "individual person."
I want comparing a life to a bond, I was comparing an actual to a potential.
a loss of an actual long term elationship vs the loss of a potential relationship that never blossomed.
although we agree it is a human life, I believe it is not yet an individual person. (not sure your position on that). it certainly has the potential to become a person if allowed to blossom, but I don't believe it is an equal to an actual person who has lived and experienced, even if they temporary lose consciousness.
I feel like that's a false analogy because that fetus is till a human life with the human right to life. That is different than an emotional bond.
I agree that is a human, but I do believe it is a person's right to life. because human DNA is in everything from tumors to skin cells. it is personhood that is truly special.
I dont care for intelligence or sane human cognition, because then retarded people and children would not count. my belief is that it is the ability to sense and have a stream of consciousness of any caliber that defines personhood.
of course all living things down to bacteria can react to stimulus, but it is very likely that they only react and are unable to truly act or even have a sense of being. I believe a complex brain like that found in mammals and birds is necessary for a stream of consciousness.
as for the future potential, it is worth noting but I don't think it is of equal consideration as something that is or has already been a person. like the difference between losing the love of your life after many years together vs not going out with them on date #1 before anything real happens.
Sentience is the experience of pain and pleasure (any animal), sapience is intelligence and problem solving capabilities (a handful of animals), and sophonce is meta-cognition and the ability to self-reflect (sane humans).
But, the human fetus will become a person. And, I would argue that murdering what will undoubtedly become a person is equally as bad as murdering what already is a person.
Also, it is a human right to life, not a "person" right to life. We already agreed that the fetus is a human, due to its DNA, so I would argue that that is another reason that abortion should be illegal.
never heard of sophonce but I'm quite certain in my use of sentience.
the fetus currently has no capacity for will. its brain is not developed. it has never felt anything or had a single thought. the unconscious person has all the tools necessary for thought, as well as a long history of experience and thinking.
it's the difference between a short interruption vs something that has never been.
What makes us a person is our sophonce, not sentience; just a linguistic clarification. And, the comatose human doesn't have a "will" either. But, the fetus will have one and if the comatose human wakes up, so will it.
the difference between an early fetus/embryo and an unconscious adult is that an unconscious adult may be unable to voice his "will", but a fetus doesnt have a "will".
the source of our will is undoubtably our brain. the first signs of electrical activity in the brain dont begin until week 6, and I'm quite certain those are just basal layers involved in rudimentary homeostasis like circulation and checking co2 levels.
what makes us human is just random DNA, but what makes us people is our ability to think and feel. and until the upper regions of the brain turn on, it's just a mass of cells with human DNA imo.
And, I would argue that that is wrong, too, and should also be changed.
If you can't support the child, you should give it up for adoption. And, I know that is often used as a dismissive statement and that foster care absolutely is not a great environment, but it is definitely better than death.
abortion should be legalized.
when your conceived, but your not in a good position to bring up that child, then it's 100% appropriate to have abortion.
all the people who are against this, and talking about the right to live, listen this
all the rights you've been talking should be given to the child afternoon he steps out of that womb.
giving birth to a child against parents wish will make the child to grow in an environment that's filled with hatred, he won't be able to get the love that he deserves, he will only see only evilness of the world, he will never be able to see the good side.
so, forcing unwilling births is a bigger crime than getting abortion before some tiny part of your own body turns into a human.
"ALL humans have the right to life, no matter their agency"
Not true at all; we allow people to die all the time that don't have agency without their or their caretaker's consent. If we didn't we'd have to have warehouses of people without higher brain functions on ventilator farms, feeding tubes, etc....
We also go against the consent of some patients (minors without the agency to make fully informed decisions) and treat them against their will. We even treat them against the will of their parents in the case of Jahova's witnesses when their kids need blood products. Most states have laws that effectively allow medical professionals to decide that the kids don't have the agency to make an informed decision and that the agency of their parents is compromised by their religious beliefs.
"They implicitly consented....A fetus is the same: they cannot tell you otherwise"
Well; you're a bystander, not a medical professional and thus there are different rules. If I have a patient come into the ICU and they're unable to make decisions for themselves and a few days later the family comes in and signs a DNR or a Limited DNR for them (without the patient's consent) I must abide by that paperwork. So even if we think we could save the patient but the family has stated that they don't want their family member intubated we can't just put them on a vent. We have to let them die through no consent of their own because they've lost agency. So; sure we should treat fetus' the same.
For example, when I saw a stranger collapse on the ground and they were unresponsive, I gave them CPR, even though they did not tell me that they wanted to live. They implicitly consented for me to make that decision. A fetus is the same: they cannot tell you otherwise, therefore we should always eire on the side of life.
No. ALL humans have the right to life, no matter their agency. The only time that isn't the case is when the person allows their caretaker (either implicitly or explicitly) to make the decision for them.
We still grant those individuals some rights. Although not all the rights. So the level of agency determines the type/level of rights they possess. We do this with children too. As their agency grows more complex we grant them more rights. People in a coma may have spontaneous respirations, but if you were to pour water down their throat they would not be able to protect their airway and therefore we don't grant them the rights of high functioning individuals and may even withhold the right to life. The same goes for a fetus; the level of agency determines the "rights" we grant a fetus. A fetus in the first or second trimester has little to no agency and thus the mother has the right to choose whether or not to bring the fetus to term as she has a level of agency far above that of the fetus and thus must be given greater rights over her body than the fetus.
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?