Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278481 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
@pangtongshu
I mean....you're still killing a human being. But, of course, the entire argument is built off of when "life begins'.
Clearly, if science knew 100% that life began at conception, there would be almost no abortions, and vice versa for life at birth. But we don't know, so it's really a pointless topic to verse in debates since nobody really knows.
I mean....you're still killing a human being. But, of course, the entire argument is built off of when "life begins'.
Clearly, if science knew 100% that life began at conception, there would be almost no abortions, and vice versa for life at birth. But we don't know, so it's really a pointless topic to verse in debates since nobody really knows.
It's not life beginning at birth, it'd just the continuation of life. What is put into question and what is relevant is if that life has personhood. As such early stages where abortion takes place that simply isn't possible since the mechanisms for conscious thought haven't formed yet.
It's not life beginning at birth, it'd just the continuation of life. What is put into question and what is relevant is if that life has personhood. As such early stages where abortion takes place that simply isn't possible since the mechanisms for conscious thought haven't formed yet.
Conscious thought it's necessary to be considered 'alive' however.
For a "something" to be "alive" it has to do five of the following: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, and Nutrition.
The point is that even germ cells are live cells, so it seems pointless to use that as argument on the limits of abortion.
Besides, pets are sometimes also put to death if there are too many risks coming from them (things like overly aggressive dogs biting kids, or sick cattle); and they are definitely alive. So please understand if I have trouble finding consistency in the arguments basing on "life" alone.
I can understand, it's not a concrete argument, it was more of an attempt.
It still brings me back, though, to what you define as life starting, because then it defines what counts as infantile murder.
to what you define as life starting
I'll go with George Carlin's statement of 'Life started billions of years ago and is a continuous process'.
what counts as infantile murder.
Usually personhood goes by respiration.
I'll go with George Carlin's statement of 'Life started billions of years ago and is a continuous process'.
Nice quote. I agree, there is no 'dead' phase between parents and offsprings.
because then it defines what counts as infantile murder.
Infantile murder. Murder of infants. That excludes basically everything that hasn't come out of the womb yet. But that's just word playing. I personally think the limit of, what is it, 12 weeks until which abortions can be made, and the clause allowing abortions in medical emergencies, makes sense. I wouldn't want to abort a several months old thing.
Conscious thought it's necessary to be considered 'alive' however.
For a "something" to be "alive" it has to do five of the following: Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, and Nutrition.
No consciousness is not necessary to be regarded as alive. There are plenty of living organisms that we consider alive that do not have consciousness. In fact most of what makes up you are individual living organisms that aren't even classified as human. Are you willing to say each one of those has it's own consciousness?
As for your definition of what is alive, a developing fetus would seem to lack a few. Of course to be considered alive there are more criteria and an organism doesn't necessarily have to meet them all but most.
I'll go with George Carlin's statement of 'Life started billions of years ago and is a continuous process'.
That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying.
No consciousness is not necessary to be regarded as alive. There are plenty of living organisms that we consider alive that do not have consciousness. In fact most of what makes up you are individual living organisms that aren't even classified as human. Are you willing to say each one of those has it's own consciousness?
I mean, I already stated it wasn't a rock solid argument.
Infantile murder. Murder of infants. That excludes basically everything that hasn't come out of the womb yet. But that's just word playing. I personally think the limit of, what is it, 12 weeks until which abortions can be made, and the clause allowing abortions in medical emergencies, makes sense. I wouldn't want to abort a several months old thing.
I can see where you're coming from. It's one thing to abort a fetus the size of a thumb versus a baby at 30 weeks. But I don't know all the cosmic details of life, so I personally would just rather play it safe, bar situations such as ****.
But I don't know all the cosmic details of life, so I personally would just rather play it safe, bar situations such as ****.
What cosmic details? We have a developing embryo with such an under developed nervous system that it's unlikely to be able to feel anything and such an under developed brain that it's unlikely to be able to process any such signals. You're not playing it safe here, you're ignoring the physics of what we know to be going on in favor of emotion bias.
What cosmic details? We have a developing embryo with such an under developed nervous system that it's unlikely to be able to feel anything and such an under developed brain that it's unlikely to be able to process any such signals. You're not playing it safe here, you're ignoring the physics of what we know to be going on in favor of emotion bias.
Biology maybe instead of physics?
In every argument emotion does play a part, though I try to keep it as small as possible. I'm just saying if I was the doctor, I'd play safe and not do abortions, bar previously stated important matters, because I don't want even a shadow of doubt that I could possibly be committing murder. But that's just me and my opinion.
Biology maybe instead of physics?
Either term works here.
In every argument emotion does play a part, though I try to keep it as small as possible.
But that doesn't seem to be what you're doing.
I'm just saying if I was the doctor, I'd play safe and not do abortions, bar previously stated important matters,
Yeah because we know just how well that's worked out recently with the mothers dying and all...
because I don't want even a shadow of doubt that I could possibly be committing murder.
If you look at it from the biological aspect of it you aren't. There is no functioning brain, no fully developed nervous system, resulting in consciousness thus personhood isn't present yet. We have the willing consent of the only cognitive agent physically impacted (the mother), therefore not a murder.
But that doesn't seem to be what you're doing.
You may not think so.
If you look at it from the biological aspect of it you aren't. There is no functioning brain, no fully developed nervous system, resulting in consciousness thus personhood isn't present yet. We have the willing consent of the only cognitive agent physically impacted (the mother), therefore not a murder.
Like I've said several times, it's just my opinion. It could be right or wrong. You're trying to beat a dead horse.
How would you define murder in the first place? And what is the main reason you want to avoid murder? (Sounds stupid, but it doesn't hurt to think about it).
The shedding of innocent blood, and because it is morally and ethically wrong, plus it is against the laws of the land to kill.
You must be logged in to post a reply!