Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

is abortion ok?

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 6:49pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,090 posts

I just think she should go about an alternate method of doing it.

what is wrong whit a pill that makes their body break the egg naturally, starting the menstruation phase?

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 12:19am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,972 posts

North Dakota's legislature approved an amendment to their state's constitution defining legal personhood at conception. It still needs a public vote to be added.

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 5:42am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,667 posts

Knight

'"If we can determine that a seed is the definition of a plant, then we can certainly decide that an embryo is a human," said Republican representative Dan Ruby, a supporter of the proposed state constitutional amendment.'

Because this is a tree....

http://ladyonthecoast.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/acorn.jpg

I have to wonder by what criteria are they using to define this personhood at conception?

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 7:26am

danielo

danielo

1,370 posts

Bevause the main voters body of the republicans dont need abortions.

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 12:05pm

Reton8

Reton8

2,503 posts

Moderator

'"If we can determine that a seed is the definition of a plant, then we can certainly decide that an embryo is a human," said Republican representative Dan Ruby, a supporter of the proposed state constitutional amendment.'

Because this is a tree....

I have to wonder by what criteria are they using to define this personhood at conception?

Is there not a difference between a zygote (fertilized human ovum) and a seed? 

The seeds (of the tree or plant) will remain seeds indefinitely. The seeds have to be planted, receive water, and other proper nutrients before they will grow into a tree (or whatever type of plant it may be). [Also, in nature, seeds usually have to travel and end up on the proper growing material before they will start growing.]

The human ovum is fertilized in the environment in which it will grow into a baby child, unless there is a miscarriage or, unless the ovum is fertilized in a laboratory (ovum and sperm separated from human counterpart beforehand). [I understand that not all fertilized ova truly develop. Natural causes can stop the process, but there would be no need for an abortion at that point.]

I cannot imagine a scenario in which the (human) zygote would stay a (human) zygote indefinitely. After (non-laboratory) conception The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child.

If I was forced to compare human abortion to plants seeds, I would consider it more similar to finding good soil, tilling it, planting the seed, giving the seed water and fertilizer and then digging the seed out of the ground to throw away or something. The earlier the abortion term the earlier the the person digs the seed out of the ground after planting it.

---------------
I suppose that one could point out that in my paragraph I say, "The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child." Which would seem to indicate that it is not human. I would disagree.

How do you define what a human is? Should it be done by how looks? If I look like a human than I am a human. Should that include statues of humans? What about humans that don't have arms or legs? What about humans that have severe deformities? Should they not be human because they don't quite look it?

Some people are mute and others can't see. Are they not humans? Children are still developing (similar to the zygote) should children not be considered humans based on the fact that they haven't reached a certain stage?

So the human zygote, which is developing and alive and in a short time reach a other stages and will resemble a baby, will swim around and kick in the amniotic fluid, and will be feed by direct connection with it's mother, that is human enough for me and completely human for me.

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 1:05pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,957 posts

Knight

So the human zygote, which is developing and alive and in a short time reach a other stages and will resemble a baby, will swim around and kick in the amniotic fluid, and will be feed by direct connection with it's mother, that is human enough for me and completely human for me.

Sperms, egg cells and zygotes are of course all human by their genetics, but that's no argument. They're not conscious beings yet, so whassamatter?

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 1:39pm

Reton8

Reton8

2,503 posts

Moderator

Sperm and non-fertilized ova  in their initial and original state (where they exist when created) will indefinitely remain the same material until they die. They will never, on their own become a human.

The zygote in natural cases exists automatically within the conditions in which it will develop into a human. If zygotes were to remain zygotes indefinitely (in there natural state, the initial state in which they receive upon creation) the gestation period could vary radically in length of time for humans.

They're not conscious beings yet, so whassamatter?

I would say that a small baby does retain it's memories. Usually, babies do not retain baby memories into young childhood. When humans sleep we are hardly "conscious". And what about blacking out and passing out from too much alcohol. When a human is unconscious should they not be considered human? I would say they are still human. But then I suppose that just leads to the, "If someone is in a coma for too long do you pull the plug?" But would you not still consider them a human being?

Also, I get what you are saying. The consciousness of a fully developed human is not possible in the zygote state because the brain is not developed. But does being conscious  constitute being human, or being alive, or both?

I suppose it just leads back to, "How do you define being human?" and then that leads to "Is abortion ok? (yes or no depending on how human is defined)". Which is the debate at hand in the scientific community now, no?

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 1:57pm

danielo

danielo

1,370 posts

And again we are going back to page 3.

Guys, this topic is like a circle. Its go from "Its wrong -> Its good for the womens -> but you kill a baby -> Its not a baby -> but it can be -> 'can be' is not enough - > but it can grow -> well i dont care, its for the quality life of the women -> but its wrong".

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 2:04pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,957 posts

Knight

Sperm and non-fertilized ova  in their initial and original state (where they exist when created) will indefinitely remain the same material until they die. They will never, on their own become a human.

Wait, are you defining being human as "will become a human"? That's using the word to define as a way to define itself.

The zygote in natural cases exists automatically within the conditions in which it will develop into a human. If zygotes were to remain zygotes indefinitely (in there natural state, the initial state in which they receive upon creation) the gestation period could vary radically in length of time for humans.

Luckily you already mentioned you knew most pregnancies end naturally, or I would have mentioned that again. On the other side, sperm and egg cells also carry the potential to become human under the right conditions (fertilization).

I would say that a small baby does retain it's memories.

Sure but noone ever said it would be right to kill abbies. We're speaking of abortion, which excludes babies.
On a sidenote, I heard just lately that we actually don't have any real memories until a certain age, even after birth, as our memory areas develop only later.

"If someone is in a coma for too long do you pull the plug?" But would you not still consider them a human being?

Human beings, yes, conscious beings, depends. On what, you'll ask? On how far the coma limits our consciousness. In dreams, or when we pass out, there are still parts of our brain that are active and "conscious", unlike in embryos.

But does being conscious  constitute being human, or being alive, or both?

Depends on what you mean by human. Germ cells, zygotes, adults, all stages of human development are genetically human and alive. There is no dead phase, nor any phase not in the line of the homo sapiens.

Which is the debate at hand in the scientific community now, no?

Why the scientific community in specific?

 

Posted Mar 23, '13 at 7:04pm

Reton8

Reton8

2,503 posts

Moderator

Wait, are you defining being human as "will become a human"? That's using the word to define as a way to define itself.

I'm just going to quote myself.

I suppose that one could point out that in my paragraph I say, "The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child." Which would seem to indicate that it is not human. I would disagree.

How do you define what a human is? Should it be done by how looks? If I look like a human than I am a human. Should that include statues of humans? What about humans that don't have arms or legs? What about humans that have severe deformities? Should they not be human because they don't quite look it?

Some people are mute and others can't see. Are they not humans? Children are still developing (similar to the zygote) should children not be considered humans based on the fact that they haven't reached a certain stage?

I feel like this is just mere word play. It's called a zygote so it isn't a human. But then at the same time I could ask what kind of zygote is it. The response might be "A human zygote". I could then respond "Oh you called it human."

On the other side, sperm and egg cells also carry the potential to become human under the right conditions (fertilization).

They have to be fertilized. The unfertilized ovum has to enter into the proper conditional state before becoming a zygote. Left alone no separate sperm or ova will ever develop any further. But a zygote is naturally, always set  in a conditional state in which it will develop. I'm trying to say although the genetic material is there, the conditions surrounding them are too different. I can quote myself again.

Sperm and non-fertilized ova  in their initial and original state (where they exist when created) will indefinitely remain the same material until they die. They will never, on their own become a human.

The zygote in natural cases exists automatically within the conditions in which it will develop into a human.

Human beings, yes, conscious beings, depends. On what, you'll ask? On how far the coma limits our consciousness. In dreams, or when we pass out, there are still parts of our brain that are active and "conscious", unlike in embryos.

But then at all points it's human and it's a human zygote, a human baby, a human in a coma. So then it phrases a new question "What is the criteria for being alive?" and then "Is abortion okay based? Yes, or no, based on whether the zygote is alive?" (instead of human) back to square one.

Depends on what you mean by human. Germ cells, zygotes, adults, all stages of human development are genetically human and alive. There is no dead phase, nor any phase not in the line of the homo sapiens.

What makes life, life and what qualities constitute human.

Is consciousness a requirement for life?
Are bacteria "conscious". I assume not as much as a human, maybe even only acting on "instinct/genetic coding". But they are alive no?.

Is having human DNA a requirement? No.
My finger is human but in a sense it isn't alive. And other animals are alive without being human.

Is it having a brain that makes you alive?
Jellyfish are alive without a brain, yet I suppose this could still be considered the consciousness question. They are alive, but with no brain are they conscious?

But then are not all human cells made up of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons? Which aren't "alive".

This is the point I wish to make, a human zygote in it's natural state. At the first moment of the zygote, it is in the place in which it will develop further and be a human child. And the development will begin instantly.

No other material or substance on earth, within it's natural initial state will have such instantaneous development into a human being. Not even sperm and ova, as if left alone, die as what they initially began as.

Which is the debate at hand in the scientific community now, no?

Is it not still an issue? I suppose it is also debated in the political realm, but I assume the scientific community will be the ones to show the evidence and produce the answer.

 
Reply to is abortion ok?

You must be logged in to post a reply!