Forums → WEPR → No. Just, No.

You're still killing the child, just in the name of god.

This argument seems to have stalemated somewhat, so I shall introduce some points:

Does the mind -- that is, the part of us that we're trying to preserve when we make murder illegal -- stem from our brain cells? Most atheists would answer yes.

Now, considering that the baby's mind is developed for motor movement by 7 weeks, and the baby is using its brain to actually move by 9 weeks (3 weeks before the end of the first trimester), how can you satisfactorily say that by this time the baby hasn't already developed the conscious portion of its brain?

Also, I have seen the following far too often:
-"It's a burden on the mother"
-"We have a population problem anyway"
-"You're forcing your views upon other people!"

Pro-life people base their beliefs in the conviction that fetuses are alive, like babies. So basically, your counterargument also suggests that killing babies is an acceptable alternative to burdening the mother and that killing babies is an acceptable means of reducing overpopulation. Sorry if we're "forcing our views" on you by telling you that that's wrong. Sorry, I've just seen far too many pro-choice arguers weaken their points this way.

And now, a proposal: Would you accept a change in legislation that shortened the time in which an abortion is acceptable to 6 weeks (half of what it is now) in all cases except when:
a) The mother may die from the birth
b) Conception took place before the woman was 16 years of age
In case (a), it would be acceptable up until birth, and in case (b) it would be acceptable until to the end of the first trimester.

How does that sound?

Foetuses are not equal to babies. They don't display all the same brain activity, actions and ability to survive outside of the womb that babies have up until about 24 weeks. Foetuses are potential babies but not babies themselves - it's like saying that masturbation is wrong because you're killing millions of potential children - I don't see a massive pro-not-jerking-off movement out there except amongst religious nutjobs.

Fetuses are not equal to babies. They don't display all the same brain activity, actions and ability to survive outside of the womb that babies have up until about 24 weeks.

Fetuses are potential babies but not babies themselves

it's like saying that masturbation is wrong because you're killing millions of potential children - I don't see a massive pro-not-jerking-off movement out there except amongst religious nutjobs.

Motor cortex developed by 7 weeks, movement by 9, breathing by 10. And ability to survive outside the womb doesn't matter in the slightest. Many elderly people need machines to survive; are they not alive?

What's the fundamental difference? Fetuses seem quite similar to babies if you ask me, at least by 7 weeks.

*sigh* A sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. A fertilized egg is a person. Though that is up for debate, true; I still say that after 7 weeks it has definitely moved from being a potential for life into being a life.

Please address my post above yours.

(from Gloria Polo's testimonial)

Pro-life people base their beliefs in the conviction that fetuses are alive, like babies. So basically, your counterargument also suggests that killing babies is an acceptable alternative to burdening the mother and that killing babies is an acceptable means of reducing overpopulation.

*sigh* A sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. A fertilized egg is a person.

Ability to survive outside of the womb is one of the criteria by which a number of countries have set the deadline for abortion.

I'd say that it is important, if they are unable to survive outside of the womb then they are not independent life-forms and fall under the jurisdiction of the womans body which makes it her choice as to whether to keep or get rid of the pest.

I'd also argue that life does not begin at conception seeing as how both sperm and egg cells are living - rather that the development of life begins at that point. That's all it is though, development, a work in progress - a foetus is not a complete living being until it has viability outside of the womb.

...No.

But don't prohibit abortion in general, for that would be, globally seen, utterly irresponsible and escapist.

And now, a proposal: Would you accept a change in legislation that shortened the time in which an abortion is acceptable to 6 weeks (half of what it is now) in all cases except when:
a) The mother may die from the birth
b) Conception took place before the woman was 16 years of age
In case (a), it would be acceptable up until birth, and in case (b) it would be acceptable until to the end of the first trimester.

How does that sound?

Though sperm and egg cells may not be completely unique, they also have potential, and ANY sperm and egg cell fusion product would be unique, so it's not like the combination that does happen in the end is a god-given deterministic fact; it just so happened, and you would get exactly the same uniqueness by aborting and making a baby later when you are ready for it.

Now, considering that the baby's mind is developed for motor movement by 7 weeks, and the baby is using its brain to actually move by 9 weeks (3 weeks before the end of the first trimester), how can you satisfactorily say that by this time the baby hasn't already developed the conscious portion of its brain?

Motor cortex developed by 7 weeks, movement by 9, breathing by 10. And ability to survive outside the womb doesn't matter in the slightest. Many elderly people need machines to survive; are they not alive?

What's the fundamental difference? Fetuses seem quite similar to babies if you ask me, at least by 7 weeks.

movement comes under control of the brain around 17-18 weeks, activity then again increase around 6 months.

In some cases no they aren't.

And it would seem to matter as that would appear to be the current measuring stick used in determining the cut off point of abortions with acceptation to when there is a serious complication in late term.

The fetal stage doesn't even begin until around 9 weeks.

And now, a proposal: Would you accept a change in legislation that shortened the time in which an abortion is acceptable to 6 weeks (half of what it is now) in all cases except when:
a) The mother may die from the birth
b) Conception took place before the woman was 16 years of age
In case (a), it would be acceptable up until birth, and in case (b) it would be acceptable until to the end of the first trimester.

Okay? Um.... what does this have to do with... anything? The argument isn't about uniqueness, it's about the termination of a sentient life.

What do you call them in the womb when they aren't yet fetuses?

Maybe your argument wasn't about uniqueness.. sorry for that.. but it definitely was the argument of others around here.

Well, the exceptions seem to be ok. For the period, it is too short. In my country, it is legal to abort to up to 12th week of pregnancy, after that it is only possible if a doctor confirmed that not aborting would have grave physical or psychological consequences for the mother. I would say it makes sense to wait for at least the 8th week since most prenatal somatic deformations occur between 3rd and 8th week. That's not taking neural troubles in consideration, who can occur even later on.

I wonder if they will reposition that submit button in AG3.

We appear to have separate sources :/ I'm almost certain that the brain experiences activity by the 7th week.

Yes, and it's due to lack of brain activity not to dependence on a machine.

Well, that's their way. We don't need to follow other people's way of measuring. I'd say that you could easily have a sentient life that deserves to live but that is dependent on another life.