We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 98954 |
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
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".
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?
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.
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."
It is definitely human in the species sense; just like a sperm, an egg cell or a skin cell. It is not "human" in the commonly used social sense.
On another note, the zygote IS the sperm and egg cell. From gametogenesis to the baby, the path is full of conditions and right environment, even for the zygote; you can make a mental checkpoint at conception if you want, what I'm trying to say is it's subjective.
What makes life, life and what qualities constitute human.
Life is a functioning organic unit; becterias are alive, zygotes are alive, germ cells are alive, just like adults are; and for that, they need genetic material.
Consciousness necessitates a certain neural complexity; bacterias and plants have no consciousness, zygotes haven't either. It forms during pregnancy; the legal limits for abortion are set at a medically reasonable point, where the growing human/thing/whatever still has no consciousness.
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.
Actually it's the people debating if they find it okay or not. Scientifically speaking, abortion is not problematic. But people have their own opinions and beliefs about it.
Actually it's the people debating if they find it okay or not. Scientifically speaking, abortion is not problematic. But people have their own opinions and beliefs about it.
I don't feel life is at a point with which it so easily defined. Technology can extended life and the criteria for a human being declared dead has changed over the last 100 plus years. (I believe people were more often declared dead when they were not. Hence terms like the "graveyard shift" although that example weak as there may be no know cases of anyone ringing the bell.)To me indicating that advances in technology and science can alter the perception of what includes and does not include "life".
On another note, the zygote IS the sperm and egg cell. From gametogenesis to the baby, the path is full of conditions and right environment, even for the zygote; you can make a mental checkpoint at conception if you want, what I'm trying to say is it's subjective.
There is an intrinsic difference between ovum sperm and zygote. 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.
I don't feel life is at a point with which it so easily defined.
Of course there are fundamental issues about how to define life, like, is a virus a living entity or not? In humans it's less complicated, but still quite so. There are different dead states; one can be brain-dead, but still pertain some vital functions indefinitely if sustained.
But all of this is irrelevant here. There is a difference between a comatous person that already has a nervous system (active or inactive) and a foetus without anything close to a functional brain yet.
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.
If germ cells remain in their state until they die, there is no zygote. Germ cells have the potential to grow into an offspring, they just need to fuse. The zygote has the potential to grow into an offspring, it just needs the mother.
Again, conception is just yet another step. Yes, there ARE differences between germ cells and zygotes; I'm aware of that, dontcha worry. But none of the states (before and after conception) are any more living, or human, than the other.
No abortion unless in the case of rape/incest, or a terrible situation like that. There actually should be an Abortion court, to decide if there is a proper good reason for it, or just-"lets kill an innocent person", because, essentially that, (in quotes) and saying we "need an abortion" are the same thing, except, in the latter, it sounds more soft or, cuddly to some people. Like taking the edge off. But to me there is no difference-same thing. Oi! They baby will soon grow up to be like you and I!
Dont take that away, cruel human beings! (im not a hippie).
It shouldnt be that people can just have sex for the pleasure and then kill the result. Thats terrible !
No abortion unless in the case of rape/incest, or a terrible situation like that.
What makes that a good reason? Why does the form of the conception matter to the point that it's ok to kill an 'innocent person'? Unless you're saying a fetus has no intrinsic value, your argument doesn't stand. And if you are saying that, then abortion isn't wrong in any case.
[quote]No abortion unless in the case of rape/incest, or a terrible situation like that.
What makes that a good reason? Why does the form of the conception matter to the point that it's ok to kill an 'innocent person'?[/quote]
Exactly. People who advocate no abortion on the grounds that it is immoral to, "kill an innocent person," are hypocrites. Either it's immoral to kill them or not, and if it isn't, then you have no valid argument to say it's okay in cases of rape or incest. Who are you to sentence this "innocent person" to death, simply because of how they were conceived? Or are we going to define personhood only on whether a married couple had a child, so all *******s/rape babies are no longer "eople"?
There is absolutely no logical reason to treat a fetus, which cannot survive outside the womb and is not developed in any critical aspect of what we consider something to be human, as a fully fledged person. A potential human being, yes, but as far as I'm concerned, until the fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it can survive outside of the womb, it should be the mother's choice about what happens in her body.
Does it matter how it got there? Not really.
Should people practice safe sex to avoid unwanted conception? Absolutely.
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?
I would be more interested in defining personhood.
I would say that a small baby does retain it's memories.
At the point most abortions take place there is no fully functioning brain to retain memories.
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?
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.
Even without consciousness it would still be alive, again he issue here is personhood. As I noted early on in this thread that would consist of "consciousness over a period of time." The person who fell alseep, is knocked out or in a coma had consciousness over a period of time. The zygote did not have consciousness at any point yet, thus not meeting this basic requirement for personhood.
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.
What does it matter that the process requires further transport or not? In both cases we are dealing with something that is alive but not yet a person.
In both cases we are dealing with something that is alive but not yet a person.
At what point does this living being become a person?
I would say that a small baby does retain it's memories.
Sorry should say doesn't. But it didn't matter because it was understood what I meant.
What does it matter that the process requires further transport or not? In both cases we are dealing with something that is alive but not yet a person.
Sperm is not the full genetic material of a zygote. An ovum is not the full genetic material of the zygote. The zygote not only contains the material necessary to develop further and then be equivalent to the the stage of a baby, but in natural cases is in the immediate conditions to begin that development instantly.
Sperm left inside the testes will not ever become a human. The end of a sperm is the sperm itself. The end of an ovum is the ovum itself. The end of a zygote leads to the next stage of development which eventually leads to a baby and yet even further a child, teenager, adult, elder.
It's like the difference between having the separate ingredient for a cake out on a table. To having the properly mixed batter in the oven, with he oven at the proper temperature.
Leaving the ingredients on the table unattended they will never become a cake. But the batter in the oven is going to be a cake unless I pull the batter out early or shut off the oven.
To me that's a huge difference. Sperm is only the genetic code of one human counterpart. Ova is only the genetic code of one human counterpart, but zygote is the genetic code of two human counter parts and directly leads to a being that is it's own separate identity.
At what point does this living being become a person?
I would say when sustained consciousness is achieved. Which doesn't occur until the brain is further developed.
I would say when sustained consciousness is achieved.
How far along would that be?
I would say when sustained consciousness is achieved. Which doesn't occur until the brain is further developed.
What changes at this point?
Of course consciousness is achieved, but how does that make it any more of a person?
You must be logged in to post a reply!