We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 98955 |
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
How far along would that be?
I'm not sure exactly at what point the brain is sufficiently developed in order to achieve consciousness. I do know however that the point at which we often abort a pregnancy is to early though. The earliest premature baby to be born and live was at 21 week 6 days. Though this doesn't mean that the baby had yet developed consciousness. This was also an extremely rare case. Also 21 weeks is still much later than when we usually abort.
"Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation." - Scientific America
Dreaming starts around 4-5 months. So it may develop sometime between 24 weeks and 5 months where consciousness becomes possible.
What changes at this point?
Of course consciousness is achieved, but how does that make it any more of a person?
The difference is at that point the fetus capable of thinking, feel, taking in external stimuli, etc. That is what makes it more of a person.
Also to add to my last point brainwaves aren't detectable until 26 weeks. So it might be more accurate that consciousness take place between 26 weeks and 5 months.
So what about people who are almost completely brain dead or mentally retarded, is it ok to kill them because you don't like them?
I'm not sure exactly at what point the brain is sufficiently developed in order to achieve consciousness.
f=p&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS495US495&sclient=psy-ab&oq=when+are+babies+concoius&gs_l=&bx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.b2I&fp=1a56139a491fb62f&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=709">Google. I'm pretty sure it varies quite a bit too.
So what about people who are almost completely brain dead or mentally retarded, is it ok to kill them because you don't like them?
1) They still have a consciousness
2) They are not a parasite on the woman's body
3) Please try to refrain from the Ad Hominems.
2) They are not a parasite on the woman's body
Wouldn't it somewhat be mutual? I'm totally going off on random thoughts from the back of my mind, but I often hear of women's health improving over the course of their pregnancies. Of course, that might simply be due to the fact that they're isolated from the dangers of the world a bit more.
[quote]3) Please try to refrain from the Ad Hominems.
Can I get a definition?
but I often hear of women's health improving over the course of their pregnancies. Of course, that might simply be due to the fact that they're isolated from the dangers of the world a bit more.
Keep in mind..it isn't a parasite in the normal sense of how a parasite it (where it degrades the body) but in the fact that it is taking nutrients and all without providing anything in return
And the health could be due to the woman improving their diet in anticipation for the child?
Can I get a definition?
an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance. (from wiki)
The part I was referring to in his argument was when he said "because you don't like them?". This has nothing to do with the discussion of abortion..and implies that the reason for one being pro-choice (or..pro-abortion in some peoples mind) is due to them "not liking them"
Keep in mind..it isn't a parasite in the normal sense of how a parasite it (where it degrades the body) but in the fact that it is taking nutrients and all without providing anything in return
Wouldn't a depletion in nutrition without receiving anything in return be considered degrading? If you lose nutrition, your body degrades. Seeing how the fetus doesn't offer anything in return it could be considered a parasite then. Really, both senses of parasitism you gave could be the same logically. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
And the health could be due to the woman improving their diet in anticipation for the child?
Indeed.
Wouldn't a depletion in nutrition without receiving anything in return be considered degrading? If you lose nutrition, your body degrades. Seeing how the fetus doesn't offer anything in return it could be considered a parasite then. Really, both senses of parasitism you gave could be the same logically. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Excuse what I said..apparently logic decided to leave me for a moment
But because of my own hiccup in thought..you did answer yourself with the question of it being kind of mutual haha
So what about people who are almost completely brain dead or mentally retarded, is it ok to kill them because you don't like them?
There would have still been consciousness over a period of time, and in those examples there still is consciousness.
I'm pretty sure it varies quite a bit too.
I wouldn't find it all the odd to find that it varies. Though we can still pin point about when certain features develops.
Right, let's settle this..
About the zygote (again):
We can agree that the zygote is the moment in human development where the genetical identity is settled. Though genetical identity is only the basis for the later-developing consciousness (or personhood).
About consciousness:
There is no fixed date to when consciousness starts; we would first have to settle at which degree of neural complexity does consciousness start.
About the brain, the central nervous system develops from the neural tube, which differentiates from cell layers around the fourth week. In the following two weeks, the brain buds form. But keep in mind that those buds are only precursors to the actual functional brain that develops only later.
I think this fits in here rather well:
"First Trimester - This is the single most common view held by adults in the western world. The medical assumptions include the fact that the fetus has no brain and therefore no awareness, by and large, movement can not yet be felt, and the large percentage of natural abortions (miscarriages) in the first trimester (generally given as "around 25%" of all pregnancies) makes an abortion in this trimester more palatable to many who would otherwise challenge a woman's right to abortion. "
link
So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?
So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?
That's not what we're trying to say. At that point in time, there are a very many factors to take into account. The first is that natural abortions happen all the time during that period, the second being that the fetus is not developed enough to have a brain yet. If a woman does not want to have a child, why should she be forced to? It is her body, what goes on inside of it should be her choice, especially when what is inside of her is not yet developed fully.
None of us are arguing that we want to kill fetuses, or that abortion should be the immediate go to option. We're arguing that it should be allowed for people who need it, and that it should be up to the woman in question to decide whether or not it is needed, no matter how conception took place.
So babies in the First Trimester are basically animals because they are alive but still ok to kill?
They aren't even alive on their own until birth. They are parasites for the most part, and during the first trimester they are just a mass of cells. They aren't even animals. Arguments like that are useless to those immune to pathos rhetoric.
-Blade
So, here in Switzerland, where abortions are financed by the obligatory health insurance, abortion rates are one of the lowest world-wide and illegal abortions pretty much inexistent...
... in such a setting, some people started an initiative demanding that abortions should be paid by the clients themselves. Arguments? "Health insurance is not supposed to take lives" and "religious people should not have to finance abortion via health insurance". Those people point at Austria where abortion is to be paid from your own pockets.
Funny enough, doctors from Austria warn us not to accept this initiative. From their experience, families have to go into debt to finance those expensive operations, and there are virtually no advantages to it.
Now I don't think this will pass anyway. But I still want to hear your opinion: assuming abortions are legal, should they be paid by health insurance or do you have to pay for it yourself? Arguments?
You must be logged in to post a reply!