Abortion: What is the measure of a human?

Post Reply New Topic

So I've been lurking some of the discussions around here recently about abortion, and noticed that one of the main points of disagreement is whether the being inside the mother is like a baby, where killing him would be equivalent to murder, or not. So before people can agree to whether abortion is right or wrong, they must agree to what is a human being and what is not. Or be aware that if they can't agree in this issue, then any further discussion on abortion will be fruitless. So here I go:

Ovum/Sperm Cells:

Are they human? A lot of people talk about the potential some cells have of being human, and here is where the potential first starts. Do you think that the use of contraceptive methods is morally wrong? Is male masturbation equivalent to killing off 255 million babies in average? Or 255 million babies minus one, when a baby is conceived? If a woman let's a period go without trying to get pregnant, is she killing a baby?

Zygote:

An ovum and a sperm cell right after the latter has fertilized the former. Has a complete genetic code, with the potential to develop into a concrete human being. Any kind of contraceptive that messes up with a zygote's ability of impregnating the uterus would be wrong, if you believe that these ones are already human (from what I gathered, contraceptive pills do NOT interfere in that process, they interfere with ovulation, before a zygote can be formed.)

Blastocyst

All earlier stages consist of one or multiple undifferentiated cells; while in this one there are two groups: the one where the placenta comes from, and the one where the embryo comes from. Stem cells come from here, destroying the blastocyst in the process, so if these ones are already human stem cell research would be morally wrong. It's worth noting that 30% to 60% of these naturally fail to implant anyway.

Implanted embryo.

Happens around nine days after fertilization, when the embryo latches itself to the uterine wall. Many definitions of pregnancy say it begins here. U.S. considers pills that interfere with implanted embryos as abortifacients.

Fifth week

A brain bulge is formed. As the source of consciousness, this one could be important.

Ninth week:

This marks the end of the embryonic stage, and the beginning of the fetal stage. All essential organs have began to form, a heartbeat can be detected, and there are spontaneous limb movements. Brain waves can be detected in the lower brain. Abortion through medication is used up to this point.

Thirteenth week: The fetus can make active movements

Fifteenth week: Abortion through suction-aspiration is used up to this point.

Twenty-second week: Brain activity can be detected in the higher brain.

Twenty-third week: 20% chance of the fetus surviving outside the uterus

Twenty-fourth week: 50%+ chance of survival; lower limit of the fetus' capability of feeling pain.

Twenty-sixth week: 90%+ chance of survival.

Thirtieth week: The fetus is able to feel pain, upper limit

Fortieth week: Birth.



So... where do you people stand in this issue? Up to which point is abortion acceptable, and why?

Last edited by Shatbat on 04 Nov 2012, 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Scientifically, human development begins at conception and ends at adult maturity or death.

A cell of a human, like a sperm cell, is not a human/organism. It is merely a level of organization of an organism.

Something like a zygote is simply an underdeveloped, but developing human. Much like a 2 year old and 16 year old are underdeveloped but developing humans.

There way too many abortion threads on here btw. Pedo threads too.

Last edited by blackelk on 04 Nov 2012, 4:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

zygote

Logically, some time after birth, when it develops awareness greater than that of a pig, given that most humans in the West place little value on the life of a pig. You could even argue sometime around 2.5 years when the child becomes comparable to an adult chimpanzee.

For me, probably some time around 24 weeks after conception, because that is about the stage I think the rights of individual animals need to be considered.

I'd say somewhere before the 24th week is ok but if you get up to 26th that is probably too late.

In theory I'd say it should be allowed until labor but in actual practice if you can remove it and have it survive it's pretty much too late by then.

I'd say if they can't survive independently from the mother, then they're not a viable human.

You can moralise all you want but anything before that then they are in reality, just a parasite.

I agree with this.

If it has human DNA it's a human of course. Why it relates to abortion I'm not sure, while I am pro-choice my own personal choice is to never have an abortion unless it saved my life. Abortion personally upsets me greatly and I always feel sad when someone else does it, but the fact that it's human doesn't really matter. It's the fact that it's dead that matters to me.

Some people can never survive independently, are they parasites?

To some people they are. Some people think they don't deserve any help. So much for "sanctity of life". I guess that only applies before you are born.

If the people taking care of them don't want to take care of them any more they can try to find a place to take care of them or kick them out just like the pregnant woman can kick the baby out of the womb.

Except a parasite is a biological definition which the fetus does not fit.

One is murder and the other is tax payer funded

A human either starts right at conception (as the Vatican says) or starts when it is self aware (Pete Singer). This is according to my ethics professor a couple of years ago.

I wouldn't call a group of newly formed cells a human being, but I'm not comfortable saying that a newborn isn't.

Either way, I don't see why that life takes precedence over the mothers independence. Compared to other animals in nature, human are poorly adapted to giving birth and an additional 9 months are needed to make a recovery from the process. Not the mention that the kid will impact every decision the parents make once it comes out. Some people aren't ready for that kind of commitment considering that their own independence / ability to survive without help isn't always a done deal.

Carl Sagan has already solved this like one hundred years ago.


http://2think.org/abortion.shtml

It is simple as that. Let us use fuzzy logic. The thing is definitely not a person between 0 and 26-th week that would be like 0.00 belonging degree to the set "human beings". It is definitely a person after birth, that would be 1.00. Anything between 26-th week and birth has fractionary personhood.

Irrelevant as heck too. Because the host has 1.00 person hood and thus entitled for more rights.

If people really were 'pro-life' they would be doing things to prevent abortions. Making them illegal certainly does not stop abortions. Not by a long shot. So, instead, make it legal but also teach about contraception.

In the case of republicans, it would also be a great (GREAT) idea to stop supporting rapists. Less rapists = less abortions (guarantee).

And also, in the case of republicans, please stop being "pro-life" only until birth. How about the opposite? And you worry about babies that were born and support giving them health care and education?

Fox news biology.

First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

Source: http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

But sentience, self awareness, intention and intelligence must wait upon sufficient brain mass which occurs weeks to months after birth. A human infant is not a -person- at birth. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person.

ruveyn