K
katie_tully
Guest
Actually, this potato gem looks a bit like a blastocyst
Nom nom nom.
Nom nom nom.
It's a boy!katie_tully said:It is disgusting that you don't consider these little guys as entities with their own rights.
http://www.sarahwray.com/USERIMAGES/blastocyst.jpg
With acne I noticed...!ogmzergrush said:It's a boy!
Thought I would quickly weigh in with some opinions we were discussing way back in this thread. (At least over a year ago).katie_tully said:I imagine it would be a lot more painful than being sucked out of a uterus. To be sucked out the fetus needs to be 12 weeks or less. Prove to me a 12 week old fetus can feel pain.
This debate comes down to what we consider a human life. There is no disputing that a fetus inside a human is human. What else would it be? It's certainly not a cat.BradCube said:Thought I would quickly weigh in with some opinions we were discussing way back in this thread. (At least over a year ago).
Firstly the pain argument doesn't have much ground for 2 reasons. If the only reason for not killing a living organism is that it feels pain, then:
1. We should not be killing animals
2. Injecting anesthetic before death is a perfectly justifiable way to kill anyone for whatever reason.
The other prevalent argument that we looked at was whether the fetus was human or not. We gathered that about 4 days after conception, the result could be regarded as living and it could be regarded as human life.
This presented us with a new question. If it is regarded as life, what differentiates this organism from the humans we deal with everyday. Some opinions raised included concisenesses, human form, human functions and ability to survive. Most of these reasons turned out to be misleading also since many naturally born babies don't exhibit these characteristics:
- We know that babies have no concisenesses when first born.
- We know that not all babies are born in what we regard to be normal human form (ie may have a 6th toe).
- Not all babies are born with all human functions (they are disabled).
- Babies are not able to survive on their own even after being born (they need to be feed, cared for etc)
Since we do not find it morally permissible to kill babies for the above reasons, there is no reason to think that these characteristic give us moral permissibility to kill the life when in the womb.
I would ask then what other reasons do we pose that justify us ending this life in the womb that are not also applicable to fully grown humans?
I actually think you've got the argument the wrong way around kinda... to me it's quite easy to justify killing a fully grown human abortion style and there's an essay that fairly thoroughly proves it.I would ask then what other reasons do we pose that justify us ending this life in the womb that are not also applicable to fully grown humans?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htmYou wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
So we should harvest organs from the living elderly to save the lives of the young?The baby's life has only just begun, the mother has already enjoyed living for 13 - 50 years, probably an average of about 25.
Naturally there are no laws stopping someone from killing their kid either... arguments from what is 'natural' are incredibly dense. I'm not sure if you'd be able to prove people didn't abort their children in the long gone past anyway, perhaps they waited until they were born, but viscious child murder was pretty common amongst early human society.Naturally, there is no such thing as abortions.
So now the goal of human civilisation is dictated by the goal of our genes? This isn't even certain, I mean tbh it's possible overpopulation means it's more important for LESS young people to be born.It is more important for the species for new offspring to survive than for older people that have already reproduced.
lolSo they offspring should if anything, have more of a right to continue living than the mother.
It's a life dependent on the mother, the mother doesn't take away its right to life anymore than the person in the violinist does to the violinist - The real issues come about as I said, because the woman can be said in many circumstances to have 'invited' to risk of having a child.Abortion is really just an abuse of power. The baby is still a life, but it can't assert it's right to life, so as a matter of pragmatism we simply allow it to be killed for the convenience of the mother.
If you can't prove that person has a justified responsiblity then I don't see the problem with allowing a life to end that would have inconvenienced another? I mean... We could force doctors to work 24/7, why should they get the convenience of holidays? maybe if they worked more less people would die.However, if no such risk exist, then we are simply terminating a life to aleviate someone of an inconvenience.
There's a burgular analogy that somewhat attempts to deal with this too... Are you liable for your own loss of goods if you live in a crime ridden neighbourhood and don't take the adequate steps to protect yourself? i.e. extra locks etc.As for "it's a life that you've created and is a burden on you only by your own volition." I agree, however there are so many precautions you can take to avoid assuming this responsibility, once you accept it by getting pregnant, surely you have a duty to the life you have created.
In which case you can follow the logic of what I'm saying now, amirite?zimmerman8k said:I would let the violinist die.
Pain is in itself almost irrelevant, its the taking of life.katie_tully said:I imagine it would be a lot more painful than being sucked out of a uterus. To be sucked out the fetus needs to be 12 weeks or less. Prove to me a 12 week old fetus can feel pain.
We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.Schroedinger said:protoplasm is not an individual. Otherwise you would be arguing for rights for stem cells.
No it's not!bshoc said:Pain is in itself almost irrelevant, its the taking of life.
A clump of cells that have gone through differentiation so that they perform things like, oh I don't know breathing, heart beating, metabolism, digestion...all that which is required for life. The same stuff clumps of cells dont do.bshoc said:We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.
So we have two issues here.katie_tully said:This debate comes down to what we consider a human life. There is no disputing that a fetus inside a human is human. What else would it be? It's certainly not a cat.
I don't believe that <12 week old 'fetus' consitutes as a life. And even if one does consider it a life, I don't believe that a 12 week old fetus has more rights than that of the mother.
I'll assume you mean objectively here rather than subjectively. What would you prefer a baby or child be referred to then? If simply calling them what they are makes it harder to view the subject objectively then I would suggest the issue lies with you.katie_tully said:I think that it's an irresponsible argument to compare a living baby (who may or may not be disabled) with an aborted fetus which may or may not have had a disability. When you start using terms such as baby and child it makes it harder for people to view this topic subjectively.
Sound like an interesting essay. What do you hope to show?katie_tully said:I'm glad you've brought it up though. I'm doing an essay on ethics in genetic testing. One of the issues I have come across is whether testing for genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis is insinuating that those currently living with the disease are lesser beings or have a diminished quality of life.
ITS STILL A HUMAN BEING! I KNOW IM RIGHT IN MY HEARTT! I FEEL FOR IT BECAUSE IT CANT DO IT FOR ITSELF!Schroedinger said:Yeah except your argument falls flat because one of those bundles of cells is attached to and living off another human being.
Any organism is life imo.BradCube said:So we have two issues here.
1 What you do regard as a life and why?
2. How much right does another living human being have? (I would claim that it has equal rights with any other human being)
But it is right to let another person die sometimes, right?We're all a clump of cells genius, I'm arguing for the rights of all unique human beings, regardless of whether they have existed for 12 weeks or 12 years.
Yeah.zimmerman8k said:The pro-lifers argue that it is the fetus' potential to become a fully functional human being that makes abortion wrong. So are condoms wrong? Just how far do we trace back this chain of causation. Are people effectively committing murder by not having enough sex in the first place?
Meh they'd come up with a wordy way to explain that it's different once the egg has been fetilized and I'd probably agree.zimmerman8k said:The pro-lifers argue that it is the fetus' potential to become a fully functional human being that makes abortion wrong. So are condoms wrong? Just how far do we trace back this chain of causation. Are people effectively committing murder by not having enough sex in the first place?