Abortion: let's get a real debate going

Rise of Gatlinock · Oct 31st 2009, 6:05am

LOLFag wrote:

Human homeostasis refers to the body's ability to regulate physiologically its inner environment to ensure its stability in response to fluctuations in the outside environment and the weather.

I wonder, when has it been shown that fetuses can survive outside the mother's womb? Oh wait, it can't. It can't regulate itself to survive anywhere but the mother's womb. It can't ensure stability in changing environments. It is limited to and only to the mother's womb.

A fetus is most definitely alive. Never did I say it wasn't. But is it an individual organism? Can it survive by itself? Can it last even a few moments outside of the mother? No.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

Guess what? A fetus can't.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

Yes, I can. I'm 17, I've taken AP Biology, scored an easy 5, got 800 on my SAT II Biology, read the entire Campbell textbook, and I can very well guarantee that a fetus is not a human being. Why do I have to be a doctor to prove this? Do I need to be a mathematician to prove that 1+1=2?

How old are you? What do you know about biology?

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------

Mitochondria within cells have a set of different genes, separate from the rest of the cell. They divide and grow independently from the cell. Are they now a cell by themselves? Please correct me if I'm wrong, and that your implication that mitochondria are no longer organelles within cells, that they are no longer part of the cell.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------

HAHAHAHA no.

The mother's internal environment does not change. Are you telling me that humans are now exothermic beings? That our bodies have fluctuating pH levels? I'm sorry, please take a biology class before telling me this bullshit.

You do realize the definition of evolve, right? Growth =! evolve. Yes, my definition, and the definition accepted by the scientific community, is completely different from yours.

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

Are you a science teacher? No. Do you have to be a teacher to tell that a fetus is not human? No. Do you have to have a brain? Yes.

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 AM ----------

I see that you're advocating for pathos and ethos arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm the logos type of guy. Does it make my argument any weaker? On the contrary, I believe providing facts to be a stronger basis in an argument than using ethics and morals.

A fetus is alive. Just as a cell is alive. Is it a human being? No. Does it regulate its internal surroundings to compensate for fluctuations in the external environment? By all means, give me evidence that it can. As far as I know, it can't. At all. Take it out of the mother's womb, and let's see it live on. Oh, what do you know? It died. Abortion works on this principle. Ever thought of that?

Common sense does not hold any ground in the scientific community. You have to have proof to back your claims.

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

The OP merely asked for people's opinions on abortion, whether they believe it is right or wrong. Does it limit us to using only "common sense" to structure our arguments? Are we restricted from providing scientific facts and extrapolation? If we are, then by all means continue the debate through your methods.

Again, common sense doesn't do you any good in a debate. You need facts. It was common sense back in the days that the world was flat. It was common sense back in the Greeks that gods regularly intervened in daily affairs. It was common sense that evil deeds were the works of witches in the old days, and it was common sense that, well, I wouldn't want to go on and on about how common sense is erroneous without factual evidence to back it up. Killing a fetus is analogous with killing a brain cell simply because, while the fetus is more physiologically developed, both are essentially cells that lack independent life or a conscience. Unless you're trying to tell me that fetuses have a conscience, that is.

I do not feel anguish over the unborn child. Why? Because while it is unborn, it is not human. If you're building a computer and finished it halfway, is it a computer? It has the potential to become a computer, but why isn't it a computer? Because it's not the finished product. It doesn't have the same properties of a computer. It cannot function. The same applied here.

If justifying one's belief through factual evidence and not common sense is wrong here, by all means I'll be wrong.

DAMNNNNNN this guy shut you all up, he's right too. i'm taking AP bio aswell and i've never gotton less than an a on my tests. most of which are 100%+ lol. love science =]

abortion is not murder as a fetus is inhuman =]]]]

LuklaAdvocate · Oct 31st 2009, 6:44am

LOLFag wrote:

I see that you're advocating for pathos and ethos arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm the logos type of guy. Does it make my argument any weaker? On the contrary, I believe providing facts to be a stronger basis in an argument than using ethics and morals.

I find arguments to be the strongest when using all three rhetorical analysis strategies, not just one.

LOLFag wrote:

A fetus is alive. Just as a cell is alive. Is it a human being? No. Does it regulate its internal surroundings to compensate for fluctuations in the external environment? By all means, give me evidence that it can. As far as I know, it can't. At all. Take it out of the mother's womb, and let's see it live on. Oh, what do you know? It died. Abortion works on this principle. Ever thought of that?

The fetus can't live on its own any more than an infant. You put a 2 month old in a crib and walk away for two weeks, it's not going to be breathing when you come back. It doesn't have the mental and physical ability to live on its own.

The fetus, by most accounts, has the major organs and specialized cells formed at the time of many abortions. Do we base the idea of a human being off of what organs a fetus has? When it has a beating heart? When it can live outside the womb? When it comes through the vaginal canal? When?

Is a person who is using a dialysis machine human? They can't live without it; they're dependent on it to live, just as a fetus is dependent on the mother to a degree; the only difference is, the fetus is in a womb.

LOLFag wrote:

The OP merely asked for people's opinions on abortion, whether they believe it is right or wrong. Does it limit us to using only "common sense" to structure our arguments? Are we restricted from providing scientific facts and extrapolation? If we are, then by all means continue the debate through your methods.

No, but we're restricted from making claims such as "the fetus isn't alive."

LOLFag wrote:

Again, common sense doesn't do you any good in a debate.

We use common sense to analyze evidence which drives our arguments and allows us to logically decipher facts. Pretty sure common sense plays a large part of a debate.

LOLFag wrote:

It was common sense back in the days that the world was flat. It was common sense back in the Greeks that gods regularly intervened in daily affairs. It was common sense that evil deeds were the works of witches in the old days, and it was common sense that, well, I wouldn't want to go on and on about how common sense is erroneous without factual evidence to back it up.

Let's not hyperbolize my "common sense" idea too far out of context. My point was, too many people say "the fetus isn't living" or "it's just a ball of cells" without logical dialectic.

LOLFag wrote:

Killing a fetus is analogous with killing a brain cell simply because, while the fetus is more physiologically developed, both are essentially cells that lack independent life or a conscience. Unless you're trying to tell me that fetuses have a conscience, that is.

Being conscience doesn't equate being human. I consider people that are in a persistent vegetative state to be human, although their conscience is nonexistent, and although they cannot live on their own.

LOLFag wrote:

I do not feel anguish over the unborn child. Why? Because while it is unborn, it is not human.

So when you hear about a pregnant mother that has been murdered, you feel no moral anguish towards the unborn child? At all?

LOLFag wrote:

If you're building a computer and finished it halfway, is it a computer? It has the potential to become a computer, but why isn't it a computer? Because it's not the finished product.

I wasn't aware that we are ever a "finished product;" if we were, that would be a subjective idea, as we are never "finished" or done adapting/growing/maturing/aging. A computer is a finished product when all the parts are assembled. When are we an assembled product? During birth? When I turn 21?

By that logic, if you take a few non-vital organs out of some random person on the street, he's no longer human.

Rise of Gatlinock wrote:

DAMNNNNNN this guy shut you all up, he's right too. i'm taking AP bio aswell and i've never gotton less than an a on my tests. most of which are 100%+ lol. love science =]

abortion is not murder as a fetus is inhuman =]]]]

Are we really going to play the whole "I took AP Bio so I know a lot about biology" game?

There are professors and doctors with PhDs in molecular and cellular biology that are against abortions (and vice versa) and they know a hell of a lot more than you learned in AP bio. I've taken AP Bio, AP Chem, AP Calc, along with multiple other AP classes. That doesn't make me any more credible than you.

LOLFag · Oct 31st 2009, 7:13am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

I find arguments to be the strongest when using all three rhetorical analysis strategies, not just one.The fetus can't live on its own any more than an infant. You put a 2 month old in a crib and walk away for two weeks, it's not going to be breathing when you come back. It doesn't have the mental and physical ability to live on its own.

The point is, the baby can survive for a few days. It is capable of homeostasis and has the ability to survive in an external environment, albeit for just a short amount of time. A fetus does not exhibit such characteristics. It is incapable of adjusting itself to survive in an external environment for even a minute.

The fetus, by most accounts, has the major organs and specialized cells formed at the time of many abortions. Do we base the idea of a human being off of what organs a fetus has? When it has a beating heart? When it can live outside the womb? When it comes through the vaginal canal? When?

Most abortions take place before or during the 12th week (88% statistically.) At 12 weeks, the baby has just barely finished up the basic vital organs. Yes, it has its major organs formed, but they aren't complete. They can't function like ours can, for obvious reasons, and the fetus hasn't even gotten close to finishing up the rest of the body.

In any case, I perceive that your argument is that we don't have a definite line in determining what is human and what is not. In my eyes, a human being has to fulfill the following:

1. Homeostasis. It has to be able to survive in an external environment. Obviously, this is a prerequisite to any living organism.
2. It has to have the human genome.
3. It has to have, or had to have, a human conscience.

A fetus does not fulfill requirement 1. I'll go on to 3 when your argument arrives to it.

Is a person who is using a dialysis machine human? They can't live without it; they're dependent on it to live, just as a fetus is dependent on the mother to a degree; the only difference is, the fetus is in a womb.

The key difference between a fetus and someone hooked onto IV is that while a person on a machine can be transferred from one machine to another, the fetus cannot just be transferred from mother to mother. It is completely dependent on one single mother, unlike the patient on a machine, who is dependent on an outside source of nutrients, but can take in such nutrients from different sources. It is independent in that case, and the fetus is not.

No, but we're restricted from making claims such as "the fetus isn't alive.

I never said it wasn't.

We use common sense to analyze evidence which drives our arguments and allows us to logically decipher facts. Pretty sure common sense plays a large part of a debate.

Different people have a different sense of common sense. Galileo thought it was common sense that the world revolved around the sun. Similarly, I believe it is common sense that a fetus is not human. Common sense deviates from one person to another. Hence, factual evidence is needed instead. Interpretation of such evidence, however, varies from person to person in the same sense that common sense does, so I guess the point of this debate is to show the other person how your train of thought runs. Anyway, back on topic.

Let's not hyperbolize my "common sense" idea too far out of context. My point was, too many people say "the fetus isn't living" or "it's just a ball of cells" without logical dialectic.

Well, it might not seem logical to you, but it may seem logical to others. Not everyone's brains work the same.

Being conscience doesn't equate being human.

I consider people that are in a persistent vegetative state to be human, although their conscience is nonexistent, and although they cannot live on their own.

I on the other hand view them as if their humanity was stripped from them. Only their exterior is human. The interior human conscience no longer exists. Hence, the body is merely a living thing, and not a human being. At least, that's my point of view.

So when you hear about a pregnant mother that has been murdered

, you feel no moral anguish towards the unborn child? At all?

Not at all. Lacking a conscience, the unborn child wouldn't have felt the death. It's a shame that the child died, but anguish? Not at all.

I wasn't aware that we are ever a "finished product;" if we were, that would be a subjective idea, as we are never "finished" or done adapting/growing/maturing/aging. A computer is a finished product when all the parts are assembled. When are we an assembled product? During birth? When I turn 21? By that logic, if you take a few non-vital organs out of some random person on the street, he's no longer human.

During birth. When we are born, all our organs are completed. They continue to grow, but we don't grow new organs. We're complete when we're born, although complete isn't the right word. And no, if you take out a few non-vital parts from a computer, it's still a computer. It still functions as one.

Are we really going to play the whole "I took AP Bio so I know a lot about biology" game?

There are professors and doctors with PhDs in molecular and cellular biology that are against abortions (and vice versa) and they know a hell of a lot more than you learned in AP bio. I've taken AP Bio, AP Chem, AP Calc, along with multiple other AP classes. That doesn't make me any more credible than you.

That southernchick girl asked for my credentials. I gave them to her.

In any case, I too have taken AP Chemistry AP Calculus AB and BC, AP Statistics, and so forth.

Dr.Carter · Oct 31st 2009, 12:51pm

DamnImGood wrote:

I have no idea, but can police really deny filing a police report if a victim reports it?

If the police err on the side of caution, you could have people who became pregnant through consensual sex file a police report and subsequently have an abortion. Therein lies the problem, like most societal opinions influenced by religion (no offense), massive problems arise in applying their beliefs to the "real world".

southernchick · Oct 31st 2009, 7:59pm

I did not read your whole post.basicaaly cuz I did not have time.anyways I skimmed through for the important parts.

homeostasis does occur in a fetus.. scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v41n6/7205.pdf this website discusses homeostasis in a fetus.. I would copy and paste the part which matters but it is copy right proctected. But if you would like, it is the very first few lines on the second page in the introduction.. that is just one reference I can make that proves homeostasis exist.. a fetus doesn't need to be able to survive outside the womb to be human.or w/e your trying to say.. Because if you are saying that then you are saying either it is a being or w/e either before birth or after birth?
If you are saying it is an alive organism then it is an alive human organism because it have human DNA therefore it has a human nature..

Aannddyy · Oct 31st 2009, 10:50pm

southernchick wrote:

I did not read your whole post.basicaaly cuz I did not have time.anyways I skimmed through for the important parts.

Everything aside, if you're going to engage in a debate the least you can do is read the opposing arguments. If you do not have time, wait until you do. The guys here in Debates and Discussion will tear you to bits.

Rise of Gatlinock · Oct 31st 2009, 11:51pm

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

I find arguments to be the strongest when using all three rhetorical analysis strategies, not just one.The fetus can't live on its own any more than an infant. You put a 2 month old in a crib and walk away for two weeks, it's not going to be breathing when you come back. It doesn't have the mental and physical ability to live on its own.

The fetus, by most accounts, has the major organs and specialized cells formed at the time of many abortions. Do we base the idea of a human being off of what organs a fetus has? When it has a beating heart? When it can live outside the womb? When it comes through the vaginal canal? When?

Is a person who is using a dialysis machine human? They can't live without it; they're dependent on it to live, just as a fetus is dependent on the mother to a degree; the only difference is, the fetus is in a womb. No, but we're restricted from making claims such as "the fetus isn't alive."We use common sense to analyze evidence which drives our arguments and allows us to logically decipher facts. Pretty sure common sense plays a large part of a debate.Let's not hyperbolize my "common sense" idea too far out of context. My point was, too many people say "the fetus isn't living" or "it's just a ball of cells" without logical dialectic. Being conscience doesn't equate being human. I consider people that are in a persistent vegetative state to be human, although their conscience is nonexistent, and although they cannot live on their own.So when you hear about a pregnant mother that has been murdered, you feel no moral anguish towards the unborn child? At all? I wasn't aware that we are ever a "finished product;" if we were, that would be a subjective idea, as we are never "finished" or done adapting/growing/maturing/aging. A computer is a finished product when all the parts are assembled. When are we an assembled product? During birth? When I turn 21?

By that logic, if you take a few non-vital organs out of some random person on the street, he's no longer human. Are we really going to play the whole "I took AP Bio so I know a lot about biology" game?

There are professors and doctors with PhDs in molecular and cellular biology that are against abortions (and vice versa) and they know a hell of a lot more than you learned in AP bio. I've taken AP Bio, AP Chem, AP Calc, along with multiple other AP classes. That doesn't make me any more credible than you.

calm down, lolfag took a big shit on your chest already =]

bad news · Nov 1st 2009, 1:08am

It doesn't walk like a human.
It doesn't talk like a human.
It doesn't look like a human.
It doesn't eat like a human.
It doesn't think like a human.
It doesn't see like a human.
It doesn't drink like a human.
It doesn't smell like a human.
It doesn't reproduce like a human.
It doesn't adapt like a human.
It doesn't sleep like a human.
It doesn't work like a human.

You've got to be some kind of stupid to still be desperately grasping onto the belief that a fertilized egg is magically a human.

Dr.Carter · Nov 1st 2009, 1:16am

bad news wrote:

It doesn't walk like a human.
It doesn't talk like a human.
It doesn't look like a human.
It doesn't eat like a human.
It doesn't think like a human.
It doesn't see like a human.
It doesn't drink like a human.
It doesn't smell like a human.
It doesn't reproduce like a human.
It doesn't adapt like a human.
It doesn't sleep like a human.
It doesn't work like a human.

You've got to be some kind of stupid to still be desperately grasping onto the belief that a fertilized egg is magically a human.

So, by your logic, people in wheelchairs aren't human? Or blind people? etc.

You can't speak so generally. That applies to almost everyone in this thread rattling of criteria. I haven't seen a single one that works universally.

LuklaAdvocate · Nov 1st 2009, 1:20am

LOLFag wrote:

The point is, the baby can survive for a few days. It is capable of homeostasis and has the ability to survive in an external environment, albeit for just a short amount of time. A fetus does not exhibit such characteristics. It is incapable of adjusting itself to survive in an external environment for even a minute.

How does the infants ability to survive in an external environment for a few days have any relevance? Neither can live on its own; the infant can survive a few days longer, and that's assuming you're comparing an infant to a fetus during the mid pregnancy, not the latter portion of it.

You're going into the physical aspects of how an infant can survive for a few days. Nonetheless, it is dependent on other humans to give it what it needs to survive. Human homeostasis involves regulating an inner environment; if a fetus was not capable of doing so, it would not be growing. The mother provides the nutrienents and proteins, but the fetus still needs to utilize them in order to continue living.

LOLFag wrote:

Most abortions take place before or during the 12th week (88% statistically.) At 12 weeks, the baby has just barely finished up the basic vital organs. Yes, it has its major organs formed, but they aren't complete. They can't function like ours can, for obvious reasons, and the fetus hasn't even gotten close to finishing up the rest of the body.

The fetus is fully formed at 12 weeks, so I'm not sure what you mean by "hasn't even gotten close to finishing up the rest of the body."

You're talking about organs being "completed" as if it's a black and white idea. Arguably, our sexual organs aren't "complete" until we hit puberty, and our brain isn't "complete" until we hit our 20's.

LOLFag wrote:

In any case, I perceive that your argument is that we don't have a definite line in determining what is human and what is not. In my eyes, a human being has to fulfill the following:

1. Homeostasis. It has to be able to survive in an external environment. Obviously, this is a prerequisite to any living organism.
2. It has to have the human genome.
3. It has to have, or had to have, a human conscience.

A fetus does not fulfill requirement 1. I'll go on to 3 when your argument arrives to it.

Why would previously having a conscience prove any relevance? How something is classified should be based on what is currently applicable, not what used to be.

You see, you're using solely science to diagnose this issue. From where I'm sitting, both science and philosophy need to be added to the picture.

There's more to being human that having potent brain power or having human DNA.
An infant, for example, has human DNA, but has less brainpower than other animals. If you shoot an infant in the head, you get charged with murder 1. If you shoot a chimp in the head, you're probably not going to get life without parole. In all reality, when you took the life of the chimp, you took the life of an animal that has more awareness and a higher degree of conscience than the infant. What makes the infant different? The infant cannot live on its own, nor can it reason to a reasonably high degree: the chimp is capable of both, yet you don't get charged with first degree murder for killing it. That leads me to believe that there's really two things that make that infant more important than the chimp: the fact that killing it would make other people suffer, and that fact that it has our DNA.

We make laws to protect that infant because we believe it's a human being, although it has minimal awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, we don't give that chimp the same protection under the law, even though it's awareness and reasoning skills surpasses the infants.

So, human DNA alone is not enough to be human. Brain power alone is not enough to be human. And even if an infant has human DNA and very little brain power, what gives it more rights than an animal with extremely high reasoning skills, but without our DNA?

As such, at least to me (and I'm not sure if what I said above made much sense; it's complicated to explain), it's not just about being able to survive on your own, or having a conscience, or having human DNA. I don't see the point in labeling something "human" as soon as it has minimal brain power to go along with its human DNA, and therefore protected under the law.

The best of luck deciphering that; I don't expect it to make absolute sense, but if you can catch what I'm getting at, then that's what I'm hoping for.

LOLFag wrote:

The key difference between a fetus and someone hooked onto IV is that while a person on a machine can be transferred from one machine to another, the fetus cannot just be transferred from mother to mother. It is completely dependent on one single mother, unlike the patient on a machine, who is dependent on an outside source of nutrients, but can take in such nutrients from different sources. It is independent in that case, and the fetus is not.

The fetus is dependent on one mother; a person on dialysis is dependent on a machine(s). Being able to switch machines really has no relevance to me, as you're still dependent on a foreign source.

Speaking of which, those who are on a dialysis machine do not have a kidney to maintain the body's internal equilibrium of chloride, potassium, calcium, magnesium, etc. They need an external source to maintain a stable environment, just as the fetus.

LOLFag wrote:

I never said it wasn't.

Yes, because that particular statement wasn't directed at you; I was responding to Goddess.

LOLFag wrote:

Well, it might not seem logical to you, but it may seem logical to others. Not everyone's brains work the same.

How is it logical to say that the fetus isn't living? That shows a lack of understanding of biology on a very basic level.

LOLFag wrote:

I on the other hand view them as if their humanity was stripped from them. Only their exterior is human. The interior human conscience no longer exists. Hence, the body is merely a living thing, and not a human being. At least, that's my point of view.

Wait, their exterior is human, but not their body? Huh? Is somebody in a persistent vegetative state human or not?

By "exterior," I'm assuming you mean the body in which they live in, with no longer having a functioning conscience.

LOLFag wrote:

Not at all. Lacking a conscience, the unborn child wouldn't have felt the death. It's a shame that the child died, but anguish? Not at all.

What's to shame if the murdered fetus is the equivalent of a brain cell? Perhaps anguish was too ardent. A small amount of affliction, then?

LOLFag wrote:

During birth. When we are born, all our organs are completed. They continue to grow, but we don't grow new organs. We're complete when we're born, although complete isn't the right word.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that passing through the vaginal canal suddenly causes are organs to become "complete?" Or does it occur before hand? When do the organs need to be capable of in order to be "completed?" Do they need to be fully functioning?

LOLFag wrote:

In any case, I too have taken AP Chemistry AP Calculus AB and BC, AP Statistics, and so forth.

Totally irrelevant to the conversation, but how's the AP Stats test?

Rise of Gatlinock wrote:

calm down, lolfag took a big shit on your chest already =]

I didn't really reply to you with the intent of joking around or provoking half-assed answers like that.

bad news · Nov 1st 2009, 1:49am

Dr.Carter wrote:

So, by your logic, people in wheelchairs aren't human?
Or blind people? etc.

They look like a human.
They talk like a human.
They eat like a human.
They drink like a human.
They think like a human.
They act like a human.

And so on and so forth.

You can't speak so generally. That applies to almost everyone in this thread rattling of criteria. I haven't seen a single one that works universally.

Mental existence.

LuklaAdvocate · Nov 1st 2009, 2:06am

bad news wrote:

They look like a human.
They talk like a human.
They eat like a human.
They drink like a human.
They think like a human.
They act like a human.

And so on and so forth.

Mental existence.

Let's see...and by your logic

They look like a human:
If two legs and one arm have been amputated, they're not human.

They talk like a human:
If they've had a stroke and the most you hear is mumbling when they talk, they're not human. Or if they can't talk at all. Wait...do infants talk like a human?

They eat like a human; They drink like a human:
If they're required to get their nutrients and fluids through an IV, they're not human.

They think like a human; They act like a human.
If they have profound mental retardation, they're not human.

Goddess of Judecca · Nov 1st 2009, 2:11am

Guys, with that list bad news posted, I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying if one of those criteria weren't met, it wasn't human. He wasn't even saying those were criteria. He was just showing how a fetus doesn't really have anything in common with a human, so it seems silly to consider it one. THAT'S ALL. No need to read into it so much and be total dicks about it.

~Maggot

LOLFag · Nov 1st 2009, 5:09am

*Flexes fingers*

Alright, here goes.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

How does the infants ability to survive in an external environment for a few days have any relevance? Neither can live on its own; the infant can survive a few days longer, and that's assuming you're comparing an infant to a fetus during the mid pregnancy, not the latter portion of it.

You're going into the physical aspects of how an infant can survive for a few days. Nonetheless, it is dependent on other humans to give it what it needs to survive. Human homeostasis involves regulating an inner environment; if a fetus was not capable of doing so, it would not be growing. The mother provides the nutrienents and proteins, but the fetus still needs to utilize them in order to continue living.The fetus is fully formed at 12 weeks, so I'm not sure what you mean by "hasn't even gotten close to finishing up the rest of the body."

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The point I'm making is that the fetus is fully dependent on one and only one mother. While the infant can sustain itself from various outside sources, like people on dialysis machines, a fetus can't change mothers. It is, in essence, a part of the mother physically. As for homeostasis, the fetus is capable of only very limited homeostasis. When it means by regulating an internal environment, it means, like a buffer with acid added to it, the internal environment wouldn't fluctuate with the outside environment. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but the mother's womb is already at a practically constant environment, therefore I'm confused as to what you mean that the fetus can maintain homeostasis. Surely, a fetus cannot survive in an external environment, as that's what abortions do, therefore how can it maintain homeostasis?

Anyway, the fetus isn't fully formed by week 12. The brain undergoes rapid development at week 27, and it's only then that it could have some little control over muscle movement. Bone and muscle continue development after week 12, and it's only at week 36 does the baby (after week 36, I shall refer to the fetus as a baby, since...) have a decent chance at survival outside the womb.

You're talking about organs being "completed" as if it's a black and white idea. Arguably, our sexual organs aren't "complete" until we hit puberty, and our brain isn't "complete" until we hit our 20's.

Why would previously having a conscience prove any relevance? How something is classified should be based on what is currently applicable, not what used to be.

What I'm trying to say is that at birth, all our organs are made. They aren't complete, but we wouldn't be growing any more organs after birth.

I shall revise. Previously having a conscience would mean previously being human. I shall discuss further on.

You see, you're using solely science to diagnose this issue. From where I'm sitting, both science and philosophy need to be added to the picture.

There's more to being human that having potent brain power or having human DNA.
An infant, for example, has human DNA, but has less brainpower than other animals. If you shoot an infant in the head, you get charged with murder 1. If you shoot a chimp in the head, you're probably not going to get life without parole. In all reality, when you took the life of the chimp, you took the life of an animal that has more awareness and a higher degree of conscience than the infant. What makes the infant different? The infant cannot live on its own, nor can it reason to a reasonably high degree: the chimp is capable of both, yet you don't get charged with first degree murder for killing it. That leads me to believe that there's really two things that make that infant more important than the chimp: the fact that killing it would make other people suffer, and that fact that it has our DNA.

We make laws to protect that infant because we believe it's a human being, although it has minimal awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, we don't give that chimp the same protection under the law, even though it's awareness and reasoning skills surpasses the infants.

So, human DNA alone is not enough to be human. Brain power alone is not enough to be human. And even if an infant has human DNA and very little brain power, what gives it more rights than an animal with extremely high reasoning skills, but without our DNA?

As such, at least to me (and I'm not sure if what I said above made much sense; it's complicated to explain), it's not just about being able to survive on your own, or having a conscience, or having human DNA. I don't see the point in labeling something "human" as soon as it has minimal brain power to go along with its human DNA, and therefore protected under the law.

The best of luck deciphering that; I don't expect it to make absolute sense, but if you can catch what I'm getting at, then that's what I'm hoping for.

*Breathe out* That was long. I believe the bolded text summarizes the argument. Is your argument then that humanity cannot be determined primarily by genome? But even if you don't see the point of that, the rest of the world does, as evident by the law you mentioned beforehand. Unfortunately, that's the accepted status quo. I do not agree; I for one would rather shoot the infant than the chimp, but then again, that's just me.

The fetus is dependent on one mother; a person on dialysis is dependent on a machine(s).

Being able to switch machines really has no relevance to me, as you're still dependent on a foreign source.

Speaking of which, those who are on a dialysis machine do not have a kidney to maintain the body's internal equilibrium of chloride, potassium, calcium, magnesium, etc. They need an external source to maintain a stable environment, just as the fetus.

Switching machines though is what my argument is based on. Because the patient has the ability to switch machines, it is not solely dependent on anything. Like a parasitic organism to a host, while the parasite is dependent on the host for food, it is regarded as an independent organism because it is not solely dependent on one specific host. The fetus, on the other hand, is not capable of making such decisions. It is solely dependent on that one and only mother. It is incapable of individual survival, even with other mothers or sources of nutrients.

How is it logical to say that the fetus isn't living? That shows a lack of understanding of biology on a very basic level.

I mean, it's logical for me to say the fetus isn't human, not that it's logical that it isn't living.

Wait, their exterior is human, but not their body? Huh? Is somebody in a persistent vegetative state human or not? By "exterior," I'm assuming you mean the body in which they live in, with no longer having a functioning conscience.

No no, the exterior is human, the physical body is human, but collectively it is not because it doesn't have the human conscience anymore. Allow me to digress. First of all, all organisms share the same characteristic to being able to voluntarily react to a stimulus. With the cognitive functions of the brain shut down in a vegetative state, the patient is no longer "with us." You can beat the body with a billy club and it wouldn't react. This is no longer a human characteristic. Secondly, take this thought experiment as an example: suppose through some freak accident the mind of a dog has been implanted into a human body. Is it still human? Of course not, the body is human but it has a mind of a dog. The same occurs here in that the human mind is no longer there.

What's to shame if the murdered fetus is the equivalent of a brain cell?

Perhaps anguish was too ardent. A small amount of affliction, then?

I would think it's a shame not because of the death of the fetus, but rather the psychological pain it would cause on other family members. Strange, isn't it? It takes some time to jump onto my train of thought.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that passing through the vaginal canal suddenly causes are organs to become "complete?" Or does it occur before hand? When do the organs need to be capable of in order to be "completed?" Do they need to be fully functioning?

Naw, as I stated above, it's at the time of roughly 38 weeks(?) that the baby is formed.

Totally irrelevant to the conversation, but how's the AP Stats test?

Our teacher was a huge dick to us, so it was decent.

bad news · Nov 1st 2009, 6:00am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Let's see...and by your logic

The idiocy of some of the people on this site astounds me.

They look like a human:

If two legs and one arm have been amputated, they're not human.

But they talk like a human, think like a human, eat like a human, sleep like a human, work like a human, etc.

They talk like a human:

If they've had a stroke and the most you hear is mumbling when they talk, they're not human. Or if they can't talk at all. Wait...do infants talk like a human?

But they look like a human, they think like a human, they eat like a human...

Ok, you know what? I'm gonna stop there. You know why the people you listed are human, you're just antagonizing me. I'm not biting. Good night.

Dr.Carter · Nov 1st 2009, 2:11pm

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

No need to read into it so much and be total dicks about it.

I find it odd that you are going to lecture me about being a 'total dick'. Nonetheless, I'm not reading into his logic just to spite him, I'm just explaining that if you want to make such general conjectures, don't be surprised when they fail to work in multiple applications. I don't see how simply refuting an opposing point makes me a dick, especially when I didn't use ad hominems. I actually even explained my reasoning instead of just offering a disproof to his theory. But I guess that makes me a real asshole.

Goddess of Judecca · Nov 1st 2009, 6:57pm

Dr.Carter wrote:

I find it odd that you are going to lecture me about being a 'total dick'. Nonetheless, I'm not reading into his logic just to spite him, I'm just explaining that if you want to make such general conjectures, don't be surprised when they fail to work in multiple applications. I don't see how simply refuting an opposing point makes me a dick, especially when I didn't use ad hominems. I actually even explained my reasoning instead of just offering a disproof to his theory. But I guess that makes me a real asshole.

Calm yourself, I was more referring to the other one. Whatshiface. Yeah, that one. But, as I said, bad news never claimed that just because one or two of those things he mentioned weren't met, that suddenly the person isn't human because they can't see like a human or whatever. And I'm quite certain you're aware he wasn't saying that either, so acting like you think he was seems rather...IwishIcouldthinkofthewordbutI'mwaytootiredrightnow.

Also as I said, he wasn't stating any of that as fact. It was just to point out how un-humanlike a fetus is. Nothing more.

~Maggot

LordOfTheBooks · Nov 1st 2009, 7:08pm

Simply put in my mind is this:

Abortion is wrong UNLESS the women is raped and does not want the child (I mean who would?), or if it is to save the mothers life. If you just happen to forget a condom and bam a kid live with it either raise the kid or send it off for adoption. I prefer the raising it but not all do in this instance.

Lili · Nov 1st 2009, 11:35pm

I think it is wrong because your taking a life. And most of the people who get abortions are like 16 year old girls who made mistakes, they were stupid and if they didn't have unprotected sex they wouldn't be having a kid. So I put the kid up for adoption if you don't want it but don't take another life!

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Also you ever noticed how everybody that supports abortion is already BORN?

Goddess of Judecca · Nov 1st 2009, 11:38pm

Lili wrote:

I think it is wrong because your taking a life. And most of the people who get abortions are like 16 year old girls who made mistakes...

Statistic for this?

~Maggot

Share

Tags