What are your viewpoints on abortion?

The embryo is human because it has the DNA/genes (Idk if they're the same thing) that make it human.

 

An embryo is a human because it can be defined as the earliest stage of humanity. Children and adults are at different phases of humanity, but still human. The embryo is at a state where all one has to do is live as they normally do, minus drinking and smoking and eating certain food, and the embryo eventually becomes a child, becomes, and adult, etc., but being human the entire time. A sperm and egg cannot be defined this way because it takes sex and a lot of random chance to become an embryo, whereas for an embryo to develop you basically only have to survive.

 

You protested to the destruction of embryos created outside of the womb. They would not develop into a human at any point in time. Why is their destruction taboo to you?

 

Except they can, when you put them back in the womb

 

And all an egg requires to grow is a sperm cell.

 

....Okay you got me on that one. And after I think about it, I change my mind, I guess the destruction of the embryos during IVFs isn't that big a deal, since they are in a condition where they can't survive without conscious effort

 

It's interesting that you've redefined frozen embryos. I suspect that also means you allow stem cell research, although I don't know enough about that procedure to be certain.

I'm curious as to your reaction for this different approach. Let's agree on foetuses hypothetically being 'human', and killing one to be murder. This seems to be a fair enough approach to me. If a criminal kills a pregnant woman, then the criminal is often charged with two counts of murder. The baby takes nutrients from the mother. However, at no point does the mother lose any of her rights. In other words, she is allowed to eat whatever she wishes, be it fruit, vegetables, offal, wine, beer, whiskey, tobacco or an abortion pill. These are natural rights that have always existed for her. To rob her of these rights is to restrict her freedom, and is clearly unethical. Whatever happens to the child is none of her concern though. It is its own human being, and while there are laws on what a parent can feed to a minor, there are no laws on what a person can choose to eat themselves (excluding some illegal drugs). The mother isn't directly feeding something to the child; she is merely eating something herself. The mother doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that the human being parasitically living off of her doesn't suffer for her diet.

There's something that doesn't seem quite right about this argument, although I can't put my finger on it. Ah well. That's your job.

 

Reposting because it seems to have been ignored.

And I can tell you what's wrong with your argument. You're assuming that that mother can pick and choose what goes from her to the fetus. As wicked sick that would be, this is not at all the case. Once the fetus has formed, the mother is responsible for taking care of it just like a child. I don't know about you, but oftentimes in America it becomes necessary for our rights to be restricted for the better of all of us. Take and airport for example. You go in and before you get on the plane, you are checked for anything that you could possibly use to do any kind of terrorist act on the plane. You give up your right to privacy because you get on that plane, whether or not you want to get on the plane. The same thing is the case with pregnancy. Whether or not she wants to be pregnant, the mother is expected to give up certain rights for the well being of her baby.

 

Biology/Biochemistry major here. While you are correct that taxonomically that would be a human, brain function doesn't start until around the 12th week of gestation. If the parents (in particular the mother) have a legitimate reason and catch it before that point, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.

Also, callin' bullshit there. Humans are part of nature, like it or not. Therefore anything and everything we do is part of natural selection. Ever hear the peppered moth story? Genetic variation induced purely by industry.

Ergo it is murder to, say, pinch someone, killing thousands of skin cells containing countless genes and thousands of copies of the entire human genome? For future reference, genes are made of DNA.

I hate to use overused arguments, but you can't make such broad statements without considering all of the scenarios. i.e. rape and the like.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Take from that what you will.

 

That may be true, but as a Biology major, you must know that brain function =/= Life. It is alive because it exhibits all of the traits of life, those being:
Homeostasis (with help from the womb, but still)
Organization (into cells)
Metabolism (it does burn up those calories as a result of...)
Growth (the purpose of it being in the womb)
Adaptation (in fact, instrumental to the process)
Response to stimuli (stimuli DO include the nutrients that are fed to it via the umbilical cord and what occurs that causes it to latch on to the uterine wall)
Reproduction (again, instrumental to the process. Also the cells that it is made of reproduce)

Yes, the darker coloration in moths was a more favorable trait and therefore the black moths survived longer than the white moths. However, that was still natural selection because it was just us humans doing our thing and not trying to have an effect on the rest of nature. Abortion goes against that the same way post womb murder does except not only is the baby killed, it is also killed before its entire phenotype has formed. The moth example has fully formed moths capable of independent survival. Abortion happens before all the traits encoded for in the organism have "taken effect," for lack of a better term. Ergo, traits that may be favorable for survival will never get into the world and thus will be impossible to pass on.

 

Never once did I try to imply that it wasn't alive, I was just saying that I think that if there's no brain function, and the couple or mother in question feels that they cannot deal with the child birthing process, then an abortion isn't all that outlandish and is honestly more humane than what might be done later on. You gotta think realistically.

That is a completely half baked argument. It's still the same idea fundamentally by what you're saying. Regardless of that, the number of annual abortions worldwide is about 45 million. That comes out to about .65% of the human population if you're to add the number of abortions to the current estimation of the human population. That isn't going to exactly derail human genetic advancement. Not to mention that a large amount of abortions are by mothers in developing countries and with lower incomes. Combine that with a rather horrid world economy, and is it really that brutal to abort a child before they can even feel what's going on so that they don't have to be brought into a world in which their mother probably wouldn't be able to care for them all that adequately?

 

What's wrong with the argument is that you're making it strictly a legal debate, whereas this is a moral one. If we're arguing on the basis of legality, then there is no argument because abortion is legal. It is legally acceptable for a pregnant woman to smoke but not morally acceptable in the slightest.

I am okay with adult stem cell research (which has been shown to treat over 70 diseases), but I am not okay with embryonic stem cell research (Which has not been shown to treat any [and that's not for lack of trying])

 

OMG GUIZE JUSTIN BIEBER IS AGAINST ABORTlON.

 

Congratulations Bieber. I was almost about to ban you from all my Pro-Life Rallies.

 

Am I to understand that florists and gardeners getting rid of weed are murderers in your opinion ? If the embryo doesn' t have any brain function yet I have no problem with abortion.

^This.

 

I have no problem with killing plants because they are not human. A fetus is a human and therefore killing it is murder. It's like saying that it's okay to kill someone who is blind, deaf, mute, smell impaired, taste impaired, and touch impaired. He won't perceive being killed (since he doesn't have any of his senses), and therefore it's okay to kill him, right? I mean, the fetus does not have brain function and therefore can't do any of these things. Unless you're willing to say that it can't think whereas the example can, I must remind you that he may as well not be thinking on account of the fact that not only is there nothing for him to think about, but also the fact that he cannot communicate anything that he is thinking (you know, he's mute). Ergo, this man may as well not have any brain function beyond necessary things like breathing and heart beating, which he probably isn't even aware of anyway. Is it justified to kill this man just like it's justified to kill a fetus? Why or why not?

 

That man is not leeching off another's life, and there is no reason to kill him.

Even so, you neglect the fact that he still CAN think, even if he cannot communicate. Also, we have not been in the situation of being without senses and in possession of a fully formed brain, so we cannot tell.

Unless you mean he's brain-dead. In which case it is perfectly permissable by society to turn off life support, yes.

 

No, not brain-dead. But although he can think, it's impossible for anything to affect his thinking or for him to affect anybody else's. And you also neglect the fact that he IS leeching off of at LEAST one other's life, that being whoever chooses or is forced to take care of him. Probably a nurse in a hospital who doesn't really care. He can think, he does think, but it's impossible for him to do anything with what he's thinking except think more. For all we know he could have single handedly figured out origin of all things in the universe, but nobody will ever know because he can't do anything to tell them. It's basically a case of "I have no mouth and I must scream" but with wisdom and knowledge instead of pain and suffering. The only life support he's on is that which keeps him from starving to death. Is it okay to kill him by dismembering his limbs with tools that are huge compared to him and then taking him off the feeding tube that he's been given? He won't feel any of it after all, nor will he even know that it's happening.

 

No it' s not, it' s like killing a plant (a living thing with NO BRAIN). I draw a line at "it has a brain, therefore emotions and feelings", not at "it' s living". I also happen to not be against euthanasia in certain cases but that' s not the topic. If the embryo doesn' t have a brain yet then abortion is just as "murderous" as picking flowers or masturbating IMO.

Saying that it' s not OK, that a rape baby could be abandoned if it' s unwanted etc ... is like saying any ovule is a potential healthy baby and we should force any potent women to mate every nine months and force her not to waste a single ovule. Who cares if she doesn' t want any baby ? She can always abandon it, right ? Otherwise she' s murdering her living human ovules.

 

Wait, is this person born without senses or did they lose them over a period of time? Because if they were born like that they wouldn't nessecarily be able to 'think' because they wouldn't know what to think. There would be nothing to think of because without senses they wouldn't know what anything is. In which case it would be nessecary to pull the plug.

However if the person lost them over a period of time don't you think they would want to end their own suffering? Would you think they'd just sit idly by while a cure is being made? This cure might take years to develop and when this cure comes this person may already be dead.