Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When does life begin?

SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I want to know the opinion everyone has on this question, but especially people who support the idea of women being allowed access to abortion.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally think on the moment of conception.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:35:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you classify as life? Life begins pre-conception as sperm cells are "alive". Do you mean conscious life? Self-conscious life? The life of a person?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 3:39:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know that life is an arbitrary human construct that doesn't exist outside of human cognition.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The last three comments so perfectly capture the essence of this website. I love it.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:26:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 4:23:05 PM, Maikuru wrote:
The last three comments so perfectly capture the essence of this website. I love it.

Very true.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:42:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 3:35:34 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What do you classify as life? Life begins pre-conception as sperm cells are "alive". Do you mean conscious life? Self-conscious life? The life of a person?

The life of a person.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 5:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.

I think that human life truly begins when the baby is able to maintain homeostasis outside the womb. However, this IS a muddy topic with no clear, definitive definition of 'life,' so this is very open to interpretation.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 5:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 5:09:13 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.

I think that human life truly begins when the baby is able to maintain homeostasis outside the womb. However, this IS a muddy topic with no clear, definitive definition of 'life,' so this is very open to interpretation.

**Note: I'm not saying that the baby actually HAS to be outside the womb, just that the baby can be outside the womb without much of a problem.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 5:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 5:09:13 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.

I think that human life truly begins when the baby is able to maintain homeostasis outside the womb. However, this IS a muddy topic with no clear, definitive definition of 'life,' so this is very open to interpretation.

So this is a personal opinion.
I do not think the topic is muddy, I believe the answer is simple life begins at conception. My definition of life on starting the thread was not clear, but I am talking about human life that is perfectly clear to me.
So you believe someone is not living unless they are regulating their own breathing, heart, temprature, vital organs and so forth. Tell me do they have to be regulating all of these things or only one of these things in order to be living in your opinion?.
Is someone who has asthma living?., Or diabettes? They need help regulating breathing, and regulating sugar levels.
We all need sustenance in order to live, a child in the womb gets what it needs from the mother, just as any child outside the womb must get what sustenance it needs to surive.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 6:05:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 5:35:29 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 5:09:13 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.

I think that human life truly begins when the baby is able to maintain homeostasis outside the womb. However, this IS a muddy topic with no clear, definitive definition of 'life,' so this is very open to interpretation.

So this is a personal opinion.

Essentially, yes. And I respect yours.

I do not think the topic is muddy, I believe the answer is simple life begins at conception. My definition of life on starting the thread was not clear, but I am talking about human life that is perfectly clear to me.
So you believe someone is not living unless they are regulating their own breathing, heart, temprature, vital organs and so forth. Tell me do they have to be regulating all of these things or only one of these things in order to be living in your opinion?.

Yes; every living thing must metabolize, maintain homeostasis, have the ability to grow, respond to stimuli, and adapt to their environment (with successive generations and natural selection). http://en.wikipedia.org...

Is someone who has asthma living?., Or diabettes? They need help regulating breathing, and regulating sugar levels.

They need help, yes, of maintaining a normal life, but otherwise they can maintain homeostasis inside conditions that humans need to live in. They don't need special medicines in order for them to live. However, if they are off medicines, they are not going to be happy.

We all need sustenance in order to live, a child in the womb gets what it needs from the mother, just as any child outside the womb must get what sustenance it needs to surive.

Yes, we all need sustenance. In fact, metabolism is something that seperates us from viruses. However, can a developing baby maintain it's homeostasis (eat food, drink water, etc.) if it is outside the mother's womb? In the real world? With all of us that are definitively living? Or, does it have to be inside the womb in order for it to grow? That's the question that defines human life for me.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 10:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When mom and dad kick your know it all arse out of the house, that's when.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe life begins 15-50 years before conception, when the mother first develops the egg that will eventually be fertilized.

After all, an unfertilized is a living thing with human DNA- it would be absurd to claim that these are not human life. In this sense you are correct that the issue is not muddy at all, it is crystal clear.

The more relevant question is "what makes it wrong to kill a living thing?" and then allow that to inform the abortion debate. This is where the issue gets muddy.

It is generally uncontroversial to determine if something is "alive." The controversy is determining what living things it is wrong to kill.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 4:55:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 6:05:29 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 5/3/2012 5:35:29 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 5:09:13 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:58:47 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
At 5/3/2012 4:42:10 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Vague, really undefinable concept is vague, really undefinable concept.

I personally think that actual life begins when the fetus becomes viable; and/or the fetus can maintain homeostasis outside the mother's womb.

But of course, there are parasites, protozoa, and various bacteria that cannot live outside their host's body and THEY are considered alive. In what conditions can we say that something is alive?

In addition, there is the problem of viruses. Viruses replicate and have genetic information, but they don't maintain homeostasis or consume energy. Are they alive?

There is no defining line between living and not living. It's a blur.

Firstly if you believe a persons life begins after they are outside the womb, then are you saying a person's life begining depends on their location?. Also are you saying a premature baby is not living until it is outside the womb?.

I should have been more precise in my thread topic, I am talking about human life.

I think that human life truly begins when the baby is able to maintain homeostasis outside the womb. However, this IS a muddy topic with no clear, definitive definition of 'life,' so this is very open to interpretation.

So this is a personal opinion.

Essentially, yes. And I respect yours.

I do not think the topic is muddy, I believe the answer is simple life begins at conception. My definition of life on starting the thread was not clear, but I am talking about human life that is perfectly clear to me.
So you believe someone is not living unless they are regulating their own breathing, heart, temprature, vital organs and so forth. Tell me do they have to be regulating all of these things or only one of these things in order to be living in your opinion?.

Yes; every living thing must metabolize, maintain homeostasis, have the ability to grow, respond to stimuli, and adapt to their environment (with successive generations and natural selection). http://en.wikipedia.org...

Is someone who has asthma living?., Or diabettes? They need help regulating breathing, and regulating sugar levels.

They need help, yes, of maintaining a normal life, but otherwise they can maintain homeostasis inside conditions that humans need to live in. They don't need special medicines in order for them to live. However, if they are off medicines, they are not going to be happy.

I need medicine to survive. So to you do you consider me to have life?.

We all need sustenance in order to live, a child in the womb gets what it needs from the mother, just as any child outside the womb must get what sustenance it needs to surive.

Yes, we all need sustenance. In fact, metabolism is something that seperates us from viruses. However, can a developing baby maintain it's homeostasis (eat food, drink water, etc.) if it is outside the mother's womb? In the real world? With all of us that are definitively living? Or, does it have to be inside the womb in order for it to grow? That's the question that defines human life for me.

So are you saying even a new born baby is not yet living?. Because it can not eat or drink by itself?.

Also if people do not know when life begins how can abortion be moral, I believe abortin is the taking of life. If people who support abortin do not belve this then I would like them to tell me when life begins. If people are not sure then why take the chance of aboron if ther might even be the slightest possiblity you ae taking human life.
SeanMichael
Posts: 355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 5:02:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 11:27:33 PM, Raisor wrote:
I believe life begins 15-50 years before conception, when the mother first develops the egg that will eventually be fertilized.

After all, an unfertilized is a living thing with human DNA- it would be absurd to claim that these are not human life. In this sense you are correct that the issue is not muddy at all, it is crystal clear.

The more relevant question is "what makes it wrong to kill a living thing?" and then allow that to inform the abortion debate. This is where the issue gets muddy.

It is generally uncontroversial to determine if something is "alive." The controversy is determining what living things it is wrong to kill.

In all society there is a common consenus that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. We are not talkin about killing a living thing, but we are talking about killing human life. I do not think it is muddy at all, it's quite clear it is either right or wrong to take innocent human life. If you believe abortion is not the taking of human life then tell me when it becomes human life?. Or if you believe abortion is the taking of human life but it is not morrally wrong explain why?.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 8:49:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 3:15:21 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
I want to know the opinion everyone has on this question, but especially people who support the idea of women being allowed access to abortion.

Sorites paradox.

That is all.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 8:50:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 3:16:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I personally think on the moment of conception.

Conception is a process that isn't confined to a single moment.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:12:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 8:49:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/3/2012 3:15:21 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
I want to know the opinion everyone has on this question, but especially people who support the idea of women being allowed access to abortion.

Sorites paradox.

That is all.

Oshit, I've never heard of that, and it is strikingly profound.

Thanks.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:17:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 9:12:02 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/4/2012 8:49:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/3/2012 3:15:21 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
I want to know the opinion everyone has on this question, but especially people who support the idea of women being allowed access to abortion.

Sorites paradox.

That is all.

Oshit, I've never heard of that, and it is strikingly profound.

Thanks.

I like it because it has a wide variety of applications and demonstrates that reality doesn't necessarily fit into our nice, neat discrete labels we attempt to assign to it.

One mundane observation is to notice that red begins and ends where we say it does (vis-a-vis wavelength) but that is an arbitrary assignment we made for practicality purposes.

The brain wrinkles come from realizing that this can be applied to species designations and even life itself.

It is our labels that are discrete, implying concrete divisions and separations which don't actually exist.

Like micronations.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 9:17:02 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/4/2012 9:12:02 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/4/2012 8:49:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/3/2012 3:15:21 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
I want to know the opinion everyone has on this question, but especially people who support the idea of women being allowed access to abortion.

Sorites paradox.

That is all.

Oshit, I've never heard of that, and it is strikingly profound.

Thanks.

I like it because it has a wide variety of applications and demonstrates that reality doesn't necessarily fit into our nice, neat discrete labels we attempt to assign to it.

One mundane observation is to notice that red begins and ends where we say it does (vis-a-vis wavelength) but that is an arbitrary assignment we made for practicality purposes.

The brain wrinkles come from realizing that this can be applied to species designations and even life itself.

It is our labels that are discrete, implying concrete divisions and separations which don't actually exist.

Like micronations.

Hmm... I agree that we have an incapacity to precisely describe things even when we do understand them, and we don't fully understand most things. Indeed, this does lead to vague descriptions of things that cannot be logically extrapolated.

However, this doesn't negate that there is actually something to which we're referring. Reality isn't altogether indistinct.

For example, red light. Red is at one end of the spectrum (violet being at the other), so it, for all intents and purposes, stretches into "infinity," until it is no longer comprised of light waves, and instead microwaves or radio waves. Similarly, there's little consensus for precisely when red becomes orange. That does, indeed, abide by that principle, however -- the fact is that there is still a red wavelength, and in its purest form, it is visually and operationally distinct from the other wavelengths, giving it real meaning.

However, that does make it impossible to determine a "point of conception," and moreover, it robs conception of meaning to attempt to do so.

The solution?

Well, we can always approach it differently: is abortion murder at the point it is possible?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:36:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and on a side-note --

What you said about micronations. Socially, that's true, but I'd say that in reality, it applies to nations in general. Nationalism, indoctrination, and societal perspectives are all part of the big dream we're all dreaming.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:42:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 9:35:41 AM, Ren wrote:

Hmm... I agree that we have an incapacity to precisely describe things even when we do understand them, and we don't fully understand most things. Indeed, this does lead to vague descriptions of things that cannot be logically extrapolated.

However, this doesn't negate that there is actually something to which we're referring. Reality isn't altogether indistinct.

For example, red light. Red is at one end of the spectrum (violet being at the other), so it, for all intents and purposes, stretches into "infinity," until it is no longer comprised of light waves, and instead microwaves or radio waves. Similarly, there's little consensus for precisely when red becomes orange. That does, indeed, abide by that principle, however -- the fact is that there is still a red wavelength, and in its purest form, it is visually and operationally distinct from the other wavelengths, giving it real meaning.

Ah, but you demonstrate my point. Red isn't at the end of the spectrum. Past it is infrared and microwave and radio waves (which are still light waves).

But yes, it doesn't stop there from being a "red" and an "orange." We can objectively take to things and note that they are different. The problem comes when we attempt to assign a threshold upon which such different things change classification discretly.


However, that does make it impossible to determine a "point of conception," and moreover, it robs conception of meaning to attempt to do so.

The solution?

Well, we can always approach it differently: is abortion murder at the point it is possible?

I'm not sure I understand the quesiton. Firstly, "murder" begs the question of what "life" is being ended.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:42:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 9:36:46 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and on a side-note --

What you said about micronations. Socially, that's true, but I'd say that in reality, it applies to nations in general. Nationalism, indoctrination, and societal perspectives are all part of the big dream we're all dreaming.

This is true, I was merely poking fun.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:56:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 9:42:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/4/2012 9:35:41 AM, Ren wrote:

Hmm... I agree that we have an incapacity to precisely describe things even when we do understand them, and we don't fully understand most things. Indeed, this does lead to vague descriptions of things that cannot be logically extrapolated.

However, this doesn't negate that there is actually something to which we're referring. Reality isn't altogether indistinct.

For example, red light. Red is at one end of the spectrum (violet being at the other), so it, for all intents and purposes, stretches into "infinity," until it is no longer comprised of light waves, and instead microwaves or radio waves. Similarly, there's little consensus for precisely when red becomes orange. That does, indeed, abide by that principle, however -- the fact is that there is still a red wavelength, and in its purest form, it is visually and operationally distinct from the other wavelengths, giving it real meaning.

Ah, but you demonstrate my point. Red isn't at the end of the spectrum. Past it is infrared and microwave and radio waves (which are still light waves).

Color light waves.

Color. Should have said color. >_<

And, yeah, I was demonstrating your point. :3 But, I was drawing that into the fact that red is still a distinct color.

But yes, it doesn't stop there from being a "red" and an "orange." We can objectively take to things and note that they are different. The problem comes when we attempt to assign a threshold upon which such different things change classification discretly.

Word.

However, that does make it impossible to determine a "point of conception," and moreover, it robs conception of meaning to attempt to do so.

The solution?

Well, we can always approach it differently: is abortion murder at the point it is possible?

I'm not sure I understand the quesiton. Firstly, "murder" begs the question of what "life" is being ended.

Okay -- what is an abortion?

a·bor·tion&#8194; &#8194;[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

What is an embryo?

em·bry·o&#8194; &#8194;[em-bree-oh] Show IPA noun, plural em·bry·os, adjective
noun
1.
the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

That would be what you see here: http://embryo.soad.umich.edu...

Which, I might add, (lol, for clarification, nothing else, I promise), appears poignantly different from http://www.adobelibrary.org... or http://files.turbosquid.com...

Alright, now, what's a fetus?

fe·tus&#8194; &#8194;[fee-tuhs] Show IPA
noun, plural fe·tus·es. Embryology .
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

This: http://www.wpclinic.org...

That, is murder.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 10:00:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and since I know this will come up:

"When is the earliest you can have an abortion?"

"Vacuum aspiration abortion is performed between 7 and 12 weeks after your last menstrual period."

In other words, likely well into the second month of pregnancy.

http://www.scotsdalewomenscenter.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 10:07:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
However, that does make it impossible to determine a "point of conception," and moreover, it robs conception of meaning to attempt to do so.

The solution?

Well, we can always approach it differently: is abortion murder at the point it is possible?

I'm not sure I understand the quesiton. Firstly, "murder" begs the question of what "life" is being ended.

Okay -- what is an abortion?


a·bor·tion&#8194; &#8194;[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

What is an embryo?


em·bry·o&#8194; &#8194;[em-bree-oh] Show IPA noun, plural em·bry·os, adjective
noun
1.
the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

That would be what you see here: http://embryo.soad.umich.edu...

Which, I might add, (lol, for clarification, nothing else, I promise), appears poignantly different from http://www.adobelibrary.org... or http://files.turbosquid.com...

Alright, now, what's a fetus?


fe·tus&#8194; &#8194;[fee-tuhs] Show IPA
noun, plural fe·tus·es. Embryology .
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

This: http://www.wpclinic.org...

That, is murder.

Ah, ok. Then we've restricted ourselves to embryo/fetus.

Yet, murder is a legal definition. So the question is not whether this is murder, but whether it should</me> be.

Now, some might say that the embyro/fetus is human, it is alive, ergo it is a human life and should be treated the same as any other human life post-natal.

Is this accurate? One way to look at this is through consistency in other laws. For example, it would be illegal to give your child a cigarette. By extension, it should be illegal for pregnant women to smoke. Yet it is not.

Generalizing, there are a great number of laws and crimes a mother can commit with regards to how they treat their children (abuse/neglect) that do not apply to pregnant women and their fetuses. Why not?

From a legal standpoint, there seems to be a rather distinct dividing line between embryo/fetus and infant/toddler/child. So the question is whether, and why, murder should cross that threshold.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 10:12:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 10:00:50 AM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and since I know this will come up:

"When is the earliest you can have an abortion?"

"Vacuum aspiration abortion is performed between 7 and 12 weeks after your last menstrual period."

In other words, likely well into the second month of pregnancy.

http://www.scotsdalewomenscenter.com...

There are drugs that can be used to abort ebyro's and fetuses very early:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

When my wife miscarried, they gave her a drug that cause her to ... pass it which, I imagine, could also be used to abort a living ebyro.

Then you have "morning after" pills which can prevent development of the embyro. I would think it's safe to say that we can halt the development of a human life at just about any stage.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 10:16:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 10:07:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
However, that does make it impossible to determine a "point of conception," and moreover, it robs conception of meaning to attempt to do so.

The solution?

Well, we can always approach it differently: is abortion murder at the point it is possible?

I'm not sure I understand the quesiton. Firstly, "murder" begs the question of what "life" is being ended.

Okay -- what is an abortion?


a·bor·tion&#8194; &#8194;[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

What is an embryo?


em·bry·o&#8194; &#8194;[em-bree-oh] Show IPA noun, plural em·bry·os, adjective
noun
1.
the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.

That would be what you see here: http://embryo.soad.umich.edu...

Which, I might add, (lol, for clarification, nothing else, I promise), appears poignantly different from http://www.adobelibrary.org... or http://files.turbosquid.com...

Alright, now, what's a fetus?


fe·tus&#8194; &#8194;[fee-tuhs] Show IPA
noun, plural fe·tus·es. Embryology .
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

This: http://www.wpclinic.org...

That, is murder.

Ah, ok. Then we've restricted ourselves to embryo/fetus.

Yet, murder is a legal definition. So the question is not whether this is murder, but whether it should be.

Now, some might say that the embyro/fetus is human, it is alive, ergo it is a human life and should be treated the same as any other human life post-natal.

Is this accurate? One way to look at this is through consistency in other laws. For example, it would be illegal to give your child a cigarette. By extension, it should be illegal for pregnant women to smoke. Yet it is not.

Generalizing, there are a great number of laws and crimes a mother can commit with regards to how they treat their children (abuse/neglect) that do not apply to pregnant women and their fetuses. Why not?

From a legal standpoint, there seems to be a rather distinct dividing line between embryo/fetus and infant/toddler/child. So the question is whether, and why, murder should cross that threshold.

You present a good point. However, there are weaknesses in your argument. First, the giving children cigarettes/smoking while pregnant jazz.

Look at this way.

A pregnant woman is not injecting her fetus with nicotine. She, herself, is smoking. Does it harm the child? In many ways, yes, but so does second-hand smoke. However, smoking near children is not illegal, either.

However, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with double-homicide. That evidences a precedented illegality of killing an embryo or fetus, and even, a correlation with murder.

(I can't believe you actually type out your formatting. You must type ridiculously fast. xD)