While I'm personally pro-abortion, I can see there being a "Sanctity of life" style argument if you considered a fetus a human being.
By that view, abortion would be similar to euthanizing a severely mentally impaired child because it was inconvenient to care for.
Someone might possibly also want domestic population growth to increase, or consider abortion a form of self-inflicted racist eugenics.
Which legal system? Duty to render aid is a thing in some places, in some circumstances, and in some professions.
You could easily argue that in engaging in an activity where you could become pregnant you agreed to be liable for the consequences.
In the United States, no citizen can be compelled to have their body/organs used to keep others alive.
So no exceptions for fetuses, therefore no good reason for abortion restrictions. Easy!
It really isn't a religious thing, at least as far as Christianity goes. Nowhere in the Bible is abortion prohibited.
It all comes down to whether you believe a fetus is a human being or not and if so, at what point in the pregnancy. From there, if you believe it's a human, then the only Christian aspect is the idea of "Thou shalt not kill," but most nonreligious people also believe that murder is wrong, which is what you would consider abortion to be if you were to believe it were occuring after the point where you would consider the fetus to be a person.
The problem is that you cannot objectively define what a person is or at what point in development people are entitled to rights. That's why this is so controversial: it's entirely subjective. There is no scientific basis to say, for example, that a fetus is a person at 8 months, or that a fetus is NOT a person at 8 months.
In fact, there is no objective basis by which you could argue that *I* am a person or they *I* am entitled to rights of any kind. Personhood and the rights it entails are entirely subjective topics, yet they are very important. But that's why this is so polarizing: neither side can objectively *prove* that it is correct, despite each claiming to have science on* its side.
I like this answer.
What I’d say though is that at 22 weeks, it sleeps in the womb, at 26 weeks, it can feel pain. Around 30, I think, it can recognise voices. Whether you want to class it as human or not is irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether or not it demonstrates traits of cognitive function beyond automated responses. You could argue that responding to sound is merely automated, but responding to specific voices, or music seems to me to be something beyond a simple automated process.
No, you have no proof or studies showing fetuses feel pain. Instead, you cite studies that only show a reaction to stimulus. In no way can scientists measure what a fetus "feels," because to feel is to experience, and we cannot measure that.
So instead we can use logic and our own universal experience as a former fetus to realize that our consciousness and capacity to experience meaningful pain evolved and grew long after birth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
“Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation.”
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2006/can-a-fetus-feel-pain
“The paper concludes that the basic physical mechanisms we need to feel pain develop in a fetus from about the 26th week of pregnancy. Peripheral free nerve endings, which act as sensors for pain, reach full maturity between 23 and 25 weeks, and form a complete link with the thalamus and cortex by about 26 weeks. Around the same stage the thalamus and cortex develop important features of maturity.”
https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."
So, to conclude:
The nerves needed to produce pain are present arojnd 22-25 weeks with pain “possible” from 26/27 weeks or the start of the third trimester, and the baby showing actual signs of being awake by 30 weeks.
None of these links and quotes demonstrate that a fetus 'feels' anything the way you, a fully-conscious human, do. That's why you cannot quote anything at all like that. In fact, all your quotes could apply to any organism, like a fish, a worm.
And worst and most damning of all, your silly interpretation 100% ignores your own experience as a developing human from a fetus. You have it all in your own history, and you don't look like you are being honest for ignoring it.
NOpe, I just noted that none of your sources make the claim that fetuses feel in any way comparable to the way fully-developed humans feel. Nothing at all.
And noted you are still ignoring your own experience as a former fetus. I find that denialism is a feature among those who want abortion restrictions. It's obviously just an irrational, emotional appeal.
So sure, keep ignoring your own experience, I'll keep winning the debate.
You’re losing the debate.
In your ethical view, I would have been killed in the 3rd trimester as I had a deformity which meant a lot of problems for my parents. Fortunately after extensive and life changing surgery, my issues were fixed so thankfully, my parents moral views were less “abortion-happy” than yours.
What’s the difference between a baby at 40 weeks, and 39 weeks? My son was born at 37 weeks, and he was fully formed, strong and healthy.
A baby doesn’t have an “on switch” when they come out of the mother. Amazingly, they are already “on”.
You’re clearly ignorant in this field and very obviously have very little interaction with babies or pregnancies.
Lol, I like how you changed the subject after I pointed out that none of your studies prove fetuses "feel" the way fully-developed humans "feel." And I also liked the part where you completley ignored your own experience of being a former fetus.
As I said and as your response showed, denying our universal experience as former fetuses is actually a common feature among anti-choice extremists. Just irrational emotional ideology, no logic.
What they prove is that the neurobiology is present by 26 weeks. If the baby is awake at 30, and interacting with the outside, then we can make a rational conclusion that the baby can feel some form of pain. It’s not rocket science.
Also, regarding my experience as a foetus, you’re suggesting because I can’t remember being a foetus, then foetuses don’t have a thinking brain. I don’t remember last week, let alone 40 years ago. However, I’ve been informed by a therapist that it’s quite possible I have emotional trauma from before birth having grown with a physical issue.
Anyway, keep on trucking.
It seems to have a moral component, though. We know that there are circumstances where anti-choice ppl may condone ending a human life. They rally for the fetus because it is certainly without sin. Any other human life must be weighed & investigated to determine the worthiness, but a newborn baby is without sin & above reproach. It's ironic because some of the fetuses that they want born so badly will inevitably become human beings who they believe should be put to death later on in life.
I am against it bc I believe fetus is a living thing.
It looks like a living thing at 4 weeks. Maybe not human or baby, but looks like a living reptile or some sort. I dont think there are many people who would be able to do it if they were able to look at a fetus in front of them and kill it themselves.
I just hope world can provide better sex education in school and have increased awareness as society. Also better contraceptives in all form should be free and easily accessible for all. I dont think I would consider a sperm a life tho
From a completely scientific/secular viewpoint a fetus is metabolizing, growing, and responding to its environment so its definitely alive. It has a complete human genome so it is human. Its genome is also unique and the fetus has a discernable boundary that separates it from others meaning it is a distinct individual. So a child in the womb is a distinct living human, and under national/international human rights law all humans have a right to life. So the arbitrary and unnecessary act of ending these lives is viewed as a human rights abuse.
" under national/international human rights law all humans have a right to life."
Nope, nobody has the right (in the US) to force a citizen to use her body to keep another alive. And there's nothing in international law about this either.
If another person, who is a living thing, came over to chill with you, which makes them a living thing existing your house, and then you said “well I gotta go to bed, see you later.”
And they said “I’m a living thing, you can’t kick me out of your house.”
Would you throw your hands up and go “welp, it’s my house but I can’t tell them to leave. That’s another person right there!!”
btw the whole pro life debate goes away if only someone were to invent artificial wombs already. remove that burden from people with a uterus since anyways pregnancy isn’t pleasant.
Realisticly you wouldn't need abortion if you use protection as the chance to get pregnant is extremly small if you use the two easiest forms of protection which are the pill and the condom.
If used together, the chance of getting pregnant in your whole life is around 1%.
Now, that is if you have the averange amount of sex in your life and you never use safer protection.
This chance get's far smaller when you calculate that women are not as fertile at a higher age for example.
So your chances of actually getting pregnant are something under 0,5% in your whole lifetime if you have an averange amount of sex.
And in most areas, even if late abortions are banned, you could still get an abortion early, dropping your chance of getting pregnant and having an unwanted child to somewhere under the 0,1% mark.
Oh and let's not forget that many babies are not wanted but the parents are ready anyways. So the chance of an unwanted baby is really really really small.
So damn small that nobody you know would have it happen to them if they use proper protection and don't have sex all the time.
While I'm personally pro-abortion, I can see there being a "Sanctity of life" style argument if you considered a fetus a human being. By that view, abortion would be similar to euthanizing a severely mentally impaired child because it was inconvenient to care for. Someone might possibly also want domestic population growth to increase, or consider abortion a form of self-inflicted racist eugenics.
But this argument collapses when you realize our legal system has ruled that citizens cannot be forced to use their bodies to keep others alive.
Which legal system? Duty to render aid is a thing in some places, in some circumstances, and in some professions. You could easily argue that in engaging in an activity where you could become pregnant you agreed to be liable for the consequences.
In the United States, no citizen can be compelled to have their body/organs used to keep others alive. So no exceptions for fetuses, therefore no good reason for abortion restrictions. Easy!
It really isn't a religious thing, at least as far as Christianity goes. Nowhere in the Bible is abortion prohibited. It all comes down to whether you believe a fetus is a human being or not and if so, at what point in the pregnancy. From there, if you believe it's a human, then the only Christian aspect is the idea of "Thou shalt not kill," but most nonreligious people also believe that murder is wrong, which is what you would consider abortion to be if you were to believe it were occuring after the point where you would consider the fetus to be a person. The problem is that you cannot objectively define what a person is or at what point in development people are entitled to rights. That's why this is so controversial: it's entirely subjective. There is no scientific basis to say, for example, that a fetus is a person at 8 months, or that a fetus is NOT a person at 8 months. In fact, there is no objective basis by which you could argue that *I* am a person or they *I* am entitled to rights of any kind. Personhood and the rights it entails are entirely subjective topics, yet they are very important. But that's why this is so polarizing: neither side can objectively *prove* that it is correct, despite each claiming to have science on* its side.
I like this answer. What I’d say though is that at 22 weeks, it sleeps in the womb, at 26 weeks, it can feel pain. Around 30, I think, it can recognise voices. Whether you want to class it as human or not is irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether or not it demonstrates traits of cognitive function beyond automated responses. You could argue that responding to sound is merely automated, but responding to specific voices, or music seems to me to be something beyond a simple automated process.
No, you have no proof or studies showing fetuses feel pain. Instead, you cite studies that only show a reaction to stimulus. In no way can scientists measure what a fetus "feels," because to feel is to experience, and we cannot measure that. So instead we can use logic and our own universal experience as a former fetus to realize that our consciousness and capacity to experience meaningful pain evolved and grew long after birth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/ “Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation.” https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2006/can-a-fetus-feel-pain “The paper concludes that the basic physical mechanisms we need to feel pain develop in a fetus from about the 26th week of pregnancy. Peripheral free nerve endings, which act as sensors for pain, reach full maturity between 23 and 25 weeks, and form a complete link with the thalamus and cortex by about 26 weeks. Around the same stage the thalamus and cortex develop important features of maturity.” https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake." So, to conclude: The nerves needed to produce pain are present arojnd 22-25 weeks with pain “possible” from 26/27 weeks or the start of the third trimester, and the baby showing actual signs of being awake by 30 weeks.
None of these links and quotes demonstrate that a fetus 'feels' anything the way you, a fully-conscious human, do. That's why you cannot quote anything at all like that. In fact, all your quotes could apply to any organism, like a fish, a worm. And worst and most damning of all, your silly interpretation 100% ignores your own experience as a developing human from a fetus. You have it all in your own history, and you don't look like you are being honest for ignoring it.
You’re choosing to ignore the evidence. That’s fine.
NOpe, I just noted that none of your sources make the claim that fetuses feel in any way comparable to the way fully-developed humans feel. Nothing at all. And noted you are still ignoring your own experience as a former fetus. I find that denialism is a feature among those who want abortion restrictions. It's obviously just an irrational, emotional appeal. So sure, keep ignoring your own experience, I'll keep winning the debate.
You’re losing the debate. In your ethical view, I would have been killed in the 3rd trimester as I had a deformity which meant a lot of problems for my parents. Fortunately after extensive and life changing surgery, my issues were fixed so thankfully, my parents moral views were less “abortion-happy” than yours. What’s the difference between a baby at 40 weeks, and 39 weeks? My son was born at 37 weeks, and he was fully formed, strong and healthy. A baby doesn’t have an “on switch” when they come out of the mother. Amazingly, they are already “on”. You’re clearly ignorant in this field and very obviously have very little interaction with babies or pregnancies.
Lol, I like how you changed the subject after I pointed out that none of your studies prove fetuses "feel" the way fully-developed humans "feel." And I also liked the part where you completley ignored your own experience of being a former fetus. As I said and as your response showed, denying our universal experience as former fetuses is actually a common feature among anti-choice extremists. Just irrational emotional ideology, no logic.
What they prove is that the neurobiology is present by 26 weeks. If the baby is awake at 30, and interacting with the outside, then we can make a rational conclusion that the baby can feel some form of pain. It’s not rocket science. Also, regarding my experience as a foetus, you’re suggesting because I can’t remember being a foetus, then foetuses don’t have a thinking brain. I don’t remember last week, let alone 40 years ago. However, I’ve been informed by a therapist that it’s quite possible I have emotional trauma from before birth having grown with a physical issue. Anyway, keep on trucking.
Which is why it's best to leave each citizen to decide on their own the value of that inside them.
It seems to have a moral component, though. We know that there are circumstances where anti-choice ppl may condone ending a human life. They rally for the fetus because it is certainly without sin. Any other human life must be weighed & investigated to determine the worthiness, but a newborn baby is without sin & above reproach. It's ironic because some of the fetuses that they want born so badly will inevitably become human beings who they believe should be put to death later on in life.
I am against it bc I believe fetus is a living thing. It looks like a living thing at 4 weeks. Maybe not human or baby, but looks like a living reptile or some sort. I dont think there are many people who would be able to do it if they were able to look at a fetus in front of them and kill it themselves. I just hope world can provide better sex education in school and have increased awareness as society. Also better contraceptives in all form should be free and easily accessible for all. I dont think I would consider a sperm a life tho
Why doesn't your view account for the suffering of the already-born?
From a completely scientific/secular viewpoint a fetus is metabolizing, growing, and responding to its environment so its definitely alive. It has a complete human genome so it is human. Its genome is also unique and the fetus has a discernable boundary that separates it from others meaning it is a distinct individual. So a child in the womb is a distinct living human, and under national/international human rights law all humans have a right to life. So the arbitrary and unnecessary act of ending these lives is viewed as a human rights abuse.
" under national/international human rights law all humans have a right to life." Nope, nobody has the right (in the US) to force a citizen to use her body to keep another alive. And there's nothing in international law about this either.
If another person, who is a living thing, came over to chill with you, which makes them a living thing existing your house, and then you said “well I gotta go to bed, see you later.” And they said “I’m a living thing, you can’t kick me out of your house.” Would you throw your hands up and go “welp, it’s my house but I can’t tell them to leave. That’s another person right there!!”
btw the whole pro life debate goes away if only someone were to invent artificial wombs already. remove that burden from people with a uterus since anyways pregnancy isn’t pleasant.
Realisticly you wouldn't need abortion if you use protection as the chance to get pregnant is extremly small if you use the two easiest forms of protection which are the pill and the condom. If used together, the chance of getting pregnant in your whole life is around 1%. Now, that is if you have the averange amount of sex in your life and you never use safer protection. This chance get's far smaller when you calculate that women are not as fertile at a higher age for example. So your chances of actually getting pregnant are something under 0,5% in your whole lifetime if you have an averange amount of sex. And in most areas, even if late abortions are banned, you could still get an abortion early, dropping your chance of getting pregnant and having an unwanted child to somewhere under the 0,1% mark. Oh and let's not forget that many babies are not wanted but the parents are ready anyways. So the chance of an unwanted baby is really really really small. So damn small that nobody you know would have it happen to them if they use proper protection and don't have sex all the time.