When does an unborn organism become a person, if at all?

[Melexiious]

I don't equate abortion to murder, you do. That's this whole argument. It's not if, it's when. I guess I equate abortion as murder some time in the third trimester. Most people have clear signs of pregnancy before then, and I'm pretty sure that if you were a rape victim, you'd be taking pregnancy tests every day, and well. If you get a positive result... That's when they chose when to have the baby or not, give them a few weeks to null it over and let them choose.

And then that's where the original question comes in. When does an unborn organism become a living one?

You could claim anywhere between the sperm itself is ejaculated, to the moment the baby is born. It's a moral grey area. I'd go before the third trimester, or maybe near the end of the second trimester.

So unless you think you're just getting localized fat in your stomach that looks suspiciously like a child, I highly doubt a rape victim would not take pregnancy tests almost literally straight after the incident, so they'd know almost straight away, meaning the fetus would be very under-developed and in my moral area, not a human.

So really, I can say it's not murder if it's before the third trimester, but I don't know about you.
Where do you sit again?

 

[Audi]

@Vorsprung: If our morals are based simply on whether something is illegal or not, then that's pretty scary. Please Google "Nuremberg Laws" and tell me what you think about them

My grandfather is a Holocaust survivor, please don't patronize me.
Also what does Nazism have to do with anything?

And yes, I'd say that the root of all human morals derive from the desire not to break rules.
Have you ever heard of Kohlberg's stages?

The root of this concept is that human reasoning and motivation has six basic stages.
The first stage, the one that everyone operates under, is simple punishment orientation - that is, "How can I avoid getting in trouble?" Or rather, "I'm doing something because I don't want to break the rules and be punished."
Kohlberg's stages say that human beings default to this way of thinking.

Of course, there's loftier stages of thinking.
The second stage is self-interest; "What's in it for me?"
Third stage is conformity; "I want to be a good boy."
Fourth stage is a regard for the social order; "This is how things are."
Fifth; the social contract, "I should act this way because people want me to."
And the highest, the sixth stage, is about ethical principles - "I act this way because it's the right thing to do."

So people, by default, don't kill each other because they don't want to break rules. But this evolves; people are not that simplistic. But it is understood that avoiding punishment is the default.

People don't murder because that's the default. Morals start somewhere, and laws are the basis for morals.
Moreover, a key feature of the law is morality. Justice, equality and morality underpin law.

Law is meant to be questioned - law reform is what makes a society good - but it is ultimately the basis for morality.

So yes, as an atheist in a democratic country, the law is what underpins my morality.
That is not to say that other things don't.
I still hold by the Christian ideal of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you". I don't believe in Christianity but that's a damn good rule.
And I would not tell anyone what to do with their body. That is for the law to dictate (at the very least). Ok, I may dissuade someone from tattooing a picture of Miley Cyrus on their scrotum (so they could came in like a wrecking ball) but that's reasonable.

I would kindly ask that you don't reply to this. I will do you the courtesy of responding if need by, but I want to leave this debate now. Don't drag me back in; I've got things to do.

 

[t7seven7t]

@Pixiel: :/

This reply irked me into logging in for once instead of lurking. Why say this at all if you have no decent response? Someone has just shared a personal and probably very troubling experience of theirs with you and all you can reply is this? Personally, I think it is unacceptable to ignore a minority stance just because the majority believe something else. If it makes one person's life better and does not detract from the well-being of others then I do not see how it affects the majority. Your point of view is akin to saying that because 97% of people are heterosexual then all homosexual acts must be banned.

We as humans have the ability to weigh up the benefits and negatives. I'll get to my beliefs on this matter below.

But a law (or lack thereof) doesn't make something wrong or right. The purpose of laws is to promote the general welfare of life.

Likewise, a person's morals-be it yours, mine or anyone else's-does not make something "wrong" or "right" in an absolute sense. We all have different morals that are influenced largely by the ethics of our culture and not all of them promote the general welfare of life. It is important to realise that morals do differ from person to person and that there is no right or wrong answer. Defining right and wrong by statistics is unreasonable. Times change, morals change, ethics change, laws change, your personal views of right and wrong change-be open to different ideas, weigh up their strengths and weaknesses and choose whether or not you wish to embrace them.


As for my morals:
I believe in a limit-suffering concept; I think that as long as the actions of another do not cause you or others to suffer, then you have no business interfering. In the case of early abortions, I would like to think that the only people suffering are the mother and father. If you are suffering over another person's emotional well-being then you have other issues to address. The usual human response would be pity, and the emotional distress of another person is not your burden to share.

Arguably, 20 weeks into the pregnancy is the soonest that researches seem to suggest that the fetus can feel pain and hence abortions before this involve no suffering for the fetus. Whether you argue this comes sooner or later, there will always be a period when the fetus' neural pathways have not yet developed and it has no capacity to feel pain.

With the knowledge that the baby will not suffer if the abortion is conducted before this time, it is a simple suffering balance between the parents of the fetus; one in which I believe both should agree to the point except in the case where one might suffer more so than the other, as in the case of rape.

Obviously the termination of a fetus after it develops pain becomes a more complex suffering balance in which the fetus's pain capacity should be weighed against the pain and distress of the parents. In the cases I can think of this would only admit abortion when the mother was in a position to receive unreasonable bodily harm or result in fatality.

You absolutely cannot draw a comparison between murder and early pregnancy abortions. The victim of a murder suffers, as do their friends and family, the suffering of the victim you cannot judge. In the abortion, the family are the only sufferers. A more logical point to argue would be the comparison of murder and euthanasia as at least there you can argue that both victims suffer.

Just my two cents. Take it as you will, I am sure someone will find loopholes in my reasoning.

 

[Beaubonic]

This reply irked me into logging in for once instead of lurking. Why say this at all if you have no decent response? Someone has just shared a personal and probably very troubling experience of theirs with you and all you can reply is this? Personally, I think it is unacceptable to ignore a minority stance just because the majority believe something else. If it makes one person's life better and does not detract from the well-being of others then I do not see how it affects the majority. Your point of view is akin to saying that because 97% of people are heterosexual then all homosexual acts must be banned.

Thank you.

 

[Mightythedj23]

So like, this thread. Seems to be a mad mistake. Not on the part of Serenity for even asking this question, but moreover on all of us. Yes i realize that this question is more of one that can/almost has to be answered by your personal beliefs, whatever they may be. Whatever.

Thing is, this question leads itself to not a discussion, but more to a flame war for a bit, then general anger. I really do think that the question at hand, "when an unborn organism becomes a person if at all blah blah" itself is hard to give one solid, concise answer that everyone can agree on, which has been evident that won't happen.

I for one love serenity's threads, hence why i'm still in this one. I would love to think that we could keep our personal feelings out of this thread, so no hatred rises again, but i realized that this question just radiates personal feelings, based off our own morals/beliefs. WHich i think some need to realize. I am not blaming anyone at all, because i believe that everyone has the right to share their opinion/ it's just plain manners to let others speak as well. #likeasir

At any rate, i know it's hard, but i think for this thread to be "successful", we need to chill a little, take a deep breath and focus on the question at hand.



TL;DR Don't talk out of turn, take a breath and chill.

 

[katphish]

This thread should have been aborted.

 

[Serenity595]

Man, it really sucks to have the minority view on this forum.

@Melexiious: Why is it not murder before the third trimester? As for my personal view (since you asked), I consider it murder the moment it is conceived.

@t7seven7t: EDIT: sorry what I said was dumb never mind

Also, I'm not ignoring the minority; I just don't personally think that anyone should have the right to kill a baby period

Also, murder doesn't equate to physical suffering. Someone could be forcibly taken off of life support while they are unconscious and then die moments later. Did they suffer? No. Did they get murdered? Yes. As for mental suffering, you said yourself that others suffer because of an abortion. So that makes it murder according to what you said earlier, right?



EDIT: Not sure if this is getting anywhere... it seems people really don't like my views at this point lol. I don't want to offend people

 

[GreenEarth]

Well that was a nice wall of text I went through so let me address a few things.

This thread should have been aborted.

No, just because you don't like how a discussion is going doesn't mean you stop the discussion entirely. Even though I agree issues like abortion in the United States have been turned into divide and conquer bullshit while people ignore more important issues like corruption, corporations fucking everything up, democracy not really doing it's job, poor people, etc...

You suck it up and go on with the pregnancy because that child, one never knows, may power the future for tomorrow.

You need to learn how the world works and I ain't talking about plate tectonics.

If you're a college student who's some party chick who fucks the next man in line, take responsibility for it.

No, you are an idiot college student who shouldn't be having children. This whole take responsibility concept is a load of fucking shit and I don't understand where you people are getting it. Bringing a child into a shit life is not called taking responsibility, it's called being a fucking idiot. Spare my resources, and the resources of other living creatures. No offense to you rsmv.

@GreenEarth: I understand more places struggle with the concept of abortion than just the U.S.

My point was most other countries where abortion is legal on demand aren't having this conversation. It's widely accepted you don't bring an unwanted baby into the world if you don't have to, at least it was where I come from, and I wouldn't be surprised most of europe and asia are like that as well. Not to mention giving women a choice.

Well, that's generally how laws work.

Majority rule is absolutely not how laws work. You just killed your entire argument right there. If a bunch of fucking idiot have majority then you get loads of fucking idiot laws. Besides, just because most rape victims don't abort (assuming that's true) that doesn't mean other rape victims don't deserve the choice to abort.

Oh and here we get to the entertaining part of this thread...

Sex has a purpose. That purpose is to make babies

....creating offspring.

...is 6.25%. I don't think that those are different enough to allow for slack in the rules. (on incest and genetic defects)

If you're pro-choice, you're pro-irresponsibility.

if people got into meaningful relationships

...USA....more than enough work

borders are open and travelling is conveniently cheap and fast

Prove you are worthy of the title of Feminist

wow....Is there a name for the world you live in? This is like a mix of some weird optimistic, idealistic, I don't know what the fuck kind of ideology that does not resemble reality in any way. If I tried to respond to everything you unloaded into this thread I might hurt my brain severely. And I am sitting here dumbfounded trying to decide if I will respond to it.

Sex is for babies, and the world works in absolutes and there is no grey area so you need to have that baby. If you live in a poor place like India or Detroit and you are pregnant, no problem, just travel to a better place where jobs grow on jobbies. Just like that! No problem. Giving women the right to choose what to do with their body is irresponsible because sex makes babies so you just have to accept that and bring a human into the world whether you are ready for it or not or if you live in a really terrible place. Just move, no problem. Did I mention the United States has enough work and it's really easy to find a job? Yeah. Just go there and have your baby. Oh and dude, if you are having a baby with your sister or cousin, no problem, there is still a pretty substantial chance your child will have a genetic defect, 6.25% but no problem! Go ahead and take that chance. The world is generally an easy place to live.

*unwatches thread*

don't stop, this is 2fanny4me

Anyway, I already made my point in my first post. Most stable countries have legalized abortion and the rest will follow sooner or later. It just makes sense on so many levels when discussing poverty, suffering, planetary resources, that sanctity of life becomes almost laughable.

 

[Beaubonic]

@t7seven7t: EDIT: sorry what I said was dumb never mind

Also, I'm not ignoring the minority; I just don't personally think that anyone should have the right to kill a baby period

Also, murder doesn't equate to physical suffering. Someone could be forcibly taken off of life support while they are unconscious and then die moments later. Did they suffer? No. Did they get murdered? Yes. As for mental suffering, you said yourself that others suffer because of an abortion. So that makes it murder according to what you said earlier, right?



EDIT: Not sure if this is getting anywhere... it seems people really don't like my views at this point lol. I don't want to offend people

Stop calling it murder, and stop apologizing to the wrong people.

 

[Serenity595]

My point was most other countries where abortion is legal on demand aren't having this conversation. It's widely accepted you don't bring an unwanted baby into the world if you don't have to, at least it was where I come from, and I wouldn't be surprised most of europe and asia are like that as well. Not to mention giving women a choice.

Majority rule is absolutely not how laws work. You just killed your entire argument right there. If a bunch of fucking idiot have majority then you get loads of fucking idiot laws. Besides, just because most rape victims don't abort (assuming that's true) that doesn't mean other rape victims don't deserve the choice to abort.

These two paragraphs seem a little contradictory.

The first one is pretty much saying abortion should be legal cause everyone's doing it, then the second paragraph is saying that majority rule is not how laws work. Could you please clarify?

EDIT:

Stop calling it murder, and stop apologizing to the wrong people.

So should I say for you to stop calling it not murder? We should respect that we have different views.

And I apologize to you. I'm not really sure what else I can say

 

[GreenEarth]

These two paragraphs seem a little contradictory.

The first one is pretty much saying abortion should be legal cause everyone's doing it, then the second paragraph is saying that majority rule is not how laws work. Could you please clarify?

You're right majority rule shouldn't be a reason for legalizing abortion. I was in a hurry at the end but I was just trying to illustrate how this topic is regarded where I come from, and in Europe from my experiences. It does not contribute to the discussion. And apparently it's not a majority that support abortion but there seems to be some kind of pattern which I don't have time to explore at the moment.
see map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

 

[Beaubonic]

So should I say for you to stop calling it not murder? We should respect that we have different views.

And I apologize to you. I'm not really sure what else I can say

It only annoys me that you keep calling it murder because you won't allow yourself to understand what anyone else is saying. Murder, not murder, you asked us a specific question about when we feel an unborn organism becomes a person. So why has the conversation really moved to whether we'd all be "murderers" or not?

Say a fetus becomes a "person" immediately after conception, any form of abortion could be "murder".
However, most people feel that a fetus becomes a "person" when it reaches the third trimester. This is why it is already illegal to have an abortion after such time has been reached. Therefore it could be "murder" after the third trimester, not before.

• Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.
• Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.

So, if you really think about it, abortions, regardless, would not be murder. They'd be manslaughter since abortions are not committed in malice. Not unless a person who is not the carrying mother has committed the act (i.e. pushing down the stairs, stabbing in the stomach). Somebody running an abortion clinic and performing abortions past the third trimester are usually considered murderers, as well.

~ So, I may or may not have lost my full train of thought as I'm going through another migraine, but just ask me more questions if I sounded unclear anywhere.

 

[Serenity595]

You're right majority rule shouldn't be a reason for legalizing abortion. I was in a hurry at the end but I was just trying to illustrate how this topic is regarded where I come from, and in Europe from my experiences. It does not contribute to the discussion. And apparently it's not a majority that support abortion but there seems to be some kind of pattern which I don't have time to explore at the moment.
see map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

I should have gone to Wikipedia earlier.

I found this interesting:

"While abortions are legal in most countries, the grounds on which they are permitted vary. According to the United Nations publication World Abortion Policies 2011[5] abortion is allowed in most countries in order to save a woman's life (97% of countries). Other commonly accepted reasons are preserving physical (67%) or mental health (63%). Abortion in the case of rape or incest is accepted in about half of all countries (49%), and performing them because of economic or social reasons in about a third (34%). Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 29% of all countries, including in North America and in most European countries." - Wikipedia: Abortion law

It seems most people (97%) would agree that saving a woman's life is grounds for killing the baby, and this is one area where I'm not totally sure on. It makes sense to save the life of the woman who has already lived in the world, but at the same time the logical part of my brain is saying "Isn't that a special pleading case?". However, one could equate it to another situation: two men are trapped in a burning building. Which one do you save? Is it morally wrong to save one over the other? We could even go on a rabbit trail and look at the story of the Titanic, where women and children were put in the lifeboats first before the men. OK, that's all fine, but if you had the choice of saving a woman or a child from the freezing waters and you could only save one, who would you save? It's these morally gray areas that are interesting to think about.

I don't think preserving physical (67%) or mental health (63%) is a valid reason, as abortions cause both of these problems in and of themselves, especially detriments to physical health. According to the World Health Organization, "approximately 68,000 women die annually [worldwide] as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus)."

As I've probably said a few too many times, I disagree that in the case of rape/incest, abortion should be allowed (49%). I probably shouldn't say more on that matter.

In the case of social or economic reasons (34%), I HIGHLY disagree that abortion should be allowed. It basically equates a human life to what the mother wants her reputation to look like, or on the amount of money the mother has (or doesn't have).

As for legal abortion without any reason necessary (29%), I think that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like throwing morality out the window.

It only annoys me that you keep calling it murder because you won't allow yourself to understand what anyone else is saying. Murder, not murder, you asked us a specific question about when we feel an unborn organism becomes a person. So why has the conversation really moved to whether we'd all be "murderers" or not?

Say a fetus becomes a "person" immediately after conception, any form of abortion could be "murder".
However, most people feel that a fetus becomes a "person" when it reaches the third trimester. This is why it is already illegal to have an abortion after such time has been reached. Therefore it could be "murder" after the third trimester, not before.

• Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.
• Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.

So, if you really think about it, abortions, regardless, would not be murder. They'd be manslaughter since abortions are not committed in malice. Not unless a person who is not the carrying mother has committed the act (i.e. pushing down the stairs, stabbing in the stomach). Somebody running an abortion clinic and performing abortions past the third trimester are usually considered murderers, as well.

~ So, I may or may not have lost my full train of thought as I'm going through another migraine, but just ask me more questions if I sounded unclear anywhere.

But malice aforethought is "the intention to kill or harm, which is held to distinguish unlawful killing from murder." A woman who has an abortion has the intention to kill or harm the embryo or fetus, right?

As for what makes a person a person, well, what do you think makes a person a person exactly? Not just in the case of fetuses, but in general. What defines a person?

~ I hope your migraine goes away

 

[Allimon]

I should have gone to Wikipedia earlier.
I don't think preserving physical (67%) or mental health (63%) is a valid reason, as abortions cause both of these problems in and of themselves, especially detriments to physical health. According to the World Health Organization, "approximately 68,000 women die annually [worldwide] as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus)."

unsafe abortion

This may be the primary reason why abortions are legalized: to prevent the death of mothers who will have the abortion regardless of whether it is safe or not. By legalizing the practice, it can be more easily monitored for safety therefore preventing or limiting death.

 

[t7seven7t]

Also, murder doesn't equate to physical suffering. Someone could be forcibly taken off of life support while they are unconscious and then die moments later. Did they suffer? No. Did they get murdered? Yes. As for mental suffering, you said yourself that others suffer because of an abortion. So that makes it murder according to what you said earlier, right?

I am not going to refute your butchering of my words, but yes you are in fact right, it is murder in jurisdictions where abortion is criminalized.

I do still stand by my opinion that the action that causes least suffering should be taken. I see no reason as to why we should cause others grief or suffering intentionally where the alternative would cause us and others none as seems clear to me in the case of abortion.

As I said, laws change, abortion can be legalized and hence not murder-if that matters. Morally many people will continue to have differing standpoints irrespective of laws, which is a good thing as otherwise laws might never change.

 

[Serenity595]

This may be the primary reason why abortions are legalized: to prevent the death of mothers who will have the abortion regardless of whether it is safe or not. By legalizing the practice, it can be more easily monitored for safety therefore preventing or limiting death.

Legalization may lower death rates of those who want abortions in developed countries, but it doesn't help those at all who are in developing countries.

I am not going to refute your butchering of my words, but yes you are in fact right, it is murder in jurisdictions where abortion is criminalized.

I do still stand by my opinion that the action that causes least suffering should be taken. I see no reason as to why we should cause others grief or suffering intentionally where the alternative would cause us and others none as seems clear to me in the case of abortion.

As I said, laws change, abortion can be legalized and hence not murder-if that matters. Morally many people will continue to have differing standpoints irrespective of laws, which is a good thing as otherwise laws might never change.

I'm sorry if I butchered your words.

But does abortion really cause the least amount of suffering in comparison to birthing the baby? Why do you think it causes the least amount of suffering?

I think laws should promote the general well-being of all people. Since I include human embryos and fetuses (or "feti" as someone else comically put it ) in the definition of people, I also believe that laws should promote their well-being as well.

 

[t7seven7t]

But does abortion really cause the least amount of suffering in comparison to birthing the baby? Why do you think it causes the least amount of suffering?

I think so yes. Pregnancy pain, the distress of financially supporting a child or perhaps not wanting one are examples of factors that should be considered when deciding whether to abort. They all have potential to cause suffering to the parents (through distress or pain) and so the suffering of the parents carrying the fetus to term and raising the child could be high in comparison with the fetus' lack of suffering during abortion.

I think laws should promote the general well-being of all people. Since I include human embryos and fetuses (or "feti" as someone else comically put it ) in the definition of people, I also believe that laws should promote their well-being as well.

Laws have not always promoted the well-being of people. The Nuremberg Laws that you pointed out earlier are an example of this, albeit a bit extreme. This is just an example and I do not condone those laws.

I disagree that the main goal in writing laws should be to promote well-being. The happiness of one person is not equivalent to the suffering of another. It is much harder to write a law that will improve the happiness and health of everyone than it is to have a law which aims to reduce suffering as much as possible. By aiming to do least suffering however you are generally improving the well-being of the people whilst attempting to limit reductions to well-being.

 

[Serenity595]

What about the medical problems that come from abortion such as death, infection, sterility, and injury to the internal organs? Also, I remember reading somewhere (I quoted it earlier in this thread, but can't remember where) that abortion usually causes intense or severe pain to the mother (and if the baby can feel pain, ouch).

On your view on suffering, what do you think of sacrifices? How about a firefighter who risks his life for another? What is your opinion on a situation such as that? From what I can tell (I may be wrong), you view the least amount of suffering to be the best option, but is that true in all circumstances?

Yes, laws haven't always promoted the well-being of people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. Also, women who have abortions can experience psychological trauma as well. Family members can also be affected by the abortion. There's also the point to consider that, even if the baby cannot physically feel pain, it is still experiencing or being subjected to something bad or unpleasant; in this case, the end of its life and its lack of a future.

 

[Allimon]

Legalization may lower death rates of those who want abortions in developed countries, but it doesn't help those at all who are in developing countries.

I would say legalizing it provides the opportunity for developing countries to truly develop methods in which abortions can be safe. If abortions remain illegal, then conditions will stagnate and abortions in that country will continue to remain dangerous and life threatening.

 

[Serenity595]

I would say legalizing it provides the opportunity for developing countries to truly develop methods in which abortions can be safe. If abortions remain illegal, then conditions will stagnate and abortions in that country will continue to remain dangerous and life threatening.

But we also must consider: should we be trying to reduce the amount of infant deaths or those who seek abortions? Which comes first?