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

[Serenity595]

@Skryter: If we're debating whether or not murder is wrong, that's probably for another discussion. But may I ask you this: what is a person's moral basis if they don't affiliate with any religion? Why is a government allowed to tell a person what is right and wrong if they're moral basis is secular?

Also, Hallu's point (from what I can gather) is that because a fetus is not born yet, it doesn't have the same rights as one who is born, so that's why I asked him questions on that.

Which makes me think of a very good question: Why is it considered double murder if someone shoots a pregnant woman, but then it's not murder if the woman asks for a doctor to crush the baby and rip it out?

 

[Skryter]

@Skryter: If we're debating whether or not murder is wrong, that's probably for another discussion. But may I ask you this: what is a person's moral basis if they don't affiliate with any religion? Why is a government allowed to tell a person what is right and wrong if they're moral basis is secular?

Also, Hallu's point (from what I can gather) is that because a fetus is not born yet, it doesn't have the same rights as one who is born, so that's why I asked him questions on that.

Which makes me think of a very good question: Why is it considered double murder if someone shoots a pregnant woman, but then it's not murder if the woman asks for a doctor to crush the baby and rip it out?

In my opinion any governing power should not have the right to impose restrictions on anything based on the predominant religious belief of the country. The question "what defines a persons moral basis that is secular In nature" is so large in nature that I could spend hours discussing it, as the varying factors revolved around the question are immeasurable.

In the case of your last question, It's mostly muddled political bullshit that makes little sense when you think about it and as such I'll probably never have a complete answer for you.

 

[xHallucinationx]

My point was aborting the child simply because of the parents financial situation is quite, for lack of a better or tact term, moronic. An adopted child can live a perfectly happy and fulfilling life even without the support of their biological parents. If you read the rest of my point you would see i agree with abortion on a case to case basis. If the mother did not want to have a child and the baby was conceived through consensual sex, then the parents should have taken contraceptive measures to avoid conceiving the child in the first place.

No form of birth control works 100% of the time. There should be no restrictions to it. Simple as you don't want a child, then you can get rid of it. No harm done except to republican idiots who are pro life for everything so they outlaw anything dangerous.

@Skryter: If we're debating whether or not murder is wrong, that's probably for another discussion. But may I ask you this: what is a person's moral basis if they don't affiliate with any religion? Why is a government allowed to tell a person what is right and wrong if they're moral basis is secular?

Also, Hallu's point (from what I can gather) is that because a fetus is not born yet, it doesn't have the same rights as one who is born, so that's why I asked him questions on that.

Which makes me think of a very good question: Why is it considered double murder if someone shoots a pregnant woman, but then it's not murder if the woman asks for a doctor to crush the baby and rip it out?

It simply should not be counted as double murder. The only reason I see it as double murder is because the person intends on keeping the baby. Most abortions happen at early stages.

 

[Skryter]

No form of birth control works 100% of the time. There should be no restrictions to it. Simple as you don't want a child, then you can get rid of it. No harm done except to republican idiots who are pro life for everything so they outlaw anything dangerous.

While that may be true contraception works a large majority of the time and multiple methods can be taken to make conception near impossible.

I can't take your second point seriously. By that logic I should have the right to kill every group in this world because I don't want then to exist. But after all, there's no harm done except the lives that have been taken so it's all good in the end.

 

[GreenEarth]

Oh you silly first world-ers and your philosophical discussions. Once upon a time the Soviet Union existed and in one part of the soviet union existed a tiny ass country totally dependent on that union called Armenia. In this country lived real people who liked to have sex to relieve the stress of having to live in Armenia and under a Soviet regime. Also there was nothing else to do.

Now the Soviet Union collapsed thanks to history and all soviet states were left to fend for themselves. War broke out with Armenia and Azerbaijan over territorial disputes and the border with Turkey was closed thanks to history. Natural gas from Russia was cut off, Georgia couldn't help, and Iran could help just a tiny bit. The one Nuclear Power station in the country was not operational. There was no food.

This is where my mother comes along and a lot of mothers in Armenia. Terminating any current pregnancies was really the only choice you had left because you aren't going to be able to feed your child. My situation was a bit different as we left for Germany when I was born, but my mother tells me that at the time she was very scared that she would not be able to feed me the way things were.

And we don't have to go as far as Armenia. Here in the United States there are some pretty bad places to live. Is that really a place you want to bring a human being? Is that fair to them? This discussion of definitions becomes irrelevant when you start talking about people not knowing were their next meal is going to come from and what kind of life they are going to be able to give their child.

But since we are talking about it, the first 4 to 5 weeks is when you get a heartbeat in a fetus. That gives plenty of time to a mother to decide whether bringing a human being into the world is something she can and wants to handle. That is assuming she has safe access to this service. Again try to get out of the "I live in the United States or other first world country" mindset. We just can't afford to move forward with moment of conception = life concept. Too many unwanted kids, not enough resources and education. I'm not even going to address Gurw's 20 billion claim because "what could be" and "what is" are not even close and that is not a responsible way to make decisions. And the government has no right to tell women what they are and are not allowed to do when it comes to reproduction, even though my opinion is that late term abortion are a bit gruesome and abortions should be limited to earlier stages of the pregnancy.

And this is also interesting.

I really suggest you watch the full segment talking about Romania and crime
it starts here at 49:12
http://vimeo.com/68253884

Not that I'm advocating abortion be used to fight crime, this was just an interesting piece. Preventing unwanted pregnancies will prevent crime, and you can do that with education, birth control, etc.

Why do people think that unborn babies live in a metaphysical reality rather than a physical and concrete one? Why is a baby only a baby when someone wants it to be one?

Why will people ask how an unborn baby is doing and what his or her name is going to be when the pregnant woman wants it, but then when the pregnant woman doesn't want it, it's not even considered a person?

Because we live in the real world, I know it's a shitty way to look at it, but life is full of double standards and exceptions.

 

[xHallucinationx]

While that may be true contraception works a large majority of the time and multiple methods can be taken to make conception near impossible.

I can't take your second point seriously. By that logic I should have the right to kill every group in this world because I don't want then to exist. But after all, there's no harm done except the lives that have been taken so it's all good in the end.

Skewing the topic so I seem like an idiot. I've seen it before and I'll see it again. Now you can relate my point to whatever crap you can think up in your head at the time, but abortion =/= killing people. Now the fetus technically is a "person", but it is doing harm to the mother. If the mother truly wants the child she will carry it and give birth to it. It is not our right to say you HAVE to have that baby. So take a good twenty minutes and analyze my post. Shit out some idea that some radical Republican idea of banning abortion is right. Hell, maybe the only people against abortion are the failed ones.

 

[Skryter]

Skewing the topic so I seem like an idiot. I've seen it before and I'll see it again. Now you can relate my point to whatever crap you can think up in your head at the time, but abortion =/= killing people. Now the fetus technically is a "person", but it is doing harm to the mother. If the mother truly wants the child she will carry it and give birth to it. It is not our right to say you HAVE to have that baby. So take a good twenty minutes and analyze my post. Shit out some idea that some radical Republican idea of banning abortion is right. Hell, maybe the only people against abortion are the failed ones.

I'm not skewing your point at all, after all I was just applying your logic as a reason to justify a hypothetical action of an instance of terminating a life.
Also, I'm not going to repeat my stance on whether abortion is morally justified or not as it's becoming rather tiresome to do so.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get my 3 hours worth of sleep.

 

[bbgunshot]

Having read through this entire thread I'm glad Skryter brought up the idea of adoption. My family has been involved in adoption for many years now. I have a 2 year old little brother who we adopted within the US when he was an infant, and we are now very nearly to the end of adopting a little girl from India 2 years later. There are, unfortunately, many slows and limitations on this (especially in international adoption) due to the copious amounts of laws that force families to jump through many different hoops, as well as the great expense of the entire process. However, even through the cost and difficulties, there are MANY families that still suffer through this process so that they have the opportunity to adopt a child as their own, to give them a life that was otherwise unattainable, and love and raise them just as their own. I realize this is by no means an end all be all solution, but I want everyone to realize there are not only 2 options when a woman is impregnated.

 

[xHallucinationx]

Having read through this entire thread I'm glad Skryter brought up the idea of adoption. My family has been involved in adoption for many years now. I have a 2 year old little brother who we adopted within the US when he was an infant, and we are now very nearly to the end of adopting a little girl from India 2 years later. There are, unfortunately, many slows and limitations on this (especially in international adoption) due to the copious amounts of laws that force families to jump through many different hoops, as well as the great expense of the entire process. However, even through the cost and difficulties, there are MANY families that still suffer through this process so that they have the opportunity to adopt a child as their own, to give them a life that was otherwise unattainable, and love and raise them just as their own. I realize this is by no means an end all be all solution, but I want everyone to realize there are not only 2 options when a woman is impregnated.

There are more than two options. But taking one of the options out that doesn't harm anybody is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Serenity595]

@GreenEarth:

I understand more places struggle with the concept of abortion than just the U.S. But I still see two problems with the view that babies should be aborted if the mother can't support them:

1) The mother should accept the consequences of her actions, which was sex. Everyone knows sex produces babies. If someone has sex, they should bear all the consequences of that action. (If it was because of rape, read on to my next point)
2) Babies should still be given a chance rather than no chance at all, regardless of what circumstances caused it to be. Tying to the first problem, if a woman has sex, she should deserve the natural consequence which comes from that, which is a baby. That baby shouldn't be killed because of the mother's mistake. If the baby later dies of starvation (which, to be honest, is pretty rare in most circumstances), I feel sorry for it. But if the baby is killed before it had a chance to see the world, I feel even more sorry for it.

Also, just because life is full of double standards doesn't mean we should support them.

 

[MotorKat]

hmmm... a tid-bit to throw out there;

if humans give no second thought in choices that lead to the loss of life through war, murder, other conflicts and selfish means, then why should there be such a hullabaloo in whether the taking of unborn life is allowable?


... Personally, I would say that when blood starts coursing through the organism it is designated as a living person, but that's more on my spiritual beliefs than scientific reason.

 

[DarkPrime25]

I think an unborn organism becomes a person as soon as those chromosomes and DNA merge. What that child looks like is decided right then and there.

On the topic in the title, I would agree with the Catholic Church (HA), that an unborn organism becomes a person at the moment the brain is capable of thought.

But then again, I do agree with TheGurw on this one.

 

[Audi]

@GreenEarth:

I understand more places struggle with the concept of abortion than just the U.S. But I still see two problems with the view that babies should be aborted if the mother can't support them:

1) The mother should accept the consequences of her actions, which was sex. Everyone knows sex produces babies. If someone has sex, they should bear all the consequences of that action. (If it was because of rape, read on to my next point)
2) Babies should still be given a chance rather than no chance at all, regardless of what circumstances caused it to be. Tying to the first problem, if a woman has sex, she should deserve the natural consequence which comes from that, which is a baby. That baby shouldn't be killed because of the mother's mistake. If the baby later dies of starvation (which, to be honest, is pretty rare in most circumstances), I feel sorry for it. But if the baby is killed before it had a chance to see the world, I feel even more sorry for it.

Also, just because life is full of double standards doesn't mean we should support them.

The main issue here is that many parents don't understand the consequence of sex.

What would you say to a young couple - let's say they're both 17, still in school, and poor.
They didn't intend to have a child. They used conventional birth control but they still had a kid.
They have their whole life ahead of them. They won't be able to support the baby. Maybe the dad has to drop out of school and work a minimum-wage job to pay for the child that's going to burden them in 9 months. Maybe the mum is obliged to marry the father, even if it was just a one-night-stand.
You could throw a few more variables in, perhaps. Maybe Mummy has a heroin addiction. Maybe Dad's a criminal.
Or take a few out. What if Mum's giving up a tertiary education by having the child?
What about the parents of these two? What do they think? Are they ready to look after their children's children?

What if the couple know that the child will be born with a crippling disability. Is it fair to birth a child that will have a diminished and painful experience? Can the parents cope with that, emotionally and economically? Can they afford the special medical care, or can they deal with the extra burden of looking after a disabled kid?

Or what about a rape victim.
She didn't plan on falling pregnant. She's been a victim of something truly horrifying and it would be insult to injury to have this bastard child. Just the thought of the baby makes her sad. The baby might be born unloved. Would the mother care about this child that she didn't want?

I think it's always down to the mother. If she wants to abort, she should. No-one has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body. If a couple decide that they can't support a child, then they should have the option, and they shouldn't be vilified by the religious or conservative views.

I'm no advocator of people just willy-nilly'in getting abortions. It's not a pleasant experience. It's not something you do for the hell of it. I believe that if you have sex you should always be prepared to have a kid. But if you screw up, you should be able to solve the problem.

I don't think this is neccessarily a moral issue. I don't have any strong beliefs about when a zygote becomes a human. I mean, it's probably impractical to abort a fetus that's almost fully developed. But I think it's misleading to be assigning date values. Is it a non-event before 8 weeks, but as soon as it hits them 56 days, it's a human? Ignoring the fact that babies all develop at different rates, and that there's other things to consider.

Serenity, I get the feeling that you're a pro-lifer. And that's fine; society is boring without difference of opinion. But aimdo disagree with you. I personally think religion invading the abortion debate is stupid. If anything, it's a moral weigh-up. Talking about whether governments can dictate secular values or that we should pool money to make a utopian society seems off-topic, not only in the thread but in the overall debate.

I don't want this to be a battle of liberals vs. conservatives.

Personally I could talk for hours on this but I actually find that quite rich. I mean, I don't have a uterus, nor have I confronted the opportunity with my girlfriend to "abort or not abort (that is the question)". Very few people who pontificate about abortion haven't or can't experience it.

So in the spirit of respecting a woman's right to her welfare, I'll stop.

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

The main issue here is that many parents don't understand the consequence of sex.

What would you say to a young couple - let's say they're both 17, still in school, and poor.
They didn't intend to have a child. They used conventional birth control but they still had a kid.
They have their whole life ahead of them. They won't be able to support the baby. Maybe the dad has to drop out of school and work a minimum-wage job to pay for the child that's going to burden them in 9 months. Maybe the mum is obliged to marry the father, even if it was just a one-night-stand.
You could throw a few more variables in, perhaps. Maybe Mummy has a heroin addiction. Maybe Dad's a criminal.
Or take a few out. What if Mum's giving up a tertiary education by having the child?
What about the parents of these two? What do they think? Are they ready to look after their children's children?

What if the couple know that the child will be born with a crippling disability. Is it fair to birth a child that will have a diminished and painful experience? Can the parents cope with that, emotionally and economically? Can they afford the special medical care, or can they deal with the extra burden of looking after a disabled kid?

Or what about a rape victim.
She didn't plan on falling pregnant. She's been a victim of something truly horrifying and it would be insult to injury to have this bastard child. Just the thought of the baby makes her sad. The baby might be born unloved. Would the mother care about this child that she didn't want?

I think it's always down to the mother. If she wants to abort, she should. No-one has the right to tell anyone else what to do with their body. If a couple decide that they can't support a child, then they should have the option, and they shouldn't be vilified by the religious or conservative views.

I'm no advocator of people just willy-nilly'in getting abortions. It's not a pleasant experience. It's not something you do for the hell of it. I believe that if you have sex you should always be prepared to have a kid. But if you screw up, you should be able to solve the problem.

I don't think this is neccessarily a moral issue. I don't have any strong beliefs about when a zygote becomes a human. I mean, it's probably impractical to abort a fetus that's almost fully developed. But I think it's misleading to be assigning date values. Is it a non-event before 8 weeks, but as soon as it hits them 56 days, it's a human? Ignoring the fact that babies all develop at different rates, and that there's other things to consider.

Serenity, I get the feeling that you're a pro-lifer. And that's fine; society is boring without difference of opinion. But aimdo disagree with you. I personally think religion invading the abortion debate is stupid. If anything, it's a moral weigh-up. Talking about whether governments can dictate secular values or that we should pool money to make a utopian society seems off-topic, not only in the thread but in the overall debate.

I don't want this to be a battle of liberals vs. conservatives.

Personally I could talk for hours on this but I actually find that quite rich. I mean, I don't have a uterus, nor have I confronted the opportunity with my girlfriend to "abort or not abort (that is the question)". Very few people who pontificate about abortion haven't or can't experience it.

So in the spirit of respecting a woman's right to her welfare, I'll stop.

I understand that your perspective on the topic of abortion is that women should be able to have the right to abort a child because the parents may be having problems with finance and personal history; yet, when you say the issue should not go on the matter of any religious basis, this brings up many issues. The thing is, many people around the world have moral beliefs on whether or not abortion is wrong. As stated previously in the thread including by you, the world isn't perfect. People make mistakes and have to choose what's best even if the decision isn't always agreeable. It's how we cope with them that matters in which case, people have moral standings on this. You're right: Maybe we should set aside religion from the topic, but their moral conscience can never be taken from them.

So, even if the parents are in situations not healthy for their child or them, do what's best for the child first and send the child to foster care or an alternative family that's closest to them until the parents can deal with their situation, in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is that both the parents' lives should have as equal an opportunity as the life of their child because the child in itself is the future generation succeeding the parents while they too must sort their lives for their future. It's all about looking ahead and trying to see good opportunities in the decisions made incorrectly with having set moral, maybe not religious, but moral obligations to the parents themselves and the child.

 

[Audi]

I understand that your perspective on the topic of abortion is that women should be able to have the right to abort a child because the parents may be having problems with finance and personal history; yet, when you say the issue should not go on the matter of any religious basis, this brings up many issues. The thing is, many people around the world have moral beliefs on whether or not abortion is wrong. As stated previously in the thread including by you, the world isn't perfect. People make mistakes and have to choose what's best even if the decision isn't always agreeable. It's how we cope with them that matters in which case, people have moral standings on this. You're right: Maybe we should set aside religion from the topic, but their moral conscience can never be taken from them.

So, even if the parents are in situations not healthy for their child or them, do what's best for the child first and send the child to foster care or an alternative family that's closest to them until the parents can deal with their situation, in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is that both the parents' lives should have as equal an opportunity as the life of their child because the child in itself is the future generation succeeding the parents while they too must sort their lives for their future. It's all about looking ahead and trying to see good opportunities in the decisions made incorrectly with having set moral, maybe not religious, but moral obligations to the parent themselves and the child.

Still, a pregnancy is a huge imposition on the mother. Even if they have the child and then put it up for adoption, etc., that's still a painful 9 months and one broken pelvis.

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

Still, a pregnancy is a huge imposition on the mother. Even if they have the child and then put it up for adoption, etc., that's still a painful 9 months and one broken pelvis.

You suck it up and go on with the pregnancy because that child, one never knows, may power the future for tomorrow. Also, if it is implied on the concern if the child has a certain disability, then "put it up for adoption, etc." because that child still has the right to life. Also, I'm glad you brought that up because we still have to see what good things can come up from the bad from both the parents and the child. They, again, have both futures and need to persevere. Life is hard. These parents may have relationship problems, personal moral standards, financial instability, and mistakes like having sex at the wrong time, but there's always some good opportunity to look on it instead of seeing the morbid effects of it.

 

[kimbal86]

Adoption isn't a real solution. Even if you disregard the fact that there are countless children who grow up 'in the system' feeling unwanted and unloved. Even if you disregard the fact that many children living under foster care and in children's homes are likely to suffer from physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. On top of that. So many would-be parents who are incapable of conceiving naturally would rather spend a small fortune on fertility treatments so they can have a child of their own rather than adopting someone else's. International adoption is another issue in itself.

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

Adoption isn't a real solution. Even if you disregard the fact that there are countless children who grow up 'in the system' feeling unwanted and unloved. Even if you disregard the fact that many children living under foster care and in children's homes are likely to suffer from physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. On top of that. So many would-be parents who are incapable of conceiving naturally would rather spend a small fortune on fertility treatments so they can have a child of their own rather than adopting someone else's. International adoption is another issue in itself.

Then what solution do you hope to wish to establish, if any? Is it a matter of circumstances and how grave and dire the situation is that must require abortion? Is it necessary to abort the child, then, or have the mother and possible father endure with the child during this major crisis?

 

[Audi]

You suck it up.

Regardless of whether abortion comes into the picture,
I'd never tell a pregnant woman to "suck it up".
How about you shit out a watermelon, mate?

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

Regardless of whether abortion comes into the picture,
I'd never tell a pregnant woman to "suck it up".
How about you shit out a watermelon, mate?

I can't argue with that. The other day, I've actually heard from my friends that were girls were talking about birth and parenting the whole day and that one of them even watched their own birth happening and it was excruciating for their mother. There were also other talks about things my ears should not have heard during operations on birth: before, during, and after. So yeah, I guess I should have sympathy.

Apart from this, what I really mean is, their needs to be a form of accommodation between both the parent(s) and child. It would be wrong to just leave out one or the other. There has to be alternatives to the mother's situation that would be fair.