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

[Beaubonic]

Well, that's generally how laws work. The majority of people consider a man murdering another man as wrong, so it's against the law. The majority of people consider robbing a bank as wrong, so it's against the law. Laws exist to promote the welfare of the people and order. Abortion does not promote the welfare of the mothers (psychological trauma, deaths, medical problems), nor does it promote the welfare of the babies, of course.

I don't know if anyone here is a fan of shows like Law & Order: SVU, but laws are already in place saying that a "fetus" is not a "living human being" unless it took a breath outside of the mother.

Except we're talking about the baby's body as well, not just the mother's

I know, hence my edit..

 

[xHallucinationx]

Well, that's generally how laws work. The majority of people consider a man murdering another man as wrong, so it's against the law. The majority of people consider robbing a bank as wrong, so it's against the law. Laws exist to promote the welfare of the people and order. Abortion does not promote the welfare of the mothers (psychological trauma, deaths, medical problems), nor does it promote the welfare of the babies, of course.



I understand it's your opinion, as is mine an opinion.



Except we're talking about the baby's body as well, not just the mother's

The baby is leeching off the mother. It has no choice. The baby doesn't even have a full body.

 

[Mightythedj23]

The baby is leeching off the mother. It has no choice. The baby doesn't even have a full body.

Actually it does. as i stated before, After only a few weeks after the do is done, the body, organs, basically the everything is already formed, the rest of the gestation period is spent by the baby just growing.

 

[xHallucinationx]

Actually it does. as i stated before, After only a few weeks after the do is done, the body, organs, basically the everything is already formed, the rest of the gestation period is spent by the baby just growing.

most abortions are done before that.

 

[Serenity595]

I don't know if anyone here is a fan of shows like Law & Order: SVU, but laws are already in place saying that a "fetus" is not a "living human being" unless it took a breath outside of the mother.

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.

Also, it's silly for a human "fetus" not to be a "living human being".

Well, it's living. It's obviously not dead otherwise women wouldn't get abortions.
It's human; I'm sure everyone would agree that two humans produce human offspring. Unless the thing inside the human is a result of a facehugger from Alien.
A "human being" is just a man, woman, or child from the species Homo sapiens, hence the word "human".

All a fetus is is the later developmental stage of an unborn baby. In this case, an unborn human baby. But the developmental stage of a human doesn't make it any less human, just as an old man with gray hair isn't any less human than a teenager.

As I similarly told someone else before, saying "it's a fetus, not an unborn human" is like saying "it's a chair, not a seat". "Fetus" (as in a human fetus) and "unborn human" are not contradictory definitions.

I'm not saying you believe this or not; just pointing out the flaws in the law system.

I know, hence my edit..

Sorry, I didn't see the edit till after I made my post

The baby is leeching off the mother. It has no choice. The baby doesn't even have a full body.

Babies after they are born "leech" off their mothers.
Human vegetables leech off of life support systems.

Does that make them any less human?

Unborn babies want to survive, so they do have a choice. Babies in the later developmental stages even have full cognitive function and can feel pain.

Having a full body or not doesn't make something any less of a person. What about before you went through puberty? Were you any less human before then?

 

[xHallucinationx]

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.

Also, it's silly for a human "fetus" not to be a "living human being".

Well, it's living. It's obviously not dead otherwise women wouldn't get abortions.
It's human; I'm sure everyone would agree that two humans produce human offspring. Unless the thing inside the human is a result of a facehugger from Alien.
A "human being" is just a man, woman, or child from the species Homo sapiens, hence the word "human".

All a fetus is is the later developmental stage of an unborn baby. In this case, an unborn human baby. But the developmental stage of a human doesn't make it any less human, just as an old man with gray hair isn't any less human than a teenager.

As I similarly told someone else before, saying "it's a fetus, not an unborn human" is like saying "it's a chair, not a seat". "Fetus" (as in a human fetus) and "unborn human" are not contradictory definitions.

I'm not saying you believe this or not; just pointing out the flaws in the law system.



Sorry, I didn't see the edit till after I made my post



Babies after they are born "leech" off their mothers.
Human vegetables leech off of life support systems.

Does that make them any less human?

Unborn babies want to survive, so they do have a choice. Babies in the later developmental stages even have full cognitive function and can feel pain.

Having a full body or not doesn't make something any less of a person. What about before you went through puberty? Were you any less human before then?

Let's see, when you have a tapeworm do you let it live inside of you until it's fully grown, then take it out and let it live on it's own? No. If you don't want the baby, take the damn thing out. You could even give it to a surrogate mother if you want.

 

[Serenity595]

So you're equating an unborn baby to a tapeworm?

 

[Allimon]

In response to the idea of humans that live because of life support (which is in actuality a machine and perhaps a difference should be made between machine life support and mother life support), can a human "lose" personhood after gaining it?

 

[xHallucinationx]

So you're equating an unborn baby to a tapeworm?

Yep

 

[Serenity595]

In response to the idea of humans the life off of life support (which is in actuality a machine and perhaps a difference should be made between machine life support and mother life support), can a human "lose" personhood after gaining it?

Personally, I think a person can't suddenly lose what makes him a person, just as I believe a human doesn't have to gain something to be a person. Human beings are people, no matter what stage of life they are in.

If a human was living off of life support, he'd still be a person. The reality of what he is by nature stays the same.

Yep

So why does a tapeworm suddenly become a human baby when it's born?

 

[Melexiious]

I personally think that abortion should only be given as an option, when it is the result or is going to cause a negative effect, such as Rape,

A couple of things I want to say, I hate it when people use "How do you know s/he's not going to be the next worlds most influential person?" Because that's just dumb. They aren't born to be a rockstar, however they can be born to potentially become one, doesn't mean their life is set in motion to become one.

I'll take me as an example, I take after my late father who was a musician. I don't have a very decent singing voice, but considering both my parents could sing very well, I'm sure that if I practice, I could do well. I have guitarist fingers (Long and thin) which means I can play the guitar with more ease, than someone who (Say my uncle) who plays but has rather shorter, and stubbier fingers. He plays amazingly, while I can barely strum.

This goes into effect with that, Hitler wasn't born to be 'evil' he was made that way through his up-brining and his over-all life, I've heard about this "Evil gene" which I find to be silly, I'm pretty fucking sure if you have a child in a good house, with a functional family, who supports them and loves them, they wont turn out "evil"
They might be il-mannered, or they might have anger issues or other negative issues, but I doubt they would want to go kill all the jews.

Also, onto another topic, Rape cases. ya'll realize that lawyers appointed to defend rapists in court usually use the baby as a way to get lesser jail times, and get custody of a child? That's just despicable, and really. Instead of aborting the child, it should be illegal for the already convicted rapist to use the baby as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
(Not literally, but you know what I mean.)
(I also know it's not wholly relevant, it's just a little piece of information which is good to know for this topic.)

I also agree-and-disagree with Gurw on the topic of "If you got fucked up and in event, got fucked up. You should admit your fuck up." Some little princess who gets screwed at a party and wants her daddy to get her an abortion? She should deal with it and suck it up. If she was at this same party and got sexually raped and does not want to have the baby? Then she should have the right to have an abortion.

It all goes down to the circumstance, is it positive? Did they have sex for the pleasure and fucked up? Keep the baby.
Did she not consent, had parts of her clothes torn off and was raped? She has the choice to abort or not.

My girlfriend's birth was very likely to have been aborted, and you know how that makes me feel?
I don't care, it didn't happen. And she was born, and now I love her. What if she was aborted? I wouldn't know she existed, I wouldn't have any feelings on the matter. Because I /can't/ know and would never have known.
It's a harsh way of thinking, I know. But it's well, if she was aborted in this alternate universe, I'd probably have a really depressed life right now, but I wouldn't be wondering. "Oh what a bummer, I wish my girlfriend wasn't aborted."

But when /does/ the little bunch of cells become a baby?
Prooobably when the brain is considered "Developed" enough by medical standards and I'unno, can potentially think.

So, in a nutshell~
Was it a positive situation and you fucked up?
Keep it.
Was is a negative situation and you had no choice?
Choice to abort.

 

[Serenity595]

So why does a women who is raped have the right to an abortion?

 

[Melexiious]

The child was never meant to be, that child was always just going to be a small glint in the rapists eye and was always meant to stay there. To make a baby, both sources of the genetic material in that created the baby should have consented to the sex before hand, if they didn't, then that child wasn't meant to be, but doesn't necessarily mean it will never be.

If the mother wants to keep the baby, then by all means she can keep it, but lets say hypothetically, the woman was walking down the street at night and going to her car, rapist comes out, puts a knife to her and rapes her, impregnates her and she's left with that baby, maybe she'll have PTSD whenever she looks at the child? Looking at this small baby, child will always remind her of that slightly sliced neck, she'd have many /MANY/ issues. This is an extreme example and that's the point, it's very likely that situation has happened before.

However, if she feels strong enough to keep the baby, and raise him/her properly then I see absolutely no problem with that. I'm not saying that /all/ rape children should be aborted, I'm just saying it should be an option towards those who can't make it through the ordeal without mental scarring.

 

[Serenity595]

Just because it was never meant to be, doesn't mean it shouldn't be, just like sex (according to evolutionists; personally, I only believe in micro-evolution but blah) was never meant to be anything more than reproduction, doesn't mean it shouldn't be viewed as anything more than reproduction.

Again, pro-choice people always bring up that women who get raped couldn't possibly want the child because he'd be a constant reminder that they got raped. First, killing the baby doesn't make the trauma go away; it'd actually make it worse. Second, logically, it doesn't make sense to have a "special pleading" case where it's murder in every other circumstance in an abortion, but not when that baby was created because the mother was raped. Third,

"...it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims."

- reference: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

 

[Beaubonic]

Just because it was never meant to be, doesn't mean it shouldn't be, just like sex (according to evolutionists; personally, I only believe in micro-evolution but blah) was never meant to be anything more than reproduction, doesn't mean it shouldn't be viewed as anything more than reproduction.

Again, pro-choice people always bring up that women who get raped couldn't possibly want the child because he'd be a constant reminder that they got raped. First, killing the baby doesn't make the trauma go away; it'd actually make it worse. Second, logically, it doesn't make sense to have a "special pleading" case where it's murder in every other circumstance in an abortion, but not when that baby was created because the mother was raped. Third,

"...it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims."

- reference: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

You already quoted that. Want truth? I have been raped, and had I gotten pregnant, no matter how against abortion I am, I probably would have aborted. The fucker already hurt me and my body once, why should he get the chance to do it for 9 more months, then have me burdened financially and emotionally for the rest of my life, when I already am burdened by it as it is. So sure, their little study may have found that a majority of women would not abort, but that's not 100%. Which isn't what you seem to be getting. I don't care if somebody had consensual sex and got pregnant. That is their fault. I was raped, getting pregnant was not my fault, and the act that got me there was not my choice. So let me have ONE choice in the matter.

 

[Serenity595]

I'm very sorry you were raped. But I just don't see how aborting the baby would make the person's life any better

 

[Melexiious]

I never said it should be, or legally required to abort rape children, although you make your point as if that's what I said, I know you're trying to keep the argument going, but I said many times for those who want the /choice/ they can have an abortion. Because they didn't consent.

I literally said this many times in the post above you.

if they didn't, then that child wasn't meant to be, but doesn't necessarily mean it will never be.

If the mother wants to keep the baby, then by all means she can keep it,

However, if she feels strong enough to keep the baby, and raise him/her properly then I see absolutely no problem with that. I'm not saying that /all/ rape children should be aborted, I'm just saying it should be an option towards those who can't make it through the ordeal without mental scarring.

Think about it this way, sure, 75 to 85 percent did keep the baby, that's good for them, what about that other 25-15 percent? Are you saying they made a horrible choice and they shouldn't have that choice at all? I'm taking a stance for that small percent who wants the choice, because they should have a choice.

I'm pretty sure /nobody/ wants to abort all the rape children in the world, infact anyone who's pro-choice doesn't want to abort every baby, hell. It's called pro-choice for a reason. You're able to make the choice for yourself, with your own emotions and feelings. To where you feel is right. There's just different levels of pre-choice. Mine's a more controlled, more... stricter ideology of pro-choice, where abortion is only a choice for those who's life is in danger, or was caused by rape. Which can be summed up in one word "Negatively"

In another way of putting it, here's an example with a world without choice for rape victims.

"Hey, I raped you."
"Why!?"
"Because I could."
"What does this mean!?"
"You're having a baby!"
"I DON'T WANT A BABY!"
"Oh, well you don't have a choice."
"Why!?"
"Because you signed here."
"No I didn't!"
"Yea, I may have signed that for you, well it doesn't matter. I don't care you don't want that baby, It's illegal to have an abortion here, anyway!"

If both parties of the genetic material consent to sex, then they have no argument, they should have the baby.

If only one party consented to sex, then abortion should be legal, if the mother wants the child, then they can keep it.

I've said that multiple times before, it's a /choice/ it's the ability to have that choice. There's nothing worse than being forced to have that baby and you have absolutely NO SAY, if you have the option to have the child, or abort it, you make an educated choice, and then you choose, most choose to keep it, it seems.

Because if you don't have a choice, you'd feel hopeless, like you're being forced. But if you have the /possibility/ to have a way out, and chose to keep it, you'd feel much better about it yourself, rather than being forced, without any say from you.

Also, what about that other, rather sizeable percent?
Do you say they should just suck it up? Deal with it? They had the abortion for a reason, they made that choice, They should be able to make that choice.
Of course you don't, so that's why choice in rape cases should be given, along with the possibility if the child endangers the mothers life.

You can't force someone to sign a document, saying "You must suffer months of pain, and care for this child you never planned to have because my dick and twisted brain says so."

 

[Beaubonic]

I'm very sorry you were raped. But I just don't see how aborting the baby would make the person's life any better

As much as I like throwing the same arguments around just for you to ignore the point of them and repeat yourself 100 times. I'll leave you with this, Serenity. Being raped wasn't my choice, but the abortion would have been. Effectively, nobody has the right to take that away from me. Even if some moron in office decided that abortions were ONLY allowed if they saved a mother's life, and nothing else, women would go to illegal clinics, or back to coat hangers. Probably best to leave well enough alone, don't you think? Government is already looking at a bill that says Rape/Incest/Danger will be the only exclusions to the abortion ban anyway.

However, I think I'm going to leave this conversation before I get angry and say something I'll regret.

 

[Audi]

Murder isn't self-defense. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing just means to cause death, which can include murder and self-defense.

But then abortion isn't murder because it's legal.
In the same way the death sentence is legal murder.

I know someone will argue that "but abortion used to be illegal", but murder hasn't always been illegal either. The law is a constantly changing thing and that's what makes it useful.

Fact of the matter is that most people can go get abortions legally and it should stay that way. Illegalizing abortion would be silly, for many reasons.

Anyway, I'm done here. I'd like to continue but this thread isn't bi-partisan enough.
Also Gurw is way too edgy for me; I cut myself on his swed.

 

[Serenity595]

@Melexiious: I get where you're coming from, but if we already equate abortion to murder, why should someone have the choice, or better term: the RIGHT to murder someone else?

@Pixiel: :/

@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