• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

At what point does a fetus become a human being?

sriv

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
418
MBTI Type
JIxT
It seems reasonable enough to me to attempt to understand each moment of development of a fetus without forcing it into an arbitrary category of being human or not. Questions like when a fetus feels pain, or when they are viable outside the womb, should not be ways of defining if the fetus is "human". A preconceived notion of category can too easily distort perception of information. Even a newborn is not understood as being "self aware". Development is ongoing as a continuum. Why can't a six week fetus be exactly that? Why does it have to either be human or not? All or nothing thinking doesn't fit the model of human development imo. Using spermicide and having a third trimester abortion both destroy a potential, viable human being, but it would seem that the former is less of a violation of a life. Perhaps the question of abortion can be one of gradually coming closer to killing. Destroying a two-week fetus is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-month fetus because of where it falls on the continuum of development. Just like using spermicide is less of an act of killing than destroying a two-week fetus. With this approach there is no dividing line between guilt or innocence because it is all relative. Everything is tainted to varying degrees. What do you think?
Interesting.
So killling a two-month fetus deserves as much penalty as intentionally chopping an adult's leg off?
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
There are no empirical tests which can be brought to bear on the question of when a feotus becomes a human being, since what is being implicitly argued over is the definition of the words 'human being', and definitions are established by convention. In other words, the two parties in the debate are defining the term 'human being' differently, according to different conventions. The debate is ethical, not semantic or scientific, about what properties must an organism have before it is wrong to destroy it? To argue about "essential" definition of 'human being' is a distraction, and it is not something which can be established by any empirical test.

This is absolutely correct.

And is also a great undergirdle as to why religion and science are alogical entities to compare.


As a peculiar forbearance to the logical measurement of unlike subjects, is it ever reasonable to compare a concept against anything but itself?
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Sooo taking the day after pill is capital murder?

It all depends on who you consider to be the authority with rights to make that judgment.

I don't know of any laws that cover the use of the day after pill, so legally you are probably ok. But for those that hold to a higher authority (ie God), it might be a problem.

I personally would have a problem with the day after pill, since I consider that human life begins at conception. I would consider it murder, but don't expect nor request any governmental laws be enacted regarding it.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
It all depends on who you consider to be the authority with rights to make that judgment.

I don't know of any laws that cover the use of the day after pill, so legally you are probably ok. But for those that hold to a higher authority (ie God), it might be a problem.

Yours is a great example of the disconnect many experience when trying to deal with problems of ethical opacity.

In truth, the dilemma is one of flaccid legislative temperament, rather than failure of creativity within the individual.

Ethics are ideologies that represent the present status quo; the will of the union. Beliefs that have an element of cultural jurisprudence are often ethical in nature. What is ethical to a Romanian citizen might not be ethical to an Australian.

As a legal division, abortion is not a question of morality.

Ethics are only as good as the present throne allows them to be.
It falls on the shoulders of the system of government to decide what is ethical and what isn't.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
I can't believe you all ignored my relating of socialism to pregnancy.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Perhaps disbelief is what fueled their oversight.

Would you mind clarifying your point?
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
At what point does a fetus become a human being?
Never, if I have anything to say about it! Haha, I kid, I kid! Wait, no I don't! And THAT's what I'm talkin' about! Ahahaha, but seriously folks, get abortions.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
A society that accepts the acquisition of resources from unwilling parties to support social programs designed to ameliorate human life should have no problem enforcing the donation of a female's bodily resources for the cause of keeping a human being alive.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
A society that accepts the acquisition of resources from unwilling parties to support social programs designed to ameliorate human life should have no problem enforcing the donation of a female's bodily resources for the cause of keeping a human being alive.

If A, then B.
Because B, then C.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
Umm, no.

The entire legal system is based on precedents, and we have precedent for forced acquisition of resources to support life.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Umm, no.

The entire legal system is based on precedents, and we have precedent for forced acquisition of resources to support life.

Yes.

The legal system is based on precedent. On logical occurrence; ethical structure.

So too is the counterargument to your point.
If A, then B. Because B, then C.

Legal opinions aren't falsifiable unless judicial insight tells us they are. What was once dissent is now theory.
 

sketcheasy

New member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
101
MBTI Type
ENFP
if someone doesn't want her baby, she can just throw it away. the logic is the following.

all things are real. babies are real, therefore, all babies are things. things have no inherent worth other than what is given to them. if a baby/fetus isn't wanted by her parents, then they ought to do it because they can do it.

what's the difference between throwing away a baby, aborting a fetus with a beating heart, a human organism, or shooting you in the face? nietzsche was the one who said morality was an illusion. yet we still have laws, and many of the people who love neitzshe will also cry foul if anyone killed or threw away their baby. ultimately, abortion is nothing more than state permitted murder. people don't want to face the responsibilities of their actions. the reason it is easier to kill a fetus than to throw away a baby, or even why we are more appalled by the latter than the former, is because it is easier to detach yourself from something as alien and unfamiliar as a human fetus.

so yeah, maybe pro lifers are illogical, but unless a pro choicer is willing to say she would throw away or kill a baby then they are hypocrites, and if they are willing, then they are morally bankrupt.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
all things are real. babies are real, therefore, all babies are things. things have no inherent worth other than what is given to them.

By your reasoning, eating a carrot could be classified as murder.

what's the difference between throwing away a baby, aborting a fetus with a beating heart, a human organism, or shooting you in the face?

Too many to itemize.

nietzsche was the one who said morality was an illusion. yet we still have laws,

We have laws because they make it possible to coexist with other people.


ultimately, abortion is nothing more than state permitted murder.

A "justified" killing is not murder.

a pro choicer is willing to say she would throw away or kill a baby then they are hypocrites, and if they are willing, then they are morally bankrupt.
Your supporting arguments were completely problematic, so your conclusion does not logically follow.
 

sketcheasy

New member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
101
MBTI Type
ENFP
By your reasoning, eating a carrot could be classified as murder.



Too many to itemize.



We have laws because they make it possible to coexist with other people.




A "justified" killing is not murder.


Your supporting arguments were completely problematic, so your conclusion does not logically follow.

but IS eating a carrot murder? besides, that argument operates under the presupposition that there is NO objective morality to begiin with, so what's right for me may not be right for you, killing a carrot is worse than killing a baby. sounds like nonsense, that's how i feel about it.

the prisoners in concentration camps were numbered in the millions and yet they were itemized using a similar kind of logic.

are laws there so we can co-exist, or are laws in place to carry out justice? if they exist to carry out justice, then that implies that someone did something wrong, which becomes not just a legal issue but a moral one. if it is just so we can co-exist, then fine, i will concede. but if is there to administer justice, then our laws aren't merely a code of co-existence but also a way of determining what is right and what is wrong. therefore, because it has now become an issue of ethics, which is in turn an issue of philosophy, laws also have philosophical implications, one being if an issue of ethics breaks the law of contradiction, it cannot therefore be true or reasonable. i believe abortion contradicts itself on ethical issues.

what makes a killing justified? a madman can justify his killings and yet we can still call it a murder. murder is a term with a moral implication, so where does that morality come from? is it determined by culture or is it an individual issue? or is there a pre-programmed ethical standard that is absolute that we must abide by?
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
but IS eating a carrot murder? besides, that argument operates under the presupposition that there is NO objective morality to begiin with, so what's right for me may not be right for you, killing a carrot is worse than killing a baby. sounds like nonsense, that's how i feel about it.

If you do not accept religion, then the only basis for moral principles is social harmony. If you were the only one alive, moral principles would not exist.

We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.

As many before me have, I'd take it a step further and say what's generally accepted as moral is tentatively ingrained in our biology. It can, however, be dissuaded or ruined by external sources.
 

sketcheasy

New member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
101
MBTI Type
ENFP
If you do not accept religion, then the only basis for moral principles is social harmony. If you were the only one alive, moral principles would not exist.

We cannot have social harmony if we do not agree on a common value system. We can't have everyone's behavior governed solely by what feels right to them. Society would collapse.

So the notion that morality cannot be evaluated objectively is absolutely wrong.

i agree with you. i guess my purpose is trying to debase the existential argument for abortions, a lot of which apply similar logic and philosophical justification as i have presented. personally, because i AM religious i believe that all morality is governed in turn by and absolute truth. the reason i am against a lot of existential beliefs is the self-contradicting nature and implications within its own arguments.

so you are right, morality CAN be evaluated and, at the VERY least for social harmony if you do not want to concede the notion of a Moral Giver, should be evaluated. if our laws permitting or forbidding certain acts are not moral and furthermore impede the rights given to us with the Constitution (if i do not agree with the moral implications of a law but it does not break constitutional rights i am "willing" to possibly overlook it). however, i will re-iterate the freedom to choose to essentially kill a human organism, on the basis of merely philosophically speculative arguments that may or may not be correct seems humanly irresponsible. if someone can argue the right to kill a human organism without resorting to question the "humanity" of a so called "human organism" or questioning morality itself i will concede that abortion is okay, but until such a time then no.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
because i AM religious i believe that all morality is governed in turn by and absolute truth. the reason i am against a lot of existential beliefs is the self-contradicting nature and implications within its own arguments.
Actually, a logic based ethical system is much less contradictory than religious ones. The latter simply asserts that you must obey, or else suffer the consequences.

[/quote]
i will re-iterate the freedom to choose to essentially kill a human organism, on the basis of merely philosophically speculative arguments that may or may not be correct seems humanly irresponsible.
It is widely accepted that killing a person, if necessary, to prevent him from depriving you of your goodies, is perfectly moral. Most religions even approve. Otherwise, we would have no cops or soldiers.

In the case of abortion, the zygote is not even a person. It's a potential person.

if someone can argue the right to kill a human organism without resorting to question the "humanity" of a so called "human organism" or questioning morality itself i will concede that abortion is okay, but until such a time then no.
See above.
 
Top