At what point does a fetus gain its humanity?

I think most people on here would think it morally wrong for a woman to abort a fetus, just on a whim, the day before it was due. So where is the line drawn? What do you think?

but thats just my opinion

that point states can put more restrictions on abortions.

When should we spend money for health care on medical intervention for a fetus. Surely no money should be spent before it is any more than a parasite living off the mother.

I don't have a great answer but the point should be the same whether the child is wanted or not.

you find that perfectly acceptable? that's pretty sick, sorry, but it is.

What is so "sick" about it?
Is anyone forcing *you* to abort at all?

Or did you simply feel the need to share the nature of your delicate sensibilities with us?

Cletus

It just hasn't come out yet, it's brain is fully functioning - it would be sick to abort at that stage unless necessary. It would be the functional equivalent of killing a baby.

reading the other DUers post I think they'd be against such a thing as the baby could survive on its own.

The day before it is due it is still in utero.

It just hasn't come out yet, it's brain is fully functioning - it would be sick to abort at that stage unless necessary.
Actually no.
It's brain isn't "fully functioning".
It's brain isn't as functional as a neo-nates.

It would be the functional equivalent of killing a baby.
You are certainly entitled to believe this.
But you are wrong.

reading the other DUers post I think they'd be against such a thing as the baby could survive on its own.
And the logical fallacy ad populum proves what exactly?

That you can't actually debate or that you didn't read what everyone wrote?

Cletus

I think he knows more about human life than you do.

And again, so what if he disagrees with me.

I think he knows more about human life than you do.
Like I'm going to take *your* word for it or believe *your* assessment?
Spare me.

Cletus

Damn you to hell.

And mod's is stuff like this really acceptable?

Just curious.

Cletus

Sagan was a cosmologist. He was neither a biologist nor a philosopher.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His point is valid - why should Sagan's views on this issue be given any special attention?

Shall I raise the views of Peter Singer, who at least is a philosopher and ethicist?

His views are at least worthy of consideration, as worthy as yours are, or anyone's for that matter. He puts forth a thoughtful argument and you just seem to write him off.

I respect Sagan a great deal, especially when he wrote about things in his field.

But the appeal to authority is a weak argument on its face - it's weaker when your authority has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thought about it, weighed evidence, talked to other scientists - to me that makes his view a hell of a lot more valid than most of the hot air slogans floating around on this subject.

what published research Sagan did on the question of when a fetus becomes fully "human".

You won't find it. You're just latching onto a single quote from an authority that you think backs up your position. We've already pointed out that the Appeal to Authority is logically useless, and even moreso when your authority has nothing to do with the question involved.

Again, will you change your views to mine if I can quote a geologist who agrees with me?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This discussion? Disagreeing with you?

When challenged, you resort to one-line ad hominem attacks. Is that the best you can do?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

hours after birth.

A few week old pregnancy is NOT the same as an almost full term pregnancy.

No one has late term abortions just for the hell of it.

Instead of defending the right to have one at any point, I think it is more helpful to actually use the facts to show how the numbers of late term abortions is very low and done under circumstances where there are problems with the health of the mother or the baby.

"A few week old pregnancy is NOT the same as an almost full term pregnancy."

I had a preemie at 34 weeks (7 1/2 months) who was able to go home 72 hours after birth.
Man, modern science is amazing, isn't it?

A few week old pregnancy is NOT the same as an almost full term pregnancy.
Agreed.
And a neonate is not the same as a prenate.

No one has late term abortions just for the hell of it.
Exactly.
And certainly not "on a whim".

Instead of defending the right to have one at any point, I think it is more helpful to actually use the facts to show how the numbers of late term abortions is very low and done under circumstances where there are problems with the health of the mother or the baby.
Actually, the reason I defend the right to "have one at any point" is precisely because I'm well aware of the facts.
Specifically, that the "whimsical" abortions Rockydem posited are riduclously propagandistic nonsense.
No woman aborts except for dire medical reasons just prior to birth... hell, at any point after viability.

And to your point, given the nature of Rockydems posts, do you honestly believe they are looking for *facts*?

Cletus

They checked her blood sugar to make sure she was getting enough to eat and kept a closer eye on her but there were no medical procedures of any kind.

They checked her blood sugar to make sure she was getting enough to eat and kept a closer eye on her but there were no medical procedures of any kind.
So they didn't put her in the NICU at all?

My cousin's son spent almost 3 months in one before they finally let him go.
Her plug wouldn't stay and he was almost 2 full months preemie, IIRC.

Cletus

have to stay in the hospital until around their due date but, luckily, it she didn't have to.

She was pretty big - 5 lbs 13 ounces.

She wouldn't breastfeed because she hadn't learned the suck/swallow/breath reflex that they figure out at 35 weeks. I pumped and fed her breast milk from the bottle for 6 months.

I'd heard of that before, the not learning to suck thing, but never met someone who'd had to work around it.

And yes, 5lbs 13oz is a *big* preemie.
:D

Cletus

When it can live on its own, it is a human being. Before that, it is not.

My sister in-law had one. It's calle a D&C. See, her fetus formed without a cerebrum. The cerebellum was there, but there was not cerebrum. An emergency D&C had to be performed late in the third trimester or she would have died.

And it was the fault of a bastard "pro-life" doctor who refused to inform her that the fetus formed with no cerebrun late in the first trimester and into the second trimester. The whole procedure would have been much less complicated and much more safe had she been informed the fetus had no chance of forming into an actual human being.

This is why I will never forgive, nor forget, the EVIL of those who decide they are "pro-life".

I can't believe the doctor wanted her to have a baby with such a severe birth defect. How sad.

outside the body. And the fact that you think a woman would ever get an abortion on a "whim" IS sick.

It just is...sorry.

I would disagree. I believe once it is capable of living on its own, it is a baby, and not a fetus. And it is NOT perfectly legal, so far as I know. 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, save for when the life of the mother is in danger, as it should be.

I am still stuck on thinking that any woman jsut wakes up one day and has an abortion on a "whim." How could you think anyone would do that? It takes a lot of thought, emotion, and sometimes, therapy to make a decision like that.

on a whim - on the basis of something far less than 'absolutely necessary.' I picked an extreme example to make the point that at some point in fetal development it becomes a human being, and should only be aborted in extreme circumstances.

for whatever reason is just fine...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's as simple as that...

the fact that you think this is some kind of radical, wild eyed notion says a whole hell of a lot.

that you think some undefined, unspecified "societal interest" trumps a woman's right to control her own uterus.

the question is at what point do the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the woman carrying it? I say at no point.

says a whole hell of a lot too.

because it may or may not be human at that point
it's as simple as that...
Why it's even more simple than you think.
A human prenate is clearly human.
What else could it be?
Canine?
What a human prenate is *not* is a human being as recognized by society, a legal person or an organism.

the fact that you think this is some kind of radical, wild eyed notion says a whole hell of a lot.
Actually, it says a whole lot more than you characterize my argument in this manner.

Cletus

I know that's not what you mean, but that is what this thread is about.

who have yet to perform a selfless act.

Cletus

like most things in life.

When does a person become an adult? We know 4 year olds are children, and 30 year olds are adults.... where's the line? You can't say 18th birthday - that's arbitrary and only confers SOME rights (voting, signing of contracts). You have to be 21 to drink, but only 16 to work or drive (younger in some states).

Many things develop along a continuum - it's faulty to believe that there is a single point along the continuum at which point a dramatic change occurs. When will you be old? What day?

Oh, I thought you said "Festus."

Don't you go marshallin' me now!

A human fetus can only be human.
What is "humanity", exactly?

At birth a neo-natal member of the species Homo Sapiens is considered a legal person, an organism(since it is now not dependent on the woman within whom it resided) and a human being(in the social sense of the word).
What more does it need?

I think most people on here would think it morally wrong for a woman to abort a fetus, just on a whim, the day before it was due.
Such ridiculous hyperbole aside, actually, I don't.
Other peoples medical procedures aren't any concern of mine, let alone a concern that requires a moral judgement.

And just to calm your fears, such abortions simply do not occur.
And certainly not for any "whimsical" reason... presuming that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is unable to make the decision to abort except "at a whim"?
Insulting, at best, don't you think?

The only possible reason a prenate would be aborted immediately prior to birth would be in a dire emergency situation whereby the woman's life could *only* be saved by such a procedure or the fetus has suffered some debilitating and fatal circumstance.

So where is the line drawn?
Where is it drawn now?

What do you think?
I think people need to butt out of other people's private business.

Cletus

the day before a baby is due...

That procedure would be disgusting.

Especially about when someone who is not *you* makes the decision to choose a medical procedure?

That procedure would be disgusting.
Many, many things in the world are disgusting.
So?
I find abused, neglected and unwanted children far more disgusting than a medical procedure.
Even this fantasy thing you've concocted.

Was there really a point to any of this?

Cletus

is societal interest involved. They day before a fetus is due it is a baby. It's just like ending the life of a baby - it should only be done when absolutely necessary.

there is no societal interest in what a woman carries in her uterus.

an astrophysicists views on neurology have to do with the legal question of societal interest?

At some point a fetus becomes more human than not. Then society has an interest. Got it?

it's just that I disagree. Got it?

with her body and the contents of her womb, however you want to define the contents, is the primary medical, legal, AND moral question.

The order of questioning frames the debate and that is the logical, human, and therefore 'moral' question to begin with.

Giving birth kills women. Just being pregnant can be physically devastating and life threatening. ONLY WOMEN carry the physical consequences of every conception, birth, and parenting all their possibly threatened lives.

Fact, not moralizing sentiment.

The very idea that all fetuses need to be 'protected' from WHIMSICAL (??!!) women is grotesque to the point of being a criminally abusive assertion.

There will always be some tragedies resultant from humans being involved in important decisions but far fewer than if decisions were made by anyone other than a woman and her doctor about her own body.

Bejebus man, have you EVER known anyone who ever walked into a clinic wanting an abortion, IN YOUR LIFE? It's been hard for the past twenty years to even get one past twenty weeks! Having one past twelve weeks is rare! NOBODY, not the clinics nor the doctors nor the women go into an abortion on a whim! What business do you or any man have telling a woman what's important in her own life?

It's not quite like that - not at all.

Have you ever known anyone who had an abortion?

I give two figs less what some story book says! I know women, I know Planned Parenthood, & I know what it feels like to go thru the trauma of having an illegal abortion. People like you have absolutely NO right trying to rule on something that doesn't even concern you, in the least!

Is your opinion that a fetus is "human" more important than my opinion that they are not? Your desire for democrats to view women as "breeders" is insulting & will surely bring down the party, faster than any republican could. Why don't you concern yourself with the babies in Detroit; the living breathing children of the poor of this nation who go to sleep every frigging night with half a meal in their guts; why don't you concern yourself with getting your party to take notice of the thousands of children who are sleeping in cars this cold winter, cause their parents have exhausted every other avenue to pay for shelter? Why don't you find something to harp on that might actually make a difference to a real, conscious, badly-needing-an-advocate CHILD!

for reasons that were less than absolutely not necessary. I'm talking the late, late stage stuff here. No one knows, it's not regulated or tabulated in any kind of way.

basically totally unregulated...it is abortion on demand even in the latter stages with no accountability.

Here is my question:

Bejebus man, have you EVER known anyone who ever walked into a clinic wanting an abortion, IN YOUR LIFE?

The point is that at some stage of fetal development there is societal interest involved.
At no point does the *state* have any interest in the contents of any woman's uterus, nor is there any compelling reason for it to except where Public Health issues are involved.

And there is *certainly* so "society interest" at *all*.

They day before a fetus is due it is a baby.
Nope, sorry.
It can be a snookums or a widdly piddle, but it can in no way, shape or form be a "baby".{/sarcasm}
Sigh.
This silliness gets old after 20 years of repetition.

It's just like ending the life of a baby - it should only be done when absolutely necessary.
And who decides when is "absolutely necessary"?
Who is better equipped to decide but the woman carrying that pregnancy?

Silliness.

Cletus.

they probably could answer it better than we could.

No more disgusting then dropping bombs on woman and children, but it seems that those on the opposite side don't have a problem with that.

I have to agree, what business is it of ours, I don't like a lot of things that go on in this world, but what someones medical choices are, unless they're family, is no business of mine or yours.

You may not like it, but you don't get a say.

At some point that fetus becomes a baby that could survive outside the womb - it is thinking, responding to things.

Using my extreme example above, you think it would be just fine to abort a fetus the day before it was due for a reasons other than the health and welfare of the mother? It's the absolute equivalent of killing a baby. It is, think about it.

preventing somebody from voting the day before her 18th birthday is "disenfranchisement".

Sorry, your personal outrage doesn't translate into good law.

that many things develop along a continuum.

Somebody who's 17 years and 364 days old cannot vote. Does something magical happen at midnight that night to make them "adults"? No.

Similarly, nothing "magical" happens to a fetus between the moment of its conception and the time it's born.

Legally, we should use birth as the moment at which a fetus becomes a full-fledged, fully-endowed person.

I will also repeat what has been pointed out here repeatedly - you're arguing against a situation that doesn't exist. Abortions are not perfomed the day before birth, and those late-term abortions that ARE performed are performed for very good reasons. You're fighting an imaginary monster.

:yourock:

according to the fetus' survivability outside of the womb. I think it is the wrong standard, precisely because it doesn't address the question of personhood. The answer is not obvious.

Anti-abortion groups make repeated accusation that abortion claims the life of a human being, and pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood refuse to address the charge. I think this is an enormous mistake, because it allows the accusation to stand unanswered.

It's too bad, because I think science supports Planned Parenthood more than it does those who believe that life begins at conception. For example:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM

A lot of it has to do with the brain. The brain has to at least be well enough developed to have organized activity. At the end of the first trimester it does not -- the cerebrum is undeveloped. Planned Parenthood claims the end of the second trimester is a better standard, but I don't know. It should depend on evaluation input from both sides..

-----------

PS BTW, the phrase "just on a whim" may be taken as inflammatory, although I think that what rockydem was trying to do was avoid discussing situation in which the mother's life was in danger.

To support consciousness. Until then, it is a proto-human, but once it attains consciousness, it becomes a human being, and aborting it would be murder.

Look at how we think of brain dead people. If the brain/consciousness is gone, the person is gone, and most people support letting the body die as it is an empty husk.

so that's a scientific/philosophical question. It's something someone needs to look into, deeply.

that talked about how fetuses aren't actually "awake"?

I'll have to dig up the link when I get home...

Edit: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9001683

Cletus

In his last book (Billions and Billions) he goes further into the technicalities of brain functioning than he did in Dragons in Eden, and suggests a conservative cutoff date around the end of the 5th month. Looks reasonable.

All of that, of course, goes out of the window if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. (Or the fetus is anencephalic, in which case there's no "there" there.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and its not your problem.

don't take the fetus bait.

it graduates med school (or law school).

:shrug:

the key word there is 'human'!!!

nice...

At birth a baby's brain is largely not connected up yet. Over the next year billions of synapses grow to connect the brain cells together and make the brain capable of learning and conceptual thought. There is brain imagery showing this - it is startling in what it shows about how unconnected the brain cells in the newborn are. Therefore, based on neuroscience, it should be morally okay to kill a baby up through its first month or two beyond the womb.

However, babies are evolved to be incredibly cute to the parents virtually from birth. Because of this cuteness killing the recently born is frowned on in most cultures (although in China, the longest-civilized place on earth, it has long been considered acceptable). The cuteness factor probably precludes actually legalizing the killing of babies during their first months, even by the parents. However, SID - sudden infant death a/k/a crib death - is a common diagnosis that lets parents off the hook in our culture when the baby just somehow manages to stop breathing.

Still, since cuteness generally works for the good - for instance in preserving baby seals and whales and tigers and so on - we shouldn't challenge the status quo on baby killing. Killing fetuses, however, up to the point of "viability" - sure, a neuroscientific understanding of what a self is suggests that there's nothing there that we should recognize as cognitively human - nothing remotely like a mind or soul.

No medical intervention before it is a "person" if we really want a consistent argument.

It started with a discussion about Stem Cells and human embroyos (that are going to be discarded) and whether they had a "human spirit."



Personally, I believe it is when the fetus can live on its own.

when it can pay for its own apartment. :)

in place.

First I know several adults that havn't an ounce of humanity in them so forget that part.

If you are concerned about when it is "human" it is always human just not a human being until it is delivered.

I suggest that if you have a question about what is "legal" in your state you look it up on the NARAL site. No where in the US can you abort a fetus "on a whim" the day before its due. Even suggesting a thing is preposterous. If you research late term abortion procedures they are for life of mother or fatal fetal anomoly. These are becoming more rare becuase of medical procedures that can determine these horrible problems earlier in the pregnancy so the procedures is done sooner and for the life of the mother problems if at all possible the fetus is delivered to live, not to be killed.

The lines are drawn state by state but generally 24 weeks is the latest possible procedure allowed. If you further research fetal gestation you will find that the "lines" are drawn to coincide with the period that the spinal cord is attached giving what is believed to be by the scientific community a safe procedure on a non cognizant fetus. However you will find that in excess of 96% of all procedures are done prior to 16 weeks.


My last suggestion is quit asking such rediculous questions.

It's unknown exactly what is happening in the latter stage abortions. But my point is that there are a number of unreasonable people who think that abortion 'on a whim' is just fine right up until the moment of birth. Such a position is illogical and does us more harm than good.

a single instance of a "whimsical" abortion being performed just prior to the moment of birth?

Do you rail against sea monsters, too? Bigfoot?

No one keeps track of it, it's largely unregulated. The point is that there is a societal interest in those latter stages, and such an abortion should only happen in certian specific circumstances.

...bordering on fascism. The abortion issue is used as a wedge to keep Democrats fighting among themselves.

Why do we continue to debate this issue...only to give ammunition to the RWing and the RR? Let's concentrate on more important issues like saving Democracy and leave this issue to be decided in a private manner...between the woman and doctor?

Such abortions do not occur, at least here in America, and it's ridiculous to think that ANY woman would bear a child for a full term, then decide at the last minute to abort.

More infants will die TODAY from improper use of car seats than healthy fetuses aborted "on a whim" just before term in 10 years.

Why not make that your crusade?

Women don't abort right before the baby is due, just on a whim. It doesn't matter when a fetus gains it's humanity and that is not something anyone can determine.
Women have abortion because they feel they have to. Why is that any of your business?

anyway go read through the thread I don't have time to repeat myself

but you haven't shown any legitimate societal interest in what a woman carries in her uterus.

We are killing the worlds resorces. But I will never advocate forced abortion.
I read your thread. I'd like to know what interest you think society has in preserving the lives of fetus's over the lives of women.
I'd also like to know what you think you read in Harpers, since I do not have a copy of the magazine.

:thumbsup:

if it can survive on its own, or with temporary medical assistance.

first breath outside the mother.
But what does God's dictates have to do with this issue?

by instituting a "You abort it, you eat it" policy This way it is up to the individual to decide if it is morally correct. Because you'll know by eating it whether it was a baby or a lump of cells or something in between.

:-)

and need men or "other people" to "draw the line" for them. :puke:
Meanwhile you daily support by your daily routine, the GENOCIDE of zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, infants, toddlers, children, pre-pubescents, teenies, women and men of all ages...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the question has to be asked within a contextual framework or it is meaningless.

This is getting out of hand