www.ditl.org

Ok, this is a different look at Abortion.

My friend and I discussed this and came to this conclusion.

Abortion can't really be looking at the "human' factor, (when the fetus becomes human) because what makes us really human, I know that the genome makes us human, but we are different from other animals due to our reasoning. So we really can't be looking at when they become human can we? Because nobody really becomes what a human truly is until about 5-10 years into their life.

So then what I want to see is not whether it's right or not, but how should we look at it. What determining factor should make this fetus any more important than a fetus of a donkey. They don't have the reasoning facilities that any person will get over time, and they have no reasoning of right and wrong, which is what we are.

So what should be a determination as to whether a fetus can live or not?

*shrug* If we're discarding the brain function and religious arguments, then that really only leaves us with whether an abortion would be safe for Mom. Or perhaps if the baby to be would be extremely disabled (to the point were death might be preferable).

So essentially it's down to the parents choice.

Well, since I'm pro-choice I must naturally argue that we need more fetuses for stem cells and face cream.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Well, since I'm pro-choice I must naturally argue that we need more fetuses for stem cells and face cream.

Face cream maybe, but doctors can harvest more stem cells from fat (and we know America has plenty of that).

Nickswitz wrote:Abortion can't really be looking at the "human' factor, (when the fetus becomes human) because what makes us really human, I know that the genome makes us human, but we are different from other animals due to our reasoning. So we really can't be looking at when they become human can we? Because nobody really becomes what a human truly is until about 5-10 years into their life.

What makes us human is nothing more than our DNA. You're technicaly human from the point at which you were concieved - you just hadn't grown into what most people call a human at that point.

What you're talking about, Stitch, is sapience.

To expand, most animals are sentient. That is to say that they can experience things like pain, pleasure, etc.
The word sapient is what we use to differ ourselves from the "lesser" species of the planet. Sapience is a somewhat iffy definition, as litteraly speaking it just means "wisdom". And given that there are a fair few people I know going into the latter half of their lives lacking any real wisdom, it's a pretty useless qualifier when it comes to abortion. Generally speaking, sapience is considered the ability to observe a situation and act with appropriate judgement, rather than just going by instinct and some primitive reasoning like an animal would. Though since it's debatable whether anyone really aquires such an ability before they're already several years old, it's also useless to determine at what point abortion shouldn't be carried out.

Nickswitz wrote:So what should be a determination as to whether a fetus can live or not?

I've always held that abortion should be legal until the mother's right to control her own body conflict with the right of someone to live.

So at what point can a fetus be considered to gain the right to live? Well, we give animals a few rights despite them not being human. This is due to them being sentient, and thus able to experience pain, pleasure, etc. So I consider the point at which a fetus can begin to experience such things. It's at around week 23 or 24 that the appropriate parts of the brain begin to develop, thus allowing them to begin experiencing such sensations around that point. Thus I consider this to be the point at which abortion should be made illegal.

What you're talking about, Stitch, is sapience.

I'm not talking about anything.

Well, now I am, but thats... nevermind.


WANd I agree, trying to use sapience to mesure legal standards would be foolish.

Gah, there're too many of you lot to keep track of!

Here a Switz, there a Switz, everywhere a Switz-Switz

Yeah, I know that our DNA makes us human. But for all those who believe in evolution, a few DNA strands differentiate us from a monkey, so although this is an amount of it that is regulated by our DNA, most of what is argued over is what someone can become, which IMO is even stupider than making a law based on sapience, I mean, we got Manson out of the gene pool, as well as Einstein, so so much is not determined at the time of conception, and although I'm pro-life, I do think that the way the American system looks at abortion is slightly foolish, one reason being that we are supposed to have a separate church from state(IDK when we actually did, but it is actually in writing somewhere, haha)

Don't forget that our worst textbook psychopaths, like Manson or Robert Stroud, were also geniuses. Anyway, what separates a human fetus from that of a lower animal is the potential for human sapience, not a determination of consciousness in the fetus itself. While I am strongly pro-choice, to make a distinction based on the lack of sapience in a fetus would be to promote a cavalier attitude toward abortion which would be abhorrent.

Mikey wrote:Don't forget that our worst textbook psychopaths, like Manson or Robert Stroud, were also geniuses...

Hey, don't forget me!

Mikey wrote:Don't forget that our worst textbook psychopaths, like Manson or Robert Stroud, were also geniuses. Anyway, what separates a human fetus from that of a lower animal is the potential for human sapience, not a determination of consciousness in the fetus itself. While I am strongly pro-choice, to make a distinction based on the lack of sapience in a fetus would be to promote a cavalier attitude toward abortion which would be abhorrent.

Yeah, but I'm not saying that it should be based on sapience, I was asking what should it be based on, since obviously at that rate they are not sapient.

So what would a good descriptor of it be.

Well if you want to look at it objectively, the logical point would be the point at which the brain begins to start taking control of the body.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Well if you want to look at it objectively, the logical point would be the point at which the brain begins to start taking control of the body.

Ah, that is an interesting way to look at it.

So, about when does that actually happen?

Nickswitz wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:Well if you want to look at it objectively, the logical point would be the point at which the brain begins to start taking control of the body.

Ah, that is an interesting way to look at it.

So, about when does that actually happen?

Approximately at 62 years of age.

Actually I'm not the best person to debate this, because my own views on abortion are fairly well-defined, and have little to do with any philosophical opinions of the embryo/fetus itself. Obviousy I agree with the abhorrence of late-term abortion, but that's a different matter.