When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2017, 09:55 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 08:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-02-2017 03:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think the age of viability is an important point because you must consider that at that age, even once the fetus/baby has been removed from the mother, further action (or medical non action) must be taken to kill it.

Perhaps the manufacture of a medical hammer to knock the prem-baby on the head with. Some people would find this action to be quite repugnant. It would be difficult to legally force a doctor to carry out this procedure against his beliefs/morals etc.

What The Fuck are you talking about?!
What bit didn't you understand?

I was pointing out that if we allowed people to terminate a pregnancy at the point after when a fetus/baby is viable outside the womb then we would need to take extra action, or non action to kill the fetus/baby.

As it is with the first trimester abortions the fetus comes out dead, we can't do anything to keep it alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 10:32 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 09:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 08:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What The Fuck are you talking about?!
What bit didn't you understand?

I was pointing out that if we allowed people to terminate a pregnancy at the point after when a fetus/baby is viable outside the womb then we would need to take extra action, or non action to kill the fetus/baby.

As it is with the first trimester abortions the fetus comes out dead, we can't do anything to keep it alive.

Okay... in the vein of the previous answer to Naielis by Bucky, I'll ask when exactly that is?

They're pretty much incapable of surviving outside the womb until very, very late in the pregnancy, and we already don't abort in those situations, as the OB/GYN I've cited previously points out. It's a moot point. Why even bring it up?

Before that point, we have to ask "when is it viable" by the broader definition, when we have the technology to artificially keep it alive. Is that the determining factor? If so, is it then a constitutional requirement that the same government which requires protection of artificially "viable" fetuses should also require funding for this to happen in all of those cases?

Generally, we use the term "viable" to mean "decent likelihood of surviving in a NICU", though I consider that too broad a definition until/unless we fully fund NICU treatment for every preemie born in the USA.

But again, it's exceptionally rare that abortions happen in the third trimester, past the (broader definition) "point of viability", and doctors who perform them at that point have good reasons for doing so, such as an infection that will kill the mother, or a pregnancy anomaly that will do damage to the mother-- and therefore doctors have no (non-religious) qualms about performing their medical duties in defense of the life or health of the mother.

By bringing up the "hit it with a hammer" bit, you're making it look like you built a strawman out of the entire process (by pretending abortion happens in a way it does not) and emotionally charging the argument needlessly.

I asked for clarification because I hoped you did not mean it that way.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 11:28 PM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 10:32 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Okay... in the vein of the previous answer to Naielis by Bucky, I'll ask when exactly that is?

They're pretty much incapable of surviving outside the womb until very, very late in the pregnancy, and we already don't abort in those situations, as the OB/GYN I've cited previously points out. It's a moot point. Why even bring it up?
I brought it up because I'm ignoring current laws and starting from scratch, hence it is irrelevant that we don't allow late term abortions now.
My points aren't with regards to status quo but are more with regards to an open field question of at what point should government intervene forcibly over the decisions of the woman?

I don't look at it from a moral perspective because morality is in the eye of the beholder. I am also considering some of the points e.g. a woman's rights to make decisions concerning her own body. A society member's rights to make their own decisions, the purpose of government and what gives them the right to overrule individual's rights.

I think the point at which a fetus/baby becomes viable is significant because up until that point the fetus/baby cannot survive outside the woman. If the woman's goal is to have the baby outside her body, then the baby necessarily dies. But at a point after viability then the baby doesn't necessarily die.

If we consider the reason why a woman aborts, it is generally because she wants the fetus/baby to be dead. It's not generally for the purpose of simply removing it from invading her body.

But anyway, my hammer story is (perhaps a little over the top) but highlighting that we have to do something specifically to kill the viable baby if the goal is to kill it rather than simply remove it from the womb.


(17-02-2017 10:32 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But again, it's exceptionally rare that abortions happen in the third trimester, past the (broader definition) "point of viability", and doctors who perform them at that point have good reasons for doing so, such as an infection that will kill the mother, or a pregnancy anomaly that will do damage to the mother-- and therefore doctors have no (non-religious) qualms about performing their medical duties in defense of the life or health of the mother.
Sure it's rare, but there will always be outlier cases. When you create laws, you create them for all cases. There will be many people worried about this outlier case. If you don't consider it then you wont get their support for your law.



(17-02-2017 10:32 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  By bringing up the "hit it with a hammer" bit, you're making it look like you built a strawman out of the entire process (by pretending abortion happens in a way it does not) and emotionally charging the argument needlessly.
I've never said they happen that way. I'm just saying that if you allow very late term abortions then you will need to consider that people would need to take extra action to kill the baby. Perhaps this is reason to say we need a law against late term abortion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 11:50 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2017 12:01 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 11:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think the point at which a fetus/baby becomes viable is significant because up until that point the fetus/baby cannot survive outside the woman.

Its never a "baby" inside a womb. The word *baby* is charged with emotion.
It can't *survive* without huge extraordinarily costly intervention. It's an artificial attempt at a definition which is totally arbitrary. How much technology is *too much* and what cost is *too much* ?

"If the woman's goal is to have the baby outside her body, then the baby necessarily dies. But at a point after viability then the baby doesn't necessarily die."

Wrong. It only survives with HUGE costs and HUGE technology. A fetus can't survive on it's own until after it's lungs have developed enough, ... which is very late in the pregnancy. http://livehealthy.chron.com/fetal-lung-...-1062.html

"Nearing Birth
As the baby's lungs continue to develop, more alveoli are added during a stage called the saccular stage because the lungs begin to resemble collapsed sacs. This stage lasts until about 35 weeks of pregnancy. As new alveoli develop and grow, tissues between them become compressed and the lining of the alveoli becomes even thinner. During this period, the lining cells take on characteristics needed for their function after birth. Type I cells become exceptionally thin, to allow exchange of gases between air and the blood after birth. Type II cells develop features they need to produce a highly specialized chemical called sufactant, which contains both protein and fat. Surfactant forms a film on the inner surface of each alveolus that prevents it from collapsing. As early as the 24th week of pregnancy, type II cells contain small amounts of surfactant. From then until birth, these cells manufacture and store additional surfactant in preparation for the baby's first breath."

Quote:If we consider the reason why a woman aborts, it is generally because she wants the fetus/baby to be dead. It's not generally for the purpose of simply removing it from invading her body.

You have no evidence for that. At ALL. Many women mourn the loss of the potential child, but are convinced they could not successfully care for it. It has NOTHING to do with "wanting it dead", and you can site no study that demonstrates that assertion.

Quote:I've never said they happen that way. I'm just saying that if you allow very late term abortions then you will need to consider that people would need to take extra action to kill the baby. Perhaps this is reason to say we need a law against late term abortion?

It's not a baby, and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-02-2017, 12:15 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 11:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Its never a "baby" inside a womb. The word *baby* is charged with emotion.
It can't *survive* without huge extraordinarily costly intervention. It's an artificial attempt at a definition which is totally arbitrary. How much technology is *too much* and what cost is *too much* ?
In USA your health system is quite different to elsewhere.
In NZ where hospital treatment is free there are certain treatments that govt cover and certain ones where they don't. If we consider Keytruda (cancer treatment) it costs about $100,000 per year. It only works (whatever is meant by "works") on about 10% of people, 30% of people have some kind of positive outcome (reduced tumor size or halting of progression for a period of time). So the cost of Keytruda considering it works in few cases and most of those that it works, it might add perhaps 1-3 years on to the life of someone.
If we consider the cost if incubators and steroids and such for a prem baby, that perhaps gives 80 years of life to a person, so perhaps much more value for money than cancer treatment. Now I haven't thoroughly researched this, but there may be a strong case for supporting medical treatment of premature babies.

(17-02-2017 11:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:If we consider the reason why a woman aborts, it is generally because she wants the fetus/baby to be dead. It's not generally for the purpose of simply removing it from invading her body.

You have no evidence for that. At ALL. Many women mourn the loss of the potential child, but are convinced they could not successfully care for it. It has NOTHING to do with "wanting it dead", and you can site no study that demonstrates that assertion.
If the reason why they abort is because they can't successfully care for it, then they are wanting it dead. They don't want to care for it and they don't want to give it up for abortion. It is not merely a case of wanting it out of their body, they don't want it to exist any longer a.k.a. they want it dead.


(17-02-2017 11:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:I've never said they happen that way. I'm just saying that if you allow very late term abortions then you will need to consider that people would need to take extra action to kill the baby. Perhaps this is reason to say we need a law against late term abortion?

It's not a baby, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
As you have said above it is a baby once it is out of the womb, here I was specifically talking about a late term baby. The assumption is that it is taken out of the womb alive (hence it is now a baby), then if they want it to not exist, they would have to take action or non action (withhold possible medical treatment) in order to terminate its life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 12:32 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2017 12:36 AM by Naielis.)
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(17-02-2017 08:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Absolutely not. It cannot be answered by science.
Too bad for you, there is no "moment of conception", and the chairpersons of the academic OBGYN Departments around the world do not agree on the matter.
(More evidence you know absolutely nothing about science).
YOU do not know more than the worlds OBGYN physicians.
http://www.figo.org/news/obstetrician-gy...ts-0012855

Cells from your arm are "human life". Human life began billions of years ago.

It's good to see that you can still make outrageous claims about me knowing nothing about science. Also, the source you linked is a question of when pregnancy starts. Is this synonymous with when the offspring becomes human?

Quote:Is it "human" when :
a. sperm approaches egg ?
-- the first sperm to enter the oocyte is not the sperm that actually donates DNA to the first replication --
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?

There is no "moment" of anything. It's all a complex, on-going process with absolutely no absolute firm or identifiable markers or absolute landmarks.

Human sperm cell : human life, alive, no brain, no neural tube, potential human person
Human oocyte (egg cell) : human life, alive, no brain, no neural tube, potential human person
Human zygote : human life, alive, no brain, no neural tube, potential human person
Human skin cell : human life, alive, no brain, no neural tube, potential human person, (when stem cell technology advances)
Early human embryo : human life, alive, no brain, no neural tube, potential human person
Anencephalic fetus : human life, alive, no brain, no potential as a human person, (occasionally potential to survive outside womb for a while).

It becomes a human after gametogenesis and fertilization.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 12:40 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(18-02-2017 12:15 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In USA your health system is quite different to elsewhere.
In NZ where hospital treatment is free there are certain treatments that govt cover and certain ones where they don't. If we consider Keytruda (cancer treatment) it costs about $100,000 per year. It only works (whatever is meant by "works") on about 10% of people, 30% of people have some kind of positive outcome (reduced tumor size or halting of progression for a period of time). So the cost of Keytruda considering it works in few cases and most of those that it works, it might add perhaps 1-3 years on to the life of someone.
If we consider the cost if incubators and steroids and such for a prem baby, that perhaps gives 80 years of life to a person, so perhaps much more value for money than cancer treatment. Now I haven't thoroughly researched this, but there may be a strong case for supporting medical treatment of premature babies.

I concur that no one should ever have to have an abortion because they can't afford the costs of hospital bills, especially in case of a NICU baby. That's why I said what I did about the "if-->then" scenario of requiring that all post-viability fetuses be born also be paid for by the collective, rather than the individual.

But this doesn't really bear on the fact that 3rd-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare, and are almost always done for reasons related to the non-viability of the fetus (removal of a dying fetus that will poison the mother when it does finally die), infections that will harm the mother and kill the fetus anyway, and so on. So you're arguing a conceptual point that is, well, pointless.



(18-02-2017 12:15 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-02-2017 11:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have no evidence for that. At ALL. Many women mourn the loss of the potential child, but are convinced they could not successfully care for it. It has NOTHING to do with "wanting it dead", and you can site no study that demonstrates that assertion.
If the reason why they abort is because they can't successfully care for it, then they are wanting it dead. They don't want to care for it and they don't want to give it up for abortion. It is not merely a case of wanting it out of their body, they don't want it to exist any longer a.k.a. they want it dead.

Horse shit.

Most women seeking abortion in the USA already have children. They certainly do not "wish it dead". They simply wish not to have a child grow in their body, or to have to care for that fetus become another child... at the expense of their own already-born children, for whom they care deeply.

It is insanely callous of you to claim that their wish is death.

Also, speaking as someone who formerly sat on the board of a non-profit adoption assistance agency, I know that "giving it up for adoption" is not as easy for most women as it is portrayed by Pro-Lifers, and is simply not a realistic option for most women, especially most non-white, non-wealthy women. The reasons for this are far too myriad and in-depth to go into, here, but if you'd really like to know and don't turn up what you need with a Google search, let me know and I'll help.



(18-02-2017 12:15 AM)Stevil Wrote:  As you have said above it is a baby once it is out of the womb, here I was specifically talking about a late term baby. The assumption is that it is taken out of the womb alive (hence it is now a baby), then if they want it to not exist, they would have to take action or non action (withhold possible medical treatment) in order to terminate its life.

Geezus, you're as bad as Donny "Tiny-hands" Trump!

Fucking learn something before you start running off at the mouth. Then we can talk theory-crafting.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/1...abortions/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 04:08 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(18-02-2017 12:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But this doesn't really bear on the fact that 3rd-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare, and are almost always done for reasons related to the non-viability of the fetus (removal of a dying fetus that will poison the mother when it does finally die), infections that will harm the mother and kill the fetus anyway, and so on. So you're arguing a conceptual point that is, well, pointless.
I'm trying to determine in a hypothetical blank slate world (where we would be defining the laws from scratch where it is during the pregnancy term that we would define as the cut off point).

I really don't see why you are taking so much issue to what I have said.

My position on abortion is that I am all for it. I actually would be in support of it going on much later term than you would. Sure most pregnant women would probably decide to abort earlier. But I'm talking about at which point the government interjects. I am less supporting of government telling the woman that she can't abort after a certain date. I think Govt should stay out of it.

(18-02-2017 12:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 12:15 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If the reason why they abort is because they can't successfully care for it, then they are wanting it dead. They don't want to care for it and they don't want to give it up for abortion. It is not merely a case of wanting it out of their body, they don't want it to exist any longer a.k.a. they want it dead.

Horse shit.

Most women seeking abortion in the USA already have children. They certainly do not "wish it dead". They simply wish not to have a child grow in their body, or to have to care for that fetus become another child... at the expense of their own already-born children, for whom they care deeply.

I think perhaps the issue here is semantics. You are obviously taking some offence to the phrases that I am using.

Your phrase "or to have to care for that fetus become another child"
To me is equivalent to "They don't want the fetus to develop into a baby"
And this is equivalent to "They want to kill the fetus before it develops into a baby"
I see this as the truth of the matter. A fetus is alive and to stop it developing into a baby, you need to kill it. Abortion is the practice of killing the fetus and removing from the woman's body.

I really don't see why you are taking offense to me phrasing it this way.

(18-02-2017 12:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It is insanely callous of you to claim that their wish is death.
Look, I'm not rushing up to pregnant women at abortion clinics and telling them that they are killing their unborn child.

I am discussing on a forum, the topic of abortion. Trying to define what it is. I am not trying to dress it up in language as to try and soften what it is. I am not about to call it a clump of cells, or not human, or not alive, or a potential person.

As far as I am concerned it is an embryo or a fetus and it is alive and growing and developing. Abortion kills it. It is a matter of fact.
Are you so offended by this statement that it becomes impossible to discuss this with you?


(18-02-2017 12:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Also, speaking as someone who formerly sat on the board of a non-profit adoption assistance agency, I know that "giving it up for adoption" is not as easy for most women as it is portrayed by Pro-Lifers,
I'm not a pro-lifer, and I'm not suggesting that women with an unwanted pregnancy should choose adoption rather than abortion.
I am fully supportive of women choosing for themselves what to do. I am fully supportive of abortion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 04:20 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Maybe we could instead say that they are choosing a course of action that they know will lead to the death of the fetus. They are not simply desiring the death for the sake of it. The factors involved in making such a decision will be many and varied.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
18-02-2017, 04:35 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(18-02-2017 04:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm trying to determine in a hypothetical blank slate world (where we would be defining the laws from scratch where it is during the pregnancy term that we would define as the cut off point).

I really don't see why you are taking so much issue to what I have said.

My position on abortion is that I am all for it. I actually would be in support of it going on much later term than you would. Sure most pregnant women would probably decide to abort earlier. But I'm talking about at which point the government interjects. I am less supporting of government telling the woman that she can't abort after a certain date. I think Govt should stay out of it.

Your personal support is all-well-and-good, except for the fact that you are copying the rhetoric that the ignorant use in their emotional pleas in favor of prioritizing the life of the fetus over the bodily integrity (you could say "sanctity of person") of the mother who doesn't wish to be a breeder right-at-that-moment.

(18-02-2017 04:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I think perhaps the issue here is semantics. You are obviously taking some offence to the phrases that I am using.

Your phrase "or to have to care for that fetus become another child"
To me is equivalent to "They don't want the fetus to develop into a baby"
And this is equivalent to "They want to kill the fetus before it develops into a baby"
I see this as the truth of the matter. A fetus is alive and to stop it developing into a baby, you need to kill it. Abortion is the practice of killing the fetus and removing from the woman's body.

I really don't see why you are taking offense to me phrasing it this way.

Because the way you are phrasing it is as though you think people are unaware that the act of abortion terminates a developing life, at whatever stage it occurs. And again, it mimics the language and emotional pleas of the Religious Right. We don't say "kill the fetus" any more than necessary, out of respect for those who have had to make this choice. (Or who will have to, someday.) We do it so we do not run the risk of inflaming raw emotion in people who have had to walk in shoes I would never even wish to try on, not out of some cover-up to "hide the truth". And it's fucking offensive that you (like they) pretend that all you're doing is "telling the truth". Fuck right off with that!

If you will note, the example that I use in every single discussion I have on this topic is that of my own person-- my life, my body, me-- laying on a hospital bed, hooked to another person for my life-support. If they leave me hooked to the person, then I will eventually, months later, recover; if they do not, I will die. Action or inaction, however you wish to call it, I will die without remaining hooked to that person for several months. (And maybe even then I might die.)

Do we have the right to compel that person to stay hooked up to me against their will? No. Period. End of sentence. There's no other question to discuss. I am a person. I will die. I have rights that exist but can never exceed the right of the person upon whom my own life depends, if they decide not to further endanger their own life by contributing to mine. If they say so, and the instant they say so, the tubes are pulled and I die.

Sitting there bleating on about "but Rocket is a PERSON! And you're KILLING HIM! You're murdering a human being!", then trying to cover it up with "well I'm just telling it like it is! I support your right to sever Rocket from his life support" tells me that you have not considered my hospital bed analogy, or its implications.

Worse, it is using rhetoric that shades the discussion unfairly. To put it as nicely as I can.

That's because you're also feeding the religious crowd who don't put nearly that much thought into it, but whose parroted cry of "it's a human!" is all the basis they feel they need to use the power of democracy to forcibly control women who don't share their biases. Your words matter, here on a public forum.

Now re-read the below, with that in mind:

(18-02-2017 04:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-02-2017 12:40 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It is insanely callous of you to claim that their wish is death.
Look, I'm not rushing up to pregnant women at abortion clinics and telling them that they are killing their unborn child.

I am discussing on a forum, the topic of abortion. Trying to define what it is. I am not trying to dress it up in language as to try and soften what it is. I am not about to call it a clump of cells, or not human, or not alive, or a potential person.

As far as I am concerned it is an embryo or a fetus and it is alive and growing and developing. Abortion kills it. It is a matter of fact.
Are you so offended by this statement that it becomes impossible to discuss this with you?

See?

I'm offended by the way this will harm women, the ones who don't wish to live under the theocratic impulses of their American neighbors, with your careless rhetoric.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: