Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).
We''ll go round and round on this, but if by ""people"" you mean a legal person, unborn children are recognized under the law as people for many circumstances. As Lawyeron pointed out, Roe v Wade explicitly fails to grant the right to abort in all cases. If you mean from a biological point of view, unborn children are unique, distinct, human organisms.
In both cases, there is no arguing that the fetus, whether you consider it ""people"" or not, is alive.
We''ll go round and round on this, but if by ""people"" you mean a legal person, unborn children are recognized under the law as people for many circumstances.
This never really made much sense to me. How can a fetus be considered a legal entity when the mother is murdered, but when it is aborted it suddenly isn''t? I''m sure there is a good (or at least complicated) legal explanation, but it doesn''t seem obvious to me.
In both cases, there is no arguing that the fetus, whether you consider it ""people"" or not, is alive.
Of course it is. So are the tasty calves that we torment and kill for veal, the ants in the anthills we step on, and even the fungus mentioned earlier in the thread. The state of being alive does not automatically result in legal protection.
What is your stance regarding abortion on unviable fetuses? I.E. when the fetuses brain swells with fluid late in the term and the doctors have to perform a partial birth abortion to avoid possible injury or death to the mother at birth. The fetus is brain-dead, but still technically alive. Is this murder? What about a miscarriage? If the woman had seen a doctor at the right time, maybe they could have stopped the miscarriage. Should she be charged with murder?
Of course it is. So are the tasty calves that we torment and kill for veal, the ants in the anthills we step on, and even the fungus mentioned earlier in the thread. The state of being alive does not automatically result in legal protection.
But the state of being alive, and genetically human leads to legal issues (to say the least).
I did a bit of quick research on hydrocephalic pregnancies, and it does appear that partial birth abortion is occasionally used in such instances. The instances of hydrocephalus themselves are quite rare (there are about 5000 such pregnancies in the US per year; which comes out to about 1 case per 2000 pregnancies), and the case is usually discovered late in the second trimester.
There are some problems with your scenario as described. If the fetus is brain dead, then it is dead. Of course, determining this is a bit difficult since the unborn can''t be tested using tradition medical methods (MRI and physical examination) to determine brain death. Thus the health of the fetus''s brain is based upon the doctor''s best guess.
As for the health/life of the mother in hydrocephalic pregnancies, c-section is a viable alternative, and much less drastic than abortion.
As for the health/life of the mother in hydrocephalic pregnancies, c-section is a viable alternative, and much less drastic than abortion.
Abortion is an outpatient procedure. C-sections are major surgery, breaching the abdominal wall and requiring about a week of hospital stay for recovery.
Robear
Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills a potiential person. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).
I don''t see how you can think this way. You are making the defining line of what a ""person"" is by basing it on a highly variable event. The same baby that, in your view, becomes a person at the end of a full term pregnancy, could have just as easily been born prematurely (possibly very prematurely) and still lived a normal life. How can you justify that the baby (fetus) was not a human until birth taking this into account? It is a little easier for me to understand when people judge a fetus not a person if it is too early to live outside of the womb, but this also presents a moving target, since modern medicine has pushed back the viability age and will likely continue to do so.
Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills a potiential person. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).I don''t see how you can think this way.
It''s called convenience. If you call it a fetus, then it doesn''t seem as brutal. I met a couple Memorial Day weekend that have been trying for 12 years to have a baby. Apparently adoption costs are pretty steep. I wonder what they would call it?
"Beeboy" wrote:Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills a potiential person. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).I don''t see how you can think this way.
It''s called convenience. If you call it a fetus, then it doesn''t seem as brutal. I met a couple Memorial Day weekend that have been trying for 12 years to have a baby. Apparently adoption costs are pretty steep. I wonder what they would call it?
I agree from the encarta dictionary
14th century. From Latin, "offspring"
So fetus means offspring, than why not call it offspring or baby? Probably because of the lessons learned in WW2. See the nazi''s realized that they would be unable to commit atrocities upon the jews until they dehumanized them. So they developed termology that had a negitive stigma attached to it.Using these terms distanced people from the jews and allowed to turn a blind eye on the acts carried out.
When you think of ""baby, ""child"" ""infant"" or ""offspring"" it brings to mind a human of some kind. However, when you use the term ""fetus"", you no longer see that child, but something unborn or worthless.
""I aborted a fetus"" doesn''t sound as bad as ""I aborted a baby""
As for the comments of
Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills a potiential person. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).
one wonders if premature babies, that are born early but yet are too young to be out, are considered a fetus? we would say no, so it is not the age of the child, but the act of delivery that changes it from a fetus to a baby? Than all those C section children who were not ""born"" are feteses (sp?) you may be a fetus now, so it should be ok for me to abort you??
So it isn''t age and it isn''t the passage through the birth canal, then it is term used when it is convenent for the murderer to use to claim innocence.
Abortion doesn''t kill anyone either - it kills a potiential person. Until they are born alive, they aren''t people, they are fetuses (fetii?).
You know, my nephew was born on my birthday (July 25th) and he wasn''t supposed to be born until September. He had to be born by C section because of the way he was situated in the womb. Just moments after he was born I got to see him, eyes wide open. He even cried when I told him he was going to have to share his birthday with me (maybe he didn''t understand me, but he did cry ;)). His mother was out of the hospital in just 2 or 3 days (not a week). Now, just because a few moments earlier he was still in the womb, that makes him something less than a human being? I''m sorry, since when did being a human being start getting determined by location?
The thing that really gets me is, there are alot of people out there that think it is worse for a convicted murderer to be put to death than it is for a baby to be killed before it gets to see the light of day. What kind of world do we live in?
I don''t see how you can think this way. You are making the defining line of what a ""person"" is by basing it on a highly variable event. The same baby that, in your view, becomes a person at the end of a full term pregnancy, could have just as easily been born prematurely (possibly very prematurely) and still lived a normal life.
Right, and that''s fine. They gain legal status when they are born alive. I have no problem with this.
Now, just because a few moments earlier he was still in the womb, that makes him something less than a human being? I''m sorry, since when did being a human being start getting determined by location?
He was a potiential human being. The mother could have had a complication and killed him herself naturally the next day - would that have been manslaughter?
What are your thoughts on ''test tube babies'' and clones? Say we ever get the technology to have a fully artificial womb. Would it be murder to unplug the machine, or abort the baby if it wouldn''t survive outside the artificial womb?
He was a potiential human being. The mother could have had a complication and killed him herself naturally the next day - would that have been manslaughter?
I don''t follow, what kind of complication? If she stuck an instrument in his head and sucked his brains out, then I would say that was murder. If he died naturally, then I wouldn''t see any criminal activity taking place.
As far as being a potential human being, why do you say that? Is this something you''ve been told, or read somewhere? You know that it is the exact same baby inside the womb as outside the womb, we''re not talking about potential energy and kinetic energy here, we''re talking about the same exact thing moving from one location to another. Once again I ask, why does this movement transform the baby from a ""Potential"" human being to a real human being?
About ""test tube babies"" and clones, I think that if the life process starts it should have the right to continue. That right shouldn''t be taken away.
He was a potiential human being. The mother could have had a complication and killed him herself naturally the next day - would that have been manslaughter?I don''t follow, what kind of complication? If she stuck an instrument in his head and sucked his brains out, then I would say that was murder. If he died naturally, then I wouldn''t see any criminal activity taking place.
As far as being a potential human being, why do you say that? Is this something you''ve been told, or read somewhere? You know that it is the exact same baby inside the womb as outside the womb, we''re not talking about potential energy and kinetic energy here, we''re talking about the same exact thing moving from one location to another. Once again I ask, why does this movement transform the baby from a ""Potential"" human being to a real human being?
About ""test tube babies"" and clones, I think that if the life process starts it should have the right to continue. That right shouldn''t be taken away.
What i want to know is what he calls his feet when they are in his shoes? Because they must suddenly mutate into something else if you can''t see them, and thus must have a different name. Maybe feetus? they can''t possibly be the same thing because they are in something.
They are just potential feet until the shoes are removed, so it is ok for someone to come up and stab the toes and suck the nails off because they are in the shoes.
What are your thoughts on ''test tube babies'' and clones? Say we ever get the technology to have a fully artificial womb. Would it be murder to unplug the machine, or abort the baby if it wouldn''t survive outside the artificial womb?
That is exactly why they want to ban human embroyo/cloning research. it is wrong to develop a human with the intention of murdering it.
Again the arguement is when is a human a human? I am not sure on your definition as it may or may not be a certian age and it may or maynot have to go through the birth canal, only that it has potential that you wish to snuff out - or something to that effect 
While I believe that at the moment of conception it is a human, it may have the potential to get bigger or grow limbs ,but ultimately it is human- it won''t turn into a frog, a tree, or a bug, but only look more and more like an adult human.
thinking upon it if I use the potential issue, we could justify killing all children under the age of say 13, because they are not adult humans only potential humans in a growth stage. Until they get all their adult teeth and molars and the genitalia function correctly for reproduction , they are merely fetus (latin for offspring) and can be aborted.
Once again I ask, why does this movement transform the baby from a ""Potential"" human being to a real human being?
Because it hasn''t been born yet. This is the only truly objective measurement that we have of viability outside the womb. I will concede that a 8-month healthy fetus most likely would survive outside the womb as long as it had modern medicine - should we now pass and enforce laws requiring mothers to make use of that? We''d have to, if we recognized fetuses as legal people - the woman would be guilty of negligence at the very least if she let her baby die when modern medicine could have saved it. If we start preventing abortion on the grounds that you''re killing a fetus, we''d have to completely ban abortion - even for a small collection of cells that may never even become a child. Even if the fetus was a product of rape or incest, or could kill the mother during its development.
I find it morally disgusting that anyone would want to abort that late in the term - but I''d rather keep the government out of it. Why?
Because I don''t trust the government with the power of controlling a woman''s reproduction. It''s her body - I believe that she has the right to abort whenever she wants. What mother in her right mind would carry a baby to 8 months and decide she didn''t want it if there weren''t a good chance of her dying giving birth? The argument could be made that such people shouldn''t be mothers in the first place.
Until they get all their adult teeth and molars and the genitalia function correctly for reproduction , they are merely fetus (latin for offspring) and can be aborted.
If this were Ancient Rome, you might have a point. Here is the English definition of Fetus:
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
After cooking in the oven for a little while, it may become a fully developed human, but it isn''t yet. Hence the ''potiential human''. It sounds like we need to define what makes a human. If we were all exactly the same genetically, I could go with that - but even Chimpanzees are 99% identical to us if I remember correctly, and I certainly wouldn''t call Chimps human, amusing though they may be. I''ve heard it argued that the defining characteristic of humanity is abstract thought, or the ability to think ahead - in that case, you''d probably start a human off at 2 or 3. There are the religious arguments that human life is sacred because one diety or another said so, but I discount that. If you believe that human life begins at conception, I only see a little blob of cells then - not something I''d call human.
Ugh. This was way longer than I wanted to go, and some of my arguments may not be entirely clear, but I have to get back to work. If you need clarification, let me know and I''ll get to it when I have time.
I find it morally disgusting that anyone would want to abort that late in the term - but I''d rather keep the government out of it. Why?
So would I, but the problem is that the government isn''t currently ""out of it"". There are entire government clinics dedicated to the barbaric practice of abortion (you''d be hard-pressed to find a government clinic dedicated to, say, heart disease). The entire program is funded by taxpayers'' money, making me guilty of funding something I find abhorrent. Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Because I don''t trust the government with the power of controlling a woman''s reproduction. It''s her body - she has the right to abort whenever she wants.
Then let her. Oh, but you probably meant that a doctor should be involved... Hmmm. Well that might change things. The government regulates medical licenses and procedures - is that a problem for you too?
A woman doesn''t have the right to abort whenever she wants? What right is that? It''s not in Roe v. Wade. Am I missing something, or is this typical hysteria? The Court has already decided that in the last trimester a woman does not have an unconditional right to have an abortion.
Hey, just to stir things up, Nancy Reagan and some Republicans are requesting President Bush to loosen the restrictions on stem cell research.
So would I, but the problem is that the government isn''t currently ""out of it"". There are entire government clinics dedicated to the barbaric practice of abortion (you''d be hard-pressed to find a government clinic dedicated to, say, heart disease).
Seriously? Devoted completely to abortion? I thought it was just an elective procedure you could get at a hospital.
Then let her. Oh, but you probably meant that a doctor should be involved... Hmmm. Well that might change things. The government regulates medical licenses and procedures - is that a problem for you too?
I also don''t really care if it is a doctor or RU-486 (or whatever that pill was called). It would depend on the specific license/procedure involved - if it were something like a requirement to use sterile instruments, I wouldn''t have a problem with that. If it were something like preventing or forcing an elective procedure simply because the government regulator had a moral/religious issue, I would have a problem then.
A woman doesn''t have the right to abort whenever she wants?
In my ideal system of government, we all have the right to be free of government interference regarding our own bodies. I should have prefaced my remark with ""I believe that"". I''ll edit it in.
Because it hasn''t been born yet. This is the only truly objective measurement that we have of viability outside the womb. I will concede that a 8-month healthy fetus most likely would survive outside the womb as long as it had modern medicine - should we now pass and enforce laws requiring mothers to make use of that? We''d have to, if we recognized fetuses as legal people - the woman would be guilty of negligence at the very least if she let her baby die when modern medicine could have saved it. If we start preventing abortion on the grounds that you''re killing a fetus, we''d have to completely ban abortion - even for a small collection of cells that may never even become a child.
I guess after watching Jadawin''s ultrasound the other day and seeing that at only 10 weeks after conception there is definitely a heart beating, a head, arms, and legs moving around under full control of the baby, I can''t accept that a human being is just a blob of cells. For that matter, we are all just bigger blobs of cells and we should be able to slaughter any one we want since it''s just a bunch of cells lumped together that we''d be killing.
After cooking in the oven for a little while, it may become a fully developed human, but it isn''t yet. Hence the ''potiential human''. It sounds like we need to define what makes a human. If we were all exactly the same genetically, I could go with that - but even Chimpanzees are 99% identical to us if I remember correctly, and I certainly wouldn''t call Chimps human, amusing though they may be. I''ve heard it argued that the defining characteristic of humanity is abstract thought, or the ability to think ahead - in that case, you''d probably start a human off at 2 or 3. There are the religious arguments that human life is sacred because one diety or another said so, but I discount that. If you believe that human life begins at conception, I only see a little blob of cells then - not something I''d call human.
I would come closer to saying that at conception, the blob of cells you are referring to is a ""Potential Human"", but I feel there is still a life and a purpose there...maybe not conscious, but definitely a life. Once the process starts and the baby begins developing though, I cannot force myself to call that a ""Potential Human"". To me that is a new human being, growing and preparing itself for the harsh outside world. The only problem is, the outside world is so harsh that nothing can prepare it for the claws that are reaching at it while it is still in the womb, trying to take its life before it ever has a chance to fight back.
Also, I looked up the definition of baby and this is what I found:
ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·biesa. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
Also, I looked up the definition of baby and this is what I found:
Quote:
ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·biesa. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
Noted. I was wrong and you could use baby in this sense, but I will say that fetus is more specific and thus a better term to use.
The only problem is, the outside world is so harsh that nothing can prepare it for the claws that are reaching at it while it is still in the womb, trying to take the its life before it ever has a chance to fight back.
Here''s a rhetorical question: does a creature so stupid as to abort its own offspring on purpose deserve to pass on its genes?
Here''s a rhetorical question: does a creature so stupid as to abort its own offspring on purpose deserve to pass on its genes?
Good point...good point. Just wish it could be fixed at the source rather than the other way around.
Here''s a rhetorical question: does a creature so stupid as to abort its own offspring on purpose deserve to pass on its genes?
So we should start killing people we think might carry the stupid gene?
So we should start killing people we think might carry the stupid gene?
I wasn''t proposing any plan of action, certainly not killing. You could sterilize them by force, but I would also find this morally wrong. If you believe in evolution, the problem may solve itself in the distant future if things keep going as they are, sad though it may be.
Noted. I was wrong and you could use baby in this sense, but I will say that fetus is more specific and thus a better term to use.
Specific or dehumanizing? I noticed you skipped that point entirely.
Here''s a rhetorical question: does a creature so stupid as to abort its own offspring on purpose deserve to pass on its genes?
Many beleive that the Government is supposed to protect those that cannot protect themselves- Minorities, Handicapped, the poor - at least most liberals use this arguement to raise taxes, so then why are they so against helping the weakest members? I digress.
If you believe that human life begins at conception, I only see a little blob of cells then - not something I''d call human.
So it is the number of cells? Have you known of a human sperm and egg creating anything other than a human? Even if it died immediately, it was still a human-it wasn''t a duck or a tree. i think I understand your problem, you want to lok at it as if they were only cells, but if you scrape 2 cells of skin onto a table, it is just skin cells, and of it''s own accord will not grow into another human. However, the conceived cells will continue on to grow to maturity.
Arguably they are both just a collection of cells, but one will grow up, the other will not.
From conception on, there are steps of growth ,not suddenly a woo hoo I am human, but I was a newt- I got better
To derail the train, but why are liberals so adamant on this point of killing millions a year, but 1000 die in an a war and the whole world died.
Not that the republicans are much better, but as a liberatian, giving a choice between saving 1000 or saving 1 million, I choose 1 million.
Specific or dehumanizing? I noticed you skipped that point entirely.
I thought it was too ridiculous to address. When a word like baby has 4 definitions, don''t you think it is better to use a word that is more specific so that people have a better idea of exactly what you are talking about?
as a liberatian, giving a choice between saving 1000 or saving 1 million, I choose 1 million.
Really? Here''s what they have to say about abortion at www.libertarianparty.com.
Women''s Rights and Abortion
Individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
Sounds good to me - did you perhaps mean utilitarian?
I just found something heartwarming, if you are interested, read the story at the bottom of this page. Also, to see just how the new 3d and 4d ultrasounds work (and some sample images) go here. I am definitely going to take my wife to get one of those when we are getting ready to have our baby!
Very impressive technology. I can''t say I''d make the same choice as the woman in the article. I wouldn''t want my DNA mixed in with a rapists.
Very impressive technology. I can''t say I''d make the same choice as the woman in the article. I wouldn''t want my DNA mixed in with a rapists.
This leaves me with the same feeling as someone saying that they''d rather mixed race children be killed/ sterilized because they don''t like a particular mix of DNA.
Quote:
Once again I ask, why does this movement transform the baby from a ""Potential"" human being to a real human being?
Because it hasn''t been born yet. This is the only truly objective measurement that we have of viability outside the womb. I will concede that a 8-month healthy fetus most likely would survive outside the womb as long as it had modern medicine - should we now pass and enforce laws requiring mothers to make use of that? We''d have to, if we recognized fetuses as legal people - the woman would be guilty of negligence at the very least if she let her baby die when modern medicine could have saved it.
It sounds like you agree morally that birth is not an accurate threshold of determining what is human, but that the realization should be discarded because it is legally messy. Sure, birth gives a much more convenient, tangible benchmark, but if we do not truly believe that this is what makes a being human, how is this not arguing for legalized murder. Laws should be created to serve the people, not the other way around.
This leaves me with the same feeling as someone saying that they''d rather mixed race children be killed/ sterilized because they don''t like a particular mix of DNA.
Why? The difference is quite apparent, IMHO.
This leaves me with the same feeling as someone saying that they''d rather mixed race children be killed/ sterilized because they don''t like a particular mix of DNA.Why? The difference is quite apparent, IMHO.
Just because it is taking the ultimate action against the party (baby/ fetus) that had no control over any of the circumstances. I know there are obvious differences, but on a gut level, saying a child is worthless just because it has half of the genes of someone who raped another person is a lot like a bigot saying that a child is worthless because it has half the genes of a different race.
Pages