Well, a self-evident right to life is most definitely described in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution grants it to a natural born US citizen. If there is no evidence of a soul/consciousness to identify the fetus as having the qualities of a person, there can be no evidence to demonstrate that a fetus should not be subjected to the action of abortion, no? Therefore, for you to admit that it can't be proven means a fetus can never be given citizen rights. Regardless, wouldn't you also want to consider when a soul does exist in a human embryo? Wouldn’t you want to know, at the very least, if it occurs at conception or implantation?
Not really, but that's another thread. No, because the fetus is known to be conscious at 5 months, which is evidence that it may be conscious before then. Wrong, for the reasons already stated. Sure I would. So what?
What does that in any way have to do with consciousness? A lizard can obviously hear...does in have a consciousness? What IS a consciousness?
Can you help point me to that thread? I'm new here. I'd love to read more. Thanks. How do you know it has consciousness at 5 months? So that is 19 weeks for hearing? Do these types of studies interest you? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726 The reason I'm asking about conception or implantation is because fertilized eggs are not implanted naturally all the time. I've read most fertilized eggs never implant and 50% of all implanted eggs are miscarried in the first trimester. So my thoughts are that if there was ever an acceptable time to electively terminate a pregnancy, it would definitely be in this time.
Figure it out. Of course. "the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc."
I didn't mean there is such a thread, only that the conversation is off topic in this one. See post #154 I'm mildly curious as to how the authors have concluded that a newborn is unreflective. Other than that I see nothing in the abstract that militates against anything I said.
Alrighty. This I know is on topic of this thread: The reason I'm asking about conception or implantation is because fertilized eggs are not implanted naturally all the time. I've read most fertilized eggs never implant and 50% of all implanted eggs are miscarried in the first trimester. So my thoughts are that if there was ever an acceptable time to electively terminate a pregnancy, it would definitely be in this time. What say you?
The only acceptable time for an elective abortion is when it can be verified that it does not result in the death of a human being.
Human life begins at conception. There is no scientist that would dispute that. It's just pinning down what are the qualities that describe what a human being is. I looked it up and it said that it means a person. Would it be objectionable if someone else decided to have an abortion at 8 weeks? Would that be causing the death of a human being?
Lots of sensory nerves are in place, and connected to the primitive brain stem by week 20. Those nerves allow the heart to beat, and they provide reflexes like swallowing or moving the legs in response to pressure. The ability of the brain stem to function and react to stimuli tells us the body is still alive, but it does not tell us the mind is active. In fact, research tells us the cerebrum is not yet developed enough to function... so any movement observed at week 20 cannot possibly be associated with intent or purpose or self-awareness. When can the fetus first be conscious? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ (short answer - birth... and some would argue it is sometime after birth) If hearing is the threshold for person-hood... do you claim that people who are deaf from birth are not persons?
No, it's also verifying that a zygote does or doesn't have those qualities, and no one knows how to do that. After all this conversation you're asking me these questions? What the hell's wrong with you?
I'm trying to engage in discussion to gain understanding. I'm also trying to understand what people think about what makes abortion moral or immoral to them. I'm trying to understand if society has an interest in creating laws governing abortion. My own thought is that society does. My own morality is that if abortion is legal, it should be performed more closely to implantation than later in term. Everyone has their own morality tho, so I'm trying to understand the different positions to gain some insight. I've read CDC statistics that show that women tend to have abortions within the first trimester (92% of all abortions). My conclusion is that most women tend to share a similar morality that I have. Because this fits within my morals, I would not deny a woman the legality of abortion regardless of my morality on the subject. If the statistics were reversed, I might reconsider my thoughts on the legality of abortion. I'm also trying to understand if there should be a religious element of a "soul" as part of society's moral status of a fetus, or if there should just be things only able to proven scientifically. If it's a religious test, I think some religions have historically varied on their thoughts on the moral status of the fetus. Rights mean that a person shall not be subject by actions of another person or the state. If the question of soul is not involved, a woman would have a legality of abortion based on what can be scientifically proven, i.e., a fetus that has not developed enough to be considered to have enough of the qualities of a born infant baby, therefore abortion will remain legal and not be able to be challenged.
If you feel they are idiotic, you are very welcome to point it out. I'd just prefer that you'd offer an explanation as to why they are idiotic rather than just saying they are idiotic.
They're idiotic because if you were paying to what you've been responding to, you can't help but know my answers.
Scientists can and do dispute that human life begins at conception. Life is present before conception, human life in the form of sperm and eggs. http://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2422&context=etd A review of the literature reveals several theories on when human life begins and personhood is attained and indicates the extent to which scientists and society disagree about when human life begins. In addition to these theories, there are several vital stages of human development that have been associated with the beginning of human life. Some of the moments at which life is considered to have begun include: prior to fertilization (gametes), the fertilized ovum, development of the primitive line, the appearance of brain activity, the acquisition of capability of life outside of the womb, and when the child emerges from the womb and takes a first breath. While it is accepted that the newborn child is a human life of moral standing, the stages prior to birth remain a source of controversy. D
Biologists don't dispute whether human life begins at conception. There is indeed a question of whether a fetus has a moral status or not and at what point does the fetus deserve moral status. No scientist would ever consider human life beginning prior to fertilization. No ethical person would unjustifiably terminate a pregnancy just days before due date. This paper is filled with philosophical nonsense. Perhaps so much confusion surrounds these complex moral issues because of semantics.
Human life exists prior to fertilization. That's plain. It's impossible to pinpoint a "beginning" because life is a continuum. Fertilization is just one point on that continuum, as is implantation. If one chooses to value one point over another, that is his choice, but one has no right to force that valuation on others. https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that scientists know. I couldnt say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists dont have a consensus, he says. When life begins is, of course, the central disagreement that fuels the controversy over abortion
Personhood is philosophical. The sperm and ovum are part of the human reproductive system. Both of them could be defined as living entities similar to haploids like prokaryotes are defined as living. But there is no way an ovum could ever become a living human being without fertilization since it can't undergo cellular division. For whatever reason there tends to be integration of philosophical when discussing the biological. Philosophical thought confuses the biological thought. I suppose it is due to the fact that scientific advancements occur more quickly than people can determine the moral impact? .Advancements in medicine allows medicine to be used to shed the lining of the uterus and embryo early in term up to about 12 weeks. It's much more of a simple process than ever before. .Science has demonstrated that an ovum does not require sperm to fertilize. The need for sperm is only part of the natural biological process of fertilization. Does that make men needless? Perhaps we could do the heavy lifting like moving the furniture? .At the end of the article, it discusses the changing threshold of viability. I've discussed, earlier in this thread, innovations in artificial wombs that could possibly affect the definition of viability and bring questions of when should the hypocratic oath be followed if all fetuses can be "saved" earlier and earlier in gestational age. When life begins is not really the main dispute that fuels current controversies. It is a matter of application and to what degree these medical advancements should be employed that seems to be the central question. The last 50 years of scientific discovery and advancement is altering our ability to cope with the altering of natural reproductive processes that had been previously established for all of eterity.
