Abortion

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Who defines what "true sentience" is? Why shouldn't it centre around what is scientific, what are we left with once we take scientific definitions out? Do we now arbitrarily decide based on what is most convenient? I can't even imagine where one can even consider killing anything to be deciding within a "moral" framework. Maybe within a framework of "necessity" but def not "morality".

Has the philosophy of what constitutes "life" and "sentience" been completely explored, established and agreed upon? Is it fact that fetuses have no unique sentience of their own? Who decides that? And if that is all still up in the air, then why take the position where innocent life pays the price instead of protecting it?

What if you're wrong? What if the arbitrary number/age assigned to sentience was wrong? What if the child fears/feels everything during abortion (there are hints to this at 8 weeks btw). Imagine sentencing someone to the death penalty even tho guilt isn't even all that clear yet. Imagine sentencing a helpless, innocent child to that.

Sentience is relative. And so is the system of assigning rights within a level of perceived "sentience". Does a mentally underdeveloped child now have less rights to life than a fully developed one? Is killing an underdeveloped child now less wrong that killing a normal one? As arguably, one can claim that one has a higher sentience than the other? To claim morality/justice, right to life has to be consistent throughout. We don't get to pick and choose.

See, I'll have to completely disagree with this line of thought. Who are we to decide what is proper or functioning? Newborns are no more "proper" nor
"functioning" by the definition of the word than fetuses, yet they seem to have rights to life. We need to be consistent on who gets the right to life and who does not.

To the first question of 'who decides'- that's an excellent question that is at the centre of the debate. Basically, right now, it's the law. But to take the UK as an example- when abortion was legalised, it was set at a maximum development point where it was felt after which the fetus could survive outside the mother, so that was the criteria taken.

But that was always silly as, inevitably, decades later, medical technology has advanced so that fetuses have become viable much earlier so any moral strength that limit had is lost- it's now just an arbitrary number. But no-one can think of a better alternative.

Has the philosophy of life etc been completely explored? Absolutely not, and hence the ongoing nature of this debate. Why not use science? Because generally people don't have faith that scientists have accurately defined what a sentient human is either- an organic human, maybe, but that's not the same thing. The doubters, incidentally, include the majority of the scientists, where this debate is just as strong as anywhere.

When you say 'what if 'you' are wrong'- I didn't state a position, so I am assuming you mean an average pro-choice proponent. Well, then the answer is, if they are wrong, there is a lot of moral murder going on. But what if the pro-life person is wrong? Then there is a staggeringly huge amount of destroyed lives going on when abortion is not available- and that one we know for certain, unlike the murder thing which is speculative.

All that about mentally undeveloped children is an irrelevance I am afraid. Relativity does not enter into this- the view by pro-choicers is that fetuses before a certain point have zero sentience- none at all. When sentience starts to develop would be a theoretical cut-off point.

The simple truth is we don't know for sure the absolute truth of this- and all we can do is debate about a time limit with the best information we have. But I am afraid your idea that science has it cut and dry has no wider acceptance in any culture. Most fervent pro-lifers base their thinking on religious philosophy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To the first question of 'who decides'- that's an excellent question that is at the centre of the debate. Basically, right now, it's the law. But to take the UK as an example- when abortion was legalised, it was set at a maximum development point where it was felt after which the fetus could survive outside the mother, so that was the criteria taken.

But that was always silly as, inevitably, decades later, medical technology has advanced so that fetuses have become viable much earlier so any moral strength that limit had is lost- it's now just an arbitrary number. But no-one can think of a better alternative.

Has the philosophy of life etc been completely explored? Absolutely not, and hence the ongoing nature of this debate. Why not use science? Because generally people don't have faith that scientists have accurately defined what a sentient human is either- an organic human, maybe, but that's not the same thing. The doubters, incidentally, include the majority of the scientists, where this debate is just as strong as anywhere.

When you say 'what if 'you' are wrong'- I didn't give an an answer, so I am assuming you mean an average pro-choice proponent. Well, then the answer is, if they are wrong, there is a lot of moral murder going on. But what if the pro-life person is wrong? Then there is a staggeringly huge amount of destroyed lives going on when abortion is not available- and that one we know for certain, unlike the murder thing which is speculative.

All that about mentally undeveloped children is an irrelevance I am afraid. Relativity does not enter into this- the view by pro-choicers is that fetuses before a certain point have zero sentience- none at all. When sentience starts to develop would be a theoretical cut-off point,

The simple truth is we don't know- and all we can do is debate about a time limit with the best information we have. But I am afraid your idea that science has it cut and dry has no wider acceptance in any culture. Most fervent pro-lifers base their thinking on religious philosophy.

So arbitrarily deciding based on what is socially convenient is still the "best guess" on what constitutes a sentient human being and when it is ok to end it?

For the record, I never said abortion should not be available or be illegal (like any medical procedure, it SHOULD be made available). I only said that it should do 2 things: 1) that there has to be a very good reason behind said abortion and all other options (such as adoption) have been exhausted, it should not be a go-to option like many hardcore pro-choicers are trying to push. 2) that the parents (and yes, BOTH parents have to agree to it) be made to accept or at least be informed that this IS a human being that they have decided to terminate. Their own child. Such as that if they decide to continue with the abortion, that they at least feel the full impact of it, to feel the full weight of the decision (perhaps via a 1 hour seminar and/or an educational video on what it means to have an abortion, showing them videos on what an abortion does to an unborn fetus). Deceiving them/coddling them by dehumanizing the child devalues the life that was just sacrificed for their benefit. Basically, I want it to be a heavy heavy burden for anyone deciding to even consider it. But it should be their choice.

So, we're not really sure by any degree on whether the child is sentient or not, or whether the child can be classified as lfe or not. Yet we are eager to sentence this life to death even tho we don't know for sure if what we're doing is right? Can't you see the inherent insanity of that notion? What if this was about a convict in death row (whose guilt is still debatable)? Would liberals still go ahead and say "well we're not really sure if he's guilty of not, but convenience dictates that we should just put him to death anyway". Don't we want to be 100% sure that what we're doing is the right thing before we start putting unborn children thru the grinder?

That is a false dichotomy. Continuing a pregnancy does not automatically equate to a ruined life (heck, even "ruined" is a very subjective term). It might make your life harder, but that doesn't really mean "ruined". There are other options out there than raising the child on your own, you know. Adoption is always an option as there are many many parents out there that have a hard time with conceiving and they are more than willing to love your child with all their heart if you can't.

It is their view, not fact. From what I'm seeing, they simply dehumanize a child via arbitrarily fabricated criteria to make themselves feel better with their choices. They base a life and death decision on a convenient self serving theory.

Since we don't really know, shouldn't the direction of the moral human try and err at the side of saving life? Since we're not sure, shouldn't we at least make the process of deciding exhaustive and definite as to at least be sure that we at least did the best we can to protect life?

I can actually see a future where humans no longer need to kill plants/animals to eat. Where we are all enlightened enough to see all life as sacred. And when that time comes, I can actually imagine the ppl of the future looking back and seeing the proliferation of easy access abortions (if the pro-choicers get their way) as just another dark spot in human evolution. Like the crusades or the holocaust.

Edit. to clarify, as you said, whenever I say "you", "we" or "us" I'm actually meaning the pro-choicer or ppl in general (whichever applies), not "you/we/us" literally. 😛

Well the issue here is that you're not really approaching this argument from an objective mindset. You say pro-choicers are 'sentencing life to death'- that is precisely what they do NOT think they are doing, and as you have no means of proving that IS what they are doing, that level of moral outrage is inappropriate. Like I say, if EITHER side is wrong, there is great potential for moral wrong, so you can't win this argument with a 'what if you are wrong?' approach- that cuts both ways. You do not think lack of abortion is as much as an issue as others do, clearly, but that view is, again, not widely culturally shared. Access to abortion is considered a vital human right and you really would need much better proof than you have to contest that. Hence, you calling this 'inherent insanity' has nothing to do with rational argument- just your horror at a belief that does not align with your own.

Your death penalty argument seems irrelevant and not even vaguely compatible. A better comparison is turning off life-support on a brain dead patient- that is something as organically human as you can get, but no longer seen as 'human' in the sense of a conscious, sentient being with rights. But even there it is hard to be certain, even with all the medical knowledge we have, that they will never wake up. We sometimes have to deal with areas of uncertainty and make the best decisions we can. Faced with all the issues that lack of abortion causes, the overwhelming vote of modern western civilisation has been to allow it.

In the end, you want to understand how pro-choicers justify abortion. Their justification is- they do not see a fetus as a sentient life form. You don't agree with their reasoning on this, which is fine, and trying to define where sentience begins is a very tricky area- but this is the only answer you are ever going to get. If you think there is some simple way of proving them in error that they are just not getting then I think you are dramatically over-simplifying the issue, and most certainly there is no simple scientific evidence that conclusively backs your stance. There is no point writing them all off or seeing them as irrational- especially because this is the majority view that forms part of the culture of modern society. It is incumbent on you to make a convincing case for change (and seeing as the pro-choicers made their case first to get it legalised, you'd be fighting modern history strongly; such legalisation is generally considered part of social progress).

Simple outrage and straight dismissal of the views of your philosophical opponents is useless.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well the issue here is that you're not really approaching this argument from an objective mindset. You say pro-choicers are 'sentencing life to death'- that is precisely what they do NOT think they are doing, and as you have no means of proving that IS what they are doing, that level of moral outrage is inappropriate. Like I say, if EITHER side is wrong, there is great potential for moral wrong, so you can't win this argument with a 'what if you are wrong?' approach- that cuts both ways. You do not think lack of abortion is as much as an issue as others do, clearly, but that view is, again, not widely culturally shared. Access to abortion is considered a vital human right and you really would need much better proof than you have to contest that. Hence, you calling this 'inherent insanity' has nothing to do with rational argument- just your horror at a belief that does not align with your own.

Your death penalty argument seems irrelevant and not even vaguely compatible. A better comparison is turning off life-support on a brain dead patient- that is something as organically human as you can get, but no longer seen as 'human' in the sense of a conscious, sentient being with rights. But even there it is hard to be certain, even with all the medical knowledge we have, that they will never wake up. We sometimes have to deal with areas of uncertainty and make the best decisions we can. Faced with all the issues that lack of abortion causes, the overwhelming vote of modern western civilisation has been to allow it.

In the end, you want to understand how pro-choicers justify abortion. Their justification is- they do not see a fetus as a sentient life form. You don't agree with their reasoning on this, which is fine, and trying to define where sentience begins is a very tricky area- but this is the only answer you are ever going to get, and if you think there is some simple way of proving them in error that they are just not getting then I think you are dramatically over-simplifying the issue. There is no point writing them all off or seeing them as irrational- especially because this is the majority view that forms part of the culture of modern society. It is incumbent on you to make a convincing case for change (and seeing as the pro-choicers made their case first to get it legalised, you'd be fighting modern history strongly; such legalisation is generally considered part of social progress).

Simple outrage and writing off the views of your philosophical opponents is useless.

How is this not objective tho? A child is factually alive (by the very definition of the word) and abortion (by definition) factually ends said life. It is literally sentencing life to death. I thought the argument was "not really human life" (although by definition, it is human and it is alive). They do not think that is what they are doing because they have convinced themselves that a set of convenient arbitrarily created criteria somehow suddenly changes a human fetus into some sort of nonhuman parasitic organism. They want to shield themselves from the truth in order to make their choices more palatable. If there was a lack of objectivity, it would be the side that ignores the facts, wouldn't you say?

Disagree. A brain dead patient has, by definition, a tiny (nearly nonexistent) chance of coming back to life. You pull the plug on a brain dead patient because the hope for life is far outweighed by the cost of maintaining it. A fetus has a very good chance of growing into a full human with thoughts and dreams, and in fact, by its very nature, lives to grow. The only thing they have in common is that they are both currently share no/low brain activity. But life is as much the potential for living/change/growth as much as it just the current state of it's being. Otherwise we'd all have the right to pull anyone's plug even if they just stopped brain activity for 2 seconds.

Essentially, they justify it by dehumanizing the fetus for the sake of convenience.

Appeal to common belief. Just because it is the popular and is acceptable in modern society, does not make it right. Nor does it mean that it is my burden to prove that it is wrong. I think both sides need to plead their case and discuss the issue thoroughly. We have these discussions to maybe try and flesh out how such circumstances came to be and to share thoughts and ideas in such a way as to determine if our perception of what is right is actually right.

Again, not pushing for its ban. I am pushing for better controls, better alternatives and stronger education regarding the act and consequences of abortion.

Well I explained the first point to you repeatedly but you do not want to seem to engage. 'Alive' doesn't cover it- the question is consciousness and sentience; that is the line that people draw. The organic death of something not sentient in the first place is of no great moral concern. You keep wanting to attach the word 'human' to this, but you are simply ignoring what I said about 'human' being a moral/social judgement, including this vital element of sentience/consciousness. It is your total lack of engagement here that marks you out clearly as not being objective. Instead of engaging or discussing, you just go straight to "Oh they just make that up to feel better about themselves'. It's a total non-starter for a rational argument because you are starting from the premise that your opponents are wrong. That invalidates any argument or attempt at understanding.

What something may become later is, again, something you are attaching artificial importance to. A sperm can potentially become a human later but that's neither here nor there. At the point you pull the plug on someone brain dead- or abort the fetus, as the pro-choicer would see it- they are not alive and there is no moral consequence. Obviously, 'brain dead' in this scenario is going to involve a situation of more than a few seconds of no brain activity- you have to be less pedantic for reasoned argument.

Btw, throwing out terms like 'appeal to common belief' is a common marker of a poor argument. It is in any case inaccurate. I did not say that lots of people believe it so it is true. I said it is incumbent upon you to make a better case if you want to fight the direction of social progress, instead of just thinking you have already won and just showing moral outrage when it seems society does not agree with you. Regardless of your opinion, the burden IS on you, as the pro-choicers have already been successful in convincing society. After all, you started this debate by asking pro-choicers to state their case. Rather than just arbitrarily dismissing all that they say, it is at the very least polite to engage with their case via reasoned argument of your own.

You say you want to understand- but you show very little sign of doing any such thing. It seems like you merely want to vent your outrage, to the point where I am afraid I find you not interesting to discuss this with further.

Like I say, you're never going to get a better answer. Whether you want to engage with the argument and discuss it properly is down to you.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
How is this not objective tho? A child is factually alive (by the very definition of the word) and abortion (by definition) factually ends said life.

HeLa cancer cells are alive and have human DNA. So is a preserved severed arm or transplant organ. All alive, all human, ending them is not murder.

If you ask me, what matters is if someone is a person.

Disagree. A brain dead patient has, by definition, a tiny (nearly nonexistent) chance of coming back to life.

Braindead is dead-dead, in the person sense.

Stopped heart can be revived from, that's what they talk about when someone dies on the operate table and gets revived, but a braindead person can, at best, be a vegetable. A braindead person is never going to talk or listen again.

You pull the plug on a brain dead patient because the hope for life is far outweighed by the cost of maintaining it. A fetus has a very good chance of growing into a full human with thoughts and dreams, and in fact, by its very nature, lives to grow.

Do we count as what something is or may become?

Because an embryo or fetus is not a person. They may become one.... but potential does not begin at that stage, potential begins much earlier.

You get into the tricky situation of no longer trying to legislate what is, but you're trying to protect what may-be at that point. Which is not how the line between 'living person' or not is decided anywhere else.

And, notably, there's a near-100% chance of health complications with a pregnancy, and a smaller but still significant chance of fatal ones.

So it's not like 'potential vs no,' it's got a real cost to push for the potential. A real cost to a very much living, existent, non-potential person.

Essentially, they justify it by dehumanizing the fetus for the sake of convenience.

Note that you're talking about protecting it's potential.

It's very easy to argue that you're trying to humanize something that, at the stages you're talking about, is not in any way a person of the human type.

Again, not pushing for its ban. I am pushing for better controls, better alternatives and stronger education regarding the act and consequences of abortion.

Planned parenthood. They're the best at that stuff, no question.

Originally posted by Q99
HeLa cancer cells are alive and have human DNA. So is a preserved severed arm or transplant organ. All alive, all human, ending them is not murder.

If you ask me, what matters is if someone is a person.

Braindead is dead-dead, in the person sense.

Stopped heart can be revived from, that's what they talk about when someone dies on the operate table and gets revived, but a braindead person can, at best, be a vegetable. A braindead person is never going to talk or listen again.

Do we count as what something is or may become?

Because an embryo or fetus is not a person. They may become one.... but potential does not begin at that stage, potential begins much earlier.

You get into the tricky situation of no longer trying to legislate what is, but you're trying to protect what may-be at that point. Which is not how the line between 'living person' or not is decided anywhere else.

And, notably, there's a near-100% chance of health complications with a pregnancy, and a smaller but still significant chance of fatal ones.

So it's not like 'potential vs no,' it's got a real cost to push for the potential. A real cost to a very much living, existent, non-potential person.

Note that you're talking about protecting it's potential.

It's very easy to argue that you're trying to humanize something that, at the stages you're talking about, is not in any way a person of the human type.

Planned parenthood. They're the best at that stuff, no question.

Cancer cells do not (by their natural progression) develop into a full grown human being nor a severed arm nor a transplant organ. Apples and oranges.

An unborn child is a person, regardless of how you try and dehumanize it.

There has been rare instances where persons declared clinically brain dead have come back to life. It is rare but it happens (google it). That is what my meaning was by "chance of coming back".

Well yes we do. The same way we count a convicts rehabilitation and not give up on their potential to reintegrate into society. We either judge all things on what they currently are or we judge all things on their potential to be. One needs to be consistent with one's logic, after all.

They are a person as they have everything they need to be a person. And their very nature IS to grow into this full person. They do not need additional DNA nor do they no longer need outside stimuli to grow into a full person. All they need is time and nutrients to fully realize that. Just as a baby just needs time and nutrients to become an adult. Essentially nothing different between the two.

Bad logic. If you're talking about "complications" like weakened pelvic floor, weight gain, temporary elevated blood pressure or stretch marks sure it's nearly 100% (not really the value of a life, but w/e). But life threatening complications are very rare in any first world country (where, ironically, abortion are more common) but yeah there is a chance of it. But you're talking as if abortions don't have medical complications of their own. You understand that abortions have risks, too, right? And for every claim that abortion is safer than childbirth, there is a counter claim that it is not the case. Overall, one can simply claim that both procedures have their risks but only one has a 100% mortality rate for the child.

What is life but for its potential for growth?

That is your opinion, scientific definitions would disagree with you. Of course, you cling to philosophical constructs that can provide no definitive proof either way. Answer this question, tho: What if you're wrong? What if children ARE sentient at the stage where abortion is allowed (up to 10 weeks)? What if they feel pain? Fear/terror? What if they are aware of their own mortality? Do you have definitive proof that they do not? What makes you so sure?

Planned parenthood advocates for the deregulation of abortion. That's like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Sooo no. Or asking the NRA to be in charge of gun control measures.

Gonna have to break your post into smaller ones so I can argue them on a more definitive level. Tons of stuff to cover.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well I explained the first point to you repeatedly but you do not want to seem to engage. 'Alive' doesn't cover it- the question is consciousness and sentience; that is the line that people draw. The organic death of something not sentient in the first place is of no great moral concern. You keep wanting to attach the word 'human' to this, but you are simply ignoring what I said about 'human' being a moral/social judgement, including this vital element of sentience/consciousness. It is your total lack of engagement here that marks you out clearly as not being objective. Instead of engaging or discussing, you just go straight to "Oh they just make that up to feel better about themselves'. It's a total non-starter for a rational argument because you are starting from the premise that your opponents are wrong. That invalidates any argument or attempt at understanding.

Edit. reread my previous post and it came out kinda zonky, have patience, it is kinda late where I am. 😛 so redoing the whole paragraph.

Yes, you did say that "human/sentient/etc" is a social/moral judgement. And I get this. I just disagree with what position can really be considered social progress as the very same points made feels all too familiar to the same arguments (dehumanization) made in the past for the very same reason of making awful decisions palatable.

What other behavior would you consider as "engaging" or "valid"? Because I am trying to wrap my head around what you would consider a proper response.

I was just cutting to the chase, if we boil things down to it, it IS the use of socially convenient criteria to justify something/make something palatable. Isn't it? What else is it then if you were to define it? It is certainly not "truth" as we don't even agree on what the true conditions of life and sentience really are.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What something may become later is, again, something you are attaching artificial importance to. A sperm can potentially become a human later but that's neither here nor there. At the point you pull the plug on someone brain dead- or abort the fetus, as the pro-choicer would see it- they are not alive and there is no moral consequence. Obviously, 'brain dead' in this scenario is going to involve a situation of more than a few seconds of no brain activity- you have to be less pedantic for reasoned argument.

Life is something more than just its potential, but its potential is one of the things that makes life what it is. Growth IS potential and the ability to grow is one of the quantifiable criteria for life.

A sperm cannot grow by itself. Keep sperm within the man for 9 months and you still have sperm (and some pretty badly blue balls). In 9 months, a fetus grows into a full grown human within our definition of what a full grown human is.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Btw, throwing out terms like 'appeal to common belief' is a common marker of a poor argument. It is in any case inaccurate. I did not say that lots of people believe it so it is true. I said it is incumbent upon you to make a better case if you want to fight the direction of social progress, instead of just thinking you have already won and just showing moral outrage when it seems society does not agree with you. Regardless of your opinion, the burden IS on you, as the pro-choicers have already been successful in convincing society. After all, you started this debate by asking pro-choicers to state their case. Rather than just arbitrarily dismissing all that they say, it is at the very least polite to engage with their case via reasoned argument of your own.

I apologize if that seemed the case. That was not my intention. But isn't it the case tho? You mention that since it is the socially acceptable position of what is considered "progress" at this point and the burden is unto me to make a better argument to affect social progress. Isn't that what "appeal to common belief" is? If we break down the argument: "Fighting the direction of social progress" would mean that this is the inevitable direction of correct thought due to it being more socially acceptable to many? And that the burden is unto me because "pro-choicers" have already convinced society? Wouldn't a better position be to make both sides give out arguments and look at both arguments with equal weights and to judge both with equal levels of scrutiny? I don't know, but that really looks like appeal to many to common belief to me, but if I am wrong (in either my interpretation of what you said or even for me stating it) for me to mention this, then please disregard my comment and let us discuss further?

And for the record, there is no "winning" here for me. I disagree when I see something I don't agree with, I ask when there is something I don't understand and I give out my interpretation of what I'm reading in the end. That's all I'm going for here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You say you want to understand- but you show very little sign of doing any such thing. It seems like you merely want to vent your outrage, to the point where I am afraid I find you not interesting to discuss this with further.

I do want to understand. But I also do not want to agree with things I do not agree with when I feel like the argument is not convincing enough for me or when I feel like I have a rebuttal. I know you are trying your best (and compared to many ppl I've debated with, I'd say, you've shown remarkable patience) but maybe I just can't wrap my head around how what you say answers my concerns regarding the issue.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, you're never going to get a better answer. Whether you want to engage with the argument and discuss it properly is down to you.

I thought that was what I was doing, tho.

I want to push the discussion forward, but I'm at a loss on actually how to do this.

Maybe the debate (as you say) is ongoing because there is no clear answer that can convince either side?

Comes down to: "is a fetus during the legal abortion stages sentient?"

iirc, most if not all legitimate studies show that fetus at those stages isn't, due to lack of development.

Anyway, it is getting really late and to avoid making my future arguments into even more garbled messes, I am going to turn in and bid you good night and hope to discuss this with you in the morning.

Originally posted by Robtard
Comes down to: "is a fetus during the legal abortion stages sentient?"

iirc, most if not all legitimate studies show that fetus at those stages isn't, due to lack of development.

What studies? Link?

You understand that up to 24-26 weeks is still legal abortion in most states right?

So you're saying it would be not too bad for someone to kill these babies because they're not really "sentient" due to "studies"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11121592/Premature-babies-How-24-week-old-babies-are-now-able-to-survive.html

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What studies? Link?

You understand that up to 24-26 weeks is still legal abortion in most states right?

So you're saying it would be not too bad for someone to kill these babies because they're not really "sentient" due to "studies"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11121592/Premature-babies-How-24-week-old-babies-are-now-able-to-survive.html

Been sometime (years), so I'd have to go dumpster diving. Had to do with the composition of the brain during said stages of development.

Yes. That doesn't negate the above. 24 weeks is the standard though. Late term abortions are rare and done in extremes, usually when the risk to the mother's life is high.

I am saying that the reason for the timeframe is due to the fetus not being a baby (no matter how many times you misuse the word in context) and said fetus not having progressed far enough into its development to be sentient. This being the reasoning behind it.

All your article proves is that science is a wonderful thing. If an egg was impregnated with semen outside a human womb and the zygote was them left to incubate in an artificial womb, would you call said zygote sentient?

Originally posted by Robtard
Been sometime (years), so I'd have to go dumpster diving.

Yes. That doesn't negate the above. 24 weeks is the standard. Late terms abortions are rare and done in extremes, usually when the risk to the mother's life is high.

I am saying that the reason for the timeframe is due to the fetus not being a baby (no matter how many times you misuse the word in context) and said fetus not having progressed far enough into its development to be sentient.

All your article proves is that science is a wonderful thing. If an egg was impregnated with semen outside a womb and the zygote was them left to incubate in an artificial womb, would you call said zygote sentient?

So killing any of the above babies wouldn't be murder? As you're not really killing anything human/sentient?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
So killing any of the above babies wouldn't be murder? As you're not really killing anything human/sentient?

Those would be, as they've effectively been born and are no longer a fetus, so legally that would be murder, I'm assuming.

edit: Just so you know, it's rude to ignore questions and then ask one back yourself in response.

Since you asked for a link. Not sure if this is the exact article I was referring to as I believe I read it longer than three years ago, but the premise/science behind it seems to be close.

http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/

First off, my own opinion. I am pro-choice (and pro stem cell research). I believe life begins the moment one exits their mothers womb and is able to sensory experience the outside world.

Now comes the problem with my definition and the argument in general. Let's look at the Laci Peterson case. Her husband was charged with two murders, both her and her unborn child. So in that case the unborn child was considered indisputably another human. But what of instead of being murdered, she got an abortion? Why is the child considered a legit human in the murder case, but not the abortion case? How do we reconcile this contradiction of legal status? If we can't, it would appear that a mother can arbitrarily choose whether their child has a right to live, which obviously shits on the concept of inherent human rights.

Even further, at what point do we consider a human life to exist? At the zygote stage, the embryo stage, the fetal stage?

On the other side, at what point is a mother's body not her own? If the pro choice argument is true, it means that for 9 months, a woman more or less will be forced to lose her inherent human right to have control over her body which sounds terrible. But if the pro life argument is true, it means that women can essentially perform legally impune prolicide at their whim, which also sounds terrible.

As stated, what first must be done is a reconciliation of what counts as the starting age of life. If a person can be convicted of murder for killing an unborn child, then as a byproduct of that legal definition, all unborn children can be considered living, and thus abortion is clear murder, which is why pro lifers view it as such. We can't pick and choose when an unborn can be considered living or not. So we either have to make clearer laws or risk being contradictory about the sanctity of life.

Laci Peterson was 8+ months pregnant at the time she was murdered, that's why her husband Scott was charged with 2nd degree murder concerning the unborn.

Completely unrelated, a friend of the family lived right next to Laci Peterson's house. It went up for a sale some years back and we almost moved into it.

That's not really completely unrelated.

Originally posted by Robtard
Laci Peterson was 8+ months pregnant at the time she was murdered, that's why her husband Scott was charged with 2nd degree murder concerning the unborn.

Thank you for clarifying. But there have been other cases of unborn of earlier stages being counted as murders. IDK if I've ever heard of a case of murdered pregnant women that was not counted as a double murder.