To say something serious, I think people go about this all the wrong way. The question of when something is or is not alive, conscious, or sentient may not be the most important question, and it may not even matter.
First ask yourself if killing is wrong. I'm sure we all say yes.
Ok, so now ask why is killing wrong? That is really the important question. If you can answer that, then the answers to all other questions, such as when abortion is acceptable, will follow from your answer combined with scientific fact.
I think I go along with the idea that once its able to survive on its own without the mom, an abortion would be wrong. I think at that point, it ceases to be a parasite and becomes an independent being.
In fact, all this talk brings up something I never really thought about before. Once the baby is able to survive on its own, how is it technically "aborted?" I'm assuming they would cut the baby out, same as a C-section, induction, or something along those lines. So then if the mom is having an "abortion"... do they just throw it in the trashcan and let it die? I normally don't consider abortion murder, but if the baby survives after being taken out, I think its a whole different can o' beans. Might as well put it up for adoption if the mom doesn't want it. Just sayin.
I think I go along with the idea that once its able to survive on its own without the mom, an abortion would be wrong. I think at that point, it ceases to be a parasite and becomes an independent being.
I know people well into their twenties who cannot survive without their moms.
If killing a fully sentient human can be justified, then abortion up until the day of delivery can be equally justified. If I'm allowed to use deadly force to defend myself from an imminent threat of death/grievous harm then a pregnant woman should be allowed the same defense.
I'd say the dividing line is near the start of the 3rd trimester. Before the lungs and diaphragm develop, an embryo has no hope of surviving outside the womb, after they appear it has a (minuscule) shot. So after the lungs twitch, a mother needs a reason equivalent to using lethal force in the real world. Prior to that there should be virtually no restrictions on abortions.
I think the congenital defect issue is an unnecessary complication. Any situation you'll imagine where abortion seems necessary can be placed under the general heading of euthanasia, and should be judged by the same measure as adult euthanasia.
and should be judged by the same measure as adult euthanasia.
Except that in almost all cases, the adult would have had an opportunity to prepare a living will, formally or informally, or to at the very least make his/her opinion on the topic known.
That said, that entire discussion is probably a wholly different thread.
To say something serious, I think people go about this all the wrong way. The question of when something is or is not alive, conscious, or sentient may not be the most important question, and it may not even matter.
First ask yourself if killing is wrong. I'm sure we all say yes.
Ok, so now ask why is killing wrong? That is really the important question. If you can answer that, then the answers to all other questions, such as when abortion is acceptable, will follow from your answer combined with scientific fact.
This is why I go with consciousness. Killing a fully aware human being is heinous, killing a dog is bad because it has some degree of intelligence but not sentience, and stepping on an ant is fine.
A dog is almost certainly sentient. Sentience is simply the ability to feel or perceive, which is a rather minimal set of features. Self-awareness is somewhat more advanced.
Heh, the morality thread is the place for "wrong". However, I think that you have some concept of what you should and should not do that does not simply align with your self-interest.
First ask yourself if killing is wrong. I'm sure we all say yes.
"Wrong?" No. Almost always a bad idea? You bet.
A bad idea? I happen to kill living beings all the time. Insects, plants and animals, each and every day. Some are pests and others are food but every day I, directly and through my demands upon society, kill living creatures everyday. I could not live if something were not dying to provide me with the nutrients to continue my own biological processes.
The simple act of killing is a necessary part of life. You're going to have to be a bit more specific, like "killing humans is wrong" or a bad idea. That brings us back to the whole "What is a human?" question I'm afraid. ^__^
I'm with lackofcheese, the morality thread is the place for "wrong".
Yo people, I think you need to get your terminology straight. Embryo and fetus do not mean the same thing in human reproductive terminology. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβÏυον, plural ἔμβÏυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.
A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiËtÉ™s/; also spelled foetus, fÅ“tus, faetus, or fætus, see below) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.
killing a dog is bad because it has some degree of intelligence but not sentience
How do we know? I sometimes wonder which animals are actually sentient and have a sense of self.
A dog is almost certainly sentient. Sentience is simply the ability to feel or perceive, which is a rather minimal set of features. Self-awareness is somewhat more advanced.
Comments
First ask yourself if killing is wrong. I'm sure we all say yes.
Ok, so now ask why is killing wrong? That is really the important question. If you can answer that, then the answers to all other questions, such as when abortion is acceptable, will follow from your answer combined with scientific fact.
In fact, all this talk brings up something I never really thought about before. Once the baby is able to survive on its own, how is it technically "aborted?" I'm assuming they would cut the baby out, same as a C-section, induction, or something along those lines. So then if the mom is having an "abortion"... do they just throw it in the trashcan and let it die? I normally don't consider abortion murder, but if the baby survives after being taken out, I think its a whole different can o' beans. Might as well put it up for adoption if the mom doesn't want it. Just sayin.
I'd say the dividing line is near the start of the 3rd trimester. Before the lungs and diaphragm develop, an embryo has no hope of surviving outside the womb, after they appear it has a (minuscule) shot. So after the lungs twitch, a mother needs a reason equivalent to using lethal force in the real world. Prior to that there should be virtually no restrictions on abortions.
I think the congenital defect issue is an unnecessary complication. Any situation you'll imagine where abortion seems necessary can be placed under the general heading of euthanasia, and should be judged by the same measure as adult euthanasia.
That said, that entire discussion is probably a wholly different thread.
Self-awareness is somewhat more advanced.
The simple act of killing is a necessary part of life. You're going to have to be a bit more specific, like "killing humans is wrong" or a bad idea. That brings us back to the whole "What is a human?" question I'm afraid. ^__^
I'm with lackofcheese, the morality thread is the place for "wrong".
So, for my actual stance: killing is often necessary, but is sometimes inadvisable.
Also, "right" and "wrong" don't factor in.
An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβÏυον, plural ἔμβÏυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.
A fetus (pronounced /ˈfiËtÉ™s/; also spelled foetus, fÅ“tus, faetus, or fætus, see below) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization.