Debate: How do you feel about abortions?

[The Trotsky]

Well, considering pain reception is not possible until a neocortex is formed in the body and the neocortex is not formed until early in the third trimester, yeah I'm pretty confident on that one.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

...That would be underhanded, dastardly, and probably very much against the wishes of parents everywhere. You're saying that a kid should have the right to blatantly keep secrets and avoid taking responsibility for their actions by so much as having their parents aware of the choices they're making in life?! Am I missing something? That isn't how families work, and I don't think you have the right to be telling parents how to raise their kids, which is what you're doing.



It's politically incorrect to call an un-baby a parasite. Words have definitions, and babies simply do not fit the syntax of a parasite. INB4 "Political correctness is wrong". What you're saying is offensive. And by offensive, I don't mean "I'm offended." I mean "It offends everyone." Because it does. It's a cliche shock inducing statement meant to devalue pre-born life. It's entire purpose is to offend people. =|

In addition, women need to be taught the risks of pregnancy /before/ they become pregnant. You're trying to take the responsibility away from women who get pregnant with the way you're wording things and that's just not cool. By the time they're pregnant, the question is not "Risks of being pregnant vs risks of abortion". It's more along the lines of "Risks of taking responsibility vs risks of abortion". ...They're /already/ pregnant! It's too late for that choice.



Let me just jump in here and say that I've never ever seen conclusive, reputable medical evidence suggesting that a fetus is not alive. All I've seen is the popular vote win. Until I see said conclusive, reputable evidence, I will not believe it. Just because it turned out that abortion was a popular enough concept to be made legal, doesn't mean anyone has accepted that concept. Me? I don't. So the notion that a woman has a "right to her own body" is completely lost on me, as will it be on others. A part of me suspects that FreakyLocz14 shares a similar or identical conflict. Could be wrong though. She should totally correct me if I'm wrong.


Got some conclusive, reputable medical evidence for that hot shot? 'Cuz I don't believe you.

--
Anyway, my thoughts on abortion as it stands. I believe that there are "right times" for it, but I do think that currently we are too liberal, and I see potential for mothers-to-be to abuse their right in a fashion that I find ethically and morally wrong.

I'm in full agreement with you.

 

[Livewire]

...That would be underhanded, dastardly, and probably very much against the wishes of parents everywhere. You're saying that a kid should have the right to blatantly keep secrets and avoid taking responsibility for their actions by so much as having their parents aware of the choices they're making in life?! Am I missing something? That isn't how families work, and I don't think you have the right to be telling parents how to raise their kids, which is what you're doing.

And you're telling grown women what they can and cannot do with their own body and their own reproductive future, so any point you tried to make right there with that bit is void.

 

[Dawn]

And you're telling grown women what they can and cannot do with their own body and their own reproductive future, so any point you tried to make right there with that bit is void.

How is it void? Because as far as I believe, a fetus is not part of a woman's body. Legal or not, I grow weary of everyone somehow believing that it's legality means someone proved whether a fetus is or is not "alive". As far as I know, nobody ever did.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, considering pain reception is not possible until a neocortex is formed in the body and the neocortex is not formed until early in the third trimester, yeah I'm pretty confident on that one.

You're confident, but I'm not staring at reputable medical evidence, so I'm not. No offense.

 

[The Trotsky]

I can certainly prove to you that a fetus has no more knowledge of existence than a plant does, for a certain period of time. And no more intelligence than a snail for even longer

 

[Dawn]

I can certainly prove to you that a fetus has no more knowledge of existence than a plant does, for a certain period of time. And no more intelligence than a snail for even longer

Both those things are alive. You're going to go a few miles further if you want to prove what I actually asked you to prove. You're also going to have to have a doctorate if you want me to trust your word, regardless of how right you /sound/. That and you'll have to go through the process of running a reputable study. That, or you can just go find a study done by someone else who has done exactly that. (See: Reputable, conclusive medical evidence I was mentioning earlier.)

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Being able to feel pain is not a requirement to be alive, btw.

 

[The Trotsky]

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/health/24fetus.html

Here is the science you were requesting.

 

[Oryx]

Both those things are alive. You're going to go a few miles further if you want to prove what I actually asked you to prove. You're also going to have to have a doctorate if you want me to trust your word, regardless of how right you /sound/. That and you'll have to go through the process of running a reputable study. That, or you can just go find a study done by someone else who has done exactly that. (See: Reputable, conclusive medical evidence I was mentioning earlier.)

Out of curiosity, are you against weedkillers and pesticides as well? I'm still on the fence about abortion so I can't argue one way or the other, but saying that a plant and a snail have the same importance as a human being kind of rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Livewire]

Alright this is a bit ridiculous. Trotsky (technically you already did), Pkmn Trainer Yellow and Freakylocz14, instead of sitting there ignoring all other discussion and viewpoints, perhaps attempt to give a logical or scientific backing of your beliefs to back your claims. This banter back and forth is obnoxious.

 

[The Trotsky]

I'm confident that if a fetus is not consciously thinking and cannot feel pain, that is all I need. It's no crime to pull a weed or to step on a bug, which would have a higher level of development that a first trimester fetus.

 

[lauren_201]

I'm pro-choice. Any woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. If she doesn't want to have a child and she finds herself in this position, then she should of course consider adoption and the other options there, but if she decides to terminate the pregnancy then nobody has a right to weigh in on that or judge her for it.

I think the governments should stay the hell out of womens' uteruses. There is nothing acceptable about passing laws that strip away or restrict that right in any way. If a girl is under the age of 18 and can't face the shame of telling her parents, she shouldn't have to. She should be able to go in quickly with a friend and have it taken care of.

The other reason that the governments should not be allowed to restrict abortion rights is that when they do, people become desperate and do things illegally and unsafely.

I couldn't have said it any better. I totally agree with you.

 

[The Trotsky]

https://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

for the sentience factor. So um, 2 pieces of evidence. Waiting on anything contrary and legitimate

 

[Gardenia101]

I'm confident that if a fetus is not consciously thinking and cannot feel pain, that is all I need. It's no crime to pull a weed or to step on a bug, which would have a higher level of development that a first trimester fetus.

So, basically, humans are worth nothing until born? Less than a BUG or WEED? They are still technically human. With all their genes and everything.

 

[The Trotsky]

Not nothing, but fetuses (not humans) are worth less than living, breathing, sentient people until they have the ability to think and feel, yes. Kind of common sense.

 

[Dawn]

I'm confident that if a fetus is not consciously thinking and cannot feel pain, that is all I need. It's no crime to pull a weed or to step on a bug, which would have a higher level of development that a first trimester fetus.

Well, that's dandy but here's an argument on the contrary.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This, is a link to a website which specifically defines what is and what is not alive.

MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move
with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)

REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself,
either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in
some way?

CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients
in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually
multiply?

GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in
complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?

STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external
stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect
external conditions?

Now let's examine how this applies to babies.

Take this link, which mostly examines at what point during development babies start doing certain things.
https://www.pregnancy.org/article/first-trimester

On to the cake. Clearly, babies grow. We not need to dwell on that, yes? They start growing at conception.

Clearly, babies are provided with plenty of nutrients and use these nutrients. They do consume, and start doing so less than a week after conception.

They start moving on their own after approximately 12 weeks. This is around when the first trimester switches to the second trimester.
They also have been shown to hear things at around 16 weeks. This is not long after the first trimester.

Reproduction is a moot point, because even after birth, children still cannot reproduce until many years later, yet they are still developing that exact thing. In fact, unless you're willing to argue that children are not alive until they can reproduce, this particular conflict will help prove my argument on whether they have stimulus response.

Stimulus response... I'm going to use a different source for this particular one.

https://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/early3.html

To quote,

Q. When does a baby's brain develop, and do we have to wait for this development before trying to communicate with our baby?
Around the third week after conception, a folding maneuver creates the neural tube from which the brain and spinal cord develop. If all goes well, a rapid, richly choreographed set of movements will put all the basic parts of the brain in place by eight weeks. These will not be replaced. From this foundation, brain parts will send out branches and establish billions of connections necessary for the perfect coordination of the entire nervous system. This process will continue for years after birth. Amazingly, the brain, like the heart, remains active during its own construction. Various experiences the brain has during this period including encounters with food, drink, medicine, games, accidents, and nicotine--will actually determine its final size and organization. Therefore, it is best to assume the brain is already working and to love your baby and communicate with it without any waiting period.

And to draw attention to a specific part of that quote.

Around the third week after conception, a folding maneuver creates the neural tube from which the brain and spinal cord develop. If all goes well, a rapid, richly choreographed set of movements will put all the basic parts of the brain in place by eight weeks. These will not be replaced. From this foundation, brain parts will send out branches and establish billions of connections necessary for the perfect coordination of the entire nervous system. This process will continue for years after birth.

So, it seems to me babies have a very primitive nervous system quite early, which would mean they respond to stimuli on some level, yes? And like with reproduction above, the fact that it only continues to grow only supports that the organism qualifies as alive.






All this being said... how is it /not/ alive?

 

[Oryx]

Well, that's dandy but here's an argument on the contrary.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This, is a link to a website which specifically defines what is and what is not alive.



Now let's examine how this applies to babies.

Take this link, which mostly examines at what point during development babies start doing certain things.
https://www.pregnancy.org/article/first-trimester

On to the cake. Clearly, babies grow. We not need to dwell on that, yes? They start growing at conception.

Clearly, babies are provided with plenty of nutrients and use these nutrients. They do consume, and start doing so less than a week after conception.

They start moving on their own after approximately 12 weeks. This is around when the first trimester switches to the second trimester.
They also have been shown to hear things at around 16 weeks. This is not long after the first trimester.

Reproduction is a moot point, because even after birth, children still cannot reproduce until many years later, yet they are still developing that exact thing. In fact, unless you're willing to argue that children are not alive until they can reproduce, this particular conflict will help prove my argument on whether they have stimulus response.

Stimulus response... I'm going to use a different source for this particular one.

https://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/early3.html

To quote,


And to draw attention to a specific part of that quote.



So, it seems to me babies have a very primitive nervous system quite early, which would mean they respond to stimuli on some level, yes? And like with reproduction above, the fact that it only continues to grow only supports that the organism qualifies as alive.






All this being said... how is it /not/ alive?

The argument isn't that it's not alive per se, just that it's not human. Would you kill an ant crawling across your shoe? The question is, is it sentient enough to be considered a human? If your argument holds true, then it's wrong to kill all plants, all bugs/animals, no matter what. The issue is whether its response to stimuli, intelligence, etc. is enough to consider it a human being, not whether it has the life signs that the most basic life forms have. Murder doesn't apply to everything living.

 

[Livewire]

Well, that's dandy but here's an argument on the contrary.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This, is a link to a website which specifically defines what is and what is not alive.



Now let's examine how this applies to babies.

Take this link, which mostly examines at what point during development babies start doing certain things.
https://www.pregnancy.org/article/first-trimester

On to the cake. Clearly, babies grow. We not need to dwell on that, yes? They start growing at conception.

Clearly, babies are provided with plenty of nutrients and use these nutrients. They do consume, and start doing so less than a week after conception.

They start moving on their own after approximately 12 weeks. This is around when the first trimester switches to the second trimester.
They also have been shown to hear things at around 16 weeks. This is not long after the first trimester.

Reproduction is a moot point, because even after birth, children still cannot reproduce until many years later, yet they are still developing that exact thing. In fact, unless you're willing to argue that children are not alive until they can reproduce, this particular conflict will help prove my argument on whether they have stimulus response.

Stimulus response... I'm going to use a different source for this particular one.

https://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/early3.html

To quote,


And to draw attention to a specific part of that quote.



So, it seems to me babies have a very primitive nervous system quite early, which would mean they respond to stimuli on some level, yes? And like with reproduction above, the fact that it only continues to grow only supports that the organism qualifies as alive.






All this being said... how is it /not/ alive?

Notice how you said it applies to babies, not fetuses. Two totally different things, and applying the same factors to describe them both make no sense. Saying Vampire bats and Crocodiles are very similar just because they both have eyes makes no sense, and neither does your point.

 

[The Trotsky]

In one of the articles that I posted (can't recall which and don't feel like combing through, since I'm about to hit the hay) doctors said babies "response" to stimuli are most likely simple reflexes and not responses formed by an interconnected, complex, human nervous system. Also, his definition of life is not universal.

Furthermore, even if something is alive, when it is killed, it is not necessarily referred to as murder. If you scratch your arm, you are killing cells. These cells are human. Yet you aren't put on trial for murder. Bit of a doozy, isn't it?

 

[Dawn]

The argument isn't that it's not alive per se, just that it's not human. Would you kill an ant crawling across your shoe? The question is, is it sentient enough to be considered a human? If your argument holds true, then it's wrong to kill all plants, all bugs/animals, no matter what. The issue is whether its response to stimuli, intelligence, etc. is enough to consider it a human being, not whether it has the life signs that the most basic life forms have. Murder doesn't apply to everything living.

A fetus is the beginning stage of a human. We know this. We know what a fetus becomes as it grows, and the intricate details of how it goes about doing that. That being said, it seems pretty void to compare it to an ant, a plant, or even another animal. The situation is simply not the same.

On one hand, you have a growing fetus that is the result of reproduction, can be confirmed as a human fetus, as opposed to any other creature/species. It clearly has human traits very, very early on, even before it starts moving.

On the other, you have a living organism that is very clearly not a human, and is not at all related to the reproductive cycle of a human, and is not necessarily friendly towards humans.

Call me a human supremacist, but I don't see the connection, at all.

Notice how you said it applies to babies, not fetuses. Two totally different things, and applying the same factors to describe them both make no sense. Saying Vampire bats and Crocodiles are very similar just because they both have eyes makes no sense, and neither does that.

Fetuses become babies with time and growth. My word choice does not contradict the point of my argument, as medically, my word choice may have very well been wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure every time I said babies, technically I /should/ have said fetuses. Because that's what they are at that age.

I don't have a doctorate, just these articles about fetuses and what defines life. Excuse my failure to acknowledge the difference between the words.

In one of the articles that I posted (can't recall which and don't feel like combing through, since I'm about to hit the hay) doctors said babies "response" to stimuli are most likely simple reflexes and not responses formed by an interconnected, complex, human nervous system. Also, his definition of life is not universal.

Furthermore, even if something is alive, when it is killed, it is not necessarily referred to as murder. If you scratch your arm, you are killing cells. These cells are human. Yet you aren't put on trial for murder. Bit of a doozy, isn't it?

Complex nervous system? Probably not. They're still growing, it's a giveaway. However, it is very likely the result of a more simple nervous system. Regardless of whether it's reflexive, something has to trigger that reflex. And that means the fetus is still responding to stimuli. Dead people lose many of their reflexes.

Also, cells do not fit stimuli response, and I don't think they move on their own either. Let me quote the definition of lite from where I cited earlier, a part I didn't quote in my first quote from that site.

To qualify as a living thing, an organism must in one way or
another meet each of those criteria. After all, crystals grow
in solution, and take on more material from the surrounding
solution in order to do so, but do not respond neurologically
if you poke them with a pin. Of course, you don't often see
mature Ponderosa pines strolling down Fifth Avenue either, so
the criteria are open to interpretation. Plants move through
growth, except in special cases like the Venus flytrap; most
plants follow the sun through a complex system which floods the
side of the plant shaded from the sun with water, swelling the
shaded side and causing the plant to lean toward the sun.

The fact that a cell does not meet /all/ of the criteria casts serious doubt on whether it's alive. Cells are also not humans.