Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

*Typo ...likely congenital defects...
Apologies.

[Sy Borg]

I think people stick their noses into others' business too much. Ideally, we should let people deal with their own private and personal affairs, and hope that others allow us to deal with our own private and personal affairs unmolested.

And embryo is not a person. Early on, an embryo have less sentience than a bug.

[Mounce574]

My opinion:
I stated C. First, the detriment to the teenager means that one of her family members is involved in a heinous crime from the start. THAT person should be punished severely. Second, if the baby is unlikely to survive and she is in danger of dying, then that is a subjective choice that she must make on her own.
The second issue- The baby is capable of surviving WITHOUT her and since there are people willing to raise the child, it should be ILLEGAL to ask for an abortion. Your statement was asking if it should be legal for her to have an abortion.

I believe that prevention is key and that abortion shouldn't be treated as birth control. If someone doesn't want children, there are elective surgeries and birth control that will negate that issue. There are a myriad of complications that abortion and pregnancy can cause. I have never had an abortion, nor have I been in situation where that was a decision I would want to make. What will the psychological impact be upon the person. If the baby is viable, then abortion at that point should be illegal. If the mother is at risk of dying before the baby is viable, then abortion is not debatable as BOTH will die.

Mounce574, that the rapist or incestuous perpetrator should be punished goes without saying. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the unfortunate girl who has been the victim of rape or incest should be able to access a legal abortion even if the embyo is capable of surviving to term. You say she should not.

But who are you to dictate what a woman should be allowed to do with her own body? The embyo is not capable of surviving alone - it is only capable of surviving inside the woman's body on which it draws. You would force a girl who has been raped by her father to give birth to his child with whatever congential defects is is likely to have? I find that notion disgusting, frightening, apalling!

And on what basis do you believe that women generally should not have access to a legal abortion? If your beliefs are religiously based, then you should understand that many millions of people are not religious or, if they do have religion, their religion does not preclude abortion. What right do the religious who would make abortion illegal have to inflict their religious beliefs on others. I have read that more than a million abortions were provided in the USA in 2023 alone. What are you going to do, lock up a million women, along with their abortion providers, each year?

Then there is the fact that embyos are not persons. They are clumps of cells. An adult woman is a fully sentient person whose interests surely trump the continued existence of a clump of cells that lacks consciousnes and therefore has no interests. Why is it that some religious, who think they are taking some moral high ground by dictating the right to life of clumps of cells, also commonly believe in putting to death fully sentient adult humans?

The religious mind is a muddled one. And, IMO, a religion that would force an unfortunate girl who has been the victim of rape or incest to carry to term and give birth to the perpetrator's baby, with all its congenital likely defects, is the very model of cruelty and and evil.

You misunderstood what I stated about the rape/incest. I stated is should be left up to HER. If she wants the abortion to avoid the complications of a forced sexual interaction, then I think she can do so. However in the second example, If the pregnancy has proceeded to the point that the baby can survive without the mother, then an abortion is wrong.
My religious views don't affect my answers. I never mentioned my religion in my response.
Conception is the start of life, embryos are a result of conception- that is why fertility clinics implant embryos in women who are needing fertility treatments. Otherwise, they could insert cells anywhere and call it an embryo. Cancer is a clump of cells that do not belong to what they are attached to.
I also believe that if both the mother and the child will die (ectopic pregnancy is one example) then abortion should be legal to save the woman. 1 life instead of 2 deaths.
Have you ever seen anything about abortion and the procedures? There are videos that show that the baby moves away from the blade. How is that not consciousness?
When is does that "clump of cells" turn into a baby? Before or after birth? Why is it considered double homicide if a person shoots a pregnant woman and she dies? The unborn child is considered a murder victim.
Abortion should never be considered a form of birth control. Health departments will provide birth control for FREE.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I have seen such videos. They do not convince me that an embryo is fully conscious or has much, if any, sentience. Even an omoeba will move away from a threat. That does not mean it is fully sentient or has personhood. I think that all else being equal, we should err on the side of caution and discourage, but not ban, late term abortions and encourage use of other birth control measures. However, an aborted embryo or fetus should not, in my opinion, be considered a murder victim. It is not a fully sentient person with any inerests, or certainly no interests that trump the woman's interests. As far as I can see, most opposition to abortion is religiosly based. Usually by the same people who are ok with executing fully sentient adults.

[Sy Borg]

If embryos are sapient then so are these microbes:

Should we start advocating for stentor and rotifer rights?

[Mounce574]

At what point is a baby considered a sentient being? After they pass through the birth canal? Overall, if the baby is not a threat to the mother (Not speaking of rape/incest/etc) and is in the third trimester, then it is murder. Especially since the baby can be removed from the woman, alive, and live without her.
My right to speak about a woman's issue is the fact that I was born a woman, am still a woman, and a mother. While I am a Christian, I don't throw my beliefs into a political issue such as abortion.

[Sy Borg]

Apparently there is a major change in a foetus's consciousness when it is born. A foetus of any species, including human, is conscious but not sentient - unlike the cows, sheep and chickens we routinely slaughter and eat.

Until about nine weeks, an embryo has no brain, only the beginnings of one. At around nine weeks the brain can control a number of body functions of the early foetus.

[LuckyR]

Apparently there is a major change in a foetus's consciousness when it is born. A foetus of any species, including human, is conscious but not sentient - unlike the cows, sheep and chickens we routinely slaughter and eat.

Until about nine weeks, an embryo has no brain, only the beginnings of one. At around nine weeks the brain can control a number of body functions of the early foetus.

To my view this train of reasoning carries weight if one is arguing that fetuses have no rights, whereas the true argument is that adult maternal rights are greater than fetal rights (which may not themselves be zero).

[Lagayascienza]

At what point is a baby considered a sentient being? After they pass through the birth canal? Overall, if the baby is not a threat to the mother (Not speaking of rape/incest/etc) and is in the third trimester, then it is murder. Especially since the baby can be removed from the woman, alive, and live without her.
My right to speak about a woman's issue is the fact that I was born a woman, am still a woman, and a mother. While I am a Christian, I don't throw my beliefs into a political issue such as abortion.

You just declare that aborting a late term fetus is murder. But you declaration does not make it so. Others can reasonably disagree. The fact is that sentience occurs on a spectrum from zero to full human sentience. An omoeba has some level of sentience. And a fetus will have a certain level of setience. But does that level of sentience equate to personhood? As I see it, a person has interests and interests can only develop after birth. And even if a fetus could be said to have interests, those interests do not trump the interests of a woman who has fully fledged personhood.

That said, I would discourage, but not ban, late term abortions and ecourage the use of other birth control measures. But where a woman's pregnancy has been the result of rape or incest, I have no problem with allowing even late term abortion. However, this would be a very rare situation because, most often, a woman who had been subject to such crimes would have an early abortion, at which time, sentience would hardly be an issue.

[Lagayascienza]

Of course, one could argue that any degree of sentience is sacred, but that would be a religious argument which has nothing to do with evidence. And if any degree of sentience is sacred, then why is it that many religious are ok with slaughtering and eating the flesh of other sentient mammals, and with executing fully sentient persons?

[Sy Borg]

Of course, one could argue that any degree of sentience is sacred, but that would be a religious argument which has nothing to do with evidence. And if any degree of sentience is sacred, then why is it that many religious are ok with slaughtering and eating the flesh of other sentient mammals, and with executing fully sentient persons?

Indeed. There's the rub.

[Mounce574]

Of course, one could argue that any degree of sentience is sacred, but that would be a religious argument which has nothing to do with evidence. And if any degree of sentience is sacred, then why is it that many religious are ok with slaughtering and eating the flesh of other sentient mammals, and with executing fully sentient persons?

You seem stuck on what are considered religious extremists instead of looking at the individual.

[Lagayascienza]

No, Mounce574. I'm just trying to understand the religious mindset. In doing so, I have pointed to what appear to me to be inconsistencies. You seem disinclined to address those inconsistencies.

[Sy Borg]

Okay, let's ignore religion. Embryos have no sentience. No brain, no sentience. The cows, sheep, pigs, goats, chickens and even fish that we eat are sentient. In some cases, like pigs and goats, highly sentient. Even after nine weeks, the foetus's brain is rudimentary, still vastly less sentient that the animals we routinely slaughter and eat.

Abortion of embryos is completely ethical, if that is what the woman wants/needs. There will come a point where a foetus is viable, and at that point abortion ethics are less clear. Of course, flexibility and reason tend not to be much considered in today's divided (by design) world.

[Mounce574]

No, Mounce574. I'm just trying to understand the religious mindset. In doing so, I have pointed to what appear to me to be inconsistencies. You seem disinclined to address those inconsistencies.

Addressing the inconsistencies that don't align with my beliefs are not mine to defend.
I addressed what I thought about abortion.
As for sentencing a person to death, I follow with the ultimate judgement should be left with God and that person, whether sentenced to death by a human or not, will answer for their acts before God. If they are willing to change their way and redeem themselves before God, then he will do as he sees fit.

You are lumping everyone that has a religious view into one category. Every person is an individual and will see things in a different way. I can't defend anyone but myself in this light.