So when is a foetus a human?

As a sociologist I have to say that from my perspective this is a question in which there is no actual answer. The conflict over the question, the dynamic between the different camps, and the consensus that society has will ultimately determine the answer on an ongoing basis. Keep in mind that the answer to this question has changed over time and varies depending on location as well. In the grand scheme of things 1973/Roe v. Wade wasn't that long ago. Basically the closest we can get to an answer is a compromise between the reality of biological science and the specific moral or political state of our society. Because the latter can and will change over time, this is likely a question that will never leave us despite an overwhelming consensus one way or the other. My guess is that despite the arguments no one is really doing that much to oppose the legislation directly. Basically the discussion is at an equilibrium point between social stigma but legal and political recognition. Therefore to avoid resorting to illegal means and recognize a woman's right, there is a reluctant but still majority consensus that abortion is alright so as long as it does not overstep certain bounds. Where those bounds happen to be is up for debate and certain state legislators have taken it upon themselves to put the line further back to see if their viewpoints can be met through this policy.

Either way, recent history has demonstrated what happens when women are denied the legal right to have the procedure at all. People forget that the arguments that got the ruling in favor of abortion in 1973 had nothing to do with when a fetus is considered human or even a woman's "right" but a health issue in which young mothers were dying trying to get back alley abortions. The shock of white middle class girls seeking illegal means to get abortions in a sexually confusing time (post-modern America) and dying because of it pushed the discussion into the forefront as a way to protect this country's young mothers. Then once the debates began the issue coincided with social movements dealing with women's rights and bam Roe v Wade. Granted it's a simple look at the history of the issue but that's the origin of why we are having it right now. Well that and the religious right's (aka the moral majority) rebuttal to the social movements of the 60s and 70s during the Reagan era and the maintenance of that discussion as teen pregnancy rates were an issue in the 1990s.

I can see the murder argument, but I'm still pro-abortion. It's not a pretty thing, but I think it's a very necessary thing in a lot of cases. Some might be of the opinion that if one is stupid enough to have unprotected sex they deserve to be stuck with a kid. But I don't think the kid in that situation deserves to be put through a turbulent childhood with erratically-supportive parents. Let's face it, having kids too early will fuck up your life forever.

This debate...

1. From a biological standpoint, any functioning cell is alive. From assimilating nutrients, to growing cells, to living human being is a gradual process that never stops or starts. Defining when it's a human has no real meaning to the actual process. As long as you don't have any religious notions, you would agree that consciousness and thinking begins with the brain, the thing that when you damage it, people have trouble thinking. But the brain begins to form early and is as gradually developing as everything else.

2. From a social standpoint, where there are unwanted pregnancies, access to information, and personal freedom, some abortion will take place. Unwanted pregnancies face emotional, social, and economic deprivation and we are dangerously overpopulated relative to our resource consumption as it is. Better to let the doctors do their job and women keep their own conscience, in my opinion. If you're into the black and white no-killing-is-ever-allowed society, the place to begin is with capital punishment of fully conscious humans, in my opinion. If you want to go further than that, consider the business of eating animals. But personally, I prefer to think that the arbitrary, accepted definition the vast majority of people already have of when human rights apply is fine. After birth, before death, homo sapiens. Why? Why not. That's the home team.

Logically a human fetus is a human when it is a fetus.

Foetus would be a great Greek mythology hero name.

I just want to go around yelling "Foetus fetch me my blade!"

Anyway, what's this thread about again?

What difference does it make, it's not like one couldn't just make a new one later when it's actually wanted. Bam. Problem solved.

Meh. I don't get the moral dilemma.

It's alive when I can eat it.

The anti-abortion argument is as retarded as the anti-gay marriage argument. What someone else decides to do with their body is of no concern or consequence to you and as such, you have no right to tell them what to do with it.

Cool, so it looks like anti-abortioners look at unfit parents having kids and being forced to raise them as a type of punishment? Now who doesn't see the value of human life again?

Unlike most people on here, I believe life begins with conception. HOWEVER, I am still pro choice; I hate my life and wish I was aborted, so why not do the infants a favor? We can never be sure of how they'd feel about it, but anything's better than living in my opinion.

@MikeGosot said:

@Everyones_A_Critic said:

I can see the murder argument, but I'm still pro-abortion. It's not a pretty thing, but I think it's a very necessary thing in a lot of cases. Some might be of the opinion that if one is stupid enough to have unprotected sex they deserve to be stuck with a kid. But I don't think the kid in that situation deserves to be put through a turbulent childhood with erratically-supportive parents. Let's face it, having kids too early will fuck up your life forever.

And it will fuck the life of the kid, too. I'm 16, and if i had a child now, i think i would be an horrible father. I wouldn't beat the kid or any of this shit, but i would get too depressed to be a good father.

Yeah, that's the way I see it. The end justifies the means...

Knew it'd be about Oklahoma when I saw the thread title, man.  I'm amazed they still let women vote over there.  And in Texas.  And in Arizona.  And in Utah.  And in Florida.  ..you get the idea :/

@Jrinswand said:

I don't know enough to answer about the subject to answer the question. I can tell you, however, that I am anti-anti-abortion.

Is that a double negative, or are you just extra anti abortion?

@Vinny_Says said:

Seriously what is wrong with you?

A simple knee-jerk reaction. An understandable one, sure. I am of the opinion, however, that everything is up for discussion. Taboos get us nowhere, debate and discussion does. I live in a country that is truly liberal. A country where mandatory abortion under extreme circumstances is currently a political hot-topic. These are not the views of extremists, but of an independent committee of great scientific minds. I doubt we'll see any legislation around the idea, but I think it's healthy to talk about such matters, at the very least. If a majority is of the opinion that such things are unacceptable, then so be it.

I know it's politically incorrect, but I don't see the value of having a child that cannot function on its own, has an IQ of 20, is in constant pain, and will need extensive care from the cradle to the grave, to even be able to go to the bathroom. If such a child is born into a loving and capable family, then all the more power to them. I admire their courage and resolve to take on such a burden, to love someone so unconditionally. If such a child is sired by two mentally retarded individuals, however, then it becomes a problem of the state, who is already obligated by law to take away the child from his parents. If such a pregnancy could've been terminated when the child was still just a lump of cells, we could have spared him a lifetime of misery, and society a giant burden.

I would like to emphasize that I only support this under the most extreme conditions, when it is irrefutable that a child will live a life of suffering, and that the parents are not capable of taking care of him. Call me insensitive if you wish, just know that issues like these are incredibly complicated, and that there simply are no black or white solutions. Lashing out with "what is wrong with you?" is very human and internet-like of you, but please just take some time to consider the many facets of an issue like this.

If I can see a sonogram and think, "hey that looks like a little dude in there", then I'd go with whenever that happens.  Nobody actually believes that a fetus isn't a person until it actually makes it out of the birth canal--that just happens to be the moment that most neatly coincides with their political opinions.  Similarly, the whole when-it-can-survive-on-its-own thing is a bit of a cop-out for fence-sitters.  The moment abortion becomes morally ugly just happens to be the exact moment that it is no longer necessary?  Shenanigans.

@Jrinswand said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Jrinswand said:

I don't know enough to answer about the subject to answer the question. I can tell you, however, that I am anti-anti-abortion.

Is that a double negative, or are you just extra anti abortion?

Oh, that's a good question. I can see how it could be read a couple of different ways. What I meant was that I'm against people who are against abortion. :)

Somehow that is just as confusing.

@LiquidPrince: I thought he meant he was abortion, in a Bhagavad Vita sort of way.

HAIL SATAN

@killacam said:

when it finds the first flute in mario 3

haha good answer bravo!

During the period were proper neural connections start to for (last I heard around 20 weeks into the pregnancy), before that it essentially has the physical and mental awareness of a house fly.

In my mind it's when it's born. Before that it's a parasite that needs the mother to even have a hope of living. If the host dies then the parasite will die, and it's the same thing in regards to a mother and unborn child. Personally I'm comfortable with 24 weeks being the maximum allowed standard.

Anyway it's none of my business. It's not the business of the government no matter how much they try to regulate it and make it so. And it sure as fuck isn't the business of the Chuch, the most vile and bloodthirsty organization in human history that ruled for centuries on lies and blood. The only person that should decide is the potential mother. They're the ones that have to carry the baby, will end up having to care for the baby, and will have to go through the pain of childbirth. If they want an abortion it's their right, and they'll have to live with the mental repercussions of such a thing.

It really disturbs me that a "democratic" government thinks that they have the authority to tell people what to do with their bodies like a totalitarian regime.

I personally dont support abortion but at the same time Im not a supporter of anti-abortion laws.  I believe people should get to choose what they want.  I would say when it starts moving in the womb?  I dunno....  

When it has its first cold beer.

@ccampb89 said:

What the fuck is this doing on a gaming forum?

....Because this particular gaming forum also has an off-topic section you are currently browsing.

@AiurFlux said:

In my mind it's when it's born. Before that it's a parasite that needs the mother to even have a hope of living. If the host dies then the parasite will die, and it's the same thing in regards to a mother and unborn child. Personally I'm comfortable with 24 weeks being the maximum allowed standard.

Anyway it's none of my business. It's not the business of the government no matter how much they try to regulate it and make it so. And it sure as fuck isn't the business of the Chuch, the most vile and bloodthirsty organization in human history that ruled for centuries on lies and blood. The only person that should decide is the potential mother. They're the ones that have to carry the baby, will end up having to care for the baby, and will have to go through the pain of childbirth. If they want an abortion it's their right, and they'll have to live with the mental repercussions of such a thing.

It really disturbs me that a "democratic" government thinks that they have the authority to tell people what to do with their bodies like a totalitarian regime.

Technically, that "parasite" can survive outside of the mother's body if the mother died as early as twenty weeks. They don't have a great chance, but there have been some successes in babies delivered at that point. That survivability increases even more at twenty-three weeks and then the majority survive after twenty-eight weeks. So, since they can survive without the mother, shouldn't they be given a chance to do so? That's why late term abortions are banned in many places except for in cases of medical necessity. Medical science has improved this viability range over the years, and so, it is possible at some point in the future that fetuses less than twenty weeks old may actually survive outside of the womb, which might give reason for laws to account for this, as killing the fetus after that point may be considered simply unnecessary when the fetus is actually medically viable.

As far as the government weighing in on a subject like this, the government always has to weigh complex issues. In this case, there are the competing principles of a woman's right to privacy and a potential human person's right to life, and at a lot of it boils down to when the fetus is considered a separate entity, aka. an unborn child and not just an extension of the mother. So, the government has reason to try to protect those who cannot protect themselves; in this case, unborn children. The point whereby someone determines that such a thing is an unborn child is where the issue becomes so complicated between weighing what is reasonable protection of a life and reasonable intrusion on one's privacy. The government always has to exchange some freedoms for order; otherwise, there couldn't be police or a government with any authority. So, it's about striking that reasonable balance and finding what works best over what is just theoretically best.

Considering constant shifts in the predominant culture and medical science, the topic of abortion and personhood will probably continue to be an issue brought up for quite some time.

Usually when both parents are humans themselves, inter-species breeding is rare and dangerous.

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

I personally dont support abortion but at the same time Im not a supporter of anti-abortion laws. I believe people should get to choose what they want. I would say when it starts moving in the womb? I dunno....

So... eight weeks or so? That's pretty early.

There is definitely a difference between being in favor of anti-abortion legislation that goes too far and just being against abortion. I can agree that I don't like the government intruding like that, but it's perfectly reasonable for people to socially try to encourage people to not have abortions unless absolutely necessary. In a lot of ways, improving things like the adoption process, availability and education on safe sex, and greater help for poorer individuals who account for one of the biggest reasons cited for abortions: "I can't afford to take care of a child", can go far for getting rid of abortion voluntarily over government-mandated.

When it's a sperm. When you masturbate, you're murdering millions of lives.

Conception.

@Contrarian: Once it takes its first breath after the cord is cut.

@Zero_ said:

When it's a sperm. When you masturbate, you're murdering millions of lives.

OH GOD! I've been committing genocide!

After 14 days is when the zygote does not have the ability to twin. So if the embryo has split before this point, then twins will be born. Because if this, I believe the zygote is not a human being, it still has the ability to twin, die or remain the same. After 14 days, the moment is made and the zygote is either one individual or two. Embryonic Stem Cell Research foundations across the country do not allow research on embryos past 14 days mostly for this decision.

Conception is such a loose term, is it during the act of sex, or a day after, when the zygote is planted on the uterine wall? The woman can take the 'morning after pill' within this time so what then.When an egg and zygote meet, the only thing that is created is potential, this potential can lead down many different branches with one of them being the development of a person.

In speaking on abortion, I am pro-choice, whatever the decision the mother makes is her decision, to a certain point. Anything past the first-trimester is a situation best handled with assistance of her primary physician.

These are the kinds of threads that are going to be all over the place once Deus Ex: Human Revolution starts happening for real.

@killacam said:

when it finds the first flute in mario 3

I lol'd.

@Dany said:

Conception is such a loose term, is it during the act of sex, or a day after, when the zygote is planted on the uterine wall? The woman can take the 'morning after pill' within this time so what then.When an egg and zygote meet, the only thing that is created is potential, this potential can lead down many different branches with one of them being the development of a person.

In speaking on abortion, I am pro-choice, whatever the decision the mother makes is her decision, to a certain point. Anything past the first-trimester is a situation best handled with assistance of her primary physician.

I would say the only correct definition for conception is after the sperm successfully fertilizes the ovum and a zygote is formed. Also, there is no clinical evidence that the morning after pill does anything other than prevent ovulation. As I mentioned in my previous post, it can theoretically prevent sperm from fertilizing the ovum or impairing implantation, but there's no actual evidence to support that in practice.

@Contrarian said:

Being male, I am unlikely to ever need one.

It could happen...

Obviously if the baby in the womb was sentient that would make it a lot easier, but it isn't, so the next logical step would be when it can feel pain and suffering. If the baby can't feel pain then I'm okay with abortion.

@hoossy said:

@Contrarian said:

Being male, I am unlikely to ever need one.

It could happen...

Of I have to deliver naturaly, then count me out!