The Certainty of Babies in the Womb

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Okay all you pro-abortionists. Check out this link. Life In The Womb passion

2

So what is new about that? I have seen fetuses before from animals and humans. There have been photos around for decades. They just have moving film of fetuses in the womb, So? Is a film supposed to change someones ideas where photos won’t or actual fetuses won’t? Hardly.

Prove that a fetus in its’ first trimester and early second trimester is sentient and i might change my thoughts. They are not so there is no way I will change my thoughts on abortions.

One of our girls had to be taken in to the vet for spaying and abortion, we did not know until it was too late that she was pregnant. Our girl would have died giving birth. She is much more important than those fetuses she had. Well the vet C- sectioned the pups 9 of them. They were at least 3 weeks from due date. She thought to teach us a lesson, she kept the pups alive or tried to.

Out of 9 pups two are alive in our care, the rest died at the hospital. They could not tell that our girl had no milk for the pups and was only laying with them because she was in a small cage. We brought her home and she rejected those pups. Luckily one of our other girls had just given birth and adopted the pups. Those 7 pups should not have had to suffer only to die in a cold world. The Vet was wrong to do what she did. we requested a normal abortion she agreed, then she got moral and her morality cost this family alot of pain.

Well we have two pups now that might not make it but everyday they get stronger. but, they will suffer physical problems as all way early prematurely born fetuses do. They were reluctant to give us the little bodies to bury on family land. Three of the pups were not fully formed yet. They were all tiny, tiny little emaciated bodies.Not ready to be alive and functional. How these two are surviving is beyond me. One of us has to be in the same room with them 90% of the time. I have already revived them both at least 5 times each.

I am proabortion for specific reasons, none of which are flippant or selfish. 100 fetuses in a body bag is preferable to one child in a body bag.

3

Hi kriswest. Thank you for your thoughts. You said, ”Prove that a fetus in its’ first trimester and early second trimester is sentient and i might change my thoughts. They are not so there is no way I will change my thoughts on abortions.”

At the moment of conception, the child in the womb is vested with 46 chromosomes; the human genome. This is the exact number of chromosomes in a human being. This is an indisputable scientific fact. Therefore, the child in the womb is a human being at the moment of conception.

You said, ”am proabortion for specific reasons, none of which are flippant or selfish…

I believe you kriswest. I don’t believe a person who is pro-abortion is necessarily flippant or selfish. I just believe they are wrong.

You said, ”…100 fetuses in a body bag is preferable to one child in a body bag.”

100 fetuses equals 100 human beings. 100 fetuses in a body bag is the equivalent of 100 children in a body bag. Yet, even one child in a body bag is too many. Abortion celebrates children in body bags and the “profession” that supports it profits from it. passion.

4

I fully wholeheartedly believe in quality of life over quantity of life. Most people that are proabortion do. Celebration is a cruel word to use, Passion. Those of us that are average proabortion loving caring humans do not celebrate the abortion. We believe in qaulity over quantity. Anti abortionists are the opposite it seems. Life, any life is to be kept living even at the expense of the soul.

100 fetuses in a body bag will never suffer being beaten, raped,born addicted to drugs, used as slave labor, They will never be born to parents that hate them, resent them, neglect them, lock them in filth, then they will never have to die looking into the eyes of the parent or guardian that is brutally abusing them and killing them. They won’t be made to have their little bodies used to satisfy some sick human adult lusts. You tell me that any child should suffer such horrible lives then, I tell you that you value quantity of life over quality of life, that you help perpetuate cruelty to children by forcing more children to live and suffer needlessly. Quantity of life is by and large selfish and fearful. Life is important, but most important is quality of life.

I would rather fewer children be born, because those that would be born are going to be cherished as children should be. To abolish abortion is condemning countless children to torture. A fetus in a body bag is far less heartbreaking than a young broken body of a child. A fetus does not send me into a rage, a dead child does, an abused child does, a raped child does, a child born addicted to drugs does, a child that has given up hope, laughter and love sends me into a rage against those that claim quantity over quality, that claim the child’s suffering is god’s will, etc…

A fetus in the first or early second trimester is merely a body that is being made, it is not complete. Late second trimester to third trimester the fetus is developing its mental human components. I do not condone abortions at this period unless it is at the doctor’s advice.

Aolish abortions and you condemn children to suffer horrible lives.

5

That does not follow, because while the genetic composition of an embryo at conception is an undisputed fact, the definition of “human being” is not. You are asserting a desire to define “human being” in terms of its genetic blueprint. What Kriswest asked you for, however was proof that the embryo, or a fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy was sentient, and that is not answered by reference to the number of chromosomes it possessed. Kriswest was defining “human being” in terms of sentience, not in terms of genetics.

Can you defend the idea that “human being” ought, for purposes of reproductive rights, to be defined genetically rather than in terms of the ability to think, to feel, to undergo pain, or to fear?

6

For me the question is simpler.

Prove that even the born, have a right to exist or the quality to be respected, and I’ll submit to the sanctity of life.

If life is so sacred, then why does it feed on itself?

The lengths people will go to, to feel special without ever earning it, is remarkable.

7

Since “X has a right to exist or the quality to be respected” is an assertion of will, not a statement of fact, “proof” is irrelevant. They have that right because I say so. No further justification is needed.

Of course, you’re free to disagree, but if you do, that just makes you an ornery curmudgeon who’s only trying to be difficult. :stuck_out_tongue:

8

I wonder if we can now have a respectable debate about abortion now that Jenny’s gone. The big problem is what you refer to here. People on both sides need to realize that you can’t discover truth about the world by fixing all the definitions to your liking. The universe doesn’t speak English.

9

Ah Aporia, the problem with this subject is, passionate love. Both sides love passionately, life.

Love makes this subject so volatile. Both sides care for children, both sides respect and care for life. Both sides wish only the best for humanity, both sides are passionate about the above. They just disagree passionately about protecting life , when where and how to protect such.

10

Passionate love I can respect. Passionate love masquerading as sound intellectual argument I cannot respect.

11

ROFL You are one hundred percent correct. But, be patient with passionate people if you can, passion often ties the mind and tongue into hopeless knots of confusing blithering desperate thoughts and words.

12

Hi kriswest. Thank you again for your follow up. You said, ”I fully wholeheartedly believe in quality of life over quantity of life.”

Why not both? Why is the life of person in hardship less valuable than a life not in hardship? As I see it, human life is equally valuable regardless of social, status or material conditions. Bad conditions need to be challenged on a different level; but always within the context of life not outside of it.

You said, ”Celebration is a cruel word to use, Passion.”

Many do literally celebrate abortion kriswest. Those who are unhappy about abortion yet support it commemorate it in a different way.

You said, ”100 fetuses in a body bag will never suffer being beaten, raped,born addicted to drugs, used as slave labor,…”

These things you describe are, of course, most wretched and deplorable. But you make two assumptions: a). that this happens to all 100 of the fetus/babies in your example and, b). where and if it does occur, killing the fetus/baby is a better option than allowing the baby to live while making efforts to alleviate the conditions you described. I believe life is the better option.

You said, ”To abolish abortion is condemning countless children to torture.”

That is a very big assumption kriswest. Meanwhile, the abortion you suggest as the solution is a torture itself – and it is a torture that kills the baby once the torture is complete.

You said, ”A fetus in the first or early second trimester is merely a body that is being made, it is not complete.”

It is a body that by the fourth week has clearly discernible heart beats (and it may be even earlier as future technology may reveal). By the sixth week the baby has brain waves (and that too may be even earlier as future technology may reveal). Obviously, non-living things do not have “heartbeats" and “brain waves” kriswest. By the time a mom even knows that she is pregnant the baby already has heartbeats and brainwaves.

Clusters of tissue do not have heartbeats and clumps of cells do not have heartbeats. Abortion stops that baby’s heart from beating. It causes the brainwaves to cease waving. That is precisely what happens to the beating heart and functioning brain after an abortion - it stops them cold – because the abortion has terminated a life. passion

13

Hi navigator. You said, ”Can you defend the idea that “human being” ought, for purposes of reproductive rights, to be defined genetically rather than in terms of the ability to think, to feel, to undergo pain, or to fear?”

It is an established fact that a child in the womb at six weeks old already has “brain waves.” At four weeks it has a heartbeat. Do you believe that heartbeats and brain waves occur in non-living things? Brain waves means there is brain activity which means there is thinking, feeling, pain, etc on some level.

Many images of a child in the womb show the child sucking her thumb, which illustrates “feeling” and emotion; and every expectant mom and dad know well the feeling of the baby’s “kicking” and “movement” that is sometimes so strong that it can be seen with the unaided eye right through the mother’s belly! All of this adds up to very hard evidence in addition to the obvious 46 chromosomes of the human genome that occurs at the moment of conception. Also, it has been demonstrated with imaging technology that a child undergoing an abortion struggles wildly while the procedure is underway. Seems like pain and terror; wouldn’t you agree? passion.

14

passion,
I’m not going to weigh in with my position because I’ve said it before, and frankly, it’s not that interesting.

However, I would like to take you up on some of your claims:

  1. conception doesn’t happen in the womb. I know you may have been using this rhetorically, but it is factually incorrect, and misleading.
  2. although the cell which is created by conception does contain the full genome, it is not a human being, it is a zygote.

This is an important distinction because almost all the cells of our body (with only one or two exceptions) carry the full genome. If indeed the criterion for being human is being a cell which contains the genome, then every single one of our cells is a human being (except RBCs of course.)

No, at the moment of conception, the potential child is a single cell which is duploid, and is located in the fallopian tube.

cheers,
gemty

15

First, I’ll need to see some documenation of that. Second, six weeks falls in the second trimester, not the first. Third, “brain waves” don’t necessarily indicate sentience, it depends on what type of brain waves are detected.

In any case, there really isn’t any dispute that at some point in gestation, we should call a fetus a human being. The question is where the line should be drawn.

Irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that an embryo is a non-living thing. But the question is whether it is a sentient living thing. A heartbeat says nothing about that.

No. Brain activity does not indicate thinking or feeling necessarily. The first parts of the brain to develop are the parts that control and regulate the autonomic life-support systems such as the circulatory system. (And maybe breathing, although since a fetus doesn’t breathe until it’s born, that may develop later.) The part of the brain that’s uniquely human is the cerebral neocortex, and that is the last part of the brain that develops.

No. It only shows the development of a sucking reflex, which obviously a newborn baby needs to have if it is going to feed. It doesn’t in any way indicate emotion.

Absolutely not. Kicking is also a reflex. It does not indicate consciousness or the ability to feel emotion or pain.

Since the great majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester, this is absurd.

16

We’re already heading towards a state where we won’t be able to feed everybody! The world’s population will soon outstrip its natural resources! And you want to force people to have children, when these are children even they do not want?

If people are forced to have babies they don’t want, the population will grow at an unnecessary rate, it will put unnecessary stress on government social intervention institutions (we’ll need more social workers and foster care homes), there will be more teenage crime, and it will generally be bad for those who do want their children. Why take food from the mouths of wanted babies, who will grow up to be functioning, well-educated members of society, to force-feed it into the mouths of babies who’s mothers don’t want them, babies that will grow into criminals?

17

Hi gemty. Thank you for the comments. You said, ”1. conception doesn’t happen in the womb.”

Conception starts off in the fallopian tube. Thereafter, it “drops” (already conceived) and attaches to the uterine wall, and so on thereafter. The phrase “in the womb” is the parlance of the entire process.

You said, ”I know you may have been using this rhetorically…”

Yes. The phrase “in the womb” is the classic discussion terminology to describe the conception/pregnancy/birthing process. It is a descriptive term.

You said, ”…but it is factually incorrect, and misleading.”

I’d be surprised if the phrase “in the womb” was misleading since everyone familiar with the abortion debate knows well or is familiar with what the term “in the womb” means.

You said, ”2. although the cell which is created by conception does contain the full genome, it is not a human being, it is a zygote”

A human zygote, so-called, is a human being with 46 human genome chromosomes.

You said, ”This is an important distinction because almost all the cells of our body (with only one or two exceptions) carry the full genome.”

That is because its a human being which carries the human genome.

You said, ”If indeed the criterion for being human is being a cell which contains the genome, then every single one of our cells is a human being (except RBCs of course.)”

Human cells are not monkey cells, sheep cells, dog cells, cat cells, etc. 46 Chromosomes – human genome – human being.

You said, ” No, at the moment of conception, the potential child is a single cell which is duploid, and is located in the fallopian tube.”

At the moment of conception, the child is a human being. The size of the child does not determine her species. The genetic code determines the child’s species; and at the moment of conception, though tiny (empirically speaking) she is a human being. Thanks gemty. Passion.

18

Hi navigator. Thank you for the follow up comments. You said, ”In any case, there really isn’t any dispute that at some point in gestation, we should call a fetus a human being. The question is where the line should be drawn.”

Suppose you were to say hypothetically that it becomes a baby on, say, day 50 from the time of conception. What exactly do you think must “happen” between day 49 when it is not a human (in this hypothetical example) and day 50 when it is a human (in this hypothetical example) that causes it to then become a human being?

You said, ”Irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that an embryo is a non-living thing. “

Since you agree that it is a living thing, then what species of living thing is it?

You said, ”No. Brain activity does not indicate thinking or feeling necessarily.”

Brain activity does. And hearts do not beat on their own in isolation. The heart beats and circulates blood and nutrients (for example) which requires action at every organic level. No individual living body can “become” a person unless it is already a person.

You said, ”…although since a fetus doesn’t breathe until it’s born, that may develop later.

But this suggests that a child in the womb in the ninth month is not a human because it is not breathing outside of her mother yet.

You said, ”No. It only shows the development of a sucking reflex, which obviously a newborn baby needs to have if it is going to feed. It doesn’t in any way indicate emotion. “

It demonstrates that the child has fingers, a mouth and a brain/mind capable to perform the motion and action. By the end of the second and the start of the third trimester the brain’s neural circuits are as advanced as a newborn’s. Since there is a functioning brain with measurable brain waves at six weeks (and technology may reveal that it occurs even earlier, as I suspect it does) it demonstrates cognition. It is sucking for the purpose of feeding as well as “comforting” herself (which is what thumb sucking does in a child) and therefore the baby feels the emotion of “hunger” (in the case of feeding) and the emotions that cause her to comfort herself; and these things are the very least of it.

You said, ”Absolutely not. Kicking is also a reflex. It does not indicate consciousness or the ability to feel emotion or pain.”

The movement of a baby in the womb is the movement of a baby’s arms, legs, shoulders, etc. These movements do not happen by magic. It requires a nervous system and a brain, among many other human effects, to accomplish movement; and the capacity for the baby to feel emotion or pain (for example) are present in these actions. Movement as well as heartbeats, brain waves and all the things the baby in the womb does cannot happen in a vacuum – it requires life forces.

You said, ”Since the great majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester, this is absurd.”

And during this period the child is a living, heart beating, brain waving, 46 chromosome human being. Mothers are not even aware that they are pregnant by the time their heart beating baby is already living and growing in them. The baby grows into a larger person each day because it is already a person to begin with. All abortions from day one forward are the taking of a human life – and many abortions take place during and after the so-called first trimester too as I’m sure you know. passion

19

I’m not going to play the game of trying to pin it down to a particular day. What I will say is that the concept of “human being” encompasses certain mental attributes, including consciousness, sentience, intelligence, and the ability to think and feel. Strictly speaking, we should not consider a fetus a “human being” until it exhibits these qualities, except in potential.

Human, of course. So are my blood cells. When I cut myself shaving, I have “destroyed human life.” Have I committed suicide? If I were to punch someone else in the nose and cause them to bleed, I would again have “destroyed human life” – someone else’s this time. Have I committed murder?

No. This is simply an assertion contrary to fact. You are just plain wrong. The brain does a lot more than think and feel. It also beats the heart, makes the muscles move, controls the breathing and digestion, controls glandular secretions, and essentially runs the entire bodily “machine.” Most of this activity is unconscious. In no way whatsoever does the mere presence of brain activity indicate thinking and feeling; you have to know what kind of brain activity, and what part of the brain it originates from.

Why?

Do you think that an unfertilized ovum is a person? I doubt it. But if you think a fertilized ovum is a person, then you must think that an unfertilized ovum becomes a person at conception. Somewhere along the line, you have to recognize that something that previously wasn’t a person became one.

Of course. But that has nothing to do with thinking or feeling.

You don’t know very much about neurophysiology, do you?

SOME of the neural circuits are as advanced as a newborn: those having to do with controlling autonomic functions. Other neural circuits are not: those having to do with thought and feeling (and perhaps breathing, but I’m not sure of that).

In any case, surely you can see that none of these neural circuits are developed at all at conception.

No. It. Does. Not.

I dislike repeating myself, but let me try again. The brain is not a single unit. It’s a collection of organs that do different jobs. Many of those jobs have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with thinking, feeling, or any of the rest of what we call “mental” functions. Most of what the brain does is strictly involved with running the unconscious functions of the body. A brain that has only those functions operational will generate measurable brain waves, but will NOT be thinking!

Why do you seem to have such a hard time understanding this? It’s a simple concept, really.

No.

Once again, nerves and a brain DO NOT indicate thinking or feeling. A fetus’ muscle movements that result in kicking do indeed indicate a functioning nervous system, and I think probably the motor functions of the brain. But they say nothing whatever about whether the fetus is conscious.

Of course, I’m pretty sure that towards the end of the third trimester, which is when most of the kicking takes place, the fetus is conscious, but we’re talking about early-trimester abortion here, so that’s not relevant.

There are no such things as “life forces.”

20

Passion,
I wonder if you understand the implication of your position.

You said:
46 Chromosomes – human genome – human being.

According to that logic then, each cell in your body is a human being. Therefore, if you kill a cell from your body, you have killed a human being.

Explain to me then how you can accept treatments which kill body cells - radiation, chemotherapy, etc.? According to your reasoning - you have killed human beings.

Can you explain how 46 chromosomes - human genome - human being doesn’t lead to the appove situation.

cheers,
gemty