Welcome to Talo Balka!


This is the forum for the NationStates region known as Talo Balka. We're a new region that came about as a result of a merger between New Talos and Franco Balka. We're still in the very early stages of building our new home. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. If you aren't a member of Talo Balka, New Talos, or Franco Balka, or unless you're somehow involved with one of those regions (i.e, as an ambassador), there really isn't much point in registering.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Resurrecting the topic of the week: abortion
Topic Started: Jun 3 2015, 12:21 AM (198 Views)
Larsland
Γέροντας
 *  *  *
Hey y'all, Wednesday is a good a day as any for our topic of the week segment. Here we highlight a major current event or topical issue, and discuss our viewpoints on the subject.

Let's get some discussion going then. What do you all think of abortion? Should it be legal? Banned? Allowed only in certain circumstances?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
The Altarian Empire
Member Avatar
αδελφός
 *  *
Quote:
 
No it cannot. Not without a birth. Only when it goes through a birth (premature or not) does it become capable of the functions of life. If you don't birth it and remove it from the womb, it dies. That's what an abortion is.


No, an abortion (specifically, a late-term one) is killing the fetus in the womb and then dismembering it so it is easier to remove. You do understand what a viable fetus is, right, or am I just misinterpreting you? A viable fetus is one "having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb." Removing a viable fetus from the womb alive, whether through induced labor or a c-section should be exactly the same thing as birth by anyone's definitions.


Quote:
 
No it's not. It's the exact moment when the fetus becomes a self-sustaining and self-contained organism.


And why define it (outside of the legal implications) as the exact moment the fetus becomes self-contained, versus when the fetus has the potential to become self-contained once removed from the uterus?

Quote:
 
So what? If I want to know the exact moment a can of baked beans is made, I'd say it's the instant it comes out of the canner. Not when the process begins, or half-way through. Until you have a full human being you have no human being. "What is the tangible difference?" That one is a pile of baked beans, and the other is baked beans in a can. Until you have a complete human being, you have no human being.


You're right. The beans are not made at the beginning of the process, they are uncooked. They are not made half-way through, they are partially cooked. They are made when they have been fully cooked. There is no tangible difference in the state of the beans A.) after they have been cooked and before they are removed from whatever you're cooking them in and B.) after they leave the cooking appliance. The only change is the medium the beans are in. The beans are still fully cooked regardless of where they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larsland
Γέροντας
 *  *  *
"No, an abortion (specifically, a late-term one) is killing the fetus in the womb and then dismembering it so it is easier to remove."
You can't kill something that's not alive. A fetus isn't alive. That's where we differ, because you think something that has hardly more biological processes than your average crystal should be classified as alive.

"versus when the fetus has the potential to become self-contained once removed from the uterus?"
That's like defining a pile of baked beans as a can of baked beans because it has the POTENTIAL to become one. Potential has never been the mark of when something is something, only when it could be something. A fetus could one day be alive, it has the potential to become alive, sure. But that doesn't mean it is alive. Might I add that being self-contained is one of the two key elements of an organism as recognized by mainstream biology.

"The only change is the medium the beans are in."
No it's not. The canning process changes the beans and how they behave in various ways. The same with birthing - for example, birthing activates the respiratory system. Simply having the raw ingredients (beans) does not make for the complete package of a can of baked beans. A pile of human organs isn't a person either. You need everything to be switched on and put together for it to be a human. And that is why, to me, birth is the standard.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Altarian Empire
Member Avatar
αδελφός
 *  *
Quote:
 
You can't kill something that's not alive. A fetus isn't alive. That's where we differ, because you think something that has hardly more biological processes than your average crystal should be classified as alive.


So if a viable fetus, which is functionally equivalent to a human infant is not alive, by your reasoning, how is a human infant alive?

Quote:
 
That's like defining a pile of baked beans as a can of baked beans because it has the POTENTIAL to become one. Potential has never been the mark of when something is something, only when it could be something. A fetus could one day be alive, it has the potential to become alive, sure. But that doesn't mean it is alive. Might I add that being self-contained is one of the two key elements of an organism as recognized by mainstream biology.


It's not a good analogy. And honestly, when the difference between being not alive and alive is which side of a thin membrane of fluids you're on, that seems to be fairly arbitrary to me.

Quote:
 
No it's not. The canning process changes the beans and how they behave in various ways. The same with birthing - for example, birthing activates the respiratory system. Simply having the raw ingredients (beans) does not make for the complete package of a can of baked beans. A pile of human organs isn't a person either. You need everything to be switched on and put together for it to be a human. And that is why, to me, birth is the standard.


I don't think you paid much attention to my variation on your analogy. Birthing doesn't activate the respiratory system, being exposed to the atmosphere instead of amniotic fluid does. And once more, this has nothing intrinsically to do with the developmental status of the fetus itself, but the medium it inhabits. And yet again, I restate that a viable fetus has a fully functioning set of all organs - brain, heart, lungs, etc. - such that it can survive outside the womb on its own. A viable fetus is a finished product - it IS the can of beans, and it has already been cooked, and there is no change in the beans from when they are removed from the oven to when they are put on a dinner plate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larsland
Γέροντας
 *  *  *
"So if a viable fetus, which is functionally equivalent to a human infant is not alive, by your reasoning, how is a human infant alive?"
It isn't functionally equivalent if it doesn't perform the same functions, and isn't even able to perform them, by definition. For example, breathe. Actually, I'm interested in what biological processes YOU consider markers for life.

"And honestly, when the difference between being not alive and alive is which side of a thin membrane of fluids you're on, that seems to be fairly arbitrary to me."
Moving through that membrane triggers more changes in the body than a human being undergoes in their entire lifetime. Birthing is a really astonishing thing when you look into it.

"being exposed to the atmosphere instead of amniotic fluid does."
Which is part of the process of birthing, but its also HOW this exposure happens. If a fetus is exposed too quickly or too slowly they can become stillborn. The whole process matters. And of course it isn't just this.

"brain, heart, lungs, etc."
No. The heart is the only such organ. The lungs are inactive and don't breathe, and most of the brain's key functions - sight, memory etc - only appear after birth.

"such that it can survive outside the womb on its own."
If that were the case, then why does the fetus die when the mother dies? I'll tell you - it is 100% reliant on her, cannot just stroll outside the womb, and cannot survive on its own. It's a fetus, not an individual human.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Altarian Empire
Member Avatar
αδελφός
 *  *
Quote:
 
It isn't functionally equivalent if it doesn't perform the same functions, and isn't even able to perform them, by definition. For example, breathe. Actually, I'm interested in what biological processes YOU consider markers for life.


A viable fetus has a functioning and active excretory system, nervous system, and circulatory system, a partially functioning digestive system, and a fully developed respiratory system.

Quote:
 
Moving through that membrane triggers more changes in the body than a human being undergoes in their entire lifetime. Birthing is a really astonishing thing when you look into it.


Not really. The only significant biological change is the conversion of the circulatory system.

Quote:
 
Which is part of the process of birthing, but its also HOW this exposure happens. If a fetus is exposed too quickly or too slowly they can become stillborn. The whole process matters. And of course it isn't just this.


Yeah, maybe if you shoot the baby out of the womb at 1 km/s...

Quote:
 
No. The heart is the only such organ. The lungs are inactive and don't breathe, and most of the brain's key functions - sight, memory etc - only appear after birth.


Wrong. In addition to all the previously listed functioning organ systems, viable fetuses have fully functioning touch, taste, smell, and hearing senses. It's entirely possible for fetuses to see - not that the inability of a fetus to see has anything to do with how developed its eyes are, but how much light penetrates the mother's skin and reaches the uterus. Fetuses have memory, alongside developed higher and lower brain functions.

Quote:
 
If that were the case, then why does the fetus die when the mother dies? I'll tell you - it is 100% reliant on her, cannot just stroll outside the womb, and cannot survive on its own. It's a fetus, not an individual human.


If the mother is dead, a viable fetus can be removed alive within a short period of time and survive as an infant. The fetus dies after a while because its circulatory system is linked to the mother's. It's a relic of the fetus's developmental cycle that is terminated at any arbitrary moment it is removed from the uterus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larsland
Γέροντας
 *  *  *
"A viable fetus has a functioning and active excretory system, nervous system, and circulatory system, a partially functioning digestive system, and a fully developed respiratory system."
Three problems with this as a biological standard for life:
1 - it's too restrictive. Plenty of living things fail this standard.
2 - it's even more arbitrary than mine.
3 - it's different from your previous standard of functional equivalency. Having a developed system is not the same as having a functioning system.

"Yeah, maybe if you shoot the baby out of the womb at 1 km/s... "
Speaking of which, I never can understand why anti-abortionists are so adamant life begins before birth, but never want to say mothers with stillborn babies are guilty of manslaughter. Logically, if they're right, then women with stillborn babies should be locked up in jail.

"Fetuses have memory, alongside developed higher and lower brain functions."
The memory of fetuses is still in heavy dispute scientifically. From what I understand, sensory and short term memory MAYBE (more research still needed) and long-term CERTAINLY NOT. There is zero evidence of developed higher brain functions and, if lower brain functions are developed, they are certainly not used much by the fetus.

"If the mother is dead, a viable fetus can be removed alive within a short period of time and survive as an infant."
Wrong. You're probably thinking of an emergency birth, which can't be performed once the mother is fully dead because the fetus "dies" of shock.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Altarian Empire
Member Avatar
αδελφός
 *  *
Quote:
 
Three problems with this as a biological standard for life:
1 - it's too restrictive. Plenty of living things fail this standard.
2 - it's even more arbitrary than mine.
3 - it's different from your previous standard of functional equivalency. Having a developed system is not the same as having a functioning system.


Well, considering the fetus is composed of living cells, I'm pretty sure it immediately accounts as being "alive" regardless of its developmental stage. Arguing whether the fetus is alive or not is stupid - it's alive from conception. The question is whether a viable fetus is functionally equivalent to a baby, which it is. Once more, how is a fetus supposed to use a physiological respiratory system in a medium where there is no oxygen? If removed from the uterus, it can breathe. Once again, it has everything to do with the medium the fetus is in and nothing to do with its developmental status as an organism. Secondly, the fetus still undergoes cellular respiration, even in the uterus. If a person's lungs are destroyed and they are hooked up to a machine that oxygenates their blood for them, are they unliving by virtue of not having lungs to breathe with, despite having a fully functional body and mind otherwise?

Quote:
 
Speaking of which, I never can understand why anti-abortionists are so adamant life begins before birth, but never want to say mothers with stillborn babies are guilty of manslaughter. Logically, if they're right, then women with stillborn babies should be locked up in jail.


Err... because it doesn't meet the legal definition of manslaughter? That might be why...

Quote:
 
The memory of fetuses is still in heavy dispute scientifically. From what I understand, sensory and short term memory MAYBE (more research still needed) and long-term CERTAINLY NOT. There is zero evidence of developed higher brain functions and, if lower brain functions are developed, they are certainly not used much by the fetus.


No, the memory of fetuses is not in heavy dispute scientifically, and if you are going to claim this, you'd best offer a source that scientifically explains why fetuses don't have memory along with what percent of people disagree. My source states that 34 week fetuses were capable of remembering acoustic stimuli four weeks past the initiation of the experiment. That definitely seems like long term memory to me. The source also proves that fetuses have auditory senses. Do I need to provide sources for the other senses as well?

As for brain function, this source claims that EEG activity indicating lower brain function (brain stem) begins at 8 weeks, higher brain function (neocortex) at 22-24 weeks, and full consciousness at 32-36 weeks. Is that sufficient evidence for you? How would fetuses be capable of motor control without a functioning brain?

Quote:
 
Wrong. You're probably thinking of an emergency birth, which can't be performed once the mother is fully dead because the fetus "dies" of shock.


How are you defining "fully dead?"

Child born to mother with no pulse.

Child born to clinically/brain dead mother 9 weeks after "death."

This is completely within the realm of what I said - that a baby can be delivered for a short time after the death of the mother. The fetus does not instantly die when the mother is dead.
Edited by The Altarian Empire, Jun 6 2015, 09:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nordwalsh
Member Avatar
Οιδίπους
 *  *  *
*ducks under the gunfire and slides into a position behind cover next to Trio*

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll say I'm all for the woman making the choice however she wishes, but my feelings are that if the fetus is otherwise viable, she should have it, but she can still choose to abort if she wants.

*scurries back out*
Signature
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larsland
Γέροντας
 *  *  *
Yeah, I'm kinda afraid Alt and I are dominating this debate. I'll try to keep my responses brief.

A fetus does have living cells, but the life is the same as that of the mother. Clipping fingernails analogy again.
You keep saying functionally equivalent when even you agree it doesn't perform the same functions. At best it is only capable of the same functions.
If you support the right of women to remove things from their uterus, then we agree. The only difference is that I would support ANY safe procedure to do so.
Once life has begun for a person, if they need oxygen from a machine, I'm happy to consider them alive.
Manslaughter is killing a person with reduced culpability. During stillbirth, the fetus is killed by the mother giving birth unintentionally. Sounds the same to me.
Scientists have observed habits in fetuses, and not "memories" in the normal sense. Here's an explanatory article on your source debunking this idea that the memory systems in the brain are in any way well-formed at that age ( http://www.livescience.com/7796-fetal-memories-fast.html )
Your source on "brain death" actually has several pages dedicated to critiquing the idea of brain birth, and includes other figures from reputable societies showing those figures to be wrong. It argues a better standard is to consider life as a continuum.
Consciousness does not arise in the fetus and only begins to arise in a birthed baby, being developed after birth. Basic awareness of stimuli such as pain does not even arise until about 30 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726)
The brain indeed only begins to basically regulate most bodily functions around 30 weeks. Lungs, the heart - these things are simply not fully developed as you claim, and only the heart is doing anything really useful (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm)
Pretty amazingly, just because one part of your body is dead does not mean your whole body is dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ismaria
Member Avatar
αδελφός
 *  *
Don't really want to stir up any controversy, but I'll weigh my opinion.

I don't believe abortion is morally right, because from my perspective as a Catholic you're robbing an innocent of their life. I don't think the government should sanction abortions either. If you choose to have one, you should have to pay for it yourself, unless it's some sort of extreme situation (such as the pregnancy being the product of rape or extramarital sex). But, this is my personal opinion.

Outside of my relationship, people can do what they want. I'll choose whether or not I think it's responsible for myself and my relationship, and you can do the same for yours.
Naal Okvahlinro stahdim jah, mu kroniin!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply

-- ---


---