It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What they told you isn't necessarily what I would tell you. I'll extend you the same courtesy.
I feel like I've done a pretty good job at keeping things civil and as objective as my mind permits, and yet your posts towards me are tinged with hostility and condescension. I'd so much rather have a dialogue and address arguments for the sake of understanding each others positions.
Rationally speaking;
We've ALL established that it is a human being.
We've also ALL established that it is alive.
Abortion ends the life if a living human being.
I can't get any more rational than that.
Sentient creatures have the capacity to suffer.
Ending the life of sentient creatures is immoral because they suffer.
The fetus becomes sentient once necessary neurological development occurs.
Ending the life of the fetus prior to that development is amoral since they don't suffer.
Most abortions occur prior to that stage of neural development.
Therefore most abortions are of no moral consequence.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: DBCowboy
I own everything I just said in that argument I presented...
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Not all fetuses are healthy. Very few will survive at 20 weeks. Not all fetuses will achieve viability at 30 weeks. Sometimes, a fetus may be alive, but it still won't ever achieve viability. No matter how much its mother and father want them.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Certainly, the potential life of an individual begins at conception. But, life itself is a closed system, that neither begins or ends, as far as we understand. A lot of things have to happen before a fertilized egg becomes a born person. One of those things is the mother's permission.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
...
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...
...
A mother who drowned her newborn son in a sink before leaving her home to write a university exam will not spend time behind bars, though a judge described her actions as "abhorrent."
Courtney Saul was sentenced to two years' probation in provincial court in Kamloops, B.C.
Saul was a student at Thompson Rivers University when her baby, George Carlos, was born on Dec. 15, 2011.
Kamloops woman who killed baby before writing university exam sentenced (to probation)
...
Infanticide Should Be Legalized
The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified.
...
BTW, this perfectly shows how the "sentience" argument made by ATS member "Lucid Lunacy" can in fact be used in favor for infanticide.
because there isn't much difference between the unborn and newborns...
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
The US Law defines infanticide to pertain to newborns.
Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child. link
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
What I am talking about takes place prior to birth, and in fact prior to a particular stage in the gestation period. So you are completely misrepresenting what I have said multiple times in this thread.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I ask again, and I don't understand why it's so damn difficult to get an answer from people, what is the underlying reason for your moral position. Mine is based on sentience. What is yours based on?? Science? Theology? What?
You are making an argument that at a time "you" specify
yet before that time there is already brain wave activity for several weeks in the unborn.
For what reason would I have written that "human life begins at conception"?
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
That's just factually wrong. There is a huge difference between the moment of conception and birth. There are stages of development. Stages of development of the central nervous system... the very thing that gives rise to the ability to be conscious and to suffer. Both what it means to 'be human', I would think, and where a moral argument would start. Of course there is a difference. To suggest otherwise is to say brain development is not a factor in this moral argument! So again, what is your ethical position based on if not human biology?
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
I even gave direct links and excerpts which you seemed to ignore.
You want to argue that "sentience starts at 18-25 weeks"despite the fact that we can detect brain wave activity
. The human brain and body continues to develop until we are about 21 years old. So we are not really a fully formed human being until at least we are 21 years old.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
...
The immature neural structures indeed register activity on the EEG, but the science says those early stages of neural development are not sufficient for the emergence of sentience. That does not occur until later neural development.
...
A new born is also in the early stages of neural development
and as I wrote earlier the human brain continues changing
A newborn can not properly communicate as a sentient being
I have also based my argument on what science says that "human life begins."
That's all that matters to me, when "human life begins."
While I am a neuroscience student, I don't claim to be anything close to an authority.