₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
This is a very controversial topic in the world today, whether abortion is a morally permissible action or not.
do you think it is or not?
Why?

MuttleyLaff:
It is a morally permissible action
I dont see why not, is why

darkchild64:
Personally I would wish people do not abort babies or rather fetuses,however I think in my own view and perspective of morality it is permissible

johnydon22:
Why?

darkchild64:
First I have to say this,I do not regard anything to be exclusively right or wrong,it's the circumstances that they occur in that make them bad or good.

Since we are talking about taking human lives,I would love to apply the first statement I made to it,what makes it wrong to take a human life and what could justify it ?,I wouldnt anwer that but like I said,the circumstances that they occur in gets to decide,so u shouldn't see taking of human life as inherently wrong.

Now to answer your question,I think that at the stage that most assisted abortions occur(1st trimester of pregnancy) the life in question here is that of a foetus which is still in its early developmental stages,yes its a potential human but so is a sperm and ovary so I would not accord it the same right as a grown person or even a baby.

At that stage the fetus can not even survive independently,so suffice to say it cannot do without the mother so I think the woman has the choice to say what stays in its body and what does not.

Then another point I would love to make is this,lets put sentiments apart,people abort because that don't want the baby,now I know in most cases the pregnancy could have been avoided but rather than have a child you are not prepared for,which might ruin your life and future,I guess its best to abort if the process is safe enough,in future you can always have as many children as you wish,I do not support bringing children into the world when its obvious you don't want them.

In cases of rape I think if the woman conceives she can abort the child if she wishes for obvious reasons.
I'm of the view that if abortion is legal it might be of the interest of the society,people wouldn't die of complications associated with abortions or damage their wombs.

CoolUsername:
I think there should be some form of threshold. A 5-week pregnancy is very different from a 5-month pregnancy-physiologically speaking. So, I'm a more comfortable when the abortion involves an early-term pregnancy. However, while I'm personally not cool with late-term abortions, I won't support legislation against it, and I won't tell others what to do.

CoolUsername:
I think there should be some form of threshold. A 5-week pregnancy is very different from a 5-month pregnancy-physiologically speaking. So, I'm a more comfortable when the abortion involves an early-term pregnancy.

However, while I'm personally not cool with late-term abortions, I won't support legislation against it, and I won't tell others what to do.

johnydon22:
Since there is a progression of your comfortability of "terminating" a human life.

johnydon22:
it is safe to assume that you'd be more comfortable killing say, a ten year old child than a 20 year since they are physiologically different. hierarchically of course.

johnydon22:
This is not an argument on legislation but on moral permissibility.

johnydon22:
So, why exactly are you not cool with late term abortions?

CoolUsername:
The distinction is where we begin to define it as 'human' life.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that an early-term feotus that doesn't have neurological faculties to process information, or feel pain shouldn't have the same rights as a fully formed child or even a late-term foetus.

Furthermore, foetuses with severe disabilities should not be forced on parents. Why subject a woman to a 9-month pregnancy when the child has the zika virus, for example?

I'm aware of that, which is why made that distinction.

Because they possess all the characteristics of a fully formed child.

This will create a slippery slope

So, a fetus is not a human yet?

Define human?

We are not talking about "rights" but moral implications.



And that begs the question: Is her decision to terminate it morally permissible (Not same thing legally permissible)

Why stop there? If i had a baby and it is directly affecting my productivity "ruining my life in a sense of it" am i morally permitted to kill it on this ground?

This is a misunderstanding, my question does not address the legal permissibility of abortion, it is rather a moral premise

darkchild64:
I don't think so

Yes,a fetus is a potential human not a human
The definitions of human being I saw stated "man woman and child",I don't consider a fetus that doesn't even have a well sectioned four chambered heart as a human(that's not my criteria),just saying that a fetus of a few weeks old does not qualify to be called a human,still has a lot of development, to undergo to reach such standards

"Rights" has an inextricable connection with morality,something seen as immoral would not be recognized as a "right" so I don't see any dichotomy,if someone has a right to do something then it is accepted to be moral

No
And that is because there is a difference between a 10 weeks old fetus and a baby(which is a human being)
Why stop there ?,you might as well see jerking off as tantamount to murder

Is it possible to legalize something that is accepted to be immoral ?

So, a human is not a state of being but a stage of being?

I could have sworn that "Human" is a state of being "a member of the homo sapien specie"

And such a being goes through developmental stages through the course of its life.

Not necessarily true. Legal rights and morality overlaps in some instances true, they are not necessarily the same.

And if a fetus is shown to be human, will it be murder then?

Yes

johnydon22:
Where? When does something become human?

You are suggesting that there are times when a human is not human?

Define Human?

johnydon22:
In other-word, any human that doesn't meet a certain degree of neurological capability is ok to be killed?

johnydon22:
Why stop there? Can't we go ahead and morally permit parents killing children with physical disabilities? Like; when your child comes down with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, why not go ahead and kill it instead of continuing raising a vegetable child? Why isn't this morally permissible? Why should parents be obligated to raise such children?

And what is the distinction of the moral implications in both instances?

darkchild64:
I would say both.

but if one is not satisfied then you won't refer to the subject in question as a human,in this case a fetus does not satisfy the criteria to be called a human physiologically speaking,you don't say something is what it is if it doesn't possess certain characteristics,one major characteristic that human beings have is respiration, and as basic as this is a fetus can not conveniently do so if extracted from the mother's womb,I can't call such a human being,although a fetus may seem defenseless and delicate but we shouldn't let our minds get clouded with sentiments, a fetus especially in its early terms is not qualified to be referred to as a human being because it doesn't have the qualities a human being has

Of course they are not exactly the same,that's why they are different words,but morality is open to a lot of interpretation while legality is not,a thing can only be made legal if it is accepted to be moral that's my point,people would always argue about what is right and wrong but making it legal makes a very strong claim that it is right.

If a fetus is seen as a human,then yes,taking human life is murder except in certain conditions

Would you be kind enough to give me an instance

CoolUsername:
No. I'm simply saying that a non-human isn't human.

A week-old feotus has the physiological and neurological capacity of a tadpole.

A a foetus doesn't possess self-awareness before the 23rd week or so. It is an unconscious being,

The level of brain activity in foetus before about the 20th week is similar to that of a brain-dead person.

So yes, any human who doesn't meet a certain degree of neurological capability is as good as dead, that is already how it is.

That's different, though. I used Zika as an extreme example because kids with zika don't make it past the first hour of life. I don't believe that a disability is a good reason for abortion but I also don't believe that anyone should be forced to raise a child born (note the emphasis) with something like down's syndrome.

On the other hand, a healthy child coming down with a degenerative disorder is different because the child is free-living, meaning it is no longer subject to its mother's body autonomy.

tintingz:
Abortion can be morally permissible when the carrier doesn't want the child, we don't want babies seen dead in the waste bin or in the gutter or becoming homeless, it's better to terminate it at early stage of pregnancy.

johnydon22:
How are they different?

Why is one morally permitted and the other not?

So, moral permissibility is grounded on the basis of "Want"?

tintingz:
There are differences, one is not completely developed while one is completely developed.

When we go into moral dilemma, it's better to terminate the embryo or fetus rather than killing a full developed baby.

Sometimes yes, e.g a rape victim who got pregnant to a rapist should be granted her "wants" to terminate the pregnancy.

Is morality not what's consensually "want" by the people?

I think you are making the mistake of reducing what a human is to a single vague criteria.

A human simply means "A member of the homo sapiens specie. And this as a biological classification is fundamentally genetical not physiological.[quote]In other words a sperm is also a human since it contains the genetic component that humans are and up of,I think that shows the flaw in ur statement

[quote]Are you saying that a man who by any situation cannot respirate is not human?
Are you saying that a dog who can respirate is a human?

See the problem with such ambiguous arbitrary criteria?



So i ask again; Define human?

How is a fetus not human?

Use of mind or mood altering drugs.

Usage of some words which are legal under the principles of free speech. example "Go fuuuck yourself'

darkchild64:
Hitherto,I have not giving u a set of criteria to explain why I consider a fetus as not being human,I only mention some of them in the course of my explanation that is not to say that they are the solo reason for my stance

I can not give you a specific definition,but like I said earlier human beings include men women and children,a fetus is not a human because it doesn't have most of the important characteristics that a mam,a woman and a child has

I hope you know how we landed here and if I understand what you are saying now Mind or mood altering drugs are legalized,but how are they immoral ?
" Go Bleep yourself" is not immoral by my own standards, depending on the usage tho,this is why I said that circumstances determine if a thing is right or n

johnydon22:
So, moral permissibility is contingent on developmental stage?

Doesn't this necessitate a hierarchical order of permissible preferences? Like; I'd rather you terminate a day old baby than a 1 year old.

Why not always?

It is an intersubjective consensus that "murder" is wrong. Abortion is an isolated case related to that premise.

tintingz:
The early fetus is not fully human, a day old baby is fully human.

We don't know yet when a fetus is alive

If the carrier doesn't want it, why should she wait for 9 month to deliver the baby and later find the baby in the gutter dead?

Circumstances play roles in our lives and humans are not perfect.

If a group of people said they want something to be morally permissible , it can be archived, were you not the one that talked about "social myth"?

johnydon22:
I will like to know the biological definition of human.

A human simply means "A member of the homo sapiens specie. And this as a biological classification is fundamentally genetical not physiological or neurological.

johnydon22:
Are you saying that a man who by any situation is not self aware is not human?
Are you saying that any other specie that is self aware is a human?

johnydon22:
See the problem with such ambiguous arbitrary criteria?

johnydon22:
So i ask again; Define human?

How is a fetus not human?

johnydon22:
because obviously physiological or neurological criteria do not define "human"

johnydon22:
Sources?

So, a fetus is comparable to a comatose then?

And is human a neurological state?

Does any life form that attain such so called neurological capability qualify as human?

What neurological capability is your benchmark to measure what is human?

And oh, a dead person is actually human, just dead.

johnydon22:
So, parents of children with down syndrome are morally permitted to kill them then or morally excused not to kill them?

So, there are instances that parents should not kill a child even when it is clearly disordered or direct obstacle to their development?

Martinez19:


It depends on the stage of development of the embryo

If it's still a cleavage of cells, then it's not immoral to wipe it off

because it's in the same category of a spermatozoa and we know it's not immoral to masturbate even though we waste spermatozoa cells (which have potential to become humans). Both have no consciousness or feelings and they are just cells.

if it has already formed a heart, then na human being be dat, no try am

johnydon22:
my guy, do you rest at all?

Martinez19:


It depends on the stage of development of the embryo

If it's still a cleavage of cells, then it's not immoral to wipe it off because it's in the same category of a spermatozoa and we know it's not immoral to masturbate even though we waste spermatozoa cells (which have potential to become humans). Both have no consciousness or feelings and they are just cells.

if it has already formed a heart, then na human being be dat, no try am

johnydon22:
This is the part i ask; define "human?"

Actually we do. And a fetus is always alive until it is killed by either natural or man imposed circumstances.

The point is; why do you weigh them morally as different?

Both entails premeditated termination of a human offspring.

Can i use this to infer moral permissibility to become an armed robber?

Yes i am. And if you understand the intricacies of human social interactions, you would know this is an oversimplification.