Abortion is not killing of anyone; abortion is to abort the biological process which would eventually yield a human being. A body without consciousness is not a human being, human is both body and mind*, body alone is never a human being; it's just a lump of organs, whether living or not. Consciousness never exists before the fetus is delivered, and anything done to the fetus before that is not an action that is done to a human being. Ascribing a "sacred" status to a functioning organ has nothing to do with science or morality; it is based on a religious myth that tells the dwelling of a mythical entity, named "soul", in that functioning organ. This myth distinguished a functioning organ from a non functioning one by the dwelling of a "soul" in the functioning organ and the departing of a "soul" from the non functioning one. By connecting this "soul" here on earth to that "God" who is up in heaven, since they are both not perceivable, the functioning organ became "sacred" and life became a "miracle" of "God". Clearly this whole myth has nothing to do with science or logic, science distinguishes a functioning organ with the persistence of chemical reactions not with the presence of a "soul". Life in science is metabolism; life in classical religion is "God". Therefore, the claim that aborting a fetus, that has never been conscious, is an offense against a human being is not true. Abortion is an offense against religion which holds that mere metabolism is sacred. Abortion may also be questioned from the side of whether not wanting a new human being to exist is moral or not. But it is definitely not a harm done to any existing human being, and so can't be deemed as an offense to anybody. *In fact, human is only mind, but this is philosophy.
Does 1 month old baby have consciousness? Can killing a 1 month baby be considered an abortion in an extended sense?
you can take this a step further by saying a person isn't alive until they become aware of their consciousness.
You mean it isn't moral to kill people in their sleep? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've been watching ultasound video of abortion with vacuum technique. The most horrific thing I've ever seen. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is consciousness definitely. The way how fetus placed his arms in defensive pose and moved his/her little body to evade vacuum tube... Just horrible.
As noted by others, at what point do we become human? The moment of birth is a convenient point in the growth from zygote to adult to mark the point at which humanity is achieved. However, convenient does not necessarily equate to correct. As temur remarks how does killing a one month old baby differ from killing a seven month old fetus? Where do you draw the line? Most societies prohibit murder because it prevents the victim from realising their potential. In that regard abortion takes on the appearance of the ultimate murder. And therefore, as noted, individuals who are asleep, or in a coma, or drugged, may safely be killed since, they are not conscious. You may counter that they are not conscious at the moment, but the same may be said of the fetus - it is not conscious at the moment, but given the opportunity it will become conscious. Well this is just plain wrong. Consciousness is an elusive property, but it most certainly does not spring into existence upon birth. The level of consciousness of a newborn is extremely limited, but it is indiscernable from the level of consciousness present in the womb. If your case is to be argued on the presence or absence of consciousness then you will have to permit post natal abortions up to the age of six months, or a year, or two, depending upon the level of consciousness you require to define a human. And if you say any level defines the human, then you wil have to prohibit abortion for all but the earliest months of fetal life. This fits the philosophical category of utter bilge, a subset of the one titled crap. Point 1: The fetus is not an organ, it is an assembly of organs. Its humanity is an emergent property of this assembly. Point 2: No religious myth is involved in the view that believes it is positive (and human) to give all entities a chance to realise their potential. Hence, your subsequent paragraphs, which used this myth based argument, are flawed.
But that argument can be extended to banning contraception, or in Monty Python's words: "Every sperm is sacred". Where is the line drawn then? :shrug:
Correct, it is a difficult ethical issue. But the line most certainly should not be drawn at an arbitrary event such as birth, as Hani seems determined to do.
Well yes, Hani's argument (metabolism isn't sacred) could probably be extended to allowing anyone to be killed, provided they're asleep at the time, or maybe not even that . . . I find it silly that anyone can say a 9 month old foetus has no right to life while a murderer does, but that's what happens when people paint things in black and white.
1 month old baby has consciousness. consciousness, and true life beginns when the baby cries for the first time. I don't think so. a sleeping person has consciousness, it's just temporarily absent. well science doesn't say that, not everything that moves is conscious.
Ophiolite: There is a difference between somebody who has been conscious before and one that has never been conscious yet. The first "was there" and thus he had his real existence which should be respected, he is temporarily absent and you can't decide his fate for him because he has been a real existing human being who might be "back". A fetus has never existed yet, and thus he is nothing, and if you chose to bring him to existence is a matter that concerns you, and maybe humanity in general, but it doesn't concern him because he is nothing. He is a potential human being not a real existing one. Abortion is absolutely no different from taking a contraception pill, or even abstaining from having sex. If we should look at "not producing human beings" as a crime then we should not only prevent contraception, but we should also be producing humans as much as we can and in everyway we can, even by artificial fertilization, since not bringing potential humans to life would be immoral. This is not a sane proposition, but surprisingly it is what religion demands; to bring as much people as we can to life!
i think that abortion should be aloud, however i think it's cruler but if the mother does not want the baby we should not make her have it.
I think the existence of that response sums up the inequities of the consciousness argument. Abortion...is murder.
Hmm. I would imagine so, really. The alternative of course is the death of the baby. One could take the view that it's unwanted biological material; yet, so are many things that go unremoved, and not to the actual detriment of their hosts or carriers.
but thats like me forcing you to care for some cat that you realy dont want well a litle diffrent well alot of difference its a very hard subject if only there was a way to tak e the fetus out and give it to some who actuly wants the baby
