Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[epronovost]

@epronovost I will now rest my case... until the end of 2022.
Research now shows that preborn babies can feel pain very early — by 8 weeks

Unfortunately, you failed to properly vet your sources. The study this article quote doesn't support the idea that fetus feel pain. They refer to the fact that fetus as young as 8 weeks old possess a partially constructed nervous system that allows for sensorial experience and some limited reflex action. Nerveous tissue capable of perceibing touch do appear at around 8 weeks old, but your limbs don't feel pain. Pain is a psychological experience. The cortex isn't fully developped yet (and won't be until several weeks after birth) and the spinal system isn't either. In other words, while a fetus that young is sensitive to touch, it has no sensorial experience. This study doesn't conclude that 8 weeks old fetus are conscious or that they can experience pain and suffering. Your source uses a scientific finding that wasn't novel and try to spin it into something that it's not. Also, the Silent Scream is a propaganda movie that used visual effects to achieve its goal. It speeds up, rewinds and speed up again the action to give the impression that the fetus of its own instead of moving due to the aspiration.

Fetal Pain

Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says

 

[nPeace]

It's sad that so many people are so heartless, and then pretend that they are so moral without God.
They act more inhumane than serial killers.... more viscious than animals, and then pat themselves on the back.
How sad.
UK RESEARCH SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY THAT FETUSES FEEL PAIN

Thankfully, some people are willing to admit their ignorant unintelligence, when they humble themselves in the face of clear evidence, or proof.

 

[nPeace]

Unfortunately, you failed to properly vet your sources. The study this article quote doesn't support the idea that fetus feel pain. They refer to the fact that fetus as young as 8 weeks old possess a partially constructed nervous system that allows for sensorial experience and some limited reflex action. Nerveous tissue capable of perceibing touch do appear at around 8 weeks old, but your limbs don't feel pain. Pain is a psychological experience. The cortex isn't fully developped yet (and won't be until several weeks after birth) and the spinal system isn't either. In other words, while a fetus that young is sensitive to touch, it has no sensorial experience. This study doesn't conclude that 8 weeks old fetus are conscious or that they can experience pain and suffering. Your source uses a scientific finding that wasn't novel and try to spin it into something that it's not. Also, the Silent Scream is a propaganda movie that used visual effects to achieve its goal. It speeds up, rewinds and speed up again the action to give the impression that the fetus of its own instead of moving due to the aspiration.

Fetal Pain

Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says

If pain is subjective, you cannot determine that your assertions are correct.
So no. You are not right, just because you want to be.
The research shows that you are dead wrong.

 

[epronovost]

In my opinion that is not even relevant, there are many ways to kill a human painlessly but it is still wrong.

Many humans don’t feel pain in this moment (people that are in coma or under the effect of anesthesia) but killing them is still wrong.

The point isn't so much about pain then it is about harm. The fact that fetus early in their development has no consciousness thus cannot be harmed. A person under anesthesia can be harmed for it's conscious (as a general characteristic not as a state of awarness). Also, putting someone under anesthesia against their will and for a specific purpose on which they agreed for is harming them and morally wrong and criminally liable.

 

[leroy]

The point isn't so much about pain then it is about harm. The fact that fetus early in their development has no consciousness thus cannot be harmed. A person under anesthesia can be harmed for it's conscious (as a general characteristic not as a state of awarness). Also, putting someone under anesthesia against their will and for a specific purpose on which they agreed for is harming them and morally wrong and criminally liable.

A person under anesthesia is not conscious (at least not in that exact moment) sure they will be conscious in the future, but not now. (the same is true with the fetus)

What exactly do you mean with harm?

 

[epronovost]

If pain is subjective, you cannot determine that your assertions are correct.
So no. You are not right, just because you want to be.
The research shows that you are dead wrong.

Pain is subjective as an experience, not as a phenomenon. As a phenomenon it's a nervous stimulus transmitted by nerve ending, to the spine and processed and analysed by the brain. How your brain analyses it and perceives it precisely is subjective, but the rest is not. A 8 weeks old fetus cannot analyse the stimulus of its nerves since these various elements are too underdevelopped and unconnected at that point and time. At 18 weeks a fetus can feel pain and have pain reaction. At 28 weeks old a fetus can have a the full experience of pain, that is with an emotional reaction and the subjective experience that comes with it. At 8 weeks old a fetus can feel, at 18 weeks old it can hurt, at 28 weeks old it can suffer. You cannot harm that which cannot hurt, let alone which cannot suffer.

 

[epronovost]

A person under anesthesia is not conscious (at least not in that exact moment) sure they will be conscious in the future, but not now. (the same is true with the fetus)

You will note that a person under anesthesia was conscious prior to it, unlike the fetus which has yet to develop a will of its own. The person who is under anesthesia is placed in an altered state too. Meanwhile, being unconscious is basically the natural and essential state of a fetus. Those are important and capital distinction. What will happen in the future is speculation, but what happen in the past is not.

What exactly do you mean with harm?

To make suffer; cause pain and/or distress.

 

[nPeace]

The point isn't so much about pain then it is about harm. The fact that fetus early in their development has no consciousness thus cannot be harmed. A person under anesthesia can be harmed for it's conscious (as a general characteristic not as a state of awarness). Also, putting someone under anesthesia against their will and for a specific purpose on which they agreed for is harming them and morally wrong and criminally liable.

Does it matter if you harm someone without causing them pain... or cause them pain while harming them? What difference does it make?
It seems you are using consciousness as a back door, but you have not demonstrated that argument to have any basis, at all.
Whether one is unconscious, or conscious is not the issue.
Would it be okay to kick a person who is blind drunk, or rape a girl who is knocked out by drugs?
Your argument is not a valid one.

Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus
In the dawn of molecular diagnostics and genomics, several scientific studies have shown links between specific genotypes or gene expression to intelligence. One study found that gene expression of RFK, RPL12, and RMRP genes influence intelligence, as measured by an intelligence quotient test (Yu et al. 2012, 270–85). Another study found that variants in the HMGA2 gene also had an impact on intelligence (Stein et al. 2012, 552–61).

The studies support the notion of the contribution of specific genes to human intelligence. Given the genetic component of intelligence, it stands that a combination of numerous genes is expressed to produce the intelligence phenotype. It is likely that many of the genes that contribute to intelligence have yet to be discovered. Shi and Wu describe the expression of genes at several stages in the pre-implantation embryo: fertilization, cleavage, morula, and blastocyst (Shi and Wu 2009). Genes are not expressed solely after birth; genes including those related to intelligence are expressed in parental gametes, at the single-cell zygote stage, and throughout all prenatal stages. Intelligence then is a capacity that is developing and present in an individual even before birth and potentially as early as fertilization. Thus, the intelligence criterion does not preclude personhood status before birth, at fertilization, or at an earlier stage of development.

 

[leroy]

You will note that person under anesthesia was conscious prior to it, unlike the fetus which has yet to develop a will of its own. The person who is under anesthesia is placed in an altered state too while, being unconscious is basically the natural and essential state of a fetus.]

a dead person had conscious prior to his death, but there is nothing wrong will burning a dead person.

My point is that the relevant thing is the future; if the person is going to be conscious in the future then his life is important. (the past has no relevance)

[/To make suffer; cause pain and/or distress.

A person in coma doesnt feel pain, nor suffers nor feels distress,

My point is that a persons life has value and killing is wrong despite the fact that he might not suffer

 

[nPeace]

Pain is subjective as an experience, not as a phenomenon. As a phenomenon it's a nervous stimulus transmitted by nerve ending, to the spine and processed and analysed by the brain. How your brain analyses it and perceives it precisely is subjective, but the rest is not. A 8 weeks old fetus cannot analyse the stimulus of its nerves since these various elements are too underdevelopped and unconnected at that point and time. At 18 weeks a fetus can feel pain and have pain reaction. At 28 weeks old a fetus can have a the full experience of pain, that is with an emotional reaction and the subjective experience that comes with it. At 8 weeks old a fetus can feel, at 18 weeks old it can hurt, at 28 weeks old it can suffer. You cannot harm that which cannot hurt, let alone which cannot suffer.

That's not what the data shows.
That's an opinion, and since there is no consensus on it in science, you just choose to convince yourself of that.

Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 12 weeks gestation and may even be felt as early as eight weeks.

Dr. Caplan argued that because there is no consensus in the scientific community about when a fetus can experience pain, a law requiring doctors to claim that a fetus experiences pain from 20 weeks on “would not only be poor public policy, it would set a terrible precedent for other topics where Congress might choose to mandate disclosures about ‘facts’ for political or even ethical reasons which have no foundation in science or medicine.”

But as with other scientific matters that involve reproductive technologies – and research – the issue of when the fetus feels pain has become highly politicized.

If you disagree, you are under obligation to produce the data, otherwise.

 

[epronovost]

Does it matter if you harm someone without causing them pain... or cause them pain while harming them? What difference does it make?
It seems you are using consciousness as a back door, but you have not demonstrated that argument to have any basis, at all.
Whether one is unconscious, or conscious is not the issue.

I clearly did. I based my acceptance of abortion as a morally acceptable act on the basis that it doesn't break the ''no harm axiom'' of morality. It's immoral to harm people, but since fetuses, at least those prior to 12 weeks old at the very least, cannot be harmed for they cannot be hurt, nor suffer nor have any form of will, desire, dreams, social impact and relationships, it's not immoral to kill them when their existence threatens to harm another human.

Would it be okay to kick a person who is blind drunk, or rape a girl who is knocked out by drugs?
Your argument is not a valid one.

I already answered that multiple times. These are consciouness states; they are temporary and do not suspend your will. A fetus doesn't have a will. it doesn't desire anything. It's not a sensitive nor a sensible creature. At least not at that point and time.

Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus
In the dawn of molecular diagnostics and genomics, several scientific studies have shown links between specific genotypes or gene expression to intelligence. One study found that gene expression of RFK, RPL12, and RMRP genes influence intelligence, as measured by an intelligence quotient test (Yu et al. 2012, 270–85). Another study found that variants in the HMGA2 gene also had an impact on intelligence (Stein et al. 2012, 552–61).

The studies support the notion of the contribution of specific genes to human intelligence. Given the genetic component of intelligence, it stands that a combination of numerous genes is expressed to produce the intelligence phenotype. It is likely that many of the genes that contribute to intelligence have yet to be discovered. Shi and Wu describe the expression of genes at several stages in the pre-implantation embryo: fertilization, cleavage, morula, and blastocyst (Shi and Wu 2009). Genes are not expressed solely after birth; genes including those related to intelligence are expressed in parental gametes, at the single-cell zygote stage, and throughout all prenatal stages. Intelligence then is a capacity that is developing and present in an individual even before birth and potentially as early as fertilization. Thus, the intelligence criterion does not preclude personhood status before birth, at fertilization, or at an earlier stage of development.

The idea that a characteristics can be determined by genetics doesn't mean you possess it. A fetus has a gene for hair color well before it as hair. As the passage yyou just quoted mentions clearly, intelligence is a characteristics that is expressed and is determined by genetics, epigenetics, developmental and acquired through life experience. Fetuses aren't intelligent, they hold genes that will impact their intelligence in later stages of life in addition to their developmental circumstances, their environment and their actual life experiences.

 

[epronovost]

a dead person had conscious prior to his death, but there is nothing wrong will burning a dead person.

Actually mutilating or otherwise damaging or mishandling a cadavre is widely considered wrong. Cadavres are afforded respect and care in light of their past as formerly conscious humans with social bonds, impact and importence. They must be disposed off properly and in accordance to their will and that of those who had bonds with them.

My point is that a persons life has value and killing is wrong despite the fact that he might not suffer

It has value thanks to its prior life. What makes a life valuable is it's consciousness. Without it, life is just a complex chemical reaction amongst others like fire for example. A baby has a consciousness, so does a late term fetus and so do drunk, comatose (in many cases, there is always the case of people so crippled they are in perpetual coma) and anesthetised people. Underdevelopped fetuses don't have that characteristic. They might acquire it later on if the pregnancy goes well, but they don't have it yet. Until then, they cannot be harmed and don't possess what makes life, especially human life, valuable.

 

[nPeace]

I clearly did. I based my acceptance of abortion as a morally acceptable act on the basis that it doesn't break the ''no harm axiom'' of morality. It's immoral to harm people, but since fetuses, at least those prior to 12 weeks old at the very least, cannot be harmed for they cannot be hurt, nor suffer nor have any form of will, desire, dreams, social impact and relationships.



I already answered that multiple times. These are consciouness states; they are temporary and do not suspend your will. A fetus doesn't have a will. it doesn't desire anything. It's not a sensitive nor a sensible creature. At least not at that point and time.

prior to 12 weeks old at the very least ???
Ha ha. there is the clear evidence that you don't care about this issue. You just want to believe what you want, regardless of what the evidence shows.
12 weeks or less - even 8 weeks.... and it does not stop there, because science works like that.
Your desired conclusions don't.

 

[epronovost]

prior to 12 weeks old at the very least ???
Ha ha. there is the clear evidence that you don't care about this issue. You just want to believe what you want, regardless of what the evidence shows.
12 weeks or less - even 8 weeks.... and it does not stop there, because science works like that.
Your desired conclusions don't.

I don't think you understand what you are talking about and are frantically grasping at straws there. You possess all of your genes from day 1 after fecondation, but you are not your genes; not any more than a cake is flour. Your genes, in combination with your developmental history and environment as well your life experiences makes ''you''. Your blood isn't you even though it holds full copies of your genes. Having the genes that will make it so that you will one day be conscious (provided all goes well) doesn't mean your are conscious. In the same fashion, it's not because you are going to die that you are a cadavre.

All of this is irrelevent to the fact that fetus prior to 12 weeks old do not have a consciousness and thus cannot be harmed. Thus killing them is no more immoral than eating an apple or picking a flower.

 

[nPeace]

I don't think you understand what you are talking about and are frantically grasping at straws there. You possess all of your genes from day 1 after fecondation, but you are not your genes; not any more than a cake is flour. Your genes, in combination with your developmental history and environment as well your life experiences makes ''you''. Your blood isn't you even though it holds full copies of your genes. Having the genes that will make it so that you will one day be conscious (provided all goes well) doesn't mean your are conscious. In the same fashion, it's not because you are going to die that you are a cadavre.

What does this have to do with the fact that it's not at the most 12 weeks, as you asserted, but 12 weeks or less - even eight week, and could be less, since science does not conclude anything?

@epronovost I leave you with this.
I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. If I thought you were at least being reasonable, it would make a difference.... I gave you data. Not straws. You dismiss it... because it does not fit into your wants.

Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 12 weeks gestation and may even be felt as early as eight weeks.

Dr. Caplan argued that because there is no consensus in the scientific community about when a fetus can experience pain, a law requiring doctors to claim that a fetus experiences pain from 20 weeks on “would not only be poor public policy, it would set a terrible precedent for other topics where Congress might choose to mandate disclosures about ‘facts’ for political or even ethical reasons which have no foundation in science or medicine.”

Take care.

 

[leroy]

Actually mutilating or otherwise damaging or mishandling a cadavre is widely considered wrong

Ok but not nearly as wrong as killing a person.

It has value thanks to its prior life. What makes a life valuable is it's consciousness. Without it, life is just a complex chemical reaction amongst others like fire for example. A baby has a consciousness, so does a late term fetus and so do drunk, comatose (in many cases, there is always the case of people so crippled they are in perpetual coma) and anesthetised people. Underdevelopped fetuses don't have that characteristic. They might acquire it later on if the pregnancy goes well, but they don't have it yet. Until then, they cannot be harmed and don't possess what makes life, especially human life, valuable.

As long as a human will have conscious in the future his life would be valuable,,,,,,,,do you agree with this point?

It has value thanks to its prior life

.
Ok but prior consciousness is less important than future consciousness…………..agree?

 

[nPeace]

In my opinion that is not even relevant, there are many ways to kill a human painlessly but it is still wrong.

Many humans don’t feel pain in this moment (people that are in coma or under the effect of anesthesia) but killing them is still wrong.

It's relevant to the conversation I was having with @epronovost. It had nothing to do with your conversation with him.

 

[1213]

... In that sense, during those months, it is essentially biologically a parasite.

If so, anyone who doesn’t survive on his own, is a parasite. I think it is wrong to call humans, even if they are not yet born, parasites.

 

[SomeRandom]

If so, anyone who doesn’t survive on his own, is a parasite. I think it is wrong to call humans, even if they are not yet born, parasites.

Fetuses actually are by definition. The word parasite is neutral. That a fetus is one doesn’t necessarily mean that said fetus is evil or anything. It’s just a biological entity that lives inside of another’s body and uses the same nutrients/food/etc of said body. That’s quite literally the definition of parasite

 

[epronovost]

Ok but not nearly as wrong as killing a person.

You are perfectly correct (unless we talk about the rare occasion were killing a person is defensible like legitimate defense cases)

As long as a human will have conscious in the future his life would be valuable,,,,,,,,do you agree with this point?

I think you are trying to draw a false equivalence between two different usage of consciousness.

When I say, fetuses are not consciousness. I am talking about a fundamental characterisitc. You could replace it by the term ''will/free will'' if you prefer; it wouldn't be quite exact, but close enough.

I am not talking about a state of awareness as opposed to asleep for example.

Ok but prior consciousness is less important than future consciousness…………..agree?

No it's not, unless we are talking about an intermediary state of being instead of a fundamental characteristic.