The fine line between living and unliving.
 

On the debate of abortion, people constantly debate on whether it is killing of a baby.

Personally, I am pro-choice, and I honestly think that it is the woman's choice.

However, when does the line into becoming "alive" happen? The full development of the nervous system and vital organs, or when it is fully a fetus?

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

what is alive? Are plants alive? Are ants alive? If something doesn't have the capability to exibit conciousness, does that make it not alive? What is conciousness to you? Would you consider ants to have it, or is it something a "higher" organism has?

If something doesn't have a conciousness, does that make it okay to destroy? Why or why not? There are lots of questions, many of which people gloss over when it comes to the whole abortion issue.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

I set the line at cognitive function. The ability to think and make choices is what separates us and animals from trees.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

ABORTION!!!!!!!!!! WHeE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What?

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

People hate when I give this answer but in my opinion it is at the age where the child exhibits consciousness, can sustain memories, and has demonstrated some form of linguistic development. Those are three unique characteristics among human beings. There are monkeys and dolphins that display higher cognitive function than most infants yet it is okay for us to use those animals for experiments (that is a philosophical argument against animal cruelty so it's a bit off topic). Children from birth to roughly age four are closer to our fellow mammals than to us they have no moral compass and lack a concrete sense of identity. If you were to take away one of a very young child's senses or perform an evil deed on a child (e.g. molestation) ideas of what happened will most likely be planted deep within their subconscious but chances are when they mature they will have no idea what happened or how it felt. Infants are blank slates ready to be influenced by the outside world. Their emotions are mostly biological no matter how much we try to insert our own thoughts and motives onto their actions: they have no love, sense of fulfillment, or fear of death in a transcendent, metaphysical, or philosophical sense of those ideas.

However, if the person who I'm talking to hasn't written me off as a complete heartless psychopath by this point in the conversation I point out that even though it seems like I'm dehumanizing infants when I speak of them like this, even with my doubt in moral absolutes if I had to pick one thing I think everyone has a right to, through the statistical miracle of the universe, it is life. And life should be preserved and enjoyed as thoroughly as possible for as many people as possible, that includes future members of mankind as well, and our fellow kingdoms in the biosphere.

Of course my definition of human is far from perfect and just like @PlatonicZombie pointed out it raises a bunch of philosophical questions that get ignored but even before that there are practical objections: how do you define linguistic development, how many signs of self awareness are required to be considered conscious, how can we know when someone first gains long term memory. Then we have to set even more arbitrary standards which can be challenged for decades and people still wouldn't be satisfied.

At the end of the day we should stop focusing on the problem of abortion which is so legally, philosophically, and scientifically tedious and ambiguous to debate and keep working on preventative measures for pregnancy, leaving people on their own accord to decide the fate of the unborn child with punitive measures being taken for those who abuse the system (so no slippery slope argument from the other side).

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Alive? I thought the issue was at what point it's actually human. Alive? If all your organs must be functioning and your cognition be in full gear to be considered alive, then I'm not alive. I'm fairly certain that despite all the oddities and gray areas present at unicellular levels and with viruses that science and medicine still have a much firmer grasp of what's living and what is not, so using that as a relation to abortion seems laughably stupid.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

When talking about abortion the debate is not about if the fetus is alive. It is about when the fetus is considered a person.

Living. Yes. Yes. No.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Trees are alive you know. Ask any tree person dude.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

I don't really have an onion on it, though when I think of it, I am not for it. For me personally, if it just a fetus with no heart beat then fine go for it. But once it has a heart beat, I am not for it. I mean, hell, that person could be the one that changes the way we think. Weather you got pregnant from being rapped or you were stupid and did not use a condom, that person would be the one.

But I never thought about it before, so I may be sounding like a huge jackass right now :L

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Most arguments against abortion say that "you're killing a living being!"

What I'm asking is, when does a developing fetus count as being "alive?" When will it be to the point it won't count as human murder?

And yes, another question was if it was actually human. I guess I worded it wrong. But I'm basically asking what the fine line between it being a living human being or not is.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Technically, it is human. Its wrong because it develops into a person, not like a plant which in any state will never gain higher cognitive function

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

What if the baby is shown that it will not develop mentally? Is it then okay?

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Question

Are Zombies living beings?

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Answer


Yes... `:)

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

I look at it this way, that un-born baby, in 50 years, could have found a cure for cancer. Or they could have found a way to stop Global Warming, etc. We shouldn't take that away from the world, no matter what your situation is. If you can't handle a baby or parenthood, you should put the child up for adaption or find a secure plan that will help you in the long-term. NOT, murder it.

So no, maybe the baby isn't 'alive' when its first conceived, BUT, in 20 years it could be VERY alive and changing the world.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Or it could be the next Hitler or Manson...

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

When it morally effects you.

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Thats very true, but it's a risk worth taking. Would you say "I'm going to kill my child before its born becuse it might be Hitlers reincarnation."?

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Going by that, one could as well just make children and put them up for adoption just so one of them would find a way stop Global Warming or something like that. That doesn`t make it fair to those children.

I agree that throwing someone`s life is not alright but your reason kinda makes it like, "don`t throw his life away because he might prove valuable".

Don`t throw his life because of him, not because he may create new generation computer.

Also, there is this question, when does he change from matter to person?!! :D

Re: The fine line between living and unliving.
 

Philosophically, living is when you are doing what you love, and having a reason to live. But you would die happily if you died today.

Technically, I would say living is the whole process. It is still an organism. What makes something living is the heart. The heart is what keeps us going. If we lose that, we die. (Duh)
However, sometimes it is necessary for a woman to get an abortion. Having it could possibly kill her. And in the process, the child might die as well. What if the kid will die within the next couple days after being born? I say keep it pro-choice. Some women have to abort it. A few things I will like to point out though: 1. I am not for women just having sex, aborting the baby, and having sex again, and repeating that process. That is just BS. 2. If we took away pro-choice. Imagine how many kids will end up being born? Abortion is part of population control. That's more people to feed and more jobs to give out. I'm not a cold hearted person, I know it's messed up to say too. But sometimes the truth is messed up, and something we don't like. 3. If you end up aborting, don't wait until 4 months in. That's just messed up. You gave it a slim hope of surviving, then you go off and kill it. Do it as soon as possible. HOWEVER I realize sometimes diagnostics may come in later on about the probability of death with the mother, so then I would say it's okay.
/End rant