Here Is An Interesting Scenario

[singinbeauty]

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

[Piper Plexed]

If you want to quote definitions...
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 an unborn or recently born person
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : PRODUCT, RESULT <barbed wire... is truly a child of the plains -- W. P. Webb>
- child·less /'chI(&)l(d)-l&s/ adjective
- child·less·ness noun
- with child : PREGNANT

I especially like #1... Don't you?

Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: 'em-brE-"O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
Etymology: Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon, from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

after this

Webster's
ain Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

Since these are not referred to as a child then I suspect they are including late term of pregnancy which I have no problem with since late term abortion is outlawed. It does not relate to what I am discussing which is first trimester (embryo). I believe viable life is the key.

This may help...

The human gestation period of approximately 40 weeks between the time of the last menstrual cycle and delivery is traditionally divided into three periods of three months, or trimesters.

In the first trimester the embryo undergoes most of its early structural development. Most miscarriages occur during this period.

In the second trimester the embryo, now known as a fetus, is recognisable as human in form, but is not developed enough to be viable if born.

In the third trimester the fetus reaches viability, and may survive if born prematurely.

The use of modern medical intensive care technology has greatly increased the probability of premature babies living, and has pushed back the boundary of viability to much earlier dates than would be possible without intensive medical assistance. In spite of these developments, premature birth remains a major threat to the fetus, and may result in ill-health in later life, even if the fetus survives the birth and subsequent intensive care.

The actual boundaries of when an embryo is regarded as a fetus or a fetus becomes regarded as potentially viable depend on the definitions of these terms, and do not necessarily fit neatly on the classic trimester boundaries. Note also that these boundaries are the matter of both medical and political controversy.
Link

[Amadeus]

You cannot condone abortion in the entire first trimester. Within a very few weeks, the child looks human! I recently (accidently ) stumbled upon a picture of an aborted baby at 10 weeks. Looked like a baby to me...

[singinbeauty]

I think we can all agree that an embryo inside a human mother is HUMAN correct? Just think about that for a second...

So if it is human than we should just stop right there. It's HUMAN. What gives us the right to kill one of our own kind? It doesn't matter at what stage it is in. IT is still HUMAN.

[Gaunt]

Your definition of person may be #6 but I like #1

And why is your preferred definition to take precedence over mine? That doesn't seem very fair in a conversation, especially when you've not given any reason why definition 1 should be taken over definition 6. I contend that a fetus without a central nervous system (as is the case in the first trimester), fails the definition for #5 as well, as without a mind, there is no possibility for a personality. It has no sense of self, therefore it is not a person.

What gives us the right to kill one of our own kind?

There are many situations where we have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force. For instance, if we are being attacked, we have the right to respond in self defence. If we are being forced to serve another against our will, we have the right to remove ourselves from the situation. Just because something is human does not mean we must endure whatever it wants to do to us against our will.

It doesn't matter at what stage it is in.

On the contrary, it does matter what stage it is in. If the fetus is not capable of sustaining its own life without being attached to its mother, then Mom is being forced into servitude to her child against her will.

Within a very few weeks, the child looks human!

Chimp embryos look human too. Does that mean that chimps, should they express a desire for an abortion, should not be allowed simply because their fetus looks human?

[Piper Plexed]

I think we can all agree that an embryo inside a human mother is HUMAN correct? Just think about that for a second...

So if it is human than we should just stop right there. It's HUMAN. What gives us the right to kill one of our own kind? It doesn't matter at what stage it is in. IT is still HUMAN.

OK I agree 8) it is human cells, but not a human being. For me it is a potential human being. Actually we kill human cells all of the time scratching etc..

To be there must be autonomy

I am not gonna quote the dictionary though you may find the definition interesting.
be

What I found most interesting was that my favorite philosopher is quoted in the Webster's definition of be (see signature bellow ) Apparently I have thought a great deal about the nature of being.

The etymology is quite intriguing

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bEon; akin to Old High German bim am, Latin fui I have been, futurus about to be, fieri to become, be done, Greek phynai to be born, be by nature, phyein to produce
intransitive senses

[Amadeus]

After the first trimester of pregnancy, the child has all the parts he will ever have. During the next trimesters, those parts just get bigger!

So, if you didn't want a chimp, would you kill it?

[Piper Plexed]

After the first trimester of pregnancy, the child has all the parts he will ever have. During the next trimesters, those parts just get bigger!

I find it really hard to respond to this cause I personally would never have an abortion. I guess for someone who finds the development of body parts compelling they would not have one past the first trimester. For those that don't they may be willing to abort in the second trimester. Anyway, not to abort, to only abort in the first trimester or past that is a personal choice influenced by ones beliefs.

[Corvus]

I think we can all agree that an embryo inside a human mother is HUMAN correct? Just think about that for a second...

So if it is human than we should just stop right there. It's HUMAN. What gives us the right to kill one of our own kind? It doesn't matter at what stage it is in. IT is still HUMAN.

I will point you again to my sentience arguments here and here, and emphasise that euthanasia laws in America already allow parents or spouse to kill a person - a grown adult that looks as human as a human can - if they are in a comatose state and have no hope of recovery. Will, and its negation, is what determines whether a crime is committed. The social contract can only protect those who can tacitly or explicitly agree or acquiesce to it. I am thinking of writing another essay on this and posting it in the random ramblings, because it is too frequently brought up.

What gives us the right to kill our own kind? What gives us the right to kill anything at all? What gives us the right to put one foot in front of the other? You may believe rights are conferred by a creator, but I believe rights are conferred by government, and, without touching upon animal rights, I would say these are based on mutual understanding and sound reasoning. We do not need to ask "What gives us the right to..." because, in this case, we do not need to ask, "What or who gives us the permission to". Who are we to ask permission from; the foetus?

After the first trimester of pregnancy, the child has all the parts he will ever have. During the next trimesters, those parts just get bigger!

The point is not what those parts look like, but what they do. The brain may be there, but the signs of consciousness, measured by brain activity, might suggest that the lights are on but nobody is home.

[singinbeauty]

emphasise that euthanasia laws in America already allow parents or spouse to kill a person - a grown adult that looks as human as a human can - if they are in a comatose state and have no hope of recovery.

Granted, we do have to laws that allow us to "pull the plug" if need be but in your quote above you say that if there is no hope for recovery. With a baby, it is growing and recovery is not an issue. Why pull the plug on someone who is totally healthy and growing?

[virago81]

The social contract can only protect those who can tacitly or explicitly agree or acquiesce to it.

If you could, please cite the authority or deduction by which you assert that a supposed social contracted only applies to "those who can tacitly or explicitly agree or acquiesce to it"

If this is so then, by your argument, infanticide would be perfectly acceptable under the "social contract" because infants cannot tacitly or explicitly agree to anything.