I do regard the killing of a sleeping human as immoral, because although they are not conscious at this moment, they easily could be.
What I meant was that a fetus, depending on its stage of development, has no capacity for hopes or dreams.
It’s possible to be conscious,and able to feel pain before the age of 21, so no, I don’t.
Babies do, but this is not present from the moment of conception.
You do realize that babies are not always asleep prior to birth right? Ask any new mom about the difficulty they have with the babies kicking.
But the down trodden also have no capacity left for hope or dreams.
So are you withdrawing your rationale for abortion based on them not being full grown adults?
so do you believe the baby becomes human when it becomes concious?
Only full-grown adults “count”? Guess that explains why 90% of babies with dwarfism are aborted, pretty soon will you let them round the other 10% up and get rid of those non-fully grown adults?
Last night, my teenager was not conscious, he could not express hopes or wishes - is it okay for me to off him while he slept?
I don’t think that you understand where I am coming from. What I meant was that a fetus in the early stages of development is similar in characteristics to a small animal, and that it is no less wrong to kill a fetus than it is to kill a small animal.
I don’t think that humans become conscious in one fell swoop, I think it’s more of a smooth gradient from “unconscious” to “conscious”.
I didn’t say that.
I would say not.
Biologically speaking all of us are similar in characteristics to a small mammal - I don’t think that would be a good basis for killing one of us. I hope that you do think it is more immoral to kill a person than an animal?
I meant that I would consider a fetus in the early stages of development to be morally equivalent to a small animal.
I don’t see why one would be morally obligated to wait those few weeks.
Children do not attain full consciousness until around the age of 5 or 6 years. Before this time, they cannot reason abstractly. They have no capacity for future hopes and dreams.Before becoming fully conscious of themselves and their place in society, they learn sensorially. Who is to say an unborn child does not also learn this way? An unborn responds to its mother’s voice and other outside sounds, such as music and light.
Children are conscious well before that, they’re just not capable of reasoning properly.
:clapping:
You would be morally obligated because it is a separate person, just on life support (his or her mother’s womb) for a relatively short amount of time. With an extremely good prognosis for a productive life. We don’t off coma patients willy nilly (at least not yet) and a fetus has a more probable good outcome than a long term coma patient.
Hi Shredder, what I meant by consciousness in a child is the ability to deal with abstract thought. pre birth to about 6-7 years of age, they are conscious as compared to unconscious in a concrete way. They learn best concretely. Even at three days the child is expriencing sensorial impressions, light, dark, mother’s voice, heat, cold, etc. This is in evidence even before birth. This is proven fact. Many child development theorists and teachers have observed and given proof this is so. Maria Montessori, the first female doctor in Italy did many observations and work on the development of the child, mainly from birth upward to eighteen years of age and beyond. She discovered children, in general, develop in three year cycles, Pre Birth - 1, 1-3, 3-6, 6-12, 12-18 and 18-24. The last two stages I am unfamiliar with, but I am very familiar in particular with the development of children from 2 - 6/7. Others have observed the child’s reactions to sensorial stimuli pre-birth and upwards. All children before the age of 6/7 react to sensorial stimuli. This is how they learn. After the age of seven sensorial stimuli plays a part in a child’s developement, but not in as strongly as before. At seven, or so, they are beginning to think abstractly, thus the sensorial part of learning, unless a conscious effort is made to retain it, is slowly overcome through the use of abstract intelligence.
I don’t know that the fetus can really be considered a person until it is sensible, able to hold preferences, etc.
Ok, I see what you mean. Do you know at what point of development a fetus begins to react to stimuli, and more importantly, at what point its brain is developed enough for it to have conscious experience?
I think even as early as conception a baby can begin to react to stimuli. As I heard recently, that once conceived, the baby under some direction I don’t understand, heads for the uterine lining. Is this a natural condition, a direction by nature? Conscious experience, as ??? As long as the child is young, again, pre-birth to 6 or 7, s/he will “remember” subconsciously any sensorial experience s/he has. Awareness of an individual person’s place in the universe begins at consciousness and either increases, or decreases as the body and its functions are completed. ie. nervous system, muscular system, social experiences etc. I am convinced that intellect is formed very much through actual physical experience. This is why sensorial stimuli and experiences are so important for the baby and young child. Even pre birth, experiments have been done showing the embryo reacts to change, as said before, heat, light, sound, especially voices. These experiences help humans to complete their physical and intellectual functions leading them on through childhood, puberty etc. As I said, after the age of around six, or seven the child is capable of (beginning) abstract thought. Some at a faster rate than others. I am sure there are instances of younger children being able to think abstractly. I think this is a result of first of all correct stimuli, not overwhelming, I’m not talking about keeping the child constantly in a state of alertness which happens when s/he is over stimulated, nutrition and medicine.
People in a coma aren’t sensible. They can’t hold preferences etc., yet they are considered people. They just happen to be bigger than a fetus and on a different kind of life support.
Shredderbeam, you yourself are not being sensible, in that you are not making sense. In your own words, you are not sensible so you are in the same state of consciousness as you claim unborn babies to be in.
Most newborns are less capable of supporting themselves than small animals. So at what age do you feel they are developed enough to be allowed to live?
So at what level ov conciousness do you think they have to attain to be spared?
So is it more moraly acceptable to kill a foot ball player than an artist if the football player is less sensative to pain?
Some take even longer…much longer…sigh…
So do you agree that it at least should be illegal to kill a baby at at least 8.5 months of pre birth development?
In other words, Shredderbeam, think about the logic of your arguments and applicability accross the board. If an arguement is not logical in a variety of applications it is not a good arguement. For instance, setting some arbitrary threshold for humanity. If htis were a valid arguement, Eddie’s jesting comment would be equally valid. At the same time the arguement that those of a different race or lesser IQ are sub human would also hold.