[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 151 KB, 500x376, 1269505267256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271681 No.2271681 [Reply] [Original]

Is abortion murder?

>> No.2271691

No

>> No.2271702

Yes.

>> No.2271705

Maybe.

>> No.2271706

lolno

>> No.2271707

/thread

also
>>>/b/

>> No.2271712

Murder is a crime. Crime requires a law. If there is no law against abortion where you live, then it is not murder.

>> No.2271713

Yes

Legal murder is the official description in the law code of my country.

>> No.2271721

No, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is not a crime.

>> No.2271725

>>2271713
What country do you live in? The United States of Don't Mess With Texas?

>> No.2271727

Define life with respect to that which has not been born, and then we'll talk.

>> No.2271728

Not by any country's law that I have heard of.

>> No.2271733

yes but women have special priveledges just like niggers

thanks liberals

>> No.2271734

Fetus =/= Human
So no
They can't feel anything before 24 weeks anyway so it really doesn't matter.

>> No.2271736

Even if it is a crime of murder, abortion is never morally wrong (assuming the mother wants one).

>> No.2271737

>>2271681
What is "murder"?

>> No.2271741

it's more killing than murder, i'd say. traumatizes the potential mother and father for life. also lowers the chance of having a healthy baby later in life. so many depressed women out there; it's hard to imagine so much pain if it's "just a little clump of cells".

>> No.2271747

>>2271737
baby don't hurt me...

>> No.2271759

>>2271734
>Fetus =/= Human

Explain yourself,

>> No.2271761

>>2271741
> 'd say. traumatizes the potential mother and father for life

And having to spend the next 20 years raising a little bastard that you don't want wouldn't be traumatizing? I think having to throw away all of your life dreams for an unwanted child would be pretty damned traumatizing?

Even being pregnant and giving birth, or missing a semester of school would be highly traumatizing?

>> No.2271763

fetus =/= person
person = sentient being deserving of right

>> No.2271764

>>2271759
An acorn is not a tree.
A tadpole is not a frog.
An embryo is not a human.

>> No.2271785

>>2271764
So your reasoning is completely arbitrary?

>> No.2271787

>>2271764
both the acorn and the tadpole have all the genetic information that make up a tree and a frog. Your analogy is invalid

>> No.2271791

>>2271759
It's not fully developed yet, is it?
Yeah, it's a ~human~ fetus, but it's not fully a human yet.
Thus not making it a human.
If that makes any sense. I guess it all depends on your beliefs.

>> No.2271792

if a fetus wanted to live, it would defend itself

>> No.2271799

>>2271787
And a car factory has all the information that can make a car. By your logic, one can drive car factories.

>>2271785
I am not the person you quoted, but how is it arbitrary? Do you per chance mean logical? A tadpole is obviously not a frog.

>> No.2271803

The fetus is not a person - it can not understand itself. It has no plans for the future.

>> No.2271812

>>2271787
>both the acorn and the tadpole have all the genetic information that make up a tree and a frog. Your analogy is invalid
And the embryo has all the genetic information that makes up a human being.
So I guess by "invalid" you mean "completely correct".

>> No.2271816

Neither a tree nor a frog have moral or legal rights, but an adult human does. That's my problem with the analogy.

>> No.2271818

>>2271803
>it cannot understand itself
So a TV isn't a TV? Dirt isn't dirt? My ass isn't my ass?

>> No.2271829

>>2271803
>implying you can understand yourself or have plans for your future.

>> No.2271837

>>2271764
>implying a human embryo is not human
>retard detected

>> No.2271839

>>2271818
> So a TV isn't a TV? Dirt isn't dirt? My ass isn't my ass?

Tvs, dirt, and your ass do not have moral rights because they are not self aware.

>> No.2271852

>>2271839
A self-aware ass would not tolerate so much butthurt!

>> No.2271854

>>2271816
That's a valid objection. The reasoning here is: adult humans have rights. Newborn humans have rights, but less so than adult humans - newborns cannot vote or buy tobacco or operate heavy machinery. Fetuses have fewer rights than the newborn. Full term fetuses have rights - you can't abort it unless in VERY defined circumstances, you can't kill it, etc.

So it is not completely illogical that below a certain age, a fetus has no rights.

Now, it can be debated where this line should be drawn. But to draw it at the moment of the conception is unrealistic and inane.

What settles man apart from animals and gives him his "rights" is self-awareness. A morula has no self-awareness.

>> No.2271858

>>2271839
Do I lose my moral rights when I lose consciousness?

>> No.2271873

can a fetus commit suicide? no? then it cannot use its right to live and shouldn't have it, so killing it isn't murder.

>> No.2271874

>>2271854
>newborns cannot vote
Because they're not intelligent enough to make an informed decision.

>or buy tobacco or operate heavy machinery
For their own safety.

Despite those few examples, newborns like adults are still entitled to life, and it's a crime for anyone to attempt to take that from them.

>> No.2271882

>>2271873
Can a quadriplegic commit suicide? No? Then it cannot use its right to live and shouldn't have it, so killing it isn't murder.

>> No.2271884

>>2271858
Yes you do, thats why we appoint someone to speak on our behalf

>> No.2271885

>>2271858
If you are causing harm to others when you are unconscious they can use appropriate force against you. If you are sleep walking and attacking someone with an axe, then it's OK for you to be killed.

If you roll over against someone when you are sleeping, it's OK for them to push you away.

A fetus is causing great harm to the mother - physical assault - when it is not wanted. There is no way to stop the fetus with just a little bit of force. Killing it is the only viable option. You can't remove a 10 week week old fetus and keep it alive.

>> No.2271887

>>2271882
i see you're getting the hang of it (pardon the pun)

>> No.2271891
File: 40 KB, 146x182, 1293388366855.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271891

This thread has some of the most retarded reasoning I've ever seen.

>> No.2271893

>>2271882
A quadriplegic can choose to starve to death.

>> No.2271894

I'VE GOT IT

Fetuses don't have rights... because... they're too small! You need to be at least 10 inches tall to have rights.

>> No.2271895

>>2271874
> Because they're not intelligent enough to make an informed decision.
> For their own safety.
Yes, those are the reasons for their lacking those rights. We knew that. Thank you for reminding us. For what ever reason.

>Despite those few examples, newborns like adults are still entitled to life, and it's a crime for anyone to attempt to take that from them.
Yes. Yes, they are. Why exactly are you talking about killing newborns?

>> No.2271905

It's not murder, but that doesn't mean it's moral either. For the latter question, to my mind it depends a great deal on the degree of development of the fetus.

I guess I'm one of those rare equivocators when most people seem to be solidly on one side of the issue or the other. The question is when in the course of development a human organism becomes vested with rights that merit state protection. I do *not* credit the argument that the fetus should be treated as a part of the mother's body, but even as a separate entity, we're left with the question of when it becomes worthy of protection. I think that rights vest gradually, only becoming absolute when an individual is actually born.

>> No.2271920

Better to abort than to let the child rot in foster care and develop behavioral patterns that lead to criminal activity in teenage and adult life.

>> No.2271926

>>2271920
Check out the book 'Freakonomics'. The author concludes that part of the reason that the US crime rate has dropped is that legal abortion resulted in fewer unwanted babies.

>> No.2271929

>>2271920
This. I make this point all the time and no one ever knows what to say in response.

>> No.2271933
File: 166 KB, 500x336, 4261060049_abca91c3a3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271933

THIS GIRL SHOULDA BEEN ABORTED:

Her name is morgan chapman, she lives in st.charles missouri, she goes to a catholic school. Her cell number is 6362332834

and here is her facebook http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1304580697

>> No.2271936

>>2271882
a quad can still talk and ask someone to kill him, or ask them to set up a way for them to kill themselves. Hell, they could drive their wheelchair off a cliff.

>>2271874
A lot of adults I know aren't smart enough to vote, but they still get the right.

>> No.2271949
File: 58 KB, 483x450, 1292297505368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271949

picrelated always appears in this kind of thread, so I'll just drop it here

>> No.2271957

>>2271926
fuck freakonomics
You think abortion had a causal and not merely a correlative relationship with reduced crime rates? Good; there's (almost certainly) data supporting your argument. Drag it up yourself instead of citing a shit tier populist amateur sociology text.

>> No.2271969

>>2271957
You are confusing me with the author. You'll have to take it up with Steven Levitt.

>> No.2271982

>>2271761
no, actually, people find that raising children, almost regardless of the situation, is quite life affirming and fulfilling.

being a babykiller is neither.

>> No.2271988
File: 87 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271988

>>2271933
Wrong /b/oard, dude.

>> No.2271991

>>2271854
why is it inane to insist that a human embryo has rights from the moment of conception? because you do not like the implications of such a statement?

protip: both the egg and the sperm were alive before they joined.

do any of you even take biology anymore?

>> No.2271997

>>2271969
He's criticizing you for your sources because he cares more about the origin of the data rather than its validity.

>> No.2272006

let me ask a question that pertains to this thread: say you crushed the egg of an endangered bird or lizard or something? should you be fined for that?

>> No.2272010

>>2271991
I guess that joke in elementary school about being a mass murderer because you masturbate too much is actually true, then.

>> No.2272014

>>2271991
...What?

Sperm and egg cells do not have rights. Why should the union of these two cells be given rights? It's not a human to begin with.

>> No.2272020

>>2272006
Humans aren't exactly an endangered species, and yes, you can generally be fined for killing something that is protected under environmental law.

>> No.2272097

>>2271982
> no, actually, people find that raising children, almost regardless of the situation, is quite life affirming and fulfilling.

It would be insane to think this is always true. I know of cases where women have said that if they had he option to do over, they would have fewer children or no children.

Most parents will say that they find parenthood rewarding. But some are lying so as to not hurt the feelings of their children or to avoid the rath of other parents.

It's quite possible that the outlook about his contributes to the choice to get an abortion. If you think that pregnancy or partenhood would be a nightmare, there is a strong incentive to have an abortion.

>> No.2272115

>>2272014
but it *becomes* human. how can you say it's not human when it's actually kind of like the transition from a tadpole to a frog.

>> No.2272127

>>2272020
but why would it be considered killing the specimen? it wasn't born or hatched yet, so it *can't* be that endangered bird or lizard yet, right? this is basically the same thing that pro-abortion people say

>> No.2272146

>>2272115
I think people see a difference between A HUMAN [BEING] and a cell having human genes.
The issue here is not genes. Our blood cells all have human genes, but do not have rights.
The issue has to do with the important mental/psychological properties of mature human beings.
Thi is why I like to use the word 'person'. It's clear that a sperm cell is not a person.

>> No.2272156
File: 85 KB, 483x450, antiabortionretards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272156

>> No.2272164

>>2272127
I don't think it's an issue about a bird egg having rights. Wildlife generally belongs to the government (or to 'the people'). An endangered bird egg is treated like valuable property. If you destroy the egg, you have damaged government property.

With non-person animals it can be viewed as purely a property issue.

>> No.2272180

No, abortion is surely not a murder. Foetus does not have developed mind, so when we kill foetus, it is like killing a plant or banana.

>> No.2272183

Not as much as washing your hands and murdering MILLIONS of unique individual bacterial organisms.

Real moral and decent people therefore don't wash their hands, ever.

>> No.2272185

Bottom line: an unwanted fetus is attacking the mother. Use the least amount of force against the fetus that will stop the attack. And the least amount of force in this case is generally results in the death of the fetus.

>> No.2272188

It is homicide.

>> No.2272196

Everytime you eat egg

You commit abortion

>> No.2272204

>>2272014
the statement was that life began sometime after conception. i merely pointed out that the elements of conception, the egg and the sperm, are living cells, and their union produces a living cell, which, in most cases, comes to term 9 months later.

to artificially define a line prior to birth but after conception and say, "this is life", is absurd. it has been alive the entire time.

>> No.2272206

>>2272188
homicide =/= murder

>> No.2272213

>>2271894
>Fetuses don't have rights... because... they're too small! You need to be at least 10 inches tall to have rights.
Or, rather, you actually need to have a consciousness, a mind, a working brain. You know, any of these things that make you a person?

>> No.2272260

>>2272185

No, that is not the case. Foetus is not attacking the mother during normal pregnancy. Late term abortions are forbidden all over the world. Both normal and late term abortions are allowed all over the world when mothers life is in danger.

The reason why abortions should be allowed up to a certain age is simple - it is not a murder when there is no person present, and there is no person until the brain is developed enough.

>> No.2272276

>>2272260

In my opinion, an unwanted Foetus is attacking the mother's body in much the same way that an unwanted infection is.

>> No.2272283

>>2272196
No, the eggs you eat aren't fertillized most of the time.

>> No.2272289

>>2272276
So is an unwanted teenager.

>> No.2272295

>>2272276
>maximum trolling


Some dumb blonde feminist bitch used the same argument in my medical ethics class last semester, calling a fetus a "parasite" and likening it to an STD. She got laughed out of the class room.

>> No.2272311

>>2272289

And people are able to take reasonable steps, including force if needed, to deal with a problematic teenager.

If you have a teenager that you just don't want, you can give them to social services and say that you are not able to care for the child. There is a way to get rid of unwanted children at any point after they are born.

>> No.2272318

>>2272276

Then why are late-term abortions almost universaly banned, and rightly so? After all, the foetus is attacking the mother by your logic, isnt it? Protip: they are banned because the nervous system of the foetus is developed enough, and unless it is threatening mothers life (normal fetuses do not), it is wrong to abort it or otherwise interfere negatively with its development.

>> No.2272331

>>2272295
There is no question that an unwanted fetus is doing harm to the the mother. If you injected a woman with an unwanted substance that fucked up her hormones and caused physical changes to her body and offered no benefit, it would be a crime.

>> No.2272338

>>2272318

Late term abortions should not be banned.

>> No.2272357

>>2272311

No you cannot just give a child or teenager to social services. You have to pay money to support children or teenagers even when you refuse to take care of them directly, or you go to jail. You have responsibility for your children, up to adulthood. And this responsibility begins when their person begins, not when they are born.

>>2272338

Yes, they should be, and they are all over the world. It is a murder. Great majority of people in the US do not support abortions after 5th month.

>> No.2272360

>>2272338
Late term abortions are not the major issue. The great majority of abortions happen early in a pregnancy. Women very, very rarely wait until the 8th month to choose an abortion with out a medical reason. It's easy to ban late term, not medically required abortions because there are so few. Early term abortion is the norm, not late.

>> No.2272374

>>2272357

Abortions are not free either if you have the means to pay.

>> No.2272381

>>2272357
So I disagree with the majority. A moral principle can not be proved by majority rule.

>> No.2272423

>>2272381

All right. Now how about thinking why majority of people thinks differently than you? It is because killing a human being to save the irresponsible mother that should have had abortion sooner from a few months of discomfort is ridiculous and wrong.

The correct way to argue for abortion rights: foetus is not a being (person) until its nervous system is developed.

Incorrect way to argue for abortion rights: mother can kill her child when the child bothers her.

>> No.2272497

>>2272331
It seems reasonable to allow that a woman would regard, from her perspective, an unwanted pregnancy as though it were an attack of sorts.

>> No.2272550

>>2272423
You are an idiot. A fetus is not a "human being."

>> No.2273088

The thing about late term abortions is that there is not much advantage to the woman.

An early term abortion is a simple procedure. It's cheap, quick and safe (at least safer than pregnancy). This allows the woman to avoid almost all the negative effects of pregnancy.

By late term, the mothers body has already suffered the effects of the pregnancy. And a late term abortion is a more complicated procedure.

This coupled with the viable status of the fetus and the fact that a woman would have to be a fucktard to decide on an abortion at such a late point is why late term abortions are banned.

>> No.2273120

Define "murder"

>> No.2273131

mods

>> No.2273151

Personally I'm in favor of everyone getting an extreme late term abortion (aka after birth)

>> No.2273156

>>2271681
Nope

\thread

>> No.2273185

>>2271681
So, follow my rantings, and hopefully we'll get to a sane position.

A detached human hand has no rights.

If I cut myself and collect the blood, it similarly has no rights.

Ergo, a single cell of a human has no rights by our conventional morality.

Let's look at death. If you probe people enough, they'll probably agree that human death, the event which ends human rights, occurs at brain-death. They might pull some bullshit about the heart stopping or some such, but press them on stuff about artificial hearts which can keep people alive for a couple of hours.

So, by this reasoning, human life does not begin at conception. It probably begins once its brain starts working at a sufficient level.

Thus, anyone against the daily pill or the day-after pill are religious asshats or similarly brainwashed dogmatic asshats.

To be continued....

>> No.2273213

>>2273185
go on...

>> No.2273220

>>2273185
So, before the fetus has a functioning brain, abortion is legal. I'll leave the determination up to the medical experts on this one, just as we do when they declare someone clinically dead.

So, let's look at the interesting part, when the fetus is alive and has human rights. To outlaw all abortion on the presupposition that human life matters more than everything would turn us into a complete socialist state, which is almost always not what the speaker wants. To follow that line of reasoning, the state can compel you to give blood, donate a kidney, and so on.

So, when can the state conscript the mother's body to take care of the sentient fetus? I would argue that a mother ought to know if she's pregnant or not after 2 months, and she ought to be able to decide to abort or not before 3 months, so optional abortions after that should be strictly curtailed.

If medical experts determine that the baby is aware before 3 months, sentient, to sufficient degree to give it rights, then I am undecided.

>> No.2273352

>>2272006
>let me ask a question that pertains to this thread: say you crushed the egg of an endangered bird or lizard or something? should you be fined for that?

This is a bad comparison, if a bird crushes it's own egg it is not fined. If a person gives someone else an abortion, I'm pretty sure it is a crime anyway.

>> No.2273375

>>2273352
*against that persons will
my bad

>> No.2273400
File: 204 KB, 1600x1065, 1284027458392.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2273400

>>2273352
>If a person gives someone else an abortion, I'm pretty sure it is a crime anyway.

The only place the abortion is a crime is places with a huge religious community, like some parts of the middle east. The only people who want it to be a crime in first world countries, are fucking bible thumpers (the dumbest of society).

There is a reason we don't listen to bible thumpers. Belief in imagainry friends (as an adult) is a sign of mental disability.

>> No.2273427

brain develops after around 40 days so after that its borderline wrong

>> No.2273453

It's not a person until it has been born.
Translation: 9 month old pregnant women can still take an abortion.

>> No.2273456
File: 70 KB, 453x342, 1279917381510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2273456

mfw being vocally pro-choice still won't get you losers laid.

>> No.2273457

>>2273453
>It's not a person until it has been born.
Why?

>> No.2273812

It's not a person until until it has self awareness.

>> No.2274274

>>2273427
> brain develops after around 40 days so after that its borderline wrong

But it's not functional in any way corresponding to self awareness or higher intelligence until long after that - probably well after birth.

>> No.2274302

I'm a geneticist and abortion IS murder.

>> No.2274345

>>2274302
> I'm a geneticist and abortion IS murder.

You must mourn the loss of every cell (skin, blood, etc.) - they all have DNA, the poor things.

[1] How does you being a geneticist have any special bearing on the issue?
[2] Why is it murder?

>> No.2274354

>>2274274
>But it's not functional in any way corresponding to self awareness or higher intelligence until long after that - probably well after birth.
That's arguable. Someone with no short term memory still has rights, and someone with extreme autism or ADHD still has rights.

>> No.2274366

>>2271681
Is masturbation genocide?

>> No.2274378

>>2274354
> That's arguable. Someone with no short term memory still has rights, and someone with extreme autism or ADHD still has rights.

But they don't have the right to wreak another person's life - even though they may not be conscious of doing it.. And of course a fetus is not a person.

>> No.2274380

>>2274366
The sperm die anyway, and so does the egg, so it's still ok.

>> No.2274381

>>2274378
Please. I can only respond to one argument at a time. I think I covered them all here:
>>2273185
>>2273220

>> No.2274386

>>2274366
genocide of your current production of sperm perhaps.

>> No.2274414

My god, I can't believe this thread survived. I saw it hours ago, and it said "Is abortion murder?" "No". I thought... well, that was fast.

Instead, it's almost midnight here in the northeast, and the thread is a raging flame war.

What the fuck?

Is this not /sci/?

> You bitches don't even know how to <span class="math"> [/spoiler] blacktext.

>> No.2274420

Is masturbation murder? Theoretically if you weren't jerking off and ejaculated into a female without any protection, it would more than likely result in pregnancy. So instead of having a child being born, you shot off where there was no chance of new life.

How about that fucking terrible logic?

>> No.2274423

>>2274420
I guess I don't come here enough to realize spoiler does not work here.

>> No.2274428

>>2274423
OR SAGE.

Seriously, sage hasn't worked since 2008. It is literally removed from the 4chan scripts. Sage=bump. On all boards. LEARN.

>> No.2274438

>>2274420
>Theoretically if you weren't jerking off and ejaculated into a female without any protection

But most of the sperm are going to die. Only one (or maybe a few) will connect with eggs.

>> No.2274439

>>2274428
No i'm pretty sure sage works on multiple boards after 2008. You sure about that?

>> No.2274458

>>2274438
Most.

>> No.2274484

>>2274439
Yep, it's confirmed for removed. When I saw this post at the top of the /sci/ page, the last post was a sage, and the post before it was a few minutes earlier. There was a more recent post in a lower thread than the non-sage.

>> No.2274500

Only if it's retroactive.

>> No.2274506

The only ways you can logically conclude the abortion is murder is by assuming that people have souls and that they're assigned when the sperm and the egg combine, or by being a vegan who takes care not to step on insects.

Otherwise, you can't make a proper argument to establish that killing fetuses should be illegal and killing animals shouldn't.

>> No.2274508

>>2274458

So it's an almost complete sperm genocide.

>> No.2274514 [DELETED] 

>>2274484
BS. Go to page 15 and sage a thread there.

>> No.2274512

>>2274506
I agree that early term fetuses have no rights, but I disagree that birth is the natural giver of rights. I think that sentience and self awareness, the ability to feel pain and joy, etc., is the giver of rights. See:
>>2273185
>>2273220

>> No.2274536

>>2274512
> but I disagree that birth is the natural giver of rights

As far as where to draw a line, there are to unambiguous natural breaks - one is conception, the other is birth. Birth might be a little later in the development cycle than some would like to make the cut off, but at least it's clear.

>> No.2274541

>>2273185
>>2273220
/thread

>> No.2274562

>>2274536
"Clear cut" is not a necessary nor sufficient reason for morality in any moral system which I know.

>> No.2274685

>>2274562
No, but it's good enough legal reasoning for something on which we will never reach moral consensus and may remain fiercely divided.

>> No.2274694

>>2274439
sage works on all boards
but on /sci/ the sage thread still remains for page 1 for at least 5 mins

>> No.2274706

It's not against the law, so it's not murder. Murder is specifically the taking of another person's life without legal sanction.

>> No.2274726

>>2274685
>No, but it's good enough legal reasoning for something on which we will never reach moral consensus and may remain fiercely divided.
I believe that we should do what's moral, not what will avoid discussion and debate.

>> No.2274729

>>2274562
Any moral system that accepts any kind of killing that doesn't take the existence of souls into consideration will not be clear cut in any way that will put an issue to rest. You could use a self awareness test, but I believe babies don't pass those until they're 1-2 years old, and the legal killing of babies under 1 year won't sit well with most of the population.

>> No.2274737

>>2274729
>Any moral system that accepts any kind of killing that doesn't take the existence of souls into consideration will not be clear cut in any way that will put an issue to rest.
You say that as though that's a bad thing, or that automatically makes it wrong.

>You could use a self awareness test, but I believe babies don't pass those until they're 1-2 years old, and the legal killing of babies under 1 year won't sit well with most of the population.
We're using different definitions of self aware then.

>> No.2274751

>>2274737
Right. And I'm not saying that the self awareness test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test)) is a good "can I kill it" device. Unfortunately there's really not much else to go by that can separate a baby from an animal, much less a fetus. It's a troubling moral dilemma simply because it's so hard to make a decision on.

>> No.2274758

>>2274751
Indeed. My position, which is mostly undefendable atm, is in-group favoritism. Humans get special treatment, such as stupid fetuses and babies.

>> No.2274762

>>2274751
A new born guinea pig or colt are probably more self aware and definitely more independent than a new born human.

>> No.2274763

>>2274729

Just because you fail the mirror test doesn't meant you aren't self aware. The traditional mirror test requires that the animal has an understanding of reflection and secondarily cares about self-appearance. Babies don't have either of those traits yet. Doesn't mean they aren't self-aware

>> No.2274769

>>2274763
Is there a reason to think that babies ARE self aware at the time of birth?

>> No.2274779

>>2274769

Not that I know of. All I can say is the mirror test is unreliable. Many mammals which fail the mirror test, such as bovids, canines, and felines, have been shown to possess understanding of mirrors and reflections. None of these animals will try to interact with mirror images past their maturity, despite all being social animals.

You can take it another step and do a mirror understanding test at home with your dog or cat. Place it in front of the mirror. Hold a treat in your hand which the animal can see in the mirror reflection. It will turn around and eat it.

Mirror understanding.

As far as babies being self-aware -I honestly don't know. It's been a while since I opened a psych/child development book. Best way to find out if they do, I presume is find out which part of the brain is responsible for complex thought and self-awareness (frontal, right) and observe the difference in size and function between that of a newborn and that of a 3 year old..

>> No.2274789

>>2274779
Good points, I agree now that the mirror test is completely unreliable at interpreting negative results. Still, that only makes it harder to justify killing any animal or condemn killing a fetus. Morals are really tricky mostly due to the fact that conciousness/self awareness/sentience isn't really understood despite our efforts.