Abortion of a fully-fledged human life

[Sayonara]

Do you go out of your way to destroy sperm cells?

Every time I crank one out.

[iNow]

Sometimes many times in a single day. Gosh... that could have been the next Einstein, or Hitler, or trillions of Hitlers. I should be ashamed of myself.

[Pangloss]

I've never been real swayed by the "potential vs real" argument. Is there a chance it will turn into a Vienna Sausage instead of a human being? Not really. So it's kinda moot. It's GOING to turn into a human being regardless of any other action, so that's not at all like the situation prior to fertilization.

 

That having been said, I've never been real swayed by the "life uber alles" argument either. Life is not paramount. Not in my book at any rate. A great many things are quite a lot more important. This is a moral argument, not a strictly logic-based one.

 

One thing is for sure -- appeals to scorn and ridicule won't win this one, Syntho-sis. Making fun of me tends to make me walk out the door, not listen and discuss. And it's usually pretty clear that when people are waving their arms about and emoting that they're not really listening to what I might want to say, so what's the point?

[Dak]

So the question is, is it morally acceptable to force a random bystander to keep another human being alive at his own expense for nine months?

 

Assuming an equal chance of being the one with borked kidneys or the kidnapped one, yes, because you down-grade a 1/x chance of dying into a 2/x chance of being inconvienienced for 9 months (tho some kind of opt-in system would be more moral imo). This breaks the analogy tho -- women have 0% chance of being the foetus, and a non-0% chance of being the 'bystander'.

 

I don't know, Syntho-sis, how many "potential humans" are lost because women menstruate before becoming pregnant? How many potentially great minds have been lost to humanity because we don't all constantly procreate from puberty onwards?

 

IIRC, one in three foetuses naturally miscarry, which is way above the abortion rate anyway. You'd think that people would address the natural holocaust before the occasional artificial murder or two.

[Sisyphus]

I've never been real swayed by the "potential vs real" argument. Is there a chance it will turn into a Vienna Sausage instead of a human being? Not really. So it's kinda moot. It's GOING to turn into a human being regardless of any other action, so that's not at all like the situation prior to fertilization.

 

Yes, and we're both GOING to be corpses, but I'm not one yet, and I'll object strenuously if you try to bury me.

[mooeypoo]

I have to ask a general question here -- Syntho-sis, you seem to be opposing abortion under any and all circumstances, so abandoning the "when does life start" issue for a moment, I'd like to know what you think of abortions in the following circumstances:

 

1. A woman discovering she is pregnant 2 weeks after she was brutally raped.
   
2. A woman having a very dangerous and potentially deadly pregnancy either for her or for the child, or for both.
   
3. The fetus' development clearly shows he will be born malformed or with a terminal condition or with a condition that will make him or her suffer throughout their short lives and die in pain.
   

Are you opposing the idea of abortion for the above as well, or do you consider them exceptions? I am not trying to make a hidden point or lead you anywhere, I'm trying to understand what your position on the matter is, when things are not as simple as "merely" a moral argument about whether or not a fetus is life.

 

In other words: I admit that if I was convinced a fetus is alive, I would be fighting against abortion. I, too, believe that a life should not be terminated. However, according to all available data and most logical questions about what life is and isn't, a fetus is not yet alive until relatively late in the pregnancy (approximately the second trimester, I believe, but I need to double check that). In any case, even if I would be fighting against abortion because of the above, I would still allow the option of abortion for the above three cases, for the sake of the mother and child.

 

My question to you is: Would you allow it, or is your feeling against abortion go all the way regardless of the wellbeing of the child or the mother or medical considerations?

 

~moo

[SH3RL0CK]

In other words: I admit that if I was convinced a fetus is alive, I would be fighting against abortion. I, too, believe that a life should not be terminated. However, according to all available data and most logical questions about what life is and isn't, a fetus is not yet alive until relatively late in the pregnancy (approximately the second trimester, I believe, but I need to double check that). In any case, even if I would be fighting against abortion because of the above, I would still allow the option of abortion for the above three cases, for the sake of the mother and child.

 

My question to you is: Would you allow it, or is your feeling against abortion go all the way regardless of the wellbeing of the child or the mother or medical considerations?

 

~moo

 

I very much believe a fetus is alive (especially if it were dead there would be not be a discussion on abortion as the fetus would never be born). I suspect you mean a fetus isn't yet human.

 

Please clarify what you mean here if you are actually saying a fetus isn't alive...

[mooeypoo]

I very much believe a fetus is alive (especially if it were dead there would be not be a discussion on abortion as the fetus would never be born). I suspect you mean a fetus isn't yet human.

 

Please clarify what you mean here if you are actually saying a fetus isn't alive...

 

That's a good point, but that depends on your definition of "alive". I agree with you that I should've put this better, and in this context, it's probably fitting to use not yet "a human being", but I am not entirely sure I would agree with you that it's alive, either, until later in the pregnancy (though, granted, probably earlier than what I would define as 'human being').

 

For that matter, through the very early stages of conception, the fetus is indistinguishable from a cyst. In fact, there are some false pregnancies (and some go on FARILY long) that are initiated due to a cyst in the woman's womb. There's not much difference between the development of a fetus and a development of a cyst throughout the very first stages. At these stages, I'm not sure I'd define either a fetus or a cyst as "alive".

 

It's a good point, though. Despite that, however, my questions to Syntho-sis (and everyone else, of course) still stand: Would anyone make an exception for these three circumstances I posted, or is it that if you support the view that abortion is aboslutely wrong under all circumstances, these three are included, and the pregnancies must be carried out regardless of the circumstance or potentially deadly outcome.

 

I'd like an answer

[SH3RL0CK]

Thanks for clarifying, although we still disagree on the "alive part"...but this is not important to the discussion at hand.

 

I will state first of all, I have a strong PRO-LIFE position, just so it is clear where I am coming from.

 

I don't usually like to play "gotcha" type questions but since you asked and because this thread has not (yet) degenerated into a worthless waste of electrons, I will state my opinion that an abortion might be acceptable to me under conditions 2 and 3 as the end result (death of the fetus/baby) doesn't change and might be improved (mother lives). Of course, when comparing certain death with potential death, what are the odds???

 

FYI, abortions are not 100% effective and even with an attempted abortion to save the mothers life, she could still die from whatever medical issue was not addressed due to the abortion not being accomplished. And there is a small chance the abortion itself kills her (it is a surgical procedure after all). We are dealing with probabilities, not certainties after all.

 

The first question is really a tough question for me. IF it were me, I would elect to have the baby rather than kill it. I would support anyone in this position as best I could as well. I will go so far as to say it is not the best solution, why should the crime of rape also result in a death? Granted, I cannot imagine the emotional problems the woman would have, but my advice to anyone going through this would be to keep the baby. As far as condemning someone who opted to abort in this situation...well I absolutely would NOT condemn them for it. It is a hard case.

 

I will not, at this time be submitting my own "gotcha" questions on the pro life side. As the saying goes "there are none so blind as those who will not see" and people will either consider the facts and form a considered opinion or they will not. "Gotcha" type questions are not going to change this, but are quite likely to degenerate any useful discussion into a wasted thread.

[mooeypoo]

For the record, and I did state this, I did not mean this to be a "Gotcha" question at all.

 

I do think, however, that if someone states they're against abortion under ANY and ALL circumstances, then we should consider some of the extreme circumstances (and these *do* happen, it's not like I brought up something that's entirely implausible) and see how we handle them.

 

Otherwise, the discussion turns to be head-to-head instead of a logical, rational discussion about morality. We need to be able to look at these statements and make a valid judgment. I think it's only fair.

 

~moo

[SH3RL0CK]

I must have missed where you stated that you did not intend this to be a "gotcha" type question, but no matter. I agree with you that the extreme cases (and there are plenty on both sides) must be considered as they do happen.

 

I'd like to see a better discussion on why there are so few reasonable restrictions on abortion. Many firmly pro-choice people (not pointing the finger at anyone here) say they are not pro-abortion; but then support almost no reasonable restrictions on abortion.

 

Is a ban on partial birth abortion reasonable? How about parental notification? How about notification to DCYF (department of children, youth, families) when it appears the girl is being abused by the father; and the abortion is a cover-up attempt?

 

Consider the following: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4806 Does this current legal push to force doctors who oppose abortion, perform them because this is against the patients right to choice make any sense? Would anyone suggest a doctor should be forced to perform any other procedure he didn't feel comfortable doing?

[mooeypoo]

I must have missed where you stated that you did not intend this to be a "gotcha" type question, but no matter. I agree with you that the extreme cases (and there are plenty on both sides) must be considered as they do happen.

 

I'd like to see a better discussion on why there are so few reasonable restrictions on abortion. Many firmly pro-choice people (not pointing the finger at anyone here) say they are not pro-abortion; but then support almost no reasonable restrictions on abortion.

 

Is a ban on partial birth abortion reasonable? How about parental notification? How about notification to DCYF (department of children, youth, families) when it appears the girl is being abused by the father; and the abortion is a cover-up attempt?

 

Consider the following: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4806 Does this current legal push to force doctors who oppose abortion, perform them because this is against the patients right to choice make any sense? Would anyone suggest a doctor should be forced to perform any other procedure he didn't feel comfortable doing?

I personally think that there SHOULD be certain restrictions on abortion, but that abortion should be considered an option and is the right of the parents to choose (in the first trimester, at least).

 

This argument, however, speaks of the generalized notion of abortions as a whole - IE, should it be allowed at any time, under any circumstances, and in that aspect, potential restrictions on it are the next step of the discussion. First, we need to establish whether or not there are certain circumstances where abortion is allowed.

 

In certain parts of Europe where abortion is legal, it's not "first come first serve" chaotic choice people on the opposite side tend to sometimes present it as. On the contrary. First, there are medical considerations - After a certain point the fetus *is* considered life, and also, at a certain point, abortion can be very harmful. That's why a lot of these countries allow abortions to be had only before the second trimester or so.

Second, there are psychological issues - some places require a short interview by a committee to make sure that the woman knows the potential hazards of abortion and is making her choice knowingly, etc.

 

Third, this is all useless without proper education. Abortion should not be used as a contraception - accidental pregnancy should be PREVENTED, not dealt with by abortion on a regular basis. This, however, is achieved by education and encouraging youth (and hence, adults, when they grow up) to use proper contraception, to guard themselves, to have safe sex and to NOT consider abortion as a potential solution to their problems.

 

However, if a woman becomes pregnant (and imho, specifically under the circumstances of the three examples I wrote up) it is *her right* to decide if she is continuing the pregnancy or not, in my opinion. I also think that the biggest question is whether or not the fetus is human life or not (and until what time), because if it isn't, there's no reason (other than medical considerations the doctors should think of) to deny such procedure.

 

That said, Here's my take:

 

1. Rape: It's the choice of the woman, as long as it is still safe to abort the pregnancy. Rape itself is an extreme act of stripping away a woman's control and her ownership over her own body. I would never support a claim to force her *AGAIN* to lose control over her body for 9 months and more, specifically due to this act.

 

2. Deadly pregnancy: No doubt here. If the pregnancy is potentially deadly to the woman, and this fact is discovered early in the pregnancy, there should be an abortion for medical reasons, saving the woman's life. She could get pregnant again, if she wishes to. She will lose both her own life and her potential child if she doesn't. This, however, needs to be addressed only in cases where there is a real danger to the mother medically.

 

3. We have quite good tools these days to recognize future flaws in the fetus. If those flaws are deadly or otherwise we know the baby will be born to suffer through a very short life, I believe the humane thing to do is abort.

 

Again, in all three cases, I'm talking about EARLY discovery where this procedure is not harmful to the mother and involves a fetus not yet considered human life.

 

 

Those are my two cents. The fair thing from the opposing side, would be to give us theirs.

 

~moo

[SH3RL0CK]

Those are my two cents. The fair thing from the opposing side, would be to give us theirs.

 

~moo

 

I presume that you mean from those who oppose all abortions. As I do not oppose them (in principle); I do not oppose all abortions and therefore you are not asking the PRO-LIFE difficult questions from me, but as you stated earlier, from those who oppose it under all circumstances.

 

We do differ in opinion in regards to when a fetus/baby is alive as well as when it becomes human. As such we would probably differ on what are reasonable restrictions on abortion. This shows the issue is not simply two sided, but that there is a wide range of opinion that people can take. I don't think it is really scientific to cut this issue into simply PRO-LIFE and PRO-CHOICE sides.

[mooeypoo]

I presume that you mean from those who oppose all abortions. As I do not oppose them (in principle); I do not oppose all abortions and therefore you are not asking the PRO-LIFE difficult questions from me, but as you stated earlier, from those who oppose it under all circumstances.

Yes, I think it's fair that we'll start this argument on general grounds and then see where the different opinions lead us to go further into more specific arguments.

[Pangloss]

Yes, and we're both GOING to be corpses, but I'm not one yet, and I'll object strenuously if you try to bury me.

 

Sure, but people also write wills and buy life insurance. We also convict people for murder if they kill a baby still in the womb.

 

Pro-choice should be an acknowledgement that it's termination of life. That's my feeling on it, anyway.

[GutZ]

Pro-choice should be an acknowledgement that it's termination of life. That's my feeling on it, anyway.

 

That is totally right! but then there is large variety of activities that we do on a daily, month, yearly bases that we could also consider terminating life. which are acceptable.

 

One gets more thought than the others only because of emotional connection to it. I also don'tthink complexity of an organism is a relevant factor. We are talking about life now.

 

Not saying you are disregarding this or don't believe this, but I am jsut adding to the thought.

[mooeypoo]

Pro-choice should be an acknowledgement that it's termination of life. That's my feeling on it, anyway.

Only if you consider a fetus life.

 

I only consider a fetus life at relatively advanced stages of the pregnancy, where abortion isn't really much of an option anyways because it's usually harmful to the mother as well.

 

In the initial stages, specifically the first month, I don't see a difference between a cyst and a fetus. If that's the case, then the fetus isn't life, and terminating it would not be considered termination of life.

[Mokele]

Pro-choice should be an acknowledgement that it's termination of life. That's my feeling on it, anyway.

 

The problem is terminology, and technical vs. popular definitions. Nobody disputes that a fetus is metabolically active, grows, has DNA, etc, nor that it's bioloigicly/genetically human. But outside of the most rigid, restrictive contexts, terminology becomes a lot more slippery. Say "I don't see what's special about human life" at a cocktail party, and you'll get the most horrified looks ever (I always do), even though you could be referring to a tumor (living thing that's genetically human). The fact that both sides are intent on using terminology to subtly bias the debate towards their side makes things even worse.

 

If everyone would agree on a set of terms and what they mean, or invent a new set, things would be simpler, but there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening.

 

Frankly, the only way any resolution will ever occur is when we invent some sort of Ultra-Birth-Control that makes the whole issue moot. Or when we all just upload our minds into a giant supercomputer.

[Lan(r)12]

Mooeypoo:

I agree with your exceptions. I am completely against abortion, unless its for the reasons you stated above.

 

I can see that you dont view the fetus as human, and thus, not worhy of human rights. Lets ignore the fact that it will be human in nine months. The following argument I read in "Freakonomics" is quite a good one.

The author asks how many fetuses = a baby? Is a thousand fetuses a baby? a hundred? a million?

 

If we say that we all agree a million POTENTIAL human lives is worth one human life, and there have been approximately 49 million abortions since 1973, then that means 49 children have been killed...which is horrible.

 

The argument Im anticipating is one that a fetus is not a viable organism, so no number of fetuses is equal to a single child.

I just wonder...if Nasa discovered a single celled organism frozen on mars, they would hail it as life and it would be such an achievement...but something as complex as a fetus, or hell, a zygote (relative to the single-cell), isnt as valuable since Earth produces life all the time...but thats just what I see the pro-"choice" people proclaiming.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say that you are a human before birth but significantly after conception. I don't think there is a sharp dividing line in reality, regardless of how much one is desired in morality or law. If I were to put forth a sharp dividing line, I'd go for one or more mental properties such as consciousness, self-awareness, capability to feel pain, capacity for thought, etc in a person. This applies to people both before birth and after birth. If I am braindead, I am dead whether or not my body is.

 

I'd say that in the first trimester, it should be at the woman's discretion, at the second trimester she should have a good reason, and at the third trimester only if her life is in danger.

 

I would also encourage people to offer to adopt unwanted children (born or otherwise). Some women don't want an abortion but also don't want to have a child to care for at the time, and would appreciate the offer. I could even see requiring a woman to go through her pregnancy if someone offered to adopt the child once it was born. If pro-life people really mean it, they wouldn't mind adopting these children, after all it is a priceless human life we are talking about.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, and we're both GOING to be corpses, but I'm not one yet, and I'll object strenuously if you try to bury me.

 

Ah, but corpses could potentially be brought back to life with future technology. We ought to freeze and preserve all corpses in anticipation. Hmm, that gives me an idea. If an abortion is done early enough, could the fetus be cryogenically preserved in case someone wants it?

Edited April 15, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

I don't think it is a good idea to determine "humaness" on the basis of conscienceness or mental capacity, it becomes a very slippery slope. For one, these are very difficult to establish with certainty nor is it possible to predict any changes. Also, when lives can be taken based upon an arbitrary value to society, you have a formula for euthenasia (such as after demensia sets in). Allow me to illustrate: when you are 90 and don't clearly know everything happening around you (who really knows how much you truely understand...you have good days and bad days...) why then should you continue to live? Especially as the nursing home is costing the government so much money that could be better spent on "more worthy" people. The budget deficit continues to grow, you know. You've lived a good life, make some room for others with more potential. To bad for you a cure for demensia will be announced next week.

 

Even worse is possible, after all the holocaust was based upon a belief that the Jews were inferior; what if you are determined to be genetically inferior?

 

=================

 

FYI, my wife and I have adopted babies; so you could say we are living our Pro-Life stance. Many of our friends (who are also pro life) have adopted as well. You should realize this is a very, very difficult thing to do the way we (at least in the US) have set it up...but I won't go into that at the moment.

 

And I'd like to add it doesn't have to be inconsistent for someone to be pro-life yet not adopt...this is a logical fallacy.

 

To Mokeles point; Another way for this to be resolved is for one side or the other to win the vast (95%+) majority. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, especially since there is a variance of opinion on things like partial birth abortion (vastly opposed by most Americans).

[Mokele]

I don't think it is a good idea to determine "humaness" on the basis of conscienceness or mental capacity, it becomes a very slippery slope.

 

What's the alternative? Defining it with arbitrary and ethically meaningless factors like "life" or having human DNA, both of which would grant personhood to a tumor?

 

The plain fact is that there is no *real* definition - we, as a society, simply have to make one up that works for us, and that's going to mean compromise and picking the best of bad options.

[SH3RL0CK]

What's the alternative? Defining it with arbitrary and ethically meaningless factors like "life" or having human DNA, both of which would grant personhood to a tumor?

 

The plain fact is that there is no *real* definition - we, as a society, simply have to make one up that works for us, and that's going to mean compromise and picking the best of bad options.

 

And there is the problem which leads to the current abortion debate. I dare say it also led to the holocaust when Jews were defined as inferior.

 

However, I don't beleive we necessarily have to compromise and pick the best of bad options. Is erring on the side of caution as far as possible (which would take the stand that a fetus is human) a bad option to take? When the USA decided that African Americans should have equal rights with Caucasians was this a bad option?

[Mokele]

Remember that this is not a question in isolation - increasing rights for the fetus MUST reduce rights of the mother. That's not the case for racial discrimination.

[SH3RL0CK]

My analogy with racial discrimination was to illustrate my answer to your question: what is the alternative. To me, the alternative is to take the higher road, to always err on the side of caution regarding all issues involving human rights.

 

I agree that a fetus does temporarily (for 9 months) reduce the freedom of the mother. Certainly that is a consideration; which is why I do not oppose abortion to save the mother's life.

 

I disagree with your statement regarding the RIGHTS of the mother. I don't think rights is the correct word to use...is drinking a right (you shouldn't drink when pregnant)? Is there a right to not have nausea (caused by morning sickness)? Is there a right to not be tired (because you are carrying around the extra weight)? The woman still has the right to vote, the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. and being pregnant doesn't take away these rights.

 

So the question is, at what level of "inconvenience" (I can't think of a better word for what I am trying to say) for the mother is it ethical to have an abortion? And at what stage of pregnancy? I don't have the exact answer (though we could take extremes on either end most people would agree on) and neither does anyone else. I'd rather a woman be "inconvenienced" for a few months than a human die. This is why I beleive we need to be very restrictive when allowing abortions.

Edited April 15, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
to correct typo