Abortion

[toddjh]

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

It's arbitrary, but not completely arbitrary. We can, for example, notice that nobody below a certain level of brain development exhibits behaviors or traits we associate with personhood.

Defining personhood involves a certain amount of judgement, but I think determining whether any given fetus matches the criteria we eventually settle on can be done empirically.

 

[JamesDillon]

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

That, really, is the crux of this whole issue, and that's where I disagree with you. Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?), since when is every human's right to life absolutely inviolable? Whatever interest the developing child may have in its life must be pretty minimal at the stage before its body is even fully developed, whereas the mother of the child has a strong liberty/autonomy interest in her own body, and society has an interest in preventing unwanted children, for which it frequently ends up bearing all or part of the cost. These are the interests that must be balanced in deciding whether abortion should be legally permissible; the whole "is it a human?" issue is a smokescreen thrown up, unfortunately, by pro-choice advocates who get a bit squeamish when faced with the brute fact that abortion terminates a human life. Yes, it terminates a human life, but, on balance, I still think that legal abortion should be preserved.

 

[Luke T.]

It's arbitrary, but not completely arbitrary. We can, for example, notice that nobody below a certain level of brain development exhibits behaviors or traits we associate with personhood.

Defining personhood involves a certain amount of judgement, but I think determining whether any given fetus matches the criteria we eventually settle on can be done empirically.

Those who decide it is human from the moment of conception are basing their opinion on their personal philosophy. Not empirical evidence.

I started a topic yesterday about my coworker and his wife who lost their baby two months into the pregnancy. They are grieving the loss of that life the same as someone who has lost a birthed child grieves.

 

[jj]

"Human" is arbitrarily defined. For one extreme of the pro-life position, it is human the second the sperm penetrates the egg.

Even though modern medicine understands that there is a lot of chemical interaction between mom and the fertilized egg that creates the chemical gradients that actually cause the fertilized egg to differentiate properly and become a fetus, and then a baby?

So their "evidence" would be that the sperm has penetrated the egg.

But modern science shows clearly that that, alone, is not enough to make a baby. Chemical developmental cues are a basic part of how a fetus is created from an undifferentiated cell. The totality of what it takes to become human is therefore not present in the fertilized ovum, it does appear.

That is what the abortion debate is about. That's what the "slavery" camp doesn't get.

That's exactly what the people who oppose a woman being forced to carry an unwanted child understand, Luke, the people who make this unreasonable, anti-scientific assertion are forcing a woman to risk health, life, and limb, and for something that is not yet even potentially a capable organism. There is more to fetal development than the genes in the fertilized ovum.

ETA: The human rights of the fetus supercedes the mother's right to choose life or death for that fetus. It's that simple.

In other words, you chose a definition of "human" that includes "potential human" since all of the organizational information is not yet present in the fertilized ovum, ergo you have to also be against birth control, etc. as murder.

Please be consistent.

 

[Luke T.]

That, really, is the crux of this whole issue, and that's where I disagree with you. Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?), since when is every human's right to life absolutely inviolable?

Since when is every woman's right to choose absolutely inviolable?

Whatever interest the developing child may have in its life must be pretty minimal at the stage before its body is even fully developed, whereas the mother of the child has a strong liberty/autonomy interest in her own body, and society has an interest in preventing unwanted children, for which it frequently ends up bearing all or part of the cost.

Shall we guillotine all the residents of orphanages then?

These are the interests that must be balanced in deciding whether abortion should be legally permissible; the whole "is it a human?" issue is a smokescreen thrown up, unfortunately, by pro-choice advocates who get a bit squeamish when faced with the brute fact that abortion terminates a human life. Yes, it terminates a human life, but, on balance, I still think that legal abortion should be preserved.

At what point would you draw the line for an abortion? Eight months? Seven months? Right up until the baby crowns?

 

[JamesDillon]

Now, when do you think a human comes about in the process of human conception and gestation?

Let's start with that.

jj,

I have already answered this question for you several times. What would you call a developing embryo/fetus that contains a full set of human DNA other than "human"? It's clearly not a duck. As I have said before, several times, including in response to one of your own posts in the Roe v. Wade thread, a legitimate argument might be made about whether a developing embryo is a "person," since that term has more of a metaphysical connotation, but I can't fathom any legitimate argument for the proposition that a developing embryo is anything other than a member of the human species.

 

[jj]

Even conceding that a developing embryo/fetus is "human" (and given the fact that it contains a full human genome, what else could you call it?),

An ovum (fertilized, or not), with all the nutrients in the right places and proportions, can not become a human being, at least yet. There are a number of processes discovered that happen during implantation, etc, that trigger a variety of other processes that ensure (usually) proper tissue differentiation, etc. These processes would appear to be feedback-mediated at the cell level, and at least somewhat adaptive, which leaves us with a very interesting time if we try to do an external "gestation".

For more information on this, look for biochemical studies on fetal development, for discussions on the discoveries related to chemical gradients across cellls, intercellular chemical messaging, etc. The field is quite new, but some of the discoveries are very interesting indeed, and explain why mammals have generally different regrowth ability than, say, critters that come from eggs.

 

[JamesDillon]

Since when is every woman's right to choose absolutely inviolable?

It isn't, which is why we can proscribe late-term abortions, and prevent women from throwing their babies in trash cans after birth. We're talking about a balancing of interests here.

Shall we guillotine all the residents of orphanages then?

No. And please, after I've gone out of my way to criticize the folks on my side of this debate for indulging in absurd rhetorical hyperbole, don't start doing it yourself.

At what point would you draw the line for an abortion? Eight months? Seven months? Right up until the baby crowns?

I have no idea; I doubt there's a clear moment at which the balance of interests shifts. So the courts do the best they can in addressing a complex question. That doesn't undermine the fact that some balancing of interests is necessary.

 

[jj]

It's clearly not a duck.

Nor, by itself (assuming all the nutrients in the right places at the right times, starving a person is not an acceptable proposal here), is it capable of organizing itself into the organs, limbs, etc, that usually constitute a human being until well after implantation, after limb buds, various tissue movements and differentiation, etc, have taken place.

So it's not a human either, it's a potential human. Of course, an egg and a sperm are also parts of a potential human. If you want to protect one, you have to protect the lot to be consistent, eh?

 

[chris epic]

They must be white to be human; they must be "viable outside the mother's body" to be human.

Course, that eliminates everyone in a coma as human, too.

I'm reading "Contemporary Cases in Women's Rights" by Leslie Friedman Goldstein, a professor of political science at the university of delaware. In her book, the most recent definition of "viability" was decided in a 1983 Planned Parenthood case- the Court ruled that the definition of viability was "when, in the judgement of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support" so yes, people on life-support or still viable human beings. I don't personally agree with this in the latter sense... but its a great arguement to use for the fact that a child born pre-mature from the 2nd trimester is viable in this sense, therefore, it must be viable if it is in the mother during the 2nd semester and through to a timely birth.

 

[toddjh]

Those who decide it is human from the moment of conception are basing their opinion on their personal philosophy. Not empirical evidence.

Yes, which is why I think they're being silly. Laws should not be put on the books based on irrational thinking.

I started a topic yesterday about my coworker and his wife who lost their baby two months into the pregnancy. They are grieving the loss of that life the same as someone who has lost a birthed child grieves.

I feel for them, but the fact that they're grieving doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're sincere, which I wouldn't doubt in most cases.

 

[Luke T.]

Even though modern medicine understands that there is a lot of chemical interaction between mom and the fertilized egg that creates the chemical gradients that actually cause the fertilized egg to differentiate properly and become a fetus, and then a baby?

Yes, jj. They still believe it is human.

But modern science shows clearly that that, alone, is not enough to make a baby. Chemical developmental cues are a basic part of how a fetus is created from an undifferentiated cell. The totality of what it takes to become human is therefore not present in the fertilized ovum, it does appear.

jj, you are not hearing me.

That's exactly what the people who oppose a woman being forced to carry an unwanted child understand, Luke, the people who make this unreasonable, anti-scientific assertion are forcing a woman to risk health, life, and limb, and for something that is not yet even potentially a capable organism. There is more to fetal development than the genes in the fertilized ovum.

jj, do you know what percentage of abortions are for the health, life, and limb of the mother? Somewhere around, or less than, one percent. Out of 1.3 million abortions (or thereabouts) annually.

In other words, you chose a definition of "human" that includes "potential human" since all of the organizational information is not yet present in the fertilized ovum, ergo you have to also be against birth control, etc. as murder.

No. At some point, I think both you and I would agree that what is inside the mother is a human being. Eight months, maybe? And would you not agree that at that point the baby's life supercedes the mother's desire to abort it for reasons other than her life?

Please be consistent.

I am being consistent. I think you are misunderstanding me. I have said that I am undecided when it is human. I have said that others believe it is human from the moment of conception.

Whenever anyone decides it is human, whatever point that is (which is the crux of the debate), then its life must supercede the mother's right to choose.

 

[chris epic]

It's the ability to think.

You're thinking completely in philosophical terms, not biological. If you have any scientific evidence to prove your findings, please share them. The minute we stop philosophizing about the basis for the definition of human life and start looking at if from a biological and scientific approach, that's when we'll see the truth about human life (in my opinion).

 

[chris epic]

I remember in elementary school that a classmate became pregnant, stupidity not rape. She did not want to keep it, the prospective father felt the same way. However, the parents of both felt differently. She did not have an abortion, had to go to a special school for teenagers with children, ran away from there. At that point we all lost track of her.
How different would her life be now if she had been allowed to have the abortion???
How come the mothers mental health/state never seems to come into play?

It was illegal for her parents to bar her abortion- I wish a child advocate had stepped in for her.

 

[Luke T.]

Yes, which is why I think they're being silly. Laws should not be put on the books based on irrational thinking.



I feel for them, but the fact that they're grieving doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're sincere, which I wouldn't doubt in most cases.

No, it doesn't. I mention it because I want people to understand that this really is a life and death issue for pro-lifers. The saving of human life. Not slavery.

 

[toddjh]

No, it doesn't. I mention it because I want people to understand that this really is a life and death issue for pro-lifers. The saving of human life. Not slavery.

Oh, sorry. I've always been on your side with that one.

 

[chris epic]

I tend to agree with you. I don't think that anyone is in a position better than I to understand the particular issues that I face vis a vis an unwanted pregnancy. I would dearly love to know how many anti abortion advocates have adopted.

I know this doesn't mean much in numbers, but my father is 50 and he just adopted a baby boy from a 14 year old rape victim.

 

[HarryKeogh]

You're thinking completely in philosophical terms, not biological. If you have any scientific evidence to prove your findings, please share them. The minute we stop philosophizing about the basis for the definition of human life and start looking at if from a biological and scientific approach, that's when we'll see the truth about human life (in my opinion).

I'm certainly not thinking entirely in philosophical terms. There is science involved.


Here's a great essay by Carl Sagan which greatly influenced my position on abortion:
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month. By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

 

[Luke T.]

You're thinking completely in philosophical terms, not biological. If you have any scientific evidence to prove your findings, please share them. The minute we stop philosophizing about the basis for the definition of human life and start looking at if from a biological and scientific approach, that's when we'll see the truth about human life (in my opinion).

And that's the brick wall in the debate right there.

Your own opinion is a philosophy. The fact we value a living breathing human being over a cow is a moral philosophy.

 

[chris epic]

Are there seriously people who consider "abortion only in the case of mother health, rape, or incest" to be a pro-choice position? That is not pro-choice in the least.
.

Sure it is. It makes sense when you review definition of terms in each court case. "Health" isn't limited to physical health. Health is also subject to "emotional health". In other words- if a pregnant woman cites that continuing an abortion will be emotionally devistating, then that is groups for legal abortion- and since emotional health is far less tangable, I believe, than physical health... well, you know the rest, just look at the abortion statistics.