When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

[TragicMonkey]

I would give no more thought to the destruction of a just fertilised egg then I would of the destruction of the millions of sperms that didn't get to fertilise that particular egg.

No! "Every Sperm is Sacred"! Lol.

But that wasn't why I used the word "potential". I used it simply because we just don’t know the future of any particular child and therefore any "life" we "save" by not aborting is just a potential life. After all the child could be born normally and yet be dead within a few days of birth. The child may even die during childbirth.

But the same could be said about anyone at any age. The kid could drop dead at age 8, or 16, or 40. It is alive, however, until it dies, just like the rest of us. A two day life span may be a tragically short one, but it's still life.

 

[BPSCG]

Perhaps abortion is an ethical dilemma that will be solved by technology. Suppose we reach the point where we have the means to painlessly and easily remove an embryo of any stage of development and let it live outside the womb and grow to be a normal, healthy human being. The circumstances of the conception would be irrelevant, and the woman would not be required to bear any pregnancy she didn't want.

Some problems with that. But before I address them, I want to say that your first post on this thread is one of the best things I've seen on the subject. Not surprisingly, it parallels my thinking...

Anyway, on to the problems:

Right now, we do have the technology to induce labor, and since we're now saving premature babies at five months' gestation, I would think the pain factor for a mother giving birth to a baby you could fit in the palm of your hand would be minimal.

The problems are:

1) The issue isn't can the mother give birth easily. It's whether she wants to have the child at all. Yes, we could induce labor and have her deliver a viable child (might need a lot of special care for a couple of months), but what do you do with it afterwards?

2) What is the justification for expending heroic efforts to save the life of a baby born at five months' gestation while aborting another one at six months?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I would give no more thought to the destruction of a just fertilised egg then I would of the destruction of the millions of sperms that didn't get to fertilise that particular egg.

but I think it does require more thought because a sperm cell or an egg will never become a person. But a fertilized egg certainly can.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The problems are:

1) The issue isn't can the mother give birth easily. It's whether she wants to have the child at all. Yes, we could induce labor and have her deliver a viable child (might need a lot of special care for a couple of months), but what do you do with it afterwards?

2) What is the justification for expending heroic efforts to save the life of a baby born at five months' gestation while aborting another one at six months?

For 1) the mother's wishes are irrelevant. The child exists already. Too late--she could have prevented it by preventing conception. She only has choice over the child's fate because it occupies her body. Once it's out of her body, she loses that authority. You can't present her with a living baby and ask if she'd like it killed.

For 2) I agree, things are very odd. A man shoots a pregnant woman and gets charged with two murders. The woman was on her way to the abortion clinic, but the same fetus would not be a murder victim. The flaw in the pro-choice position is that the intent of the mother determines the definition of life for her child.

 

[shanek]

I voted 6 months to 8 months, when brain activity starts.

of course at any time when the mom's health is in danger (however rare that may be) mom takes precedence.

I think I can probably go along with this...brain activity might be one good indication (since that is actually how we define death: when brain activity stops), or the viability of the fetus to survive outside the womb might be another. I fully agree with the life/health of the mother exception, or the rape/incest exception.

I'm not comfortable putting a timetable on it, though. I don't know much about foetal development, but I do know that everyone is different and progresses at different rates.

 

[geni]

I don't understand how you can hold this view if you think abortion is wrong. Surely the circumstances of the pregnancy are a total irrelevance if the non-borns' right to a potential life are paramount?

Becuase contiuning with the pregnacy would put the mothers life in danger.

 

[AWPrime]

if you consider it a human being why would you be okay with abortion in the case of rape? Why punish the innocent human being in the womb?

A different view:

Why reward the rapest with offspring?

 

[AWPrime]

But a fertilized egg certainly can.

But most won't become human.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But the same could be said about anyone at any age. The kid could drop dead at age 8, or 16, or 40. It is alive, however, until it dies, just like the rest of us. A two day life span may be a tragically short one, but it's still life.

No disagreement with that however I do think the idea of "potential life" can help to work out what to do under certain circumstances. E.g. for a lot of women childbirth is a very dangerous and an abortion may be necessary for risk to the woman. (Granted this is not that relevant to women in countries such as the USA and the countries of the EU since mother mortality is quite low.)

In this type of circumstance I think the idea that the foetus/embryo/baby only has a potential for life whereas the mother actually has a life it is clear to see which should have precedence. (Well for me of course it is clear.)

 

[Luke T.]

I don't understand how you can hold this view if you think abortion is wrong. Surely the circumstances of the pregnancy are a total irrelevance if the non-borns' right to a potential life are paramount?

You may be mistaking me for a black-and-white extremist pro-lifer. I am far more pragmatic than that, and have actually wrestled with this issue on a very deep personal level for some time right here and on SC. I had quite a dramatic change of heart recently in a topic on SC about this topic.

I said above that I and my wife personally would not abort a fetus that was the result of rape. That is our own personal belief in action, and therefore I am not being contradictory in my own beliefs. However, I am also pragmatic as to the realities of our society, and would not impose that belief on someone else who has been raped who became pregnant through no fault of their own. A pregnant rape victim is completely without fault. Innocent. Even the Catholic Church has been known to condone abortion in such cases as rape and risk to the mother's life.

Attempting to turn the focus on cases of rape and incest and mother's health is a pro-choice ploy to paint the opposition as extremist nutjobs when I, and I believe most pro-life people, am not. It overamplifies what is actually a tiny fraction of the overall issue. By far, most abortions are done for economic or other personal inconvenience reasons. At least half, and possibly up to 80 percent, of all pregnancies which are aborted are due to a lack of the use of a contraceptive. And that is where the answer to the problem lies.

I do not believe overturning Roe v. Wade would change the number of abortions that occur one bit. I believe that strategy is a complete waste of time on the part of the pro-life movement. I believe a more practical stategy is to encourage birth control prior to pregnancy.

I believe every abortion is a tragedy, it's true. But as someone pointed out the case of automobiles, I would not seek to abolish automobile travel because lives are lost in traffic accidents every day. That would be the extremist nutjob position.

But there is nothing wrong with grieving the losses and seeking a means to bring those numbers down to an absolute minimum.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In this type of circumstance I think the idea that the foetus/embryo/baby only has a potential for life whereas the mother actually has a life it is clear to see which should have precedence. (Well for me of course it is clear.)

Oh, it's clear to me, too. But I think "potential life" is just setting up a term that's an easy target. It sounds terrible to say it, but saying that the fetus has a life but that the mother's life has precedence over it anyway is more, well, honest.

 

[Darat]

but I think it does require more thought because a sperm cell or an egg will never become a person. But a fertilized egg certainly can.

If you consider the advances in cloning then it may not be too far off that every cell (with a nucleus) may be able to become a person. Would that then mean that every cell has to be treated like a "potential" person?

What I find very interesting in these debates is where we start from, I suspect we are all very arbitrary in what we declare is OK or not, if we apply the reasoning we say we do every single time we come to some form of stumbling block.

My starting point is pretty much the biological process. Millions of embryos and thousands of foetuses are aborted everyday (with no outside intervention) I see nothing wrong with a few additional ones being aborted by the aid of some technology.

 

[aerocontrols]

I said it is always wrong, because there's nothing in the poll about triage except that part of your text that says we should assume the pregnancy is not risky.

Like many other things that are wrong, (lotteries and other gambling, shooting trespassers, being a mime...) however, I don't support laws prohibiting abortion.

 

[Darat]

You may be mistaking me for a black-and-white extremist pro-lifer. I am far more pragmatic than that, and have actually wrestled with this issue on a very deep personal level for some time right here and on SC. I had quite a dramatic change of heart recently in a topic on SC about this topic.

I said above that I and my wife personally would not abort a fetus that was the result of rape. That is our own personal belief in action, and therefore I am not being contradictory in my own beliefs. However, I am also pragmatic as to the realities of our society, and would not impose that belief on someone else who has been raped who became pregnant through no fault of their own. A pregnant rape victim is completely without fault. Innocent. Even the Catholic Church has been known to condone abortion in such cases as rape and risk to the mother's life.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, of course I understand that you can consider something wrong for yourself but not for others - most of my own beliefs on matters such as personal responsibility and drugs revolve around that type of distinction.

Just one point, I didn't think the official Catholic stance had changed on abortion, i.e. "under no circumstances"?

Attempting to turn the focus on cases of rape and incest and mother's health is a pro-choice ploy to paint the opposition as extremist nutjobs when I, and I believe most pro-life people, am not. It overamplifies what is actually a tiny fraction of the overall issue. By far, most abortions are done for economic or other personal inconvenience reasons. At least half, and possibly up to 80 percent, of all pregnancies which are aborted are due to a lack of the use of a contraceptive. And that is where the answer to the problem lies.

I don't have any figures to argue with you and my own gut feeling is that you're probably right. However I do think it is right to, when discussing this issue, to look at the extremes - after all these types of “non-consenting” pregnancies do happen.

I do not believe overturning Roe v. Wade would change the number of abortions that occur one bit. I believe that strategy is a complete waste of time on the part of the pro-life movement. I believe a more practical stategy is to encourage birth control prior to pregnancy.

I believe every abortion is a tragedy, it's true. But as someone pointed out the case of automobiles, I would not seek to abolish automobile travel because lives are lost in traffic accidents every day. That would be the extremist nutjob position.

But there is nothing wrong with grieving the losses and seeking a means to bring those numbers down to an absolute minimum.

I agree that reduction is a good goal. However I cannot equate early abortion (under say 9 weeks) as being anything like killing a person.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you consider the advances in cloning then it may not be too far off that every cell (with a nucleus) may be able to become a person. Would that then mean that every cell has to be treated like a "potential" person?

Only if action is taken to make that cell into a person. If you don't start the process, the potential remains unfulfilled. It's the same difference as is between using a condom and having an abortion. The latter stops a process, the other prevents it from starting.

 

[BPSCG]

Millions of embryos and thousands of foetuses are aborted everyday (with no outside intervention) I see nothing wrong with a few additional ones being aborted by the aid of some technology.

Even when the fetus is 8-3/4 months along, and its birth would present no significant risk to the mother?

BTW, I think I understand what you mean by "potential life", but I also think it's a misnomer. I think almost everyone would agree that the thing growing inside the mother is a life from the moment of conception (Sagan went even further, claiming that life is a continuous process, IIRC); the issue is when does it become a human being, and when does it become a person? I believe from a legal standpoint, personhood doesn't happen until birth. But that embryo becomes a "human being" somewhere before birth, and I think it's that gray area that's so troublesome: when does the embryo become a "human being"? Whatever that is...

 

[TragicMonkey]

when does the embryo become a "human being"? Whatever that is...

I think many people hold that the embryo becomes a human being once it becomes "cute"! If it's a clump of cells, then it doesn't count. But once it develops little fingers and toes, awwww.

 

[Tmy]

If you havent made up your mind to abort by like 5-6 months. I say too f'n bad, you go to term.

I dont buy too much into the "my body" line. AT a point you owe a duty to the child. Its like when people do drugs or smoke while preggy. Its unacceptable.

I still see the need to have abortions. At the early stages is it really that big o deal.

 

[BPSCG]

I think many people hold that the embryo becomes a human being once it becomes "cute"! If it's a clump of cells, then it doesn't count. But once it develops little fingers and toes, awwww.

Yeah, good luck trying to write "awwww" into a statute regulating abortion...

 

[Darat]

Only if action is taken to make that cell into a person. If you don't start the process, the potential remains unfulfilled. It's the same difference as is between using a condom and having an abortion. The latter stops a process, the other prevents it from starting.

I thought about that after I posted and realised the ever-so-slight difference.