Should abortion be considered murder?

[Rev Prez]

If you would like to learn along with the rest of us and be given a chance to express your view without becoming overly emotional, ok, otherwise don't participate.

I've yet to get emotional on the issue. You, on the other hand, decided to dismissively demand I go check out biology textbook and "read up." Kerrie's offered little beyond disparaging remarks about pro-lifers, her personal outrage at abortion opponents, and her prejudice against men.

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Because your evidence set doesn't control for quality of care period. There's no evidence that abortion's legal status is a determining factor in the maternal mortality due to abortion. The single most determining factor is the availability of antibiotics. And, if you believe as others have stated that abortions can be drastically reduced by addressing other health care issues, the question as to why legal abortion is a necessary component to achieving better reproductive health remains open. In the end, it is not--or at least has not been shown to be. That leaves us with merely the ethical question of balancing the moral rights of the unborn--if they have any--against those of the mother. And, as I've demonstrated in my retroactive rights argument, using sapience to determine worthiness is as ethically arbitrary as using potential.



I've addressed your evidence--decisively, too. You can keep avoiding the issue as long as you wish, but I'll entertain you only so far.

Rev Prez

WARNING Go back and read what I have said. We are re-starting this thread. No more discussion of personal views until we lay a basic framework. We are going to give an accurate biological account first. Too many people here don't seem to understand the basics.

 

[Moonbear]

Because your evidence set doesn't control for quality of care period. There's no evidence that abortion's legal status is a determining factor in the maternal mortality due to abortion. The single most determining factor is the availability of antibiotics.

Did you read the entire article, not just the portion I quoted? I can't quote the entire article due to board policy on copyright issues, which is why I provided a citation. Within the article, they do state that antibiotics are available, and are the usual course of treatment for the women arriving in sepsis. The problem is not that Argentina does not have adequate medical care, it is that women seeking abortions cannot obtain the quality medical care because it is illegal, so they seek the abortions from people who are not qualified to give such care. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, as we've decided to start over on this thread with a different approach, then this particular point is not one to continue for now. Perhaps we will reach a later point in discussion where it becomes relevant again, but for now, we have more basic questions to address.

 

[Rev Prez]

Re: science: you're new here.

Mind explaining how that's relevant.

Trust me when I say this: I do not use the word arbitrarily.

I don't trust you, precisely because you did use the word arbitrarily.

I have a reputation for being pedantic and I really am a sticler for definitions (see above).

You mean the "trust me" or "you're new here"?

See, this is part of the problem: the different sides even characterize the issue in completely different terms. To someone who looks at the issue scientifically, when is a huge part of the question.

No, its not. Personhood is an ethical question, not a scientific one.

True. However, what makes a person a person? Many people believe that's a scientific question.

Yes, many people who have a less than clear understanding as to what science is.

Remember, this isn't the first issue where science and religion have clashed on that exact question (evolution).

This isn't a clash between religion and science. It is a clash between different ethical systems, where in this country the two loudest voices are secular humanists and Christians. However, science has no dog in this fight.

Absolutely correct. But it most certainly has ethical implications. I'm with you on that too. Why not? See, this is why I say the hardcore pro-life side often operates on belief(even faith) alone.

As do the most unimpressive of secularists. Who cares? The debate is in particular an ethical one in an effort to balance the rights of the unborn with those of the mother. The larger discussion (in this thread) is the consistency of each sides' belief systems and the practical consequences of their preferred system. The only role science plays in that is to ensure that we can honestly communicate evidentiary stipulations to our ethical positions.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

WARNING Go back and read what I have said. We are re-starting this thread. No more discussion of personal views until we lay a basic framework. We are going to give an accurate biological account first. Too many people here don't seem to understand the basics.

With all due respect, I don't need a primer in reproduction. Russ has a point to make and I'm going to follow it up.

Rev Prez

 

[arildno]

I'll say something about similar about "pro-choicers." They're self-absorbed masters of the most false form of compassion--liberalisn--who after half-building low income housing projects, spending over $2 trillion in foreign aid, and instituting universal health care have nothing to show for it but ghettos, impoverished nations, and the decline of European medical innovation. Now tell me, did either your remark or mine do anything to further discussion? I'll tell you one thing, mine hits closer to home than yours.

Rev Prez

You live in a fantasy world; at least, you certainly don't know a thing about Europe (which doesn't surprise me in the least).

 

[Moonbear]

using sapience to determine worthiness is as ethically arbitrary as using potential.

This I can agree on, which is why I continue to be pro-choice, because the time when personhood begins is an arbitrary decision, thus I will not hold someone else to my arbitrariness. If you think personhood begins at a different time than someone else, it is up to you to decide if you will or won't have an abortion according to your own arbitrary cut-off point. Unless someone can make a compelling argument that removes this arbitrary component, your personal choice is a good as mine.

 

[Evo]

Rev, I told you to stop this, I wasn't joking.

 

[Evo]

With all due respect, I don't need a primer in reproduction. Rev Prez

With all due respect, I think you do, based on your prior posts.

 

[Moonbear]

Personhood is an ethical question, not a scientific one.

...It is a clash between different ethical systems, where in this country the two loudest voices are secular humanists and Christians. However, science has no dog in this fight.

I'm going to make two suggestions at this point.

First, science does provide us with information about stages of development and terminology pertaining to those stages of development. This is relevant to some people's views even if you consider it unimportant to your own view on this issue. So, going along with Evo's wishes on this, I will return later to post on these distinctions, if for nothing else, the sake of clarity in our discussion (i.e., when you say fetus, do you really mean only a fetus, or do you mean any stage of development from conceptus onward.)

Second, because this discussion began in politics, it has included the topic of legality/illegality and balance of rights, possibly for practical reasons which may not be entirely consistent with purely ethical reasons. If this discussion is going to turn down the road of ethics regarding personhood rather than the political/legality issue, we should perhaps resume the discussion in one of the philosophy subforums rather than the politics subforum. On this point, I suggest we include misskitty in the decision of which of these two directions the thread takes since it is her thread. Once we decide a direction, I hope we can then stick with it (I think we are all discussing this thread from multiple directions, which is contributing to our confusion of what the discussion topic actually is). If someone then wishes to pursue an alternate direction, they of course are free to open up a new topic in the appropriate subforum to address that avenue of discourse.

 

[misskitty]

Thank you Moonbear. I was waiting for a time to come back in, but I couldn't really find anything to say.

 

[Rev Prez]

This I can agree on, which is why I continue to be pro-choice, because the time when personhood begins is an arbitrary decision, thus I will not hold someone else to my arbitrariness.

Neither will I. Which is why the issue should be decided by the legislatures rather than the courts.

Unless someone can make a compelling argument that removes this arbitrary component, your personal choice is a good as mine.

All ethical positions boil down to arbitrarily held first principles. Some are held more broadly than others. That, as others have pointed out, is a discussion better suited for the philosophy forums. Here, I will say that the question is whether the question of abortion should have been and in the future should be settled in the courts.

Rev Prez

 

[Moonbear]

Well folks, as far as I can tell, this thread has hit an impasse, but since I already promised to return with additional information, and found an additional article tonight of general interest (though not particularly on topic), I will post what I promised to post, which are basically some definitions of postfertilization events in pregnancy.

Fertilized egg= zygote.
24 hours after fertilization, cell division begins.
Once cell division begins, the cluster of cells are referred to as an embryo.

Embryonic stages:
3 to 4 days of cleavage, embryo is a ball of cells that enters and remains free-floating in the uterus.

Approximately 7 days after fertilization, a blastocyst is formed, which is a hollow ball of cells. This is the stage at which implantation in the uterus occurs. (Note, failure of implantation is common, and women often are unaware conception had occurred when pregnancy is lost at this stage (this is three weeks from last menstrual period; or LMP.)

By 5 weeks of development (7 weeks since LMP), limb buds, eyes, heart, liver, and rudiments of other organs have begun to develop (this is also the stage when most women learn or suspect they are pregnant, being 3 weeks late for a menstrual period, however, it is not entirely uncommon for women to bleed in the first month of pregnancy and be unaware yet they are pregnant). The embryo is approx. 1 cm long.

Fetal stages:
By 8 weeks, (10 weeks LMP), major adult structures are present in rudimentary form, and is now termed a fetus.

By the end of the first trimester, the fetus is approx. 5 cm long.

In the first trimester, the rapid embryonic development also renders the embryo most susceptible to insults such as drug or alcohol use.

By 11-12 weeks of development, the fetal thyroid gland begins to secrete thyroid hormones under the regulation of fetal TSH. Without these, nervous system development does not progress normally.

Fetal circulation differs markedly from adult circulation. Fetal lungs are non-functional, so the fetus is entirely dependent on the placenta for both oxygen and nutrient supplies. Blood supply from the placenta mostly enters the liver. A small portion bypasses the liver and directly enters the vena cava, where it is kept mostly separate from the blood entering from the hepatic vein. In the fetus, unlike adults, the ventricles operate primarily in parallel. Most of the blood does not enter the lungs when pumped out of the heart, but passes through the ductus arteriosis, which closes after birth, directly from the pulmonary artery into the aorta.

Oxygen, carbon dioxide, nutrients and metabolic wastes cross the placenta to be exchanged with maternal circulation.

Fetuses can be viable as early as 24 weeks of pregnancy (26 weeks LMP), although they require extensive life support intervention and have high risks of complications and low survival rates (20-50% for infants born gestational age of 28 weeks or less). 36 weeks is generally considered full term, and average gestation is 38 weeks.


I just came across this article tonight and recommend reading it in its entirety as it contains a lot of information that is not easily condensed here. This was written with the objective of addressing problems with pre-term deliveries (premature births), and is not directly related to the abortion issue, but even I was surprised to read this as I was previously under the impression premature babies eventually caught up with full term babies in brain development within a year or so after birth. Of course the caveat here is that the problems observed in these children could be related to the causes for their preterm delivery rather than to normal brain development in this stage of gestation.

Peterson BS.
Brain imaging studies of the anatomical and functional consequences of preterm birth for human brain development.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Dec;1008:219-37.

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/full/1008/1/219

From the introduction to the article:

The public health ramifications of premature birth are profound. Infants weighing less than 1500 g at birth now represent nearly 2% of all live births in the United States,1,2 and survival rates for these infants approach 85%.3 The numbers of prematurely born infants surviving into later childhood, adolescence, and adulthood are staggering.

Functional Outcome
The adverse consequences of preterm birth have been increasingly well appreciated by medical professionals and researchers, but they have not been widely recognized yet by the lay public. The prevalence in this population of major neurodevelopmental handicaps, such as cerebral palsy and mental retardation, ranges from 12% to 32%, depending on the particular cohort and study.4-8 The prevalence of less devastating and less obvious adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes is even higher. IQ scores in this population average 85, or one standard deviation below the population mean.9 Even those with uncomplicated neonatal courses frequently have serious cognitive and educational difficulties,10,11 and more than half require special assistance in school or education in full-time special education classrooms. By 8 years of age, nearly 20% have repeated at least one grade in school12,13 and, frequently, more fail in school later as educational demands increase.14,15 Rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, various anxiety disorders, disturbances in thought processes, schizophrenia,16 and learning disabilities in this population are several times higher than in the general population.8,10

 

[Averagesupernova]

Wow! Alot happened since I was last here.

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion!

Gee. I guess we should be allowed to have only one kid because pregnancy is pretty damn stressful too. We wouldn't want to take a chance on abusing our already born children because of stress from pregnancy or any other stress for that matter.

Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings!

Hmmm. That's an interesting stat.

Here's the way I look at it:

Life does not really start at anyone given moment. The potential for life does not either. I don't see the difference between destroying a 3 week old zygote/embryo/whatever it's called and using a condom and letting the egg die its normal slow death as well as the many many sperm. They are both potential for life in very early stages. Pro-lifers who think that ANY life is better than NO life have no idea how poor human life can get. Just because something CAN happen does not mean it should.

 

[loseyourname]

This I can agree on, which is why I continue to be pro-choice, because the time when personhood begins is an arbitrary decision, thus I will not hold someone else to my arbitrariness. If you think personhood begins at a different time than someone else, it is up to you to decide if you will or won't have an abortion according to your own arbitrary cut-off point. Unless someone can make a compelling argument that removes this arbitrary component, your personal choice is a good as mine.

It's ironic that that is exactly the reason I am pro-choice. Personhood is a very poorly defined and arbitrary concept to begin with, which was the entire reason the Supreme Court was able to rule that Dred Scott was not a person and must be returned to his owner. The current status of the law suggests that, in order to qualify as a person, an organism must be

• Human
• Sentient
• Have the potential for decision-making and higher cognitive abilities

*Being born is no longer an obvious qualification as it was at the time of Roe v. Wade, in light of several new state laws that allow a person to be prosecuted as a murderer for wrongfully causing the death of a fetus.

Once it has the organs and limbs, it is obviously human. I think the argument could be made that it is human as soon as it has a full human genome that is being expressed, but I would assume that it is uncontentious to call it human once it has taken human form. It is also fairly obvious to me that it possesses sentience very early in the development of the nervous system. The third qualification is present even in gametes, so there is nothing to be discussed there.

I do think that these qualifications run fairly well in line with what I would consider my own ethical considerations regarding personhood. I don't claim to know exactly when a fetus should be granted this status (or ethically, when it attains this status, whether or not it is legally granted), but the fact that it occurs at some point fairly early in the developmental process, and is almost certainly complete once the second trimester begins, is enough to give me pause about allowing anybody, mother or not, a choice in this matter. Consider the following argument:

If the fetus has the ethical status of a person at time A, then killing the fetus at or after time A is murder.
The fetus does have the ethical status of a person at time A.
We do not know exactly when time A occurs.
Therefore, we do not know whether any given abortion is murder or not, but it may be.

Going back to your original statement, I think we are in agreement about this. My stance, however, is that we should err on the side of caution. If we do not know whether or not a given act is murder, but we do know that it may be murder, then we should not commit that act. In fact, we have laws against driving recklessly and firing guns in the air, not because they will result in the death of a human person, but because they might result in the death of a human person.

 

[Rev Prez]

It's ironic that that is exactly the reason I am pro-choice. Personhood is a very poorly defined and arbitrary concept to begin with, which was the entire reason the Supreme Court was able to rule that Dred Scott was not a person and must be returned to his owner. The current status of the law suggests that, in order to qualify as a person, an organism must be

Just to be clear, the current state of the law possibly attaches personhood to the concept of viability, that is the ability to survive outside of the womb. I say possibly because the Court leaves that matter up to the State, and with the restriction that the unborn's interest must be balanced negatively against the life and health of the mother.

Once it has the organs and limbs, it is obviously human. I think the argument could be made that it is human as soon as it has a full human genome that is being expressed

Just beyond a nitpick, the fully genome is highly unlikely ever to be fully expressed. And even so that standard in the end is a phenotypic determination, leaving you with the same problem of capricious line drawing you started with. The problem is in the ethical dilemma in attaching personhood in the first place. If that's a discussion for Philosophy or Value Theory, then perhaps it we'd do better to focus on which arena--the courts or the legislatures--society should make such choices.

I do think that these qualifications run fairly well in line with what I would consider my own ethical considerations regarding personhood.

In the absence of unverisal ethical certainty, wouldn't "erring on the side of caution" apply?

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Just to be clear, the current state of the law possibly attaches personhood to the concept of viability, that is the ability to survive outside of the womb. I say possibly because the Court leaves that matter up to the State, and with the restriction that the unborn's interest must be balanced negatively against the life and health of the mother.



Just beyond a nitpick, the fully genome is highly unlikely ever to be fully expressed. And even so that standard in the end is a phenotypic determination, leaving you with the same problem of capricious line drawing you started with. The problem is in the ethical dilemma in attaching personhood in the first place. If that's a discussion for Philosophy or Value Theory, then perhaps it we'd do better to focus on which arena--the courts or the legislatures--society should make such choices.

In the absence of unverisal ethical certainty, wouldn't "erring on the side of caution" apply?

Rev Prez

I think the last few posts that I have just read are the best I've seen at discussing soem of the key issues today. Rev Prez, you present very well.

My wish would be to dispell wrong information about the biological aspect of gestation, then bring in some correct infirnation

 

[Rev Prez]

I think the last few posts that I have just read are the best I've seen at discussing soem of the key issues today. Rev Prez, you present very well.

Why thank you. I love being patronized.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Mind explaining how that's relevant.

I don't trust you, precisely because you did use the word arbitrarily.

You mean the "trust me" or "you're new here"?

There is no need for the combative attitude. The expansion followed the statement you asked me to expand on. The point was simply that because you are new, you don't know me well enough to know how much of a stickler I am for definitions. Its tough to say I used the words arbitrarily because I didn't claim any definitions. So you should assume that I'm talking about the accepted definitions.

Why thank you. I love being patronized.

Prez, you have an attitude problem you need to fix. That was a real compliment you got and you responded with a sarcastic insult.

 

[Rev Prez]

There is no need for the combative attitude.

I'm not being combative. I'm calmy and thoroughly pointing out that you used terms you supposedly value carelessly. Unfortunately, all you have to offer is patronizing filler.

The expansion followed the statement you asked me to expand on.

It wasn't an expansion. It was "you're new here, so trust me, I know what I'm talking about." The fact I'm new here has nothing to do with anything, and so far you've given me no reason to trust that you do know what you're talking about.

The point was simply that because you are new, you don't know me well enough to know how much of a stickler I am for definitions.

And I'm pointing out that you (and others) have tossed out the words science and logic around carelessly and without regard for their meaning. You can correct the situation by being more carefvul in the future.

Its tough to say I used the words arbitrarily because I didn't claim any definitions. So you should assume that I'm talking about the accepted definitions.

I can't assume anything of the sort, especially when you did use the terms carelessly and continue to do so.

Prez, you have an attitude problem you need to fix.

Man, you're one in an million. I'm done with you.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

I'm going to make two suggestions at this point.

First, science does provide us with information about stages of development and terminology pertaining to those stages of development. This is relevant to some people's views even if you consider it unimportant to your own view on this issue. So, going along with Evo's wishes on this, I will return later to post on these distinctions, if for nothing else, the sake of clarity in our discussion (i.e., when you say fetus, do you really mean only a fetus, or do you mean any stage of development from conceptus onward.)

Second, because this discussion began in politics, it has included the topic of legality/illegality and balance of rights, possibly for practical reasons which may not be entirely consistent with purely ethical reasons. If this discussion is going to turn down the road of ethics regarding personhood rather than the political/legality issue, we should perhaps resume the discussion in one of the philosophy subforums rather than the politics subforum. On this point, I suggest we include misskitty in the decision of which of these two directions the thread takes since it is her thread. Once we decide a direction, I hope we can then stick with it (I think we are all discussing this thread from multiple directions, which is contributing to our confusion of what the discussion topic actually is). If someone then wishes to pursue an alternate direction, they of course are free to open up a new topic in the appropriate subforum to address that avenue of discourse.

Please permit me to be a little more specific, and forgive me if this has already been covered, since I dind't read the whole thread (if I'm echoing anyone, just consider it me agreeing with you)...

The abortion debate has 3 parts (and yes, the order is important):

Part 1 is the determination of the moral status of the mother and her offspring. For some, the answer is simply "life" begins at conception and a 1 second old zygote is the moral equivalent of an adult, human female. Note, I include "female" in that because the idea that females and males are equivalent moral agents is a relatively new concept and one that still enters the debate from time to time. For others, the status of the offspring may even change on a daily basis, based on its stage of development.

On part 1, for the two sides, there can be no general agreement (as we've seen, even on part 1's existence), but at the very least the two sides can endeavour to understand each other.

Part 2 is about resolving the conflict of rights between the two moral agents above. This comes from the western principles of rights: your rights extend only as far as they trample the rights of another. Its the key question in virtually any discussion of rights (consider smoking: the rights of the smoker and non-smoker in a restaraunt conflict with each other) This question is actually simplest for the far-prochoice side: if "life" starts at birth, then there are no rights to conflict with. Though the far pro-life side also often sees the answer in such clear terms, the fact of the matter is that its not clear: Even if a 1 second old zygote is considered the moral equivalent of an adult human female, the conflict between their rights still has to be remedied. Ie, if they both have an equivalent right to life, there may be a case (a car accident, for example), where the fetus's existence threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made as to who'se life takes priority.

Part 3 is making this all fit with practical reality. Its been alluded to before, but the examples given were bad: a good example of this is Prohibition. It was decided that drinking was immoral/wrong and a detriment to society, so it was outlawed. Fine. But the practical reality was that outlawing it created more problems than it solved. Thus, Prohibition was repealed.

As I said before, this debate has little chance of arriving at a general agreement - but let's face it, which debates ever do? This debate may be more contentuous than average, but its not fundamentally different in that way. The best we can hope for is to gain an understanding of and respect for the various viewpoints. The reason I'm even discussing this at all (as I said before, I tend to avoid this issue) is that I see some potential for a serious, civil, respectful discussion here. It would be unprecidented, but it would be a good thing and I'd like to see it happen.

 

[Kerrie]

Part 3 is making this all fit with practical reality. Its been alluded to before, but the examples given were bad: a good example of this is Prohibition. It was decided that drinking was immoral/wrong and a detriment to society, so it was outlawed. Fine. But the practical reality was that outlawing it created more problems than it solved. Thus, Prohibition was repealed.

As I said before, this debate has little chance of arriving at a general agreement - but let's face it, which debates ever do? This debate may be more contentuous, but its not fundamentally different in that way. The best we can hope for is to gain an understanding of and respect for the various viewpoints.

Excellent presentation Russ (and I do mean that sincerely ). Part 3 is where I agree the most. What is the reality of this sort of situation? How many will be harmed if either situation (abortion legalized or not) was put in place? History has shown us that women are more unsafe with it being illegal because of the moral standards of society then being legal and compromising morals of some. I really like how you gave Prohibition as an example in comparison to abortion.

 

[Rev Prez]

The abortion debate has 3 parts (and yes, the order is important):

Actually, the abortion debate consists of any number of parts, and the order is most definitely not important. I'll address the three you bring up.

Part 1 is the determination of the moral status of the mother and her offspring.

The question of whether or not the unborn are worthy of personhood status depends on the inherent moral rights we attach to them and how they are balanced against the interests of others (the mother, society at large, Bob in Wisconsin). Your Part 1, therefore, is the whole debate. Part 2 and 3, among other considerations, are inputs among others to this function.

On part 1, for the two sides, there can be no general agreement (as we've seen, even on part 1's existence), but at the very least the two sides can endeavour to understand each other.

That is neither necessary or even desirable. One side considers abortion murder. It would be too much to ask them to understand the views of those who tolerate or even embrace something so morally repugnant.

Part 2 is about resolving the conflict of rights between the two moral agents above. This comes from the western principles of rights: your rights extend only as far as they trample the rights of another.

This is a very narrow, negative subset of the set of obligations citizens and states share amongst themselves. We can recast Part 2 as the adjudication of individual, group and governing obligations to one another.

This question is actually simplest for the far-prochoice side: if "life" starts at birth, then there are no rights to conflict with.

Of course there are rights to balance after birth. Guardians have legal responsibilities to children in their care. In most societies, you cannot by self-declaration absolve yourself of these responsibilities--hence, the legal understanding of child neglect.

Though the far pro-life side also often sees the answer in such clear terms, the fact of the matter is that its not clear: Even if a 1 second old zygote is considered the moral equivalent of an adult human female, the conflict between their rights still has to be remedied.

Yes. The question to pro-choicers is why should it be resolved in a manner differently than for born children?

Ie, if they both have an equivalent right to life, there may be a case (a car accident, for example), where the fetus's existence threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made as to who'se life takes priority.

The pro-life response: save both, barring that save who you can. Even so, the procedure as a life-saving technique is extraordinarily rare. So why not discuss the vast majority of abortions that take place absent a threat to the mother's life?

Part 3 is making this all fit with practical reality. Its been alluded to before, but the examples given were bad: a good example of this is Prohibition. It was decided that drinking was immoral/wrong and a detriment to society, so it was outlawed. Fine. But the practical reality was that outlawing it created more problems than it solved. Thus, Prohibition was repealed.

And this is an extension of the interest balancing effort to cover other considerations beyond the unborn-mother dichotomy. And here's where the pro-choice types here are at their weakest. You do not meet your burden by asserting over and over again without evidence that even under the ethical value attached to the life of the unborn by pro-lifers, criminalizing abortion is too impractical in implementation, too dangerous to women, and to counter-productive to pro-life interests in reducing abortions. I've pointed out a proposal where at the very least the state attaches the same moral status as we do to born children, and I've argued that criminalizing abortion under that regime requires little more effort and intrusion into privacy over a 9 month period in women's lives than is required to protect children in their care for next two decades.

The reason I'm even discussing this at all (as I said before, I tend to avoid this issue) is that I see some potential for a serious, civil, respectful discussion here. It would be unprecidented, but it would be a good thing and I'd like to see it happen.

You want civil discussion, keep the unnecessary ad homs to yourself and address the merits. Kerrie and Evo spent a good portion of the beginning of the thread bashing pro-lifers. They apparently can't take the heat. You want civility? Conduct yourself as such. And the next time you pull a "you're new here" don't whine when you get called on it.

Rev Prez

 

[Moonbear]

Yes. The question to pro-choicers is why should it be resolved in a manner differently than for born children?

Because a child is not fully dependent on only the mother for life support. A child's mother can die and the child will not be without food and oxygen. Once the umbilical cord is cut, a baby is a separate entity. A baby can be bottle fed, raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, fathers, unrelated strangers, etc. While the woman is pregnant, that embryo or fetus is entirely dependent upon her, she doesn't have the option to have it removed and allow it to develop in an artificial womb tended by someone else. It either remains attached as a parasite, or it does not survive at all.

 

[Moonbear]

Of course there are rights to balance after birth. Guardians have legal responsibilities to children in their care. In most societies, you cannot by self-declaration absolve yourself of these responsibilities--hence, the legal understanding of child neglect.

However, you can legally give up your responsibility as guardian and pass the child into someone else's guardianship. If it couldn't be done, then putting a child up for adoption would be considered child neglect.

During pregnancy, the woman is saddled for 9 months with something growing inside her, altering her hormones, altering her body, tiring her out, leaving her feeling nauseous, in some cases requiring her to remain in bed for a large duration of that, which may prevent her from being able to maintain her job and support herself. If a woman is physically or emotionally unable to carry that through, passing the embryo or fetus on to someone else willing to carry it isn't an option.

 

[Kerrie]

During pregnancy, the woman is saddled for 9 months with something growing inside her, altering her hormones, altering her body, tiring her out, leaving her feeling nauseous, in some cases requiring her to remain in bed for a large duration of that, which may prevent her from being able to maintain her job and support herself.

You got that right! I am lucky, so far my pregnancy is going very well.

 

[quantumdude]

You want civil discussion, keep the unnecessary ad homs to yourself and address the merits. Kerrie and Evo spent a good portion of the beginning of the thread bashing pro-lifers. They apparently can't take the heat. You want civility? Conduct yourself as such. And the next time you pull a "you're new here" don't whine when you get called on it.

Rev Prez, I think that your posts are excellent, and I want to apologize for the way you've been treated here. I'm not publicly taking any side on the abortion issue (I'm not that daft, LOL ), but from the point of view of debating rationally and dispassionately your posts have been top notch. I regret that some others are unable to keep their emotions in check long enough to see that.

I also think that Moonbear is doing a great job. It would be nice if we could have a thread in which just the two of you debate.

 

[loseyourname]

Part 2 is about resolving the conflict of rights between the two moral agents above. This comes from the western principles of rights: your rights extend only as far as they trample the rights of another. Its the key question in virtually any discussion of rights (consider smoking: the rights of the smoker and non-smoker in a restaraunt conflict with each other) This question is actually simplest for the far-prochoice side: if "life" starts at birth, then there are no rights to conflict with. Though the far pro-life side also often sees the answer in such clear terms, the fact of the matter is that its not clear: Even if a 1 second old zygote is considered the moral equivalent of an adult human female, the conflict between their rights still has to be remedied. Ie, if they both have an equivalent right to life, there may be a case (a car accident, for example), where the fetus's existence threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made as to who'se life takes priority.

This is a variation of the Violonist Argument made by Judith Jarvis Thompson. An overview of the argument and lecture notes can be found http://www.people.umass.edu/uril/phil164/lecture4.htm :

• The Famous Violinist
  
  “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you *– we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” (pp. 154-155)
  
  What is the analogy that Thompson has in mind?
  What premise of the argument is Thompson objecting to?
  What argument can we extract from this example?
  
  The Famous Violinist Argument:
  
  1. If Premise 4 of the Anti-Abortion Argument is true, then it is morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
  2. It is not morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
  3. Therefore, Premise 4 of the the Anti-Abortion Argument is not true.

A brief refutation of her argument can be found http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm :

• The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.
  
  Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.
  
• Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.
  
  A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.
  
• Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment.

The above is a small sample of the disparallels drawn to invalidate Thompson's analogy. I urge anyone reading this post to read the full text of both pages. The refutation is fairly raw and has some flaws, but he does make some cogent points that I do believe invalidate the analogy that Thompson attempts to draw. We actually discussed this very argument in a Contemporary Ethics class that I had a few semesters back and I do have some points I can add myself later, but I'll be fairly busy all weekend and may or may not have the time.

A few more points from the page:

• Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.
  
  The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.
  
• Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.

Moonbear partially addressed this in her own words, though I feel her counterargument to parental obligation is fairly weak (something that, again, I will address when I have the time). Briefly:

• If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.

Moonbear states that, once a child is born, the parents have the legal option of transferring their obligation toward it to another caretaker, thus absolving themselves of the burden they have placed upon themselves. Although this is true, I think that we can immediately draw a very strong prima facie disparallel between the transferring of legal obligation and killing. In fact, even if we should grant that the killing of the unborn is no different ethically from the tranferring of legal obligation toward the born, several questions are then raised. They are covered by the Lecture Notes that contain the Thompson argument:

• Question: Does this mean that all abortions should be performed by Cesarean section in order to give the fetus the chance of survival? Does it mean that when technology advances to such a state that a fertilized egg can be grown into a human outside the mother’s womb, then even early term abortions – in the sense of destroying the fertilized egg - are morally impermissible? What would Thompson say?

Just some things for the forum to chew on while I waste my weekend reading about the birth of nationalism and writing about Thomas Hobbes.

*I would like to add that I urge anyone to again consider the arguments put forth and not to add in any ad hominem attacks toward me or my sources. I have linked to a Christian web page, but I am not Christian myself (I am not religious at all), nor are the arguments presented Christian arguments. In fact, even if they were, that would not de facto disqualify them as arguments worth looking into.

 

[Moonbear]

Question: Does this mean that all abortions should be performed by Cesarean section in order to give the fetus the chance of survival?

I don't understand what caesarian section would have to do with anything? This seems to be an attempt to escalate the debate in a way that makes it appear the woman must undergo a greater risk/harm for the abortion to occur than is necessary. What reason would there be for not removing the fetus via a less invasive, less risky vaginal route?

Does it mean that when technology advances to such a state that a fertilized egg can be grown into a human outside the mother’s womb, then even early term abortions – in the sense of destroying the fertilized egg - are morally impermissible?

If you're going to make the argument that such a technological advancement would make early term abortions morally impermissable, then why would it be any more permissable to allow any woman who has had intercourse within the past several days to go unexamined for the presence of a fertilized zygote when you could save it from the likelihood of implantation failure leading to the flushing of it from her body with her next menstrual flow? How could you balance this against the rights of the women to privacy and to protection against illegal and invasive searches when there is only a small chance that conception has occurred if you give equal status to the zygote as to the mother?

The way I would view the issue, if such a hypothetical advance in technology became available, is not that the zygote or embryo suddenly acquires personhood status, but that because we could remove the woman from the equation, we could err toward the side of appeasing the pro-lifers by permitting the development of an embryo/fetus with indeterminate personhood status without needing to infringe upon the rights of the adult woman who we can all agree (I hope) definitely has personhood status.

Edit: Thinking upon this further, at such an early stage of development, one of the three criteria you posted earlier for "personhood" status is still absent, that being sentience. Until such technology is available, two criteria are absent, independent function and sentience. Earlier, you also mentioned that you believed sentience began at the beginning of the second trimester, however, I do disagree with that. My opinion is that sentience requires higher cortical brain function, which does not yet exist in the second trimester. It's even questionable to what extent these higher brain functions exist in newborns, which are still undergoing remarkable plasticity of the cortex. Much of the actions of newborns are considered entirely brainstem dependent reflexes. This is a challenge in the argument over the beginning of personhood, because, in my opinion, sentience is the most important trait that confers personhood, but it's unknown when this begins. The range could be anywhere from the middle of the second trimester to closer to the end of the first year after birth.



(As usual, I'm running around posting between other things, but wanted to reply to those questions with some of my own questions. I may need to edit or clarify my argument later.)

 

[Kerrie]

Loseyourname, you have some great references here, thanks for providing those.

The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.

The convienent thing about first term (legal) abortions is she has up to 12 weeks to make a choice that will affect her life, and the life of a new child. Once she has passed that 12 week mark, she has made more of the decision for herself first, and then for another. Her health and safety must be insured first in order for the fetus to endure the same, thus she has a priority (with the exception of late term pregnancies where the fetus would be able to survice). As far as the point of view of being a violent assailant goes, I think that is a matter of a personal perspective of the pregnancy that only the mother carrying the child can hold. To make a blanet statement that this would apply to all mothers is false...there are many more children wanted/planned then aborted.

I also think that Moonbear is doing a great job. It would be nice if we could have a thread in which just the two of you debate.

While I agree that the two of them have good arguments to present, I don't think it would be "nice" to just have the two of them post. How about those who have direct experience with pregnancy? Do those who have the education and knowledge only know what's best for those who are directly experiencing a situation like this? I like to see as many people have input on this topic as possible, of course in a civil manner (not always easy with this subject). I find I learn the most interesting things from those who have experiences to share.

 

[megas]

whatever, if you are just going to mess with my facts, go ahead, hey guess what, I am sick of this thread now, so I am not posting anymore in this thread (stop cheering) cause this is in all honesty bull ****. I am saying that as the truth, cuase we really could have nice children here to today, living and still reminising on how their life could have been, but you know what, we can't cuase they did exists, but their life was sadly ended due to what? womens rights? pfft, i believe Life is more important.. but hey if you all had a mother with no apparent reason as to why she wants an abortion besides the fact that she doesn't want a child is stupid, but if that was you... you wouldn't be here today, personally, i would want a chioce, a chance, a right to life...

 

[Moonbear]

While I agree that the two of them have good arguments to present, I don't think it would be "nice" to just have the two of them post.

I don't even think I've made my own arguments that well. This is the sort of topic where a good argument would require quite a lot of time and effort to construct properly, and quite frankly, I'm not giving that much time and effort, just posting with what comes to mind as it comes to mind. I do also have to work very hard to separate my emotions from the discussion, and have not been entirely successful in this thread, which is part of why I've left the discussion several times not intending to return, yet wind up returning anyway.

I agree with you Kerrie, that it is better to bring in a variety of perspectives. I also recognize that for some people, this is as much an emotional and/or personal issue as it is an intellectual debate, and those experiences are important to consider, especially for the perspective of what is in the best interest of the pregnant woman.

Besides, I have no desire to speak on behalf of the entire pro-choice "movement" as people are pro-choice for different reasons. My reasons and opinions are not representative of every person who is pro-choice. There is no single "pro-choice type" despite allusions in that direction, nor is there a single "pro-life type." As we have already seen, both loseyourname and Rev Prez are pro-life, yet they appear to have very different reasons, while in contrast, loseyourname and I draw two opposite conclusions from the same set of arguments (or at least a very similar set of arguments).

I think this thread got off to the rocky start discussions on this topic tend to follow, though this has been partially due to lack of clear definition of the topic of discussion. Whether through common agreement or brute force, the discussion is maturing into one with a clearer direction, which of course facilitates preparing better quality arguments...by everyone.

 

[wikkidwife]

I'm voting pro-life (anti-abortion). I do believe that a baby in utero is a person no matter at what stage. Zygote, embroyo, and fetus are all terms describing stages of LIFE in the womb just as infant, toddler,and teen are stages of life outside of the womb. If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant. I also believe that RU-486 is still a form of abortion.

If I were raped, I would carry the baby to term. I could not retaliate to one violent act by commiting another one myself. I truly believe that a baby who is not conceived out of love can still be born out of love.

In the case of a mother aborting because her life or health are at risk, I think that the mother (and father) should discuss the need with their attending physician (and religious counsel if that applies). In some cases, such as ectopic pregnancies, there is no choice but to abort the baby. Many people who have to endure the termination of an ectopic pregnancy did not want it to end in such a way and grieve the loss of their child, who could not have possibly survived and threatened rupturing the mother's fallopian tubes. However, cases in which the death of the child and/or mother is a possibility are far far less than the number of abortions being performed.

For many of you who have mentioned education, I agree. Education is the key. Many women don't even know about all of the dangers that an abortion can pose to their health, and there is a long list. Not only to their physical health, but their mental health as well. There have been studies on this, but most women think abortions are safe as long as they are performed in a sterile environment. How can women make the decision whether or not to have an abortion if they are constantly being lied to or not told the whole story on how violent the abortions can be towards them?

As for "women's rights", women these days who claim that they should be able to abort if they feel like it because they are liberated and should have total control over what happens to their bodies: you do have total control over your bodies. Women these days are smart enough to know what causes them to get pregnant and, should they get pregnant, have enough integrity to stand by the decision they made which had got them pregnant in the first place.

Anyhow, I value the opinion of everybody who has responded to this topic, even if I don't agree. What I wrote is my opinion. You can take it or leave it.

 

[quantumdude]

While I agree that the two of them have good arguments to present, I don't think it would be "nice" to just have the two of them post.

" " means I'm kidding!

 

[bjr_jyd15]

Pro life...or just use a condom...whatever. (cases of rape, incest, etc. i'd handle differently, tho)