A stuggle with abortion

[PosterChild]

This question has been discussed many times, but I’ve just finished my Ob/Gyn rotation and have not been able to stop thinking about it. (Not to mention that it’s the anniversary week of Roe v. Wade.) When is elective abortion an ok thing?

Right now, a lot of our decision is based on when can we technologically keep a fetus alive outside the uterus, but that seems a specious arguement that will become more complicated as neonatal life support improves. Additional complications include induced meiosis (artificial sperm) from somatic cells as well as cloning. It seems to me that whether it survives in utero or in an incubator, it is, morally the same thing (relative to the fetus). Of course, there are differences to the mother.

1. When is it a life? Seems like a bad question. It’s always alive. The sperm and egg are alive. The fused product is alive. The blastocyst is alive, etc.

2. When is it human? When it has 46 chromosomes? Is it based on it’s potential to grow into a baby? Does that mean that embryos in cold storage are just as human?
   What about when the stem cell “holy grail” is reached and we learn how to grow any tissue (or even a whole human) from adult stem cells. Are your bone marrow cells morally individual humans?

3. Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell’s cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?

4. What makes killing a human embryo/fetal bundle of cells in the shape of a ball, or a fish, or a pig (ontologically speaking) better than killing a bundle in the shape of a baby? Is it the complexity? The lack of resemblance to an adult? Is it the ick factor of dismembering a little body?

I should state that I am pro-choice and would probably set the limit much later than a lot of people here, but I don’t know how to decide. I’d like to hear from both pro-choice and pro-life people on when they’d draw the line and more importantly, why.

PC

[John_Mace]

PC:

I like your take on this.

Let me start by saying that I have no religious inclinations, so my view does not include concepts such as “the soul”, etc. I’ve always looked at this problem, as you do, from the extremes. Abortion clearly OK at 1 day, clearly not OK at 8 months 29 days.
Now, where do you draw the line in the middle? Well, the truth is we really don’t know. We don’t know when someone becomes “human”. So the smart thing to do is to be conservative. Babies can survive once they have passed the 2nd trimester (i.e., 6+ months). I’d start there and ratchet it back quite a bit. Somewhere at 3-4 months. It’s somewhat arbitrary, but any line we draw will be arbitrary. If you wanted to be a bit more scientific, you could take the mean and std deviation of when babies can survive and be healthy, then set the point at mean - 3 sigma. I’m not sure where that would put you, but probably closer to 6 months than 4.

Of course, when the “life of the mother” is at stake, then it’s a different issue. Here, I’m only talking about elective abortion.

[even_sven]

If you want the honest truth, I believe it’s technically okay to kill a newborn baby. Humanity- as in personhood, not just the idea of having human genes- is largely a matter of self-awareness, language and consciousness. We will never know for sure when these things emerge. But I think it is reasonable to guess that newborn infants don’t have it.

However, it’s useful to set off a good cutoff point so that we re-enforce the value of human life in our society and so that we don’t make any mistakes. Birth seems like a good, natural cutoff point.

[Gjorp]

IANA woman, I understand that just because I wear women’s underwear, it doesn’t mean I’ll ever be carrying a baby

I am also, likewise not influenced by any religious belief in a sole, I am an atheist. Though, this makes me see it in the way that this is anyone’s only chance of life, so it’s very special.

Anyway, I don’t know whether a human is a human once s/he has 46 chromasomes. But, once s/he has those 46 chromasomes, s/he has the potential of being a human at least. I know though, there’s the argument that the potential can go back to when it’s just a sperm cell and an egg, but the combinations are too numerous and the pairing of two are completely chance.

Now, let’s put this into perspective of someone outside of the womb. Let’s say your 25 years old, you just married the most beautiful woman in the world, she’s pregnant, and you’ve just signed the contract to star in a big Hollywood movie. Then you’re at a convenience store, someone comes in to rob the place, the robbery goes bad and the robber ends up giving you a third eye.

All the potential for a wonderful life goes down the drain. Now you’ll never grow to 80 with your lovely wife, you’ll never get to watch your son grow up to be executive vice president of Telecom International, and you never get to be a famous Hollywood actor.

Then imagine you’re still in the womb. No, you’re not conscience, but you have just as much potential and it can all just be taken away.

PS; I know this is a very fanciful example, but my mind’s working overtime today.

PPS; I put the disclaimer at the top about me being a man so that other posters can be a little understanding for my barbaric opinion, and not so that some angry pro-abortionist (not using a broad brush here, I know most are ordinary polite people) knows that my opinion is to be ignored and my post rudely replied to like last time.

[Gjorp]

Oh, I also want to mention, that the line drawn should be as unarbitrary as possible, because any arbitrary line can always be pushed a little further.

[Rubystreak]

I’ll take a totally different POV on this: it’s never OK to kill anything that has a chance for sentience. However, sometimes it’s unavoidable, and sometimes it’s the better option when you’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Sadly, like many things in this world, it seems like it’s a question of morality, but really, it’s an economic issue, a trade off.

I personally would never have an abortion b/c the consequences for my mental health would be too great. However, I can imagine a situation where an abortion would be the less pernicious option, not only for myself, but for the life that might come. Therefore, I think, in an ideal world, the decision would be made on a case-by-case basis. I also think it’s safe to say that, if the fetus could conceivably live were it suddenly out of the womb, it should not be killed. As long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for its existence, it is at the mercy of the mother. That’s only fair.

Abortion is just such a thorny issue. I do not envy a person who has to make such a decision. If they are going to make it, though, I feel they have to make it before the ball of human cells becomes a creature capable of existing on its own. 4 months would be the latest-- one of my close friends’ wife had her baby at 5.5 months.

[loinburger]

*Originally posted by PosterChild *
I’d like to hear from both pro-choice and pro-life people on when they’d draw the line and more importantly, why.

I’d draw the line at the beginning of the third trimester, when the fetus exhibits full brain activity, i.e. there isn’t a difference between the level of brain activity in a third-trimester fetus and a newborn. IMO there isn’t a “person” without brain activity sufficient to produce consciousness, and, since we don’t terminate sleeping people (even though they’re not currently exhibiting consciousness), it also makes sense IMO that we ought not to terminate any other human that exhibits the requisite brain activity for consciousness (such as fetuses or newborns).

[John_Mace]

Gj: That’s why I proposed the mean-3sigma date (to make it less arbitriary). As I think about it more, though, 3 sigma may be fine for widgets, but 6 sigma might make more sense for human beings. Again, err on the cautious side when potentially taking a human life.

Sven: So you would allow a woman to elect to have an abortion 1 day before her due date? You’d have to induce labor anyway, why not save the baby? Too much trouble? Sorry for that last bit of sarcasm… Actually, I admire your honesty on a very touchy question.

[kanicbird]

One thing that gets me w/ the whole abortion issue is the issue of partial birth abortion.

Except for the (rare IMHO) case of life of the mother, if the fetus is viable outside the mother why is it OK for the mother to order the fetus killed instead of just removed and put up for adoption?

There seems to be a demand for babies in the adoption system and this could be a way to fill it and not to kill people.

[PosterChild]

*Originally posted by ***Rubystreak **
I also think it’s safe to say that, if the fetus could conceivably live were it suddenly out of the womb, it should not be killed. As long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for its existence, it is at the mercy of the mother. That’s only fair.

Abortion is just such a thorny issue. I do not envy a person who has to make such a decision. If they are going to make it, though, I feel they have to make it before the ball of human cells becomes a creature capable of existing on its own. 4 months would be the latest-- one of my close friends’ wife had her baby at 5.5 months.

It’s almost inevitable that we’ll be able to grow a fetilized egg into a baby outside the womb. Would that change your opinion? What if once a woman missed her period it was viable? What about taking the baby from the woman and giving up for adoption? Also, how does viability outside the womb affect it’s right to live?

*Originally posted by *loinburger
I’d draw the line at the beginning of the third trimester, when the fetus exhibits full brain activity, i.e. there isn’t a difference between the level of brain activity in a third-trimester fetus and a newborn. IMO there isn’t a “person” without brain activity sufficient to produce consciousness, and, since we don’t terminate sleeping people (even though they’re not currently exhibiting consciousness)

I don’t know the evidence for that, but I find it unlikely that at the beginning (or end) of the third trimester is equivalent to a sleeping person. First off, there is no development that depends on interaction with the outside world. There is likely no thought that resembles ours- no “me” & “them”, no “hungry,” no seeing, no nursing, no feel of warm mommy’s skin and the emotions that go along with all of these. I stongly doubt that there is self-awareness or even the capability for it.
Your point is close to what I’ve been thinking- that it is the consciousness or self-awareness that makes us human. Before that happens, I don’t yet see the moral difference between termination at 1 day and termination at 6 months or later. I have to say I doubt it happens before birth.

PC

[The_Witch]

My view is that we as a group (a society, not just the SDMB) will never be able to answer this in a satisfactory way for all of the reasons that are being debated in this thread. How does one define being human? Sentience? That has problems for people in persistent vegitative states or otherwise reduced in cognitive ability? Biology? Well, that’s every embryo from the second of conception, which seems rather extreme given that embryos can’t turn into people without at least 6 or 7 months of support from a uterus. So, why debate that part of it? Why not say, yes, an embryo or fetus is definitely some sort of life that has some value, and move on.

That does not mean that we or any particular individual other than the woman involved should be able to make rules about abortion. Each woman has to decide for herself while the embryo or fetus is inside her what that life means to her and whether it should be ended. The woman is the one physically, emotionally, and morally closest to the situation and to that life, and so she is in the best position to make that decision. It’s true that her interests will be involved as well, but based on the fact that it is her body that is the only thing giving that life life until it is born, she should be able to take her own interests into account. Moreover, we let parents make decisions for their children all the time. Why should this be different–just because we don’t think anyone would choose not to exist, or that we shouldn’t allow people to make this choice (I’m talking about the child choosing it here)? I don’t know how we can know that.

Frankly, my view is that people who want to legislate in this area fundamentally fail to understand the complexities of this kind of decision and fundamentally don’t trust women to make a good decision. And maybe not every woman thinks this much or makes good decisions. But those women still have to live with their actions, and eventually they will have to deal with them.

[loinburger]

PC: The evidence I’ve seen for the equivalence between third-trimester fetuses and newborns comes from EEG’s given to prematurely delivered (yet “viable,” thanks to medical technology) fetuses (AFAIK EEG’s aren’t given to in utero fetuses, since it’s difficult/stupid to attach electrodes to the fetus’s head) compared to EEG’s given to newborns.

I agree that the difference between a “person” and “not-a-person” is that the person is conscious (or “potentially conscious” as in the case of a sleeping person) while the not-a-person is not conscious (and also not “potentially conscious” as in the case of a corpse or a brain-dead human). However, I see this as a problematic distinction when determining whether it is moral to terminate a human life (I use “human” to mean “an organism with human DNA” (which includes zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, etc., but notably does not include sperm or ova since neither are organisms), and a “person” to mean “a human that is morally equivalent to you and I” (which is the problematic, non-scientific or pseudo-scientific definition)), since it seems to me that it is possible that a conscious human might not be able to demonstrate its consciousness (as in the case of a sleeping person, or perhaps a newborn). On the one hand it would be bad to terminate a being that we believe is “not-a-person” that in actuality is a person, but on the other hand it would be bad to interfere with a person’s life in order to save the life of “not-a-person.” I draw the line at brain activity (a zygote, f’rinstance, doesn’t even have a brain, so I see no possibility that a zygote is “conscious”) simply because I see no other quantifiable measurement that can be used. (If an EEG could detect consciousness then everything would be much simpler…)

That came out being more long-winded than I’d intended. But hey, that’s what Great Debates is for!

[december]

*Originally posted by even sven *
**If you want the honest truth, I believe it’s technically okay to kill a newborn baby. Humanity- as in personhood, not just the idea of having human genes- is largely a matter of self-awareness, language and consciousness. We will never know for sure when these things emerge. But I think it is reasonable to guess that newborn infants don’t have it.

However, it’s useful to set off a good cutoff point so that we re-enforce the value of human life in our society and so that we don’t make any mistakes. Birth seems like a good, natural cutoff point. **

This is precisely my POV.

[beagledave]

Since you asked…

I self identify as pro life.

I know that I have posted this before in other threads, but it seems that best way for me to answer the OP’s particular questions.

My standard cite that I use for these kind of questions is here.

As an introduction…

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists—not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.

1. The question is not so much “when it is alive”, but “when is it a new distinct human life”. That is the distinction between a sperm, an egg and a zygote. The zygote is a new distinct life.

2. When is it human?

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

3. ** Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell’s cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?**

I’m not sure I’m following you on the details here…by “egg cell”, are you referring to an oocyte or a zygote? Aywho…FWIW, I’m opposed to cloning…

Fertilization and cloning are different processes, but the immediate products of these processes are the same. The immediate product of human cloning would also be a human being—just as in human fertilization. It is not a “pre-embryo” or a “potential” human embryo or human being. Stem cell research obtains its “stem cells” by essentially exploding or otherwise destroying and killing a newly existing human blastocyst who is, scientifically, an existing human being. The formation of chimeras, i.e., the fertilization of a gamete of one species (e.g., a human oocyte) with the gamete of another species (e.g., a monkey sperm) also results in an embryo that is “half-human.” All of these types of research have been banned by most countries in the world. And all of these types of research are essentially human embryo research—for which the use of federal funds has been banned.

4. ** 4) What makes killing a human embryo/fetal bundle of cells in the shape of a ball, or a fish, or a pig (ontologically speaking) better than killing a bundle in the shape of a baby? Is it the complexity? The lack of resemblance to an adult? Is it the ick factor of dismembering a little body?**

For me, it’s not “better”. So I guess I can’t address that issue directly in terms of my opinion. However, it’s worth pointing out that zygotes almost never undergo elective abortions…elective abortions are always or almost always performed on embryos and fetus’. The organism is only a zygote for 3-4 days, then becomes an embryo until 8 weeks, when it’s referred to as a fetus.

More than a fair percentage of abortions are perfomed at the 8 week point, when the organism looks like this. That certainly looks “in the shape of a baby” to me, but I guess YMMV.

Even a seven week old embryo “looks” more “in the shape of a baby” to me than “a ball, fish or pig”.

Like I said, I’m not making a distinction for your question based on appearance…but I think it’s fair to say for those that do make that kind of distinction… a large percentage of abortions are performed on organisms that appear to be more “baby shaped” that “ball, fish or pig shaped”.

[Essured]

O.K, PC here’s yet another point of view

As soon as the process of fertilisation is complete, it is a living human being, IMO.

As long as it requires the women, it is abortable.

I am 100% sure that every time an abortion occurs, a living human being is being killed. And I’m 100% fine with that.

AFAIK, nobody can be compelled to save another’s life. You can’t be forced to donate blood, organs, your time, your money or your womb. If a person chooses to save another’s life, that’s their choice, but they can’t be forced to do so. If there’s a way to keep the foetus alive, yet remove it from the woman, I have no objections to anyone else keeping it alive, I just object to a woman being forced to do so against her will. If there’s no way to keep the foetus alive, then unfortunately the woman’s right to decide what her body does and what it is used for, trumps the foetus’s life. The exact same thing that would happen if a child was 2, the mother was the only one with a compatible organ, but she can choose to donate it or not. What anyone thinks of this woman, is up to them, but she has that right and that choice.

[PosterChild]

*Originally posted by *beagledave

1. The question is not so much “when it is alive”, but “when is it a new distinct human life”. That is the distinction between a sperm, an egg and a zygote. The zygote is a new distinct life.

So it’s value is that it is new and distinct? Or a distinct organism with potential? More specifically, why is that important?
What about cell lines from an adult that live in culture indefinitely. Killing them is ok, right, since they can’t develop into a person.

3. ** Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell’s cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?**
   I’m not sure I’m following you on the details here…by “egg cell”, are you referring to an oocyte or a zygote? Aywho…FWIW, I’m opposed to cloning…

There is a major political move to restrict stem cell research to stem cells from adults rather than embryos. Potentially, they could lead to the same results (it’ll just take some years more). Basically, someone could take a few cells from you and make new babies, so your stem cells would have the same potential as a zygote. Basically, I’m trying to figure out what is the intrinsic value of the zygote/embryo/fetus- is it the potential? Is it that it is “new?”

For me, it’s not “better”. So I guess I can’t address that issue directly in terms of my opinion. However, it’s worth pointing out that zygotes almost never undergo elective abortions…elective abortions are always or almost always performed on embryos and fetus’. The organism is only a zygote for 3-4 days, then becomes an embryo until 8 weeks, when it’s referred to as a fetus.

Just for my info, does that mean you’re against the “morning-after” pill?

PC

[milroyj]

quote:

Originally posted by even sven
If you want the honest truth, I believe it’s technically okay to kill a newborn baby. Humanity- as in personhood, not just the idea of having human genes- is largely a matter of self-awareness, language and consciousness. We will never know for sure when these things emerge. But I think it is reasonable to guess that newborn infants don’t have it.

However, it’s useful to set off a good cutoff point so that we re-enforce the value of human life in our society and so that we don’t make any mistakes. Birth seems like a good, natural cutoff point.

This is precisely my POV.

:eek: even sven and December, You believe that it’s “technically okay to kill a newborn baby?”

:mad:

[milroyj]

Damn coding. The “This is precisely my POV.” was posted by December.

[erislover]

sven rules!

December really just wants to threaten death so he can then retract it and offer to put their name on a list.

(j/k, december :))

[PosterChild]

*Originally posted by milroyj *
**Damn coding. The “This is precisely my POV.” was posted by December. **

ok milroyj, Why don’t you explain why you disagree with them?