Can you explain why you believe this, that newborns have no capacity for self-awareness, language or consciousness? By language, do you consider other forms of communication, or must someone speak a language such as English to meet your requirements? If a human was conscious and self aware but without language, would that change your opinion? Just curious. Thanks.
Its value in the context of this debate (in comparison to an oocyte or sperm cell that you mentioned) is that it is a new and distinct human life. Although “potentiality” is part of the mix I guess…one could play the game of “well all oocytes have ‘potential’ to eventually become zygotes”, so potential is not the defining characteristic of a new human life.
(See my earlier cite)
**
Assuming by “cell lines”, we’re talking about skin cells etc, then yes “killing” those cells would be “ok”.
**
See my earlier remarks about “potential” as not being the defining characteristic of human life. Again, this is not just my opinion…it seems to be a fairly standard definition from the genetics and embryology texts referenced in my earlier cite.
**
Yes, it’s an abortificient.
BTW, were you planning on providing your answer to your initial question “When is elective abortion an ok thing?”. Does your cutoff point revolve around a “personhood” definition?
I guess my question is what makes the zygote human if a stem cell or skin cell is not, if it’s not the potential it contains to develop into a baby?
Well, I’m afraid I haven’t figured out when my cutoff point really is. I’m pretty ok with up to the 24th week as it’s done in all but 2 locations in the US now (according to the obstetricians who taught us). It’s difficult for me to be objective about the preconceptions I bring to this debate- namely pro-choice.
I’ve delivered some babies (well the mother did and I just helped :)) and held newborns from moments to hours after they were born. I have to admit it was always an emotional experience for me and I nearly lost it once when one came out requiring ICU care.
But they seem like empty containers, or seeds that are primed to respond to their environment and grow/learn. That is, before they gasp and begin to interact with their environment, I don’t see much there in terms of consciousness etc.
I don’t hold with december’s or sven’s cutoffs, but I can’t explain why, other than I don’t like it (which may be enough for me, but not something I could expect others to accept).
PC
**
At the risk of sounding snarky, did you actually read the cite I gave earlier? That cite has a pretty comprehensive overview of gametogenesis and fertilization, and covers the question about the difference between a zygote and other cells.
Note particularly the comments from
-
William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.
-
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).
-
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994)
Hmmm. Since the first viviparous mammal successfully birthed a litter, the point at which a fertilized ovum or blastocyst lodges in the uterine wall has to be the point at which the organism “has life” as a separate entity. This is the point at which natural biological behavior will result in its eventual birth as a separate organism. Granted that it became genetically a distinct organism at the moment of fertilization, its fate was then subject to the question of whether it would so lodge or be carried out of the mother’s reproductive system by natural forces.
Presuming that the organism in question is the result of a human ovum and spermatazoon joining, it is at that point a human being in potential. It requires nurture in the mother’s womb or a (as yet not developed) technological alternative for the span of a pregnancy and then care by the parents for a significant period before it is capable of surviving on its own.
I consider that last point important. Note that birth terminates the interior physiological connection between child and mother, but does not end the child’s dependence on other humans for nutrition and safety.
My position on abortion is quite simple: As a 54-year-old man, it is vanishingly unlikely that I will ever be pregnant. And I believe that people must make their own moral choices on to what extent they will sacrifice their own freedom for the sake of others. Were a pregnant woman to ask my personal advice, I’d be inclined to say that it’s her moral obligation to continue to provide the small human life dwelling inside her with nutrition from her own bloodstream until it is capable of existing without that support – but that it is her moral decision to make, not one that I would accept the right of any third party to mandate on her behalf. Hence, I’m both “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” and against laws restricting the right to have an abortion performed on oneself.
My position will come clearer if I construct an analogy. A single woman is the sole caregiver for her invalid father. He has a pension sufficient to keep them economically sound with the practice of frugality, but has “slipped through the cracks” as regards eligibility for any sort of nursing home care, and his pension is insufficient to cover the costs of such care. He cannot take care of himself, and without the care his daughter gives him, he will inevitably die.
Most people would agree that in such a circumstance the woman has a moral obligation to provide her father with care, and to sacrifice all privilege to do things that would conflict with providing him with such care. But vanishingly few people would suggest that a law or court decision requiring her to do so for her father’s remaining lifespan would be at all equitable. It’s her moral choice to do so or not, and hers alone.
I don’t agree with your use of the word “inevitably” here, and I think this is a critical distinction, one that makes your analogy with abortion fail. Her decision not to care for her father does not, by definition and out of necessity, mean her father’s life will be terminated.
In linguistic circles, this is a hotly contested question. Many (includeing myself) believe that language and self-awarness go hand in hand. How can you have thoughts without a way to order them and commit them to memory. There is a reason why your first memorys start around the same time one starts talking. No one is sure whether consciousness makes it possible to have language or if language makes it possible to have consciousness, but it is pretty much agreed on that you can’t have one without the other for long.
A newborn sees the world in a way that is completely alien to us. She cannot make visual sense of the world, because she has no reference points. All she sees is meaningless blurs. People aren’t even sure if newborns can perceive color. Sounds, smells, textures- these are all completely meaningless until she has nursed a few times and begins to recognize her food source (which is still not a sign of consciousness- my cat is pretty good at recognizing me). There is no sense of time. The world is a permanent “now”. There is no border between external and internal forces. The world of a newborn baby is a big mushy blur filled only with needs and the fulfillment of those needs. I don’t think consciousness can exist in that kind of mind. It takes a while for the world and the mind to start taking form.
Yeah, the idea of killing a newborn is pretty repugnent. But it’s not a new idea. Throwing the baby off a bridge, leaving her out in the desert alone, or even simply smothering her before she can take her first breath were all widely practiced ways of dealing with unwanted kids, even in Western countries up until the last century. In fact, there were considered “humane” because they were less likely to kill the mother than a primitive abortion.
#1 It becomes a life when the cord is cut and it is somewhat self sustaining. While it is still in the womb it is still a part of the mother IMHO. The formation of a foetus is very similar to the existence of a parasite because it “feeds” off of all of the mothers systems from circulation to digestive system. If the mother dies then it dies, hence it is just another part of the mother, like a kidney or a finger.
#2 It is human from the time it is still just an egg and a sperm cell. A zygote is just a type of human tissue, like hair and fingernails. The type of tissue it is doesnt matter, it is just a kind of human cell.
#3 Aborting a clone is still an abortion.
#4 I think for most people it is the “ick factor” that makes them opposed to abortions. A bunch of cells is just a bunch of cells. They have no more awareness than any other bunch of cells. To claim otherwise seems to impart the whole body with self awareness, so that a foot would be just as independantly aware as a foetus.
For the most part I agree with even sven and december.My own opinion on abortion is that as a man my opinon doesnt matter. I will never be in a position to get pregnant or give birth. I am against makeing it illegal because no one has the right to cloud what should be an objective decision with their own morality. People should have the freedom to do as they wish with their bodies. I lump the anti-abortion sentiment in there with the sentiment that oral sex is moraly wrong. My feeling on both is that if you dont like it , then dont do it, but dont force your views on me.An abortion is no more moraly wrong than sex without being married.
I do take your point, but it’s my hypothetical analogy, so I’m defining his condition as being such that, absent her care, he will not survive. 
Hence, “inevitably.”
**I will never be in a position to be subjected to child abuse. Can I be against it?
There is not a law on the books that does not support a particular moral stance. Are they all wrong? And people do not have the freedom to do what they wish with their bodies with or without abortion rights, nor has this right ever been inviolable.
**
Sorry, but no. I’ve had plenty of self identified pro choice people say that their own personal preference would be to not terminate a pregnancy (theirs or someone else) but that they would never “impose” that belief on someone else…It’s that “decision” to not “impose” this belief that makes them “pro choice” according to them.
We can construe definitions for “pro life” and “pro choice” until the cows come home…but in common parlance, your position would be described as a “pro choice” position, not a “pro life” position. (And yes, I recognize that there may be a spectrum of pro choice or pro life positions…)
I know of no one who self identifies as pro life who would consider your position to be pro life.
I know plenty of people who self identify as pro choice who have the exact same feelings about abortion (don’t like it, but wouldn’t tell regulate them or “impose” a viewpoint) that you do.
Are you making these statements as medical facts, or as your personal opinion?
BTW, why did you do not respond in the other thread about abortion whre you said…
Even other pro choice folks pointed out the foolishness of that statement, and I invited you to retract it. I’ll invite you again…will you be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong?
So we’re comparing a non-existent, hypothetical situation, that has never had public scrutiny…or never had exposure in the courts, with a commonly practiced procedure, that’s had plenty of court exposure, plenty of ethical debates and plenty of real life testimony about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of this procedure?
:rolleyes:
Oh! I didn’t even notice that Poly had replied. Um, what Dave said…the hypothetical has now been rendered a bit unrealistic.
My REALLY humble opinion.
-
What matters is not whether/when the occupant of the womb is “alive,” nor whether/when it is classifiable as of the human species, but rather whether/when it is, in fact, a person.
-
Except insofar as a supernatural higher authority, with superior perspective on the matter, has commanded otherwise, the relevant issues in terminating a life are:
a–the physical pain caused the murderee by the process
b–the dashing of the rightful expectations of the murderee
c–the material and emotional loss caused others by the consequent deprivation of that person -
As to “a”, it would be reasonable and ethical to require administration of anesthetics (etc) to render the abortee (the fetus) inured to all pain and discomfort; to the extent that pain receptors and relevant neurals have developed.
-
As to “b”, there is no credible reason (barring supernatural revelation) to believe that an abortee has any expectations whatever regarding his/her continuation as a living being. (A sensation of, eg, hunger is not an “expectation.”)
-
As to “c”, this question is often minimized or dismissed. I’m not quite willing to say that, eg, the father (natural or not) has no stake in the birth of his child. But in ethics and the law, one has to consider the strength of one claim relative to another; who has the superior claim in any one particular case has to be worked-out. However–
-
The issues are not entirely personal: society has a stake in the matter, too.
-
On the one hand, it can be argued that widespread, casual acceptance of abortion–essentially abortion-on-demand–contributes significantly to a moral coarsening of society, an excessive self-centeredness, a “consumeristic” attitude toward all things (which is opposed to the very concept of morality), and a denigration of the POSSIBLE inherent value of human life, and “life” in general.
It strikes me as ironic that environmentalists tend toward a pro-choice position while supporting biological diversity in all other respects–even at the expense of “individual choice.”
I can’t deny that I feel sickened when I overhear people saying, casually, “yeah, we decided to get rid of it” with respect to a womb-occupant. And yet–
(8) The status of women and mothers, and their self-esteem, remains at issue. As has been said elsewhere, the woman, above all, is positioned to know whether what she now bears is yet a Person–or just a clump of cells. More importantly, it seems morally wrong to effectively enslave women who are pregnant, compelling them to undergo giving birth against their wishes. The State has no business policing the womb, no business declaring the rights of the unborn superior to the already-born.
(9) The conclusion? Not a neat one. Unless we want to import totalitarian elements into our society, we MUST allow the woman to have the last word on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy; and we must do nothing to prevent her being able to accomplish that goal in a medically safe environment.
At the same time, as a society we need not present abortion as a favored, or even a neutral, choice. Without emphasizing guilt (and without using false data), we can urge women to consider the (nonsectarian) ethical pros and cons of their decision. In THEORY, something like a waiting period for elective abortions makes sense to me. But prohibition, no.
A 26-30 week baby can survive, but its a crapshoot and NICU care is royally world class ugly expensive.
None of the threads I have read seem to adress this angle. Who would foot the bill for that care? Insurance companies would probably toss you out of the plan in a second for voluntarily creating a premature baby. So would the adoptive parent happily cough up a couple hundred grand in hospital bills for their new bundle of joy? Nope…not if “that one over there” comes without the bills.
Morality often stops where the buck does.
I should make that my sig.
Polycarp
I may be displaying my ignorance here but surely if the woman is the sole and only possible caregiver and one day makes a cold and calculating decision to leave her father (essentially leaving him to die) then surely she would face prosecution under existing laws for causing death by gross negligence same as if a woman left her infant baby to starve in its cot while she went on holiday. Neither woman has any moral or legal recourse in this issue. It’s late, and I’m tired so I’m pretty confident that I’m missing something here. Care to help me out?
Burner
A newborn infant, as any mother will tell you, is not in any way, shape or form self sustaining. Sure it’ll take longer to die but that doesn’t mean it is self sustaining. It cannot feed itself, therefore it is not self sustaining. Simple as that. As beagledave said, until you provide some cites clearly stating that this view is held by a plurality of the medical fraternity for sound scientific reasons (as opposed to it being merely an arbitrary cut off point), all this is just supposition on your part.
Consider the usual means by which a parasite attaches to its host. It does so against the hosts will and without its knowledge. The host does not perform any act which would engender the likelihood of the parasite attaching to it. As such, your comparison is not analogous to abortion.
Also, if it is merely a part of the mother like a finger or a kidney then please explain why it has a different genetic code.
A sperm cell is human but it is not a human. See the difference?
As to the rest of your post, I look forward to seeing your rebuttal of Bob Cos’s counter arguments.
First of all, just because it is or was “widely” practiced doesn’t prove a damn thing, or make it right. AFAIK, in all jurisdictions in the U.S., infanticide is murder. And murder most foul, IMHO.
Secondly, while I disagree with the extreme pro-choice position, I can at least understand their argument, i.e., it’s the woman’s body, and she can do as she likes, up to and including the ninth month. Fine, peachy, granted.
But to expand that to living newborns? It’s positively monstrous. Have we, as a society, declined that far? Are we that selfish, that a baby would crimp our lifestyle that much, that it’s OK to murder it? Please tell me you’re pulling our collective legs.
Jesus wept.
If you look back at my post, you’ll notice that I said I believe that birth should be the cutoff date, out of general respect for human life.
I do believe that fetuses, as well as newborn infants, pocesses life and human-hood, but not person-hood. This does not mean I think it should be legal to kill newborn infants.
But you did say it’s “technically okay” to kill a newborn infant.
Is that the position you are advocating?