Morally, it’d be okay to kill a newborn. Legally, and ethically, it is not and should not be okay.
It does a generally good job, but I don’t think it really addressed the special cases of the “other cells,” namely totipotent stem cells and artificially generated zygotes by nuclear or cytoplasm exchange. I may be able to accept that the artificiality (is that a term?) of the later is enough of a distinction.
The cite states:
I like the idea of calling everthing from zygote to death a human being, but I do think there is a bigger difference between a “single-cell human” and a breathing, eating, pooping, loving, procreating, killing human being than just dividing and growing. When I hear of a child dying, I feel for the child and the parents, but when I hear of a zygote being aborted (Cytotec or RU486, etc) I feel for the woman. I don’t think murder of a 6 year old or a 16 year old is the same as the killing of a 6 gestational day old embryo.
Interesting, the cite mentions “twinning is possible after 14 days” in it’s refutation of the pre-embyo (a concept I’d not been taught in college developmental biology, nor medical school embryology, nor Ob/Gyn rotation). Since twinning can be done artificially, does that change anything? Hypothetical- around the 4 cell stage, one cell is removed for genetic testing- Situation A: it’s tested and everything’s fine and the 3 cell embryo continues to develop into a beautiful baby. Situation B: The geneticist gets pangs of guilt and opts (with the woman’s permission) to put the cell back after which it becomes a twin of the 3 cell ball. Is situation A wrong? Murder? What is wrong with situation B?
PC
Can you test the one cell without destroying it?
**
And you mention a “single cell human” because…?
Again zygotes are rarely if ever electively aborted…by day 6 of life, the organism is implanted in the uterus and is referred to as an embryo
According to Guttmacher, 16% are done at 6 weeks or less, 18% are done at 7 weeks, 21 at 8 weeks, 23% at 9-10 weeks…and the rest at greater than 10 weeks.
Of that 16% done at 6 weeks or less…I’m guessing a fairly tiny percent is done at 6 days.
So, again…talk of zygote abortions is not really germane. If we’re back to your original OP…when is it OK to have elective abortions…the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are done on organisms that look like this, or like this, (or this for second trimester abortions.)
At this point in the game, I think you’ve run pretty far afield from OP of “when is it ok to have an elective abortion”. I don’t do these kind of hypothetical biological thought experiments…they tend not to have a whole lot to do with the debate at hand…and can be created and changed at will to suit the point of the questioner:
eg: Quick…what happens if we take some gorilla dna and use some freaky-deaky gene splicing techniques inside of a blastocyte…is it OK to abort the gorilla-blastocyte?
Not my cuppa tea…if someone else wants to play that game…have at it.
I think I’ve given a series of fairly comprehensive answers to the questions posed in the OP.
Please do explain how it could be morally okay to kill a newborn. Thank you.
America has struggled with the abortion issue for the past 30 years. During most of that time, the debate has focused on the issue of a mother’s “right” to choose whether to “terminate” her pregnancy. The pro-choice argument is since there is no agreement when “life” begins, then it should be up to the mother to make the decision. In addition, they believe that the status of unborn human life is a religious issue and/or the status cannot be determined. Pro-choice people show off their “open minds” by saying they are against abortion personally but will not force their views on others.
If a person believes it is acceptable for someone else to destroy an unborn human life, then they by simple logic they must believe that such life is of little or no value. Does anyone say that they don’t personally believe in killing puppies but hold that it is all right for someone else to do so? No. Do we believe that murder is acceptable for others to choose? No. Why not? Ethics in the US and most of the world has developed to include the belief in preserving human life outside the womb. The pro-choice position considers human life in the womb as ethically equivalent to a kidney. If you believe personally that unborn human life is significant enough to prevent you from destroying such life then you cannot ethically, morally, and logically allow others to do so.
The OP of this thread is right on target. The root issue in the abortion question is the need for our society to determine the nature and value of unborn human life. The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade could not and did not adequately weigh their value. The Supreme Court cannot create new ethics. The Court can only interpret existing laws and try to make sure any one law is consistent with the Constitution and the currently existing body of laws. The majority in Roe v. Wade admitted that they were not qualified to decide when unborn human life has value unto itself. They only decided that the unborn were worthy of protection after the point of viability. Even then they did not say the unborn must be protected only that they may be protected by the state. Viability was defined as the point where the baby can survive outside the womb. As mentioned in the OP, medical technology is pushing the point of viability back earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. As a result, we are basing the value of human life on how well we can care for it. The result is a truly utilitarian definition of the value of human life. The more dependent you are the less valued you are.
Is this thing growing in the womb essentially just another part of a woman’s body or is it a living, developing and unique human life? There is little scientific evidence that can support the former while there is overwhelming evidence developed in the last 30 years that supports the latter and if it is the latter then it must be protected, preserved and allowed to live out its life fully. ANY attempt to draw a line and say on this side its worthy of our protection and on this side it is not is always going to be arbitrary and malicious. The plain scientific truth is we are not fully aware individuals until sometime around our 4th or 5th birthday. Trying to pick some point before that time where we can legally kill a human life is never going make logical or scientific sense.
In my mind, one of our great contributions to the world is the high degree that we value life in general. We have grown increasingly to also value nature. Destroying unborn human life is against our shared traditions and common values. We are a society that will spend millions to protect rare animal species but we can’t find it in our hearts to protect human life in the womb. This contradiction is harming our culture. As we see in Even Sven’s post, we have less concern for children, especially babies. We are throwing newborns in the trash. So much so, authorities have created new laws to help prevent the practice. How is our culture going to survive the long term when we are literally destroying our future?
IIRC many common parasites are picked up by eating food containing them or their eggs. We all know that improperly cooked or refrigerated foods may be contaminated but people eat stuff all the time making the judgement call that it will be ok, sometimes it isn’t.
I’ve never seen the point to the debates about when life starts or when personhood starts. Life starts at conception, but so what? Personhood does not begin until some point after birth, but again, so what?
As to when I’d allow abortion, I’d allow it with no contraints during the first and second trimesters. Under the Hazel regime, during the first and second trimesters, a woman, or a girl (regardless of age) who wants an abortion, gets one without having to justify herself to anyone. During the 3rd trimester, I’d require the woman or girl to have a good reason: to save the life or health of the mother, for example, or in cases where it’s been discovered that something is wrong with the fetus. I have no proof of this, but it’s my belief that 3rd trimester abortions seldom occur other then for such reasons.
Why do you set up these boundaries? What’s the logic? What transformation occurs between the last day of the second trimester and the first day of the third, for example? Thanks.
Wow, you speak as if this is verified, and widely accepted medical fact.
Cite, please?
Or is this just someone’s subjective opinion?
If it’s just someone’s subjective opinion…then isn’t a debate over “personhood” criteria germane to this issue?
You do recognize that there was a point in our history when full personhood did not “begin until some point after birth” if you happened to have an “excess” of melatonin?
But of course…we’re smarter now right? We have this “personhood” thing down pat.
:rolleyes:
In my post I came down on the pro-choice side-- but with a few nuances and a good deal of regret. That regret forms some common ground between me and the pro-life side.
But when I read posts that maintain, passionately and dogmatically, that everything from fertilized egg onward is a human person deserving the full protection of the law–
well, I have to wonder if these people have considered their own capacity for self-deception.
So abortion is murder? Willful? Premeditated?
You’re working toward a society in which it is so regarded by law?
My question to you:
“If your daughter, or your son’s beloved wife, were to have an abortion, are you morally consistent enough to demand that charges of premeditated murder be brought against her?”
Can you see yourself testifying against her? Will you be able to tell the truth, “so help you God”? Will you weep for the jury at the loss of your innocent, 8-day-old unborn grandchild? Will you be present for her execution? Or does you pro-life position lead you to favor life in prison without possibility of parole? Will you comfort the left-alone spouse, the siblings?
Or do you believe, conveniently, that the guilt really falls to the “abortician” of your “abortuary”? So he/she gets thrown into jail or executed. And you don’t have to comfort anybody. And so in consequence millions of daughters now risk the moral sin of suicide while engaging in the sin of murder.
It’s possible that you can indeed accept these things, the logical outcome of your views. But I will do you the honor of assuming otherwise.
I’m not being “snarky.” My point was less on the practical than on the moral aspects. It sounds as if you’re saying that it’s better (not as bad?) to take the “morning after” pill because it happens rarely or before implantation (a distinction your cite says is morally irrelevant). I’m trying to find out why it’s bad later.
I do think a “single cell” human is different morally as well as physically from an adult and I get the impression that you do as well.
Do your linked pictures demonstrate why abortion is bad at those stages? Do they have more “right” to life than at earlier stages? If so why?
Maybe it’s my physics background, but I find thought experiments to be very usefull ways to explore and understand a problem. Some advice one of my physics teachers said, was to take a problem to the extreme and then the principles involved become more clear. I think it holds well in a lot of situations. The ones I mention are not wild imaginations, nor are they unlikely to occur. Biologically, they’re similar (if not equivalent) to zygotes and maybe the distinctions made there are ones that can guide us in this discussion.
I appreciate your responses and did not mean to make you feel uncomfortable. You’ve helped me a lot.
PC
No, but in the example the remaining cells were left to continue or the cell was replaced (with out testing) to become a new zygote. These are types of things that occur now and bear directly on the value of a zygote as a human being.
PC
Actually, I liked what polycarp said, though I don’t know if they are morally equivalent.
This is what I’m trying to figure out. Where do we draw barriers?
PC
**
I’m not saying that.
**
I believe that a single celled human is different physically from an embryo, which differs from a fetus, which differs from a new born, which differs from a teen, which differs from an adult.
I do think that human life exists on a continuum of development, not marked by some magical “personhood” turning point arbitrarily assigned by society…(what is it this week?..viability, sentience, language, “consciousness” etc…).
At the same time, in terms of discussing public policy and abortion…I mention the “facts” of when abortion occurs (including pictures), as a response to those select pro choice folks who (either willingly, or out of ignorance) speak of elective abortion of single celled organisms or “blobs of tissue”…you know, fighting ignorance and all of that. 
FWIW, to help articulate at least one pro life perspective…
I forget who made me aware of this author, but Frederica Mathewes-Green addresses the whole “personhood” debate better than I do here.
Scott Dickerson wrote:
“If your daughter, or your son’s beloved wife, were to have an abortion, are you morally consistent enough to demand that charges of premeditated murder be brought against her?”
My Answer:
You can’t have charges against something that is not currently illegal. You seem to measure terminating the life of the unborn child and the negative life impact on the mother and find the former less of a problem. I cannot take your statements expressing your high concern for the unborn seriously if you are willing to see them destroyed. In my view, the debate always comes down to how much value you place in the unborn. No value and you destroy them; little value and you are willing to let others destroy them; highly valued and you want to protect them.
Where does the value come from? Should we value it at all stages equally?
Points taken. I wonder if the moral value of the “in-utero human” exists on a continuum also. I’m recognizing that it’s not really practical to differentiate a turning point and may not really be possible. Oh well.
Okay, Sauceman, if the anti-abortion people get their way, and abortion is illegal except for rape, incest, and to save the woman’s life, and your DIL had an abortion, would you turn her in? Would you support having her charged with premeditated murder? Quit dodging the question, please.
My personal feeling is that men really shouldn’t get a vote on this issue. It’s way too easy to be sanctimonious about abortion when you rest secure in the knowlege that you’ll never be pregnant.
The problem here, as others have pointed out, is that any rules we make are going to be somewhat arbitrary. If you allow abortion on demand, you get all the questions in this thread. If you outlaw abortion except for rape, incest, and to save the woman’s life/health, you get a whole new set of arbitrary boundaries.
What constitutes rape? Do you have to wait for a conviction? Why or why not? What about the life/health issue? How likely does it have to be that she’ll die before you do the abortion? Does mental health count? What about pre-eclampsia? Gestational diabetes? Where do you draw the lines, and why do you draw them there when you could just as easily draw them other places?
If I had to draw the line somewhere, I’d have to go with Hazel and put it at 6 months. What makes 5 months and 29 days different from 6 months and 1 day? Nothing, really, and I freely admit that. But it’s as good or bad a place to draw the line as anywhere else.