Abortion revisited

Great Debates
1

It should be known before we begin that I am a man and I do not favor or approve of abortion in most cases (discluding instances of rape, safety of the mother etc.)

I’m a little confused about some people’s views on abortion, and I was hoping someone could explain some things to me.

I understand a pro-choice advocate’s argument, “my body, my choice” even though I don’t agree with it.

I also understand pro-lifer arguments that nobody has the right to choose to kill another human being.

Being pro-life and well educated in Biology and Human Physiology, I have trouble understanding why pro-choice advocates do not believe a developing fetus is a representation of a living creature. For example, arguers state that an embryo is not a human because it does not have completely developed body parts (e.g. limbs, brainstem etc.) so it cannot possibly be human yet.

To me, this argument makes no sense. First, a developing fetus has 46 chromosomes per cell. (just like anybody from 1-100+ years old) Second, Even after it is born, a baby is still not fully developed (its brain and some rudimentary body parts still develop after birth) so the argument that a fetus is not a human but a new-born is, is nullified. For example, a one year old child will have completely different skin cells, blood cells etc. by the time it is 20, so by a pro-choice view, that person has different cells, it must be a different person. (This is sarcasm by the way.) I have more examples but I don’t feel like listing them because I want to know WHY DO YOU PRO-CHOICERS FEEL JUSTIFIED? What is your reasoning for allowing children in their mothers’ wombs to be killed? Please argue your points with reason and poise. (you’ll need it)

Also, this is not a religious or even an ethical debate. I want to know (scientifically or otherwise) why pro-choice representatives believe that a) a fetus is not a human and b) why it’s okay to kill it. I cannot stop others from venting their moral and religious outrage but I will try to keep my own religion out of this discussion and focus on the scientific and logical arguments (unless someone wants to know my religious stance)

GDG

P.S. I do not mean to offend pro-choice or pro-life advocates, I merely want to know what justification each side has outside of religon and refute those who are wrong.

2

Round 2,352,358,235,728,395,723,895

DING!

3

I shall regret posting in this thread (I do not identify with either of the extreme camps), but here goes; when does the fertilised ovum, in your opinion, godogsgo13, become a human being? and what makes it so?

4

For being well-educated in these matters, godogsgo13, you seem to be ignoring the fact that most abortions are performed before it is even considered a fetus. Just some minor nitpicking.

5

First things first.
In MY opinion the moment the sperm fertilizes the ovum (that is the moment a cell w/ 46 chromosomes forms) I consider it a human. That is not to mean that is the best or only possibility, but it is what I use as basis. This is not based on my religion which also states it is human at the moment of conception, my opinion is based more on scientific facts than my faith.
and
Please Mandos, nitpick all you wish. I am well educated in biology and physiology, abortions are not my area of expertise. But yes, I realize that most abortions are performed before the child is a “fetus.” I use, “fetus” more as a sweeipng term to cover all of the developing stages of the fertilized egg, in part becasue I feel that at all points, the dividing cells (specified or unspecified) having 46 chromosomes, are what I consider human.

Thanks for nitpicking, that is the only way we can perferct each other!

GDG

P.S. I realize that some people will take my, “46 chromosome” argument too literally and say that if I consider anything w/ 46 chromosomes, human, what about skin cells etc. This is a ridiculous point to argue because I mean the entity as a whole, (i.e. the developing baby as a whole.)

6

Um, doesn’t PERFECT only have one “R”?

Hey, you said to nitpick, didn’t you? :smiley:

7

hahahahahahahaha!
That was deliberate to see if anyone would nitpick!
Thanks!

GDG

8

hahahahahahahaha!
That was deliberate to see if anyone would nitpick!
Thanks!

GDG

9

godogsgo13 – No doubt we each have our own reasons for being pro-life or pro-choice. My view is secular. I believe that a society can choose the moment when a fetus should be defined as a human being. Reasonable alternatives are at conception, at birth, or when life is viable outside the womb. As I see it, the choice can be somewhat arbitrary, as long as it makes sense socially and psychologically.

Given the state of medicine and world over-population, I think it’s pretty reasonable to define human life as beginning at birth. Psychologically, that’s when parents and children begin to relate.

I wouldn’t strongly oppose a ban on late-term abortions, since that would still give pregnant women time to make a decision. Also, many of us parents feel some sort of kinship for our fetus by then.

I see no particular virtue in using the moment of conception definition. It doesn’t make psychological or social sense to me. Taking a “morning after” pill doesn’t remotely feel like killing a human being.

10

GDG, you may need to revise your theory about 46 chromosomes.

I am not educated in biology and physiology, but isn’t it the case that some chromosomal disorders result from too many or too few chromosomes, or partial-mismatches of chromosomes?

I’m not merely trying to nitpick; I actually would be interested in how you phrase your definition of the life beginning moment to include such chromosomal disorders. Careful phrasing of this point is important.

11

This problem is actually similar to the one we’ve been having on race and definitions in general. The contentious word here is “human.” If it’s human, it’s wrong to kill it, if not, not. But “human” is a highly contentious term with many meanings.

If you define human one way, then I would say that actually, it’s perfectly morally fine to kill some sorts of humans (all othre things equal). If you define it a different way, I would say that it is NEVER right to do so (all other things equal).

So my suggestion is to completely chuck the word “human” in this debate. It’s not going to provide any useful form of communication. Instead, let’s discuss this matter directly: saying what exactly it is that we think should be morally sacrosanct: what are the characteristics that matter (to humans or anything else). I think if we do that, the worst that can happen is that we find we value different things. But at least we will avoid the pointless debate about whether something is human or not.

In short: the shorthand, essentialist “human” is not going to work here. Use the longhand: the actual arguement from specific characteristics to moral wrongs (after which we can start talking about which beings have them, and which don’t).

12

How embarrasing. How could I possibly leave out the rare exception’s such as Down’s and Turner’s syndromes etc.? Of course all of my words should be taken literally so I guess I will include any and all persons born outside of my, “46 chromosome rule.” I still consider those children born with too few or too many chromosomes as well as anyone else with a genetic “disorder” to be humans.
Please be careful with YOUR words too il Topo, my opinion on 46 chromosomes was not a “theory” as you stated. To be politically and scientifically correct, all creatures born of a human egg and a human sperm cell are considered a human ONLY IN MY OPINION.

Please, I don’t mind nitpicking, but I want to talk with knowledgeable people on their views on abortion, not focus on how to be politically correct.

GDG

13

Sorry Apos, I don’t want a morality discussion. I will use the term, “human” where I deem fit. This is not an argument about humans deserving to die or whether or not it is, “moral” to kill them. This discussion is about why a developing child is or isn’t considered a living creature.
Once again I understand people want to explain what they morally feel, but I want justification, not arguments, for your opinions. If you argue that a developing embryo/fetus is life, explain your reasoning, with the same holding true if you do not think an embryo/fetus represents life.

14

godogsgo13, if to you a life is a life, why is it not a life if it is the product of rape as you say in your first sentence? It’s not like the zygote/fetus/whatever decided it wanted to come about because of rape.

Basically a fetus is not human because up until it reaches a certain age, it cannot survive outside the body. I don’t think you can compare the earliest stages of pregnancy to grown human beings or even newborns. If we are humans the instant the egg is fertilized, then why isn’t our “birthday” the day we are conceived?

Even though I am pro-choice, I do oppose late-term abortions because by then, the fetus has matured enough that it could survive outside the womb.

15

That is absolutely untrue. See http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/faq.pdf for details.

16

godogsgo13
You may see it as such a debate, and want such a debate, but that debate would be without merit. Using ‘science’ because it furthers what is essentially a moral argument is just plain wrong. There simply is no scientific basis for pro-life or pro-choice. There are sociological reasons, which have a moral base. Some of the people debating will use ‘science’ to strengthen their case.

The moral of the society decides what is ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ in any given topic. The moral in many countries decided that it was roght to discriminate against minorities, and through that support, laws were made. The same goes for many laws, which may have diferent foundations in diferent societies. In my own country, as a parent you’re forbidden to strike a child in any form, as a punishment when raising them, not even a little spanking to the troublesome 4 y.o. The moral in our society has made this law possible.

Gun laws in the US are not there because of the Constitution, it could be ammended, if the vast majority in the country was for serious restriction. It’s not, and any president trying to do so is facing political suicide.

The whole concept of finding a ‘scientific’ foundation pro or con what is a moral issue is moot.

17

I’m pro-choice. I believe a fertilized ovum is a living creature. Yea, even a human being. I believe pregnant women have the undiluted unmitigated absolute right to become unpregnant any damn time they want to. This does involve killing the beforementioned living creature. I believe women have that authority, intrinsically and individually.

Back where I come from, the Moms asserted to their unruly youngsters, “I brung you into this world and if you don’t shape up I’m gonna send you back out’n it.” I don’t hold with that. Up until the cord is cut but no further–after that, the baby acquires the right to life and she shouldn’t oughta kill it no later than that, in my opinion.

18

Your point is well taken, Gaspode, but if I could speak for GDG for a second, I think GDG is looking for a scientifically established event, the occurrence of which is useable as a demarcation for the beginning of life. (Oh what the heck, I’ll just speak for myself from here on out…)

Pro-lifer’s generally don’t see things such as “location of the fetus” to be principled demarcation of whether one is human or not. Rather, they look to the structure of the fetus/zygote/whatever. They look to a fundamental change of nature, such as GDG’s 46 chromosomes. (That is, to the extent that the pro-lifer’s position results from thought and is not dictated by God.)

I for one, am wondering if pro-choicer’s have a similar event upon which to base the beginning of life. So far, I have only heard viability, which will be the same as conception as technology progresses, so we are left with a situation in which life begins ever earlier as science develops.

But should the definition of human life really be dependent upon the level of technology?

19

Finally, something we can ALL agree on! :slight_smile:

In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with DGD about the completion of a previously nonexistent set of human DNA as the “critical time” for attachment of legal protections afforded those granted the status of human. But why don’t I try being devil’s advocate for a minute.

As DGD says, removing a skin cell from someone doesn’t kill anybody.

A two-cell zygote could develop into a fully born human, and DGD would presumably call it (the two-cell zygote) a human life.

Assume for a second that we could remove one cell from the two-cell zygote without killing the remaining cell. The remaining cell still could develop into a fully born human. (No???)

So, did we remove “a human” when we took the one of the two cells? Or, did we take “part of a human” (e.g., part of the two-cell zygote human). And if we took part of a human, then is the one cell we took really a human? How can it be both?

I guess the argument implied here is that maybe the line isn’t as clear at conception as DGD states?

So when is “it” a single human? At the single cell stage with the first new set of 46 chromosomes? But what if cell division results in two independent zygotes? Do we wait to define the beginning of human life as the time after which “twinning” is no longer possible? Perhaps at the point of cell differentiation? Viability. I guess that’s a weak version of the old, slippery slope there.

Perhaps the pro-choicers say it is all one slippery slope, and the only way to choose is to vote on it.

Not very convincing to me, but I welcome the discussion being furthered by those who disagree with me.

20

Wow. Really? Up until now, I didn’t think anyone believed that, even die-hard pro-choicers. I thought half-way out the birth canal was as far as anyone went.

So, if the mother delivers the baby entirely, then smashes the head of the baby, and then cuts the cord…no problem?