Abortion revisited

Great Debates
21

There is, I think, a problem with the entire thrust of the OP; science can only concern itself with definitions and properties in a strictly factual manner; science may well define me as a human being but falls silent on whether I have any right to live or be free; this task must be performed by systems of ethics, inspired by religion or otherwise; once defined, we can apply the ethical framework with rigour and accuracy, but that doesn’t make the ethical framework a scientific one.

Similarly, the definition ‘human’ isn’t one that springs naturally out of simple observation; it is primarily based on ideas; your idea that ‘human’ means any individual organism that contains a full set of unique human chromosomes; somebody else’s definition that is based on the presence of a nervous and circulatory system; another person’s definition that requires the individual to be capable of independent survival (which we can further pick at and wonder about the independence of toddlers).

godogsgo13; you describe the (anticipated) comparison to skin cells as ridiculous and yet at the point of fertilisation, there’s just a single cell; OK it divides a few times and becomes a ball of cells, but we could just as easily argue that until it implants in the wall of the uterus, it has no survival prospects and is just a rather interesting ball of cells.

Let me pick a little further and ask; do you believe that every time an egg is fertilised and fails to implant (and I’m led to believe that this is very common), that this is the death of a human being occurring?

22

That’s just nature. When my cat gives birth, she checks out the newborn kittens and decides which ones to lick and claim and which ones to push to the side and declare “dead”. Sometimes, for MomCat reasons of her own, she will decide that a kitten that is not literally clinically dead is not one that she intends to keep. Her decision to make. Strikes me as entirely reasonable. Give human Moms a symbolic pair of scissors and a birth-or-death certificate to fill out. It’s officially a life birth and a human being with human rights as soon as/ if she says it is.

No, I’m not representative of mainstream pro-choice sentiment.

23

–Sorry Apos, I don’t want a morality discussion.—

Nonsense: that’s exactly what you’re after. The only difference is that you do not want to have to defend your position. All the talk about “right” IS a moral distinction, and resting it on “human” has the exact problem I outlined.

—I will use the term, “human” where I deem fit.—

Go ahead: but the only result is going to be equivocation on that word.

—This discussion is about why a developing child is or isn’t considered a living creature.—

Everyone considers developing children to be living creatures, so the point is moot.

—Once again I understand people want to explain what they morally feel, but I want justification, not arguments, for your opinions.—

You’re going to have to explain that one again: justifications ARE arguements.
—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.—

Again: everyone thinks that it is life, and most that it is “human” life, according to one definition of the term. What they don’t agree upon is whether that answers the question relevant ot abortion.

24

It makes little sense to define conception as the point where it humanness starts. Not only is the cell cluster that results soon after conception not sentient, using any sense of the word, it is not developed enough to experience pain, or, no more pain than individual cells in the human body can experience. Unless, that is, I have completely misunderstood something about the development of an embryo/fetus.

In response to JThunder:
Would you mind supplying a source that isn’t blatantly biased?

25

Since I’m not American, I can only throw in my €0.02 worth of observation.

Up untill the 1840’s, even in very Puritan parts of the US, abortion was legal untill the fetus ‘quickened’ - moved. Say till three months. The so called religious reasons didn’t hold then, but maybe they were just ignorant?

So ‘pro-life’ comes along after abortion is made legal again. Drumming up arguments left and right (not politically, obviously). What was the basis for the start of this? If the puritans of a much stricter religious era accepted it? My guess: Abortion was made legal during the Erica Jong, free sex, love all, tune in drop out period. The moral outrage against abortion started as an outrage against slack moral attitude towards sex. Screwing around is morally wrong, to these people, and now you don’t even get punished with bearing a child. So abortion is also wrong for letting these hedonists continue what they’re doing, without risking any consequences.

I’m totally convinced that if the Supreme Court had made it’s ruling 1954, we wouldn’t even have this debate today.

As to what’s happening here: the pro-lifers are getting stronger, fueled by arguments from the US. It doesn’t matter that we oppose it - the US is always the trend setter, be it music, movies or politics.

26

I’m pro-choice, and you don’t have to shout. I do not “allow children in their mothers’ wombs to be killed”, I simply believe as a matter of practicality that mothers should have the right to terminate early-term pregnancies if they choose. I believe that the social costs of bringing unwanted babies into the world outweigh the potential benefits. I am against late-term abortions again on the basis of practicality; I believe that by this time the child is sentient and the health and emotional dangers to the mother probably outweigh any potential benefit.

I do not weigh these ideas lightly. I have a very good female friend in Houston who, tomorrow, is going to have her second abortion in as many months. She was not in a position to raise the child in the first instance, and nothing has changed in the second. When she found out she was pregnant the first time, I offered to assist her financially if she wanted to carry the child to term (I’m not the father, BTW). She said no. Whether or not I disagree with her decision, it nevertheless is her right to decide what’s best for her, and I will support her regardless.

27

Shades of gray. Its all about shades of gray.

The OP question was “WHY DO YOU PRO-CHOICERS FEEL JUSTIFIED?”

So, if a transient shows up at your door, do you think the government should force you to give this person room and board just because he happened to show up at your doorstep?

What if he was really really hungry and was really really cold?

What if he was on deaths door?

As a moral person, you would probably try to call social services, the county hospital or some governmental agency to take care of this person, but what about the government forcing you to be the one to nurse him back to health. You are going to bring this diseased? insane? criminal? drugged out? person into your house, subject your children to potential harm, because the government believes every life is sacred?

No. Such a situation is ridiculous. Why? Because life is not really sacred. Its important. But if I can think of many situations where I wouldn’t hesitate before pulling the trigger and ending someone else’s life (almost all of them involve protecting my wife and kids, btw).

Okay, life is important. How important is it? Is it important enough to force a woman to serve as an incubator for 9 months and go through childbirth.

Well, are we were talking about a 19 year old woman who is the sole means of support for her three younger siblings, doesn’t have any medical benefits at her job and can not afford to take any unpaid time off? Is the life more important then the stability of her life and that of her siblings (not to mention her own physical discomfort and risks of pregnancy)? Does it matter that she was raped? Why? Does it matter that, because of 2 prior miscarriages, she would need to stay in bed for the entire first trimester. What if one of her younger siblings was diabled and she needed to be mobile to take care of him? If abortion was absolutely illegal, would commit a crime by not staying in bed and, as a result, inducing a miscarriage?

Shades of gray. Its all about shades of gray.

The next question then becomes who decides when a woman’s hardships outweigh life. A committee of elders? A court case that would take 7 years? Put it up for vote on daytime TV? A buch of idiot bureaucrats?

Oh, wait. I have an idea.

The woman.

Yes, the woman gets to choose when her own personal hardships outweigh the value of a life.

What if medical technology a fetus (or earlier) to be safely removed and incubated elsewhere.

Well, then the woman wouldn’t undergo much hardship, would she. So, instead of an abortion, the fetuses are transferred to incubators. I can imagine rows and rows of incubators, each one costing tens of thousands of dollars to operate, and each one holding a future ward of the state. Hope you don’t mind a 50% tax rate.

28

Well, there’s the problem, Godogsgo.

You assume that all pro-choicers believe that the fetus isn’t human. There are many different views behind the pro-choice stance, just as there are many behind the pro-life stance.

There are some pro-lifers who see no justification, ever for taking another life. There are some who are prepared to concede on the rape and incest cases. There are some who just don’t think it’s right and couldn’t do it themselves, but don’t want to make that decision for others.

There are some pro-choicers who don’t believe the fetus is a living human being, there are others that do. Some pro-choicers think that the woman’s right to be or not be pregnant as she sees fit trumps the fetus’ interest in a continuing life. Some pro-choicers think that until a heart beat is discovered, or brain waves occur, or any number of (to them) significant occurences take place, the woman has more say in the matter. I’m sure there are tons of other views on both sides that I haven’t mentioned, but it should give you some idea that all pro-choicers and all pro-lifers are not two big groups with a set way of thinking… there is much variety.

Now, to answer your question, keeping in mind that it isn’t the answer of the pro-choice ‘position’ because there isn’t one, it’s just my opinion :

a) I believe the fetus is a living, human being.
b) I believe no woman should be pregnant against their will. I believe that every child should be a wanted child. I do not believe that ‘life’ is the be-all and end-all.
Please note that those comments are my personal opinions, and are not necessarily the same as any other pro-choicers views.

29

I’ll have to disagree slightly with fellow pro life dude JThunder…but also disagree quite a bit with those who discuss elective abortions in terms of 8 celled zygote blobs.

With the usual caveats about the problems associated with reporting of abortions…

From the CDC,

The AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, reports somewhat different numbers here

16% at 6 weeks or less
38% at 7-8 weeks
23% at 9-10 weeks
11% at 11-12 weeks
7% at 13-15 weeks
4% at 16-20 weeks
1% at 21 or more weeks

In terms of fetal development…generally the zygote/blastocyte stage lasts until 15 days. The embryo stage then lasts until about the 8 week point…after which the organism is generally referred to as a fetus. (Although terms like “fetus” or “baby” are often used in a “symbolic” way to describe the organism)

I suspect that figuring in a time frame for becoming aware of pregnancy…a relatively small percentage of abortions are performed at the pre 15 day stage. So it’s a bit silly to discuss elective abortions of zygotes…it generally doesn’t happen.

Since a large chunk of abortions occur at the 7-8 week stage, it’s hard to calculate how many of those were of what would be referred to as a fetus in terms of development. However, according to AGI, 46% are performed AFTER 8 weeks. If we take just a few of the 7-8 week abortions and categorize them into the fetus stage, we’re easily over 50%.

In short, hardly any elective abortions are performed on zygotes. Discussion of a zygote in terms of elective abortion timing seems silly.

It’s fair to conclude that a simple majority of abortions occur at the fetal stage, with another large number performed at the embryo stage.

30

I’m pro choice and I still think human babies are a bit different from kittens…

What happens if the mother says it’s not human before the cord is cut? She doesn’t literally get to kill it…I mean, she can put it up for adoption, but after it’s out of her womb, I really don’t think abortion extends beyond birth. After it’s out, I believe the baby, like all human beings, is protected, legally and morally. A third trimester birth is one thing, but dictating whether or not a child lives after it’s been born is another thing entirely.

31

I don’t even ask the question of whether the fetus is a person. All that matters to me is that it’s living inside a woman’s body, draining her nutrients and contaminating her precious bodily fluids. Until someone else can take care of it, I say she has the right to decide whether she wants to continue serving as an incubator.

32

beagledave: you’re right, of course, but the arguments about the 8-celled zygote are intended to highlight the position of humanity beginning at conception as a religious, not scientific one.

I don’t believe there’s a point at which an instantaneous transition from ‘not human’ to ‘human being’ occurs; becoming a human person is a process that begins with an ovum and sperm and continues happening right through childhood, possibly beyond.
(NB: I’m not arguing that newborn babies are or should be legally less human than you or I, just that they observably have a smaller share of the attributes that comprise ‘human person’)

33

Well this clears some things up. Thanks to all who helped me see a little bit more clearly. Pro-choicer (or so they have told me) recognize developing zygotes, fetuses etc. as life but maintain that the woman ultimately has the right to decide what to do with the entity within her, the, “my body, my choice” argument.

Although some people do raise an interesting point. When does a developing child be considered, “too old” to be aborted? Some say until the umbilical cord is cut, (they must live in China) some only before certain, predetermined stages (e.g. 8 weeks of gestation etc.) and some say until the child can live, “on its own” outside its mothers womb. Am I correct on these points? I hope so.

OK now I can see where the morality of the issue can play into this discussion becasue it is not an argument about if it is life, but whether it is worth keeping alive. Nothing I, your respective religious/moral leaders, or anyone else can, “guilt” pro-choicers into feeling sorry about abortion as we pro-lifers oftentimes try to do.

I can’t convince any of you that your views are wrong, ultimately for selfish reasons. Hold on, relax, that’s not an insult, I’m as selfish as anyone here and then some. However, even I have my limits. I will not listen to arguments about how abortion should be allowed because of, “an overpopulated world” or “the poor child will not have a rich family” etc.

I understand your views (I think) and all I can say is God help us. Since killing an unborn child which is, “not worth as much as an adult or a born child” is easier, why not? Argue all you want about how these children will suffer for one reason or another if born, God knows we have all suffered and we were born. I am still not convinced. These unborn children have as much a right to live as you or I, but that’s okay, since we’re already alive and know that these children’s lives will not be perfect, let’s save them the trouble and suck their brains out or maybe suck the entire embryo out, or inject poison into them, or cause them to be prematurely born and then die, or perform a hysterotomy on them, or scrape them out with a hanger. After all, in a culture where we can do anythng that feels good without consequence, why add the burden of children into our lives?

You are all pathetic.

GDG

34

We’re quite willing to listen to reasoned debate, but rants and tantrums don’t belong in this forum; you’re losing the argument because you fail to back up your opinions with hard facts (that you said you had). Retreating into “well, I still think XYZ” isn’t convincing us unless you tell us why you think XYZ*.

35

—You are all pathetic.—

Oooo, good point. Please: tell people what’s in their minds for them. Your opponents have all the worst thoughts and motivations, don’t they? They won’t say so… but you can say it for them. They haven’t all expressed the screwed up rationales you know they must have: but you can fix that!

Except… this sort of behavior in a discussion is called slander. At base, it’s all about lying (lying about other people), which is probably the lowest level one can sink in a “great debate.”

—Since killing an unborn child which is, “not worth as much as an adult or a born child”—

Hey, personally, I’d consider you a big ole hypocrite if you are both pro-life (even for early developmental fetuses) AND eat meat. But then, that’s just a MORAL opinion.

36

I’m not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe. I merely want to understand why people believe what they do. Nor did I ever flaunt that I had “hard facts” I only have opinions (as I said before) based on what I know to be true. You can draw your own opinions on this issue, but don’t accuse me of ranting when I condemn your position with points I have already made.

You want some “hard facts” that helped me draw my conclusion?

Roughly 80% of aborted fetuses are by unmarried women.

The majority of abortions are done on women between the ages of 16 and 24.

Nobody knows what potential lies within an unborn baby. (This is true, unless someone can refute it)

Over 90% of abortions are done, not for the good of the child or mother, but as a form of birth control.

Over 55% of the reasons for aborting a baby include the mother/father was too young, not educated enough, cannot “afford” it or does not want one at all.

25% more say that they have abortions to postpone having children (that is, they want children but not at that time.)

There are app. 4,000 abortions every day in the US alone.

These are some of the “facts” that helped in my developing my opinion, but there are other things I considered as well as any truths I have stated earlier.

GDG

P.S. Bear in mind, these stats and other factors caused me to become pro-life, others will look at the same arguments and disagree with me. Once again all views I express are opinions, so treat them as such.

37

Apos,
It was not slander what I stated at all. Slander is a false accusation with intent to destroy another’s reputation. What I did was INSULT you, not lie about you. The term, “pathetic” is generally defined as something that invokes pity, and since I pity you, you are pathetic, thus it is true. Verstehen?

Also, how in the hell is eating meat and being pro-life hypocritical? Although I admit I am hypocritical, I don’t see it there. Animals (and plants) are not humans, and cannot be compared.

GDG

38

Those aren’t facts so much as statistics (OK, I’m not going to question their veracity); take for example:

How does that logically lead to ‘therefore abortion is wrong, science says so’

39

Who ever said that science says abortion is wrong? Science doesn’t say that at all, I do. Science, intrinsically does not determine moral law, it can’t. Also, if you quote the stats above, you cannot (without being stupid) take them out of context, nor can you take them as the only things I base my judgment on; they are, as I said, only some of the reasons that justify my opinion.

My logic is what leads me to believe abortion is wrong based on what I know and what I have observed, not the “logic” of science.

GDG

P.S. What “facts” are you looking for? Apparantly, my stats (which are true) do not constitute as facts. What, for example, would be a fact that I could use to further my opinion? All I have are stats and observable phenomena, so what else do I need?

40

godogsgo13, it’s perfectly clear that you did not actually wish to engage in debate, but to simply to bash those who disagree with your stance on abortion. You requested information on how persons who are pro-choice (whom you erroneously believe to be a monolithic bloc) have arrived at their conclusions and after several answered in good faith with reasoned statements, you chose to hurl insults, uncluttered by factual rebuttal.

Your personal opinion of me means less than nothing. Who are you and why should I give any weight to your opinion?

You are acting like a jerk. If you want to post a diatribe, feel free, but the place to do it is in the Pit.