Abortion, since I haven't seen this thread yet

Great Debates
41

This is interesting–here’s my take (firmly in the pro-choice camp, so’s we all know where everybody’s coming from):

First, my father is a doctor and has told me (and is backed up by several medical journals; no, I’m sorry I don’t have a cite and desperately wish I did!) that the number of “partial birth” or extremely late-term abortions actually performed in the US is amazingly small (something on the number of less than 200/yr). These are generally performed, as stated above, only in very extreme cases.

Second, for me life isn’t about conception or hearts beating or when cells divide (although it depends on all of those things), for me life is about experiences. It’s about the things we remember and cherish. Yes, I’ve heard testimonies as to whether and to what degree a foetus can feel pain, but do any of us remember the womb? Do we remember our first birthday? I would say no, and for me, life really hasn’t begun. (Does this mean I could’ve morally been killed before my third b-day, the first hazy memory I can conjure? Maybe–it’s the gray area in my argument. Feel free to hash it as you will. I certainly don’t know what to do with it!)

Third, birth control pills working as they do know, I could have a voluntary abortion each month. BPC’s don’t hinder the release of an egg, as I used to think; rather, they make the uterus an extremely inhospitable place for a fertilized egg (gamete? I forget.). Thus, perhaps me and my SO have had many potential children conceived, but each was aborted along with my regular courses due to my fanatical adherence to the rules posted in my pillpack! Do I lose sleep over this? No. Do pro-lifers (or PC’ers–great term!)? I’d say no. Should they? Maybe that’s what this debate is about.

Finally, here’s an interesting thing I picked up from the NYTimes homepage some weeks back. You all remember the siamese twins born recently in the UK–one was destined to die, being the weaker twin, but one, if they were separated, would most definently live and make a full recovery. There was much legal wrangling–parents didn’t want the separation (being R.Catholics) while doctors did and assorted sides lined up for the debate. According to this article in the NYTimes (and again, no cite, sorry–it may be in their archives), one pro-life representative in Britian was quoted as having the position that they should both die. That they should not be separated and that the healthy twin should die with the weakened one. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a “pro-lifer” had this stance. Errr? Puzzled the socks offa me.

Talk amongst yourselves…

42

Man, I can guarantee you I’ve seen all the pictures at the abortion clinic. They make you take them home to think it over. They give you a freaking ultrasound. I am not saying that you can’t tell it would be a baby, or that left along it would become a human being, what I am saying is that in this state, the baby is less than human, its less than animal. It is a pile of partially specialized cells. The human ability to personify everything from cereal to pencils to stuffed animals hinders our ability to see this for what it is; and, knowing full well that it will be human doesn’t help anything.

As a matter of recourse, you might give thought to this. During an evacuation, where the entire uterine wall is suctioned, you might wonder why they don’t just pluck out the would-be baby and be done with it. Because, you see, at this stage the cells are still highly unspecialized and any trace can and very likely will develop into a new pregnancy. Next time you get your head suctioned off and grow a new one, I’ll consider revoking my stand on abortion. Until then, it ain’t human, even if it looks like it.

43

Actually, she can. I’m not sure if it would qualify as murder in the strict legal sense, but assailants have been successfully prosecuted for killing an unborn child. U.S. law is somewhat schizophrenic in this regard.

44

No, it’s far more than that. Unborn children can be seen sucking their thumbs, for goodness’ sake! They have their own circulatory systems, their own musculatory systems, and a host of other highy specialized characteristics which I already described. They are FAR MORE than just a pile of partially specialized cells.

No, it’s because the “would-be baby” has been ripped to shreds at that point. You can’t just pluck it out because it has been thoroughly mangled.

Can you cite any scientific article which says that the mangled fetal tissue “can and very likely will develop into a new pregnancy”? The fetal tissue has to be suctioned out because it can putrefy and lead to infection – NOT because it can re-impregnate the woman.

45

Actually, I think you’ve correctly identified the problem with that perspective. Obviously, memory is NOT a good indication of personhood. If it were, then we should have no compunction about killing already-born babies before their first birthday.

46

…pro-choice sophisticates don’t use my arguments. I’d sue them for plagarism {snicker}.

No, YOU are far more than just a pile of partially specialized cells. I don’t care if the thing responds to light, plants respond to light. I don’t care if it sucks its partially formed thumb. That doesn’t make it human or a baby yet, it makes it a cluster of partially specialized cells doing something we consider to be human. I attribute it to personification, like the Honey Nut Cheerios Bee (ok, understatement).

As far as reforming a new baby, you are aware of the beauty of fetal tissue in medical research? The stuff is amazing. Unspecialized cells can be transplanted anywhere to become that tissue. Whats more, the adoptive tissue does not reject fetal tissue like in other sort of transplants. Partially specialized cells behave similarly and can (if I remember correctly) unspecialize and become something else. I will go hunt up some sites (cites!) for this later tonight unless some else can do it early, but I found this out from a schoolmate doing reasearch on it. It was her paper and her presentation. I had nothing to do with it.

BTW, quixotic78, thanks for your concern. I entered this thread prepared for a presonal attack. I won’t take offense to one if it somes out in such a hot topic. (everyone else: but I am not asking for it!)

47

I suppose inducing a period won’t do, eh? It surely would be far less painful.

48

Snickers!

I have long held the same beliefs that you do, but I never had the guts to say them to anyone. I think that being “human” is a process. I won’t say it is based on memory, because there are people that don’t have the capacity to remember that I still would consider human. That said, I don’t count fetuses as fully human, and while I definately don’t support killing young babies (that would certainly piss off the parents), I think there is a good argument that they are in a different catagory than you or I. Remember, infanicide has long been considered a solution. People have, and still do, leave their newborn babies to die from exposure, drown in lakes, or other such passive forms of infanicide. It doesn’t always carry the same sense of moral deprevity that it does to us.

I don’t think potential counts for much of anything. After all, I have the potential to become a lawyer. Does that mean they should pay me like a lawyer? No. I am not a lawyer. Should I become a lawyer I will have the same rights and responsibilities as a lawyer.

And no, I do not think the father has any say a woman’s ftus. It is in her body, leaching off her resources. Sure, the father helped make that, but it is still hers. For example, cigarettes cause tumors. These tumors, however, are not partially controlled by the cigarette companies. It is not up to them to say if you operate or not.

However, the no one has a right to split you open and remove your tumor without your consent. The crime in causeing a woman to lose her pregnacy is not with killing a child, but with screwing up a woman’s body without her concent. And, considering the great emotional value that some woman put on a fetus, it should be punished.

Finally, I wish that pro-life people with the attitude of "Any woman has “a parental duty to administer to the needs of a human being conceived through her voluntary intercourse.” But–“The raped woman, on the other hand, does not voluntarily participate in the act producing a new human being. Consequently, she has no parental duty prior to the child’s birth.” can go meet me in the pit. I certainly wish they would call themselves “pro-punishing women for consentual sex”. Amazeingly, I can actually understand the ideas behind “pro-life” people. However “pro-punishing women for consentual sex” really get my goat. If thats what it is about, just admit it, and we can debate from there.

49

Glad to hear it, Sven–humanity as a process works for me too.

The major thing that really gripes me about pro-lifers is their seeming insistence to refuse to see me as anything but a womb, a “breeder.” As a woman, I will play many roles–wife, sister, friend. Mother may be one of them. It may not be. But for someone to step in and say, “No, you can’t choose which roles you want in your life” simply boils my blood.

Pro-lifers seem only to care about the child while it’s in the womb–where’s that same care once it’s out?

50

ummmm… you’re kidding right? If you’re not, this has got to be one of the most unsupported generalizations I’ve seen in awhile.

51

Point 1: So humanity is a process to you. Do you kill all those who can’t experience life the same way you can? I don’t just mean the mentally retarded, I mean the bedridden, the lazy, the homeless… how are you going to define who is succeeding at the process of being human? And why can’t fetuses (feti?) fulfill that standard?

Point 2: I’m not forcing you to be a mother. Have the kid and give it up for adoption. Demand later visitation rights, if you want. I concede that is forcing you to be pregnant for 9 months, but life’s tough. Deal, at least you get to experience it.

Point 3: Well, if a pro-lifer does seem to care only about the child while it’s in the womb, and then shits on it… that’s lame. But don’t label us all like that.

Point 4: (Not quoted) Even sven said that (s)he wouldn’t pay a person lawyer’s wages just because that person could be a lawyer someday. No, I wouldn’t either. But if a person is going to law school, then they’re actually becoming a lawyer. I’m going to start treating that person like a lawyer. Like, if I have a question about a speeding ticket, I’m going to ask them. A person on the street is different than a person actually in law school. Similarly, a sperm is different than a fetus. In both cases, the former could, maybe, perhaps, someday “mature.” In both cases, the latter is actually BECOMING “mature.”

Q

52

Minor hijack, but no, you should not treat a law student like a lawyer. They can get in deep doo-doo for dispensing legal advice without a law degree.

53

Fine, replace “law student” with “chemistry grad student.” Same concept.

Q

54

There are literally THOUSANDS of churches, crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies across the USA through which pro-lifers ensure that these children receive proper care once they are born. I know many people – men AND women – who have made huge sacrifices in terms of time, money and career advancement, just to make sure that these children are cared for. I even know one man who has decided to remain single, despite his great loneliness, so that he can give such organizations his undivided attention.

Granted, there is a lot more that should be done. And granted, not all pro-lifers sacrifice in this manner – just as not everyone who cares about a woman’s “right to choose” will make sacrifices in that direction. However, the point remains – to say that pro-lifers care nothing about the post-born child is an unsupportable and unsubstantiated accusation.

Even if it were true, that would only mean that many pro-lifers fail to completely act on their convictions – just as many pro-choicers fail to take a strong stand on theirs. Their inability or failure to commit has no bearing on whether the unborn child is human or not – and only through the most tortured logic could such a connection be justified.

55

Which is not the same as saying that these cells can form themselves into new human beings. That was your claim, after all. If you have any scientific documents which clearly echo your claim, then I’d be VERY interested in reading them.

Also, if this ability exists, I’d like to know why the medical community hasn’t used it to produce an army of unborn genetic duplicates for scientific research. With all the interest in cloning, such a technique would have surely captured popular interest by now.

Now, as for the unborn being nothing but a “pile” of cells…

Personally, I can’t understand how anyone can say that the fetus is a mere “pile” of cells. The word “pile” denotes an utter lack of structure and organization. The fetus, on the other hand, has its own heartbeat, blood vessels, musculatory system, neural impulses, and so forth. It has distinct fingers, eyes and other organs – both internal and external.

It may not be as fully developed as an adult being, but it still has an awesome degree of organization. By what stretch of imagination can we call this a mere, unorganized, uncohesive “pile” of cells?

56

I typed fetal tissue into Yahoo!'s search engine and lo!, I find a wealth of opinion. Scrolling down a bit I find information on what fetal tissue is for. In the description is stated something about the adaptability of fetal cells. I’d hate to post something from a website, because then the claim “Yeah, but that’s a pro choice site and they’re biased” or some crap. The info is out there, it takes about two seconds to find. I found info from prolife, prochoice, and universities. I found info from doctors. Pick one for yourself, unless you don’t want to be convinced.

As far as the complete uterus needing to be removed, I can refer you to research post abortion complications, one of which is continued pregnancy. Now how do you suppose that happens? I again just picked one of a million websites about abortion, so if you don’t like that one there are more out there.

I respect your desire for something you think is right to be held up. Abortion is largely a definition of when something can be considered human, I will not argue that it isn’t alive. Babies have fucking tails and gills throughout their development, and yet you don’t call them fish. They have parts of both sexes during development, but most aren’t born as hermaphrodites. Very early on fetuses resemble lizards. Fetuses are truly interesting things.

57

Your original claim had nothing to do with the uterus being removed. We were talking about whether cells left behind BY THE FETUS could transform into a new fetus. In fact, your exact words were,

“Because, you see, at this stage the cells are still highly unspecialized and any trace can and very likely will develop into a new pregnancy.”

Once again, if you have proof of this wondrous claim, please cite the specific medical references.

“Continued pregnancy” doesn’t refer to a NEW pregnancy springing up from discarded cells. It refers to those unusual cases where a pregnancy is NOT successfully terminated. In fact, the exact text from the web site which you cited says, “In rare cases, attempts to terminate the pregnancy will FAIL ALTOGETHER.” (emphasis mine).

Sometimes, the infant is born despite the attempted abortion. The most celebrated such case is that of Gianna Jensen, as documented in her biography, Gianna… Aborted and Lived to Tell About It. (Information about this book can be found at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561797111/o/qid=975918254/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/107-9559572-5840544).

58

I see. A moment ago, you said that they were just piles of cells. It’s refreshing to see that you’ve changed your tune.

For the record, the “tails” are mere segments of bone – not true tails in the least. In fact, they serve as anchors for various muscle ligaments.

The so-called “gill slits” are just branchial grooves, and they most certainly do NOT appear “throughout development.” These grooves were first depicted as gill slits in some drawings by Ernst Haeckel, but these drawings were exposed as frauds by the famous embryologist professor, Wilhelm His Sr. Haeckel was subsequently convicted of fraud by his own university. (New Scientist, 6 September 1997, p. 23).

Even if we grant that, it merely shows that the fetus goes through stages of development. It doesn’t support the issue at hand – your claim that the fetus is just a pile of cells.

I’ve given many presentations featuring live ultrasound and actual PHOTOGRAPHS (not just drawings) of embryological development. IMO, any resemblance to lizards is entirely superficial… and even if it weren’t, that would merely be a commentary on its outward appearance.

And FTR, this STILL doesn’t support your earlier claim that the unborn is just a pile of cells.

59

In fact, Yale Biology professor Keith Thompson said, with regard to Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings, “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” (“Ontology and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, 1988, 76:273). Sadly, his drawings are still used to make fradulent claims about the nature of the unborn.

Furthermore, the textbook Medical Embryology by Jan Langman explicitly says, “Since the human embryo never has gills – brachia – the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted in this book” (emphasis mine). Get that? The human embryo does NOT have gills!

And of course, even if it did, that still doesn’t support the topic at hand. Is the unborn child just a pile of cells, as aynrandlover claims? If anything, having gills would demonstrate that the unborn is NOT just a pile of cells!

60

Thanks for the clarification on the gills issue. When I say the fetus is lizard-like, I was referring to the brain development.

As far as me flip-flopping, that is, calling a “pile of cells” a “baby”, I am merly using your terminology to argue with you. From now on I will be sure we talk at different angles to each other, makes for a wholly more satisfying rant.

As far as the “genetic army” that was mentioned before, come on. Cloning man has clearly been a huge legal debate and has nothing to do with abortions, even if we are talking about fetal cells.

Now, to the issue at hand. At what point would an abortion be an abortion? This is truly the issue, and I would not like to cloud it any further, through either of our rants. At what point is terminating development wrong? As soon as the sperm and egg meet? After the pair have embedded in the uterine wall? After there have been more than 1024 divisions? Once this is determined, the question becomes, why? Why is this considered human and the previous not? What are your grounds for this? We don’t need to cite medical sources for an ethics argument, and even if I was completely wrong about everything I said that doesn’t change the core of the discussion, which I have outlined above.

The pro-life contention, imho, should state that from the meeting of the sperm and egg to the birth of the developed pair, now a baby, there shall be no interference with intent to destroy. If they do not state this then abortion is ok, and we start bickering over the medical journals as to when it is ok.

As far as compassion for pregnant rape victims: hey, I thought killing babies was wrong, guys! Pick a side and stick to it.