Oh great. I knew there was a grey area, but now there’s a middle of the grey area??
Wow…all this conversation after I go home. I have some catching up to do. I’ll do as I had before.
Jadis: I think you are missing the question I am trying to raise. You said that you value existing life over potential life. Fair enough. My question is, however, whether or not that a fetus is an existing life which is human. If it is, does it afford the right to remain living? That is the main question…if it is an already existing human person, not just the potential for life, then should a mother be allowed to abort it?
Zwald: Thank you for answering the question…this is actually the type of answer I am looking for. You do not believe that if a fetus is actually a living, existing human being it does not afford the right to continue living. Although this proposition scares me, you are entitled to your opinion. To discuss why it does not afford the right to continue living is a different discussion, but one I am interested in hearing.
Dangerosa: Hmmm…allow me to use your analogy. The homeless are a burden on society and a potential threat as well, however, we do not kill the homeless because they are a burden on society and a potential danger. Although a pregnancy may be an inconvenience, would that justify the killing of a human being? Remember, this is assuming the proposition that she is actually carrying a living human being. As far as whether or not life is sacred in our society, I would want to revise that point and say that this is a basic tenant that our country was founded on. I remember some document that talks about every person having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the most central rights to a human person…
Edwino: As a Catholic myself (albeit, I would not call myself necessarily a “good” Catholic), I am not sure I would define a human person through the same definition as your friend. Rather, I would say that one essential quality of a human person would be the presence of a soul. We run into the same problem, though, with this definition…how do you objectively measure if a soul exists? Your definition of life definitely gives me pause, which I like. Although I have never thought of life in terms of the apnea test, I can see what these doctors are testing. I do not fully agree with this definition, but it will allow this argument: are these doctors testing whether or not the person is breathing, and therefore dead, or are they testing the persons ability to breath? I would argue that they are testing the ability to breath. It seems fairly clear that I can momentarily stop breathing, yet I am not yet dead and I am certainly still a human being. However, if I have lost the ability to breath, then death is iminent. Bringing this back to the task at hand, does an unborn human have the ability to breath? If you take them off of their “life support”, their mother, through c-section or premature birth, does the baby not have the ability to breath?
Brain: If an unborn human is indeed an unborn human person, we then run into a balancing of conflicting rights. If it is indeed a human being, does that human being’s right to continue living weigh in less than the right for that woman to decide to keep her child? If it is a human being, would that make the human a mother? And if she is a mother, the destroying of the fetus would be destroying her child, right? I don’t know (I have an opinion), but I am interested in knowing what you think.
Looking forward to any and all replies.
brian, very interesting piece on rights and responsibilities.
My two cents on the abortion issue is also one of rights. I would also agree with zwaldd that, were we to rise up and call it “murder” I would then advocate murder of an unborn human.
I will go with brian’s assessment in all of this as the libertarian: the public has neither the right to force delivery, nor the responsibility to care for the child afterward. This, of course, leads to all sorts of other disagreements with laws concerning raising the child and so on, but no need to mess with that here.
Errrrrrmmm…
I would say that even a born child is just as dependant on the mother, even if not on the womb. It is, at least, dependant on someone. Do we extend the right to terminate until after birth?
because killing the unborn human serves some people’s purpose (simply to remain childless is one example), and there are enough people whose sensibilities this doesn’t offend that as a society we allow it. i don’t know the statistic but i would assume at least half the people in america are pro-choice (if you want to dispute this with a link to a stat, please don’t bother linking to something like ‘the christian coalition’).
My chief concern here is when people with low expectations decide to passively play God. In this case, I’m refering to people who are arrogant enough to think that someone else’s baby should matter more to them than the parents, yet they won’t first lift a public finger to help prevent it or raise it (now that’s really playing the hidden God: all scorn, no benefit). Until I see public incentive$ to get free tubal ligations and vasectomies (with a bonus added in for good measure), I will never believe religious conservatives mean anything they say, and that does not even approach my concern that they are unable to understand the meaning of what they often say.
My other concern, (and this is a realist, futurist argument, like many of my debates that care not for status quo or desperate attempts to validate it) is that we are on the verge of discovering new ways to detect genetic diseases in the womb. If abortion is outlawed, then we will have thrown away the most perfect preventive medical procedure of all time. If we throw this away, we are doomed for the duration, not by its result, but by the social commitment to enforce doom.
Also, as for when the baby is a human being that needs to be protected (and I recall that anti-abortionists were devoutly pro-spanking in Colorado who used their convenient anti-government defense that parents should decide how to raise their children) this is a false dilemma to me. The fetus is already a human being, but is dependent on the mother for the air it breathes. Bottom line: If the mother doesn’t want it (for any reason, since a good reason is worse than a bad one–a rare instance of this phenomenon) and the state will not raise it or prevent it, then it is a lost cause, something to prevent in the future, not something to cure with forced families. The medical argument for terminating a fetus is not much different from the ability argument: resources, competence, etc. I will go one step further, if a baby is born incurably diseased, severely retarded, or handicapped below ever being mentally self-sustaining, then it is also a lost cause and should not receive life support. Now, one could argue that I’m playing God, but I am clearly not. If nature wants it to die, that is “God’s will” no matter how hard to imagine.
I cannot delude myself that our human failings to prevent unwanted pregnancy are the cause of this debate, nor does adoption have anything whatsoever to do with it (that is a separate non-dilemma, or choice). If a woman does not have access to education or implements to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and must rely on abstinence only, which passively encourages rape and teen marriage (from public repression and shame), then it seems ludicrous, even deliberately cruel to force a child, and I am also accusing ultra-conservatives of having a secret social poverty agenda here.
Note: I have no illusions about ultra-conservatives. I happen to know they are a complete political sham (pro-government for their causes, anti-government against their causes), aren’t even half-moral by definition of advocating evil, and don’t give a damn about any social progress (which must happen with technology by logic of doom), but are generally obsessed with their own station and their ability to control others (and this is a degree argument, the more righteous one imagines they are, the more rotten they have become). Also, it is important to realize a logical extreme here: the ultimate control is to make an insane argument look sane, then the sky is the limit. Thanks to all.
Note to above post of mine: I somehow failed to mention that it is a logical fallacy to force an unwanted family upon parents for a mistake (the “two wrongs don’t make a right” fallacy to be specific), and it is a common fallacy made within punishment-centered worldviews. Thanks again.
I’d like to see a cite for where you got that information. I’d always heard otherwise, and according to this site, a fetus doesn’t reach an 80% chance of surviving until 26-27 weeks, or 1 lb. 10 oz.-2 lb. 4 oz. in weight.
At 24 weeks, a fetus has about a 50-50 chance of surviving. This is supported by the site above, as well as all the anecdotal data I’ve heard up to this point.
Feel free to correct me if medical science has made some great advances that I don’t know about.
I agree with Slaquer, that the basic question is “…if the unborn baby is actually just that, a baby?”
For me, it comes down to psychology and practicality. Setting the moment of birth to be the beginning of human life seems reasonable.
Interestingly, my daughter has always been pro-choice, but she says that her feelings have been affected by her pregnancy. She is now 8 months pregnant and calls herself “we”, as in “We went for a walk.”
Hmmmm…I thought I my point was pretty much the same as zwaldd’s. You posed the following question in your OP: “It seems to me, however, the the entire issue of abortion does not lie around whether a woman has a right to choose, but rather if the unborn baby is actually just that, a baby?”
It would appear that your basic question is one of semantics, i.e. is the product of conception indeed “human”, and thereby garnering all of the rights afforded to humanity. All I’m trying to say is that it doesn’t really matter if you decide to call it a fetus, a baby, a human or a lump of potatoes. The pro-lifers are still going to claim that the product of conception has the right to be born, and the pro-choicers are still going to claim that mother’s choice prevails, regardless of what you decide to call this lump.
I guess my answer, based on my own beliefs, is that yes…even if the baby is in fact a “baby”, the mother still holds the ultimate right to decide whether that “baby” is going to be allowed viability. Call it murder, call it choice, call it whatever. I still want to retain decision-making rights over my own body and my own future.
[slight hijack…bolding above added for emphasis]
Statements like this in abortion debates (is it really even a debate? I have yet to see someone’s opinion changed on this subject based merely on a discussion…but again, I digress) really burn my behind. For the record, let me state that I unequivocally do not consider a pregnancy an INCONVENIENCE. It is a life-changing event, and one of the most grave responsibilities that any person can undertake. To relegate it to “inconvenience” status trivializes the choice that people are faced with in deciding whether or not to bring a child into this world. I would certainly not want to be the child of a person who considered my existance an “inconvenience”.
[/hijack]
(Aynrandlover has already pointed out the problem with my argument, but I’m going to post regardless.) Is the child a human being? Eh, decide what you like. Maybe. Is it a self-contained, self-reliant human being? No. At least not until a point (24 wks or whatever). If it is fully dependent on someone else in every way imaginable, for every aspect of its basically parasitic existance, then why should we give it rights? I realize I’m dodging the end of the issue here (that of the still fully dependent baby after delivery), but you’ll have to put me in the “even if it is murder, I’ll fight for pre-birth murder” camp.
Here’s another thing (I’ve raised this before, but didn’t get a response. And maybe I won’t this time–s’okay. I do want to make people think, though.): birth control pills working as they do now do not prevent conception from occuring. The egg can still be fertilized. What the pills do do is make the uterus an extremely inhospitable place for implantation. Thus, the zygote is never implanted and is expelled once a month. An abortion, for those of you who believe life occurs at conception. Are we going to arrest women like me who rely on the pill for birth control because I could be aborting a child every month? Or are we going to laud them for making a responsible choice for birth control? What’s changed? Why is that different–a “baby,” if you will, has still been aborted? Why is the mother’s choice honored if she uses birth control, but not if she has an abortion? What about the people who’s condom breaks or birth control doesn’t work? They took reasonable methods to avoid having children, yet get stuck with one by accident. If they make a conscious decision to protect themselves, yet suddenly are not allowed to complete that decision, is that fair or right? Do we not honor their choices because “it’s human”?
I agree with Brian–abortion should not be utilized for birth control and shouldn’t be discussed as such. But like he said, until birth control is widely available to everyone (covered by insurance, put in all bathroom vending machines, made cheap and easily accessible to everyone over the age of 14) it will be discussed in such terms. Call it murder if you will–I’ll still fight for it. Don’t make this illegal.
Snickers
Aryandlover: Although not a libertarian myself, I certainly sympathize and agree with many of the tenants of libertarianism. As I see on libertarian.org, Libertarianism advocates that “everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don’t infringe upon the equal freedom of others.” Back to my original question: if a pregnant woman is actually a mother, i.e. she is carrying a living human person, should we allow aborting that human? In light of the libertarian view, wouldn’t abortion infringe on that unborn persons right to continue living?
Zwaldd: should I assume from your responses in this discussion that you believe society determines what is moral and immoral? I am not trying to discuss what society feels about abortion, but rather whether abortion should be allowed if we are indeed talking about an unborn human.
Brian B: As usual, your comments are what catch my attention the most. First of all, I am not interested in your thoughts of religious conservatives and what they have said and what they have done. I am more interested in discussing this from an objective standpoint. With that said, I would like to start by extending on a point raised by Ayrandlover earlier. Yes, the baby is completely dependent on the mother while in the womb. However, the baby is also completely dependent on its mother outside of the womb, or at least someone who will act as its mother. Are you advocating the killing of a baby up to the point where it is no longer dependent on someone else? To go further, if we have someone who is so severly retarted that they cannot be mentally self-sustaining, are you advocating that we kill them so that they are no longer a burden on society? After all, why should tax payers be forced to pay for these peoples lives?
Looking forward to your responses.
So if a woman delivers at 2 pm January 1st, at 1:30 the organism is not a human life? …please explain why " it comes down to psychology and practicality" (whatever that means) and why exiting the birth canal suddenly turns the organism into a human life.
Ummmm…I’m not sure where you’re getting your information on how birth control pills work, but I’d sure love to see a cite on this one. All of the literature I’ve read (and believe me, birth control is an issue near and dear to my heart, and I’ve read a lot) indicate that the primary function of the BCP is to suppress ovulation. Meaning that the pills fool the body into thinking it’s already pregnant. The woman does not ovulate, there is no egg to fertilize, there is no conception, there is no zygote to be expelled. In the unlikely event that the pills fail to suppress ovulation, the rest of the info about the hormonal changes making the uterus an inhospitible environment may come into play, but this is not the normal progression of events. Here’s a basic FAQ on how BCP’s work.
In fact, in the recent research I’ve done on IUD’s, evidence is pointing to the same conclusions on their action as I’ve outlined on the BCP. There has apparently been a resistance to the IUD based on the fact that it was considered to act in the way you claim that BCP’s do. Here’s a link to a page that discusses how IUD’s work as well.
Jadis: Sorry about not replying to your post previously…I was in the middle of writing. When I used the word “inconvenience”, I did so because this was the same language used by the person I was responding to, Dangerosa, who used the same word. I am certainly against trying to use sensationalistic arguments for the sake of winning, I am more interested in finding the objective truth of the matter. And again, I feel as if you are missing my question. You said that you still want to retain control over your body and your future…given my assumption, abortion is no longer control over your body but rather control over another human’s body and future. Finally, this is more than a question of semantics. I don’t care what we call it, but I am more interested with its substance. Does its right to live outweigh that of the woman’s right to have a child? If it is a human person, it seems very simple that it should have the right to live. Please note, I am not saying that it garners all human rights, but at least the most basic right, that of life.
Snickers: I really think you have a great point here, one that should give any person who is pro-life as well as pro-pill something to think about. I too have heard the exact same description as you have about this form of birth control. However, holding to our assumption, I do not see how the lack of public services to help prevent pregnancy leads to a justification of what would then become murder. Can you explain the logic behind this?
no, i believe society determines what is allowed and what is not allowed. when there’s a major split on moral issues such as this one, society should allow people to follow their own judgement and bear their own consequences. i know you think abortion is an infringement on the rights of another person, but for every person in this society that agrees with you, there’s at least one that doesn’t, and it’s not because they don’t understand what a fetus is. they know what a fetus is. they know it has little arms and legs and could grow up to be the president. they know what it looks like all chopped up in a dish - they’ve seen the gruesome pictures. it doesn’t matter - they’re still willing to leave the choice to abort up to the mother.
oops. sorry about that, slaquer. in my effort to make a point, i neglected to consider your feelings on the subject. try and ignore everything after the word ‘consequences’ in that last post.
I thought I’d answered this question quite clearly twice now. The answer, as far as I’m concerned, is NO. The baby does not have rights equal to (or greater than) mine. As has been pointed out several other times in this thread, for people that believe that the mother’s rights supercede the baby’s, no matter what you name the act (including murder), we still believe in the mother’s right to perform that act.
Zwald, no offense taken. Thank you for clarifying your position as well (as to whether you think society determines morality). I’ll wait to respond for more comments…
Jadis–it turns out we’re both right. I was under the impression from my father (a general practicioner in WI) and my roommate (a biochem major, now genetic councellor) that BCPs did not inhibit ovulation at all. Apparently I’m mistaken–they do inhibit ovulaiton. However–the amounts of progesterone and estrogen contained in the pills are now vastly smaller than what they once were. One consequence of this is that the pill sometimes does fail to completely block ovulation, especially when pills are missed. Ergo–an egg can be released and can be fertilized.
BCPs function in three ways:
- inhibit ovulation
- alter cervical mucus to make it thicker and inhibit sperm
- thin the endometrium (uterine lining) to inhibit implantation.
If an egg is indeed released (as one of my cites claims happens ~4% of the time–but I don’t know if I trust him completely), then what I’ve stated before is indeed true–the egg is aborted. It may die before menstruation due to lack of nutrients, but that isn’t central to this discussion, really. It’s still aborted.
Does this concern me? Not really–but I’m pro-choice. My questions before still stand–does this raise issues with the pro-life camp?
My cites:
http://www.mayohealth.org/home?id=5.7.2&drugID=DR202228&drugName=TRIPHASIL
http://www.druginfonet.com/triphsil.htm
http://www.days.org/birthcontrol.htm
I must warn you–those last two cites will draw their own biased conclusions (they’re largely right-to-life sites). However, their presentation of the science did seem largely correct and researched. I haven’t done a full blown search–I didn’t have the time and wasn’t about to purchase access to the PDR over the web–but you’ll be able to find lots more. I searched on triphasil because that’s what I currently take. Try orthonovum or ortho tri cyclen and you’ll get the same information.
Back to the debate!