Anti-abortion question

[Holly]

I understand the whole “DNA/human matter” thought you were pursuing, but this seems silly and off point, unless I’m misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clarify.

St. Attila stated that it’s okay to remove a malignant tumor because it’s a danger to the person’s life; I was simply wondering if a harmless tumor would be protected, since it’s human. My main point here is that “humanity” is not so easily defined.

If you are dead, or your brain functions are irretrievable, you have officially passed the point of no return and need not be part of the debate.

St. Attila stated that humanity is based on DNA; if you are a member of the species according to your DNA, you qualify as a human being. Therefore, dead people qualify as human just as fetuses do. You are adding to Attila’s definition that a human must also have brain function. Since zygotes and early stage fetuses do not have brain function, I interpret your statement to mean that potential brain function is enough to qualify a person as a human being.

“Isn’t compatible with other DNA” is actually a statement you could make about anyone if your point is that there are always significant differences. Not to speak for anyone else, but I think you’re missing the original point if you’re arguing that these are somehow critical points that were overlooked. If you prefer, you can limit the discussion to forms you (or someone else) consider indisputably human, and see if an abortion argument still holds up.

No, there are not always significant differences, though I suppose it depends on your definition of “significant”. Most critters of the same species can potentially interbreed because their DNA is compatible. My husband and I have different DNA (“significantly” different, I suppose), yet we were able to reproduce. We have the same number of chromosomes; we are of the same species.

What does “indisputably human” mean? Can you list for me the traits of something that is “indisputably human”?

Is it really your contention that the pro-life camp is the one that holds that “inferior” human forms are of lesser value and need not be afforded the same rights?

No. I’m simply saying the definition of “human” is not perfectly clear.

Is your point that if there is no black-and-white universal answer, that means the question is invalid?

Do you think there is no black-and-white universal answer? Strange; I thought you were anti-abortion. Anti-abortion people generally tell me that abortion is always wrong, no matter what, black and white, end of story. I don’t happen to think that way. I don’t see how my belief (that there is no black-and-white, universal answer) would make the question invalid.

If you do that is a standard pro-abortion premise…

For the record, I am not “pro-abortion”; I don’t believe I’ve ever met anyone who was “pro-abortion”. In a perfect world, abortion would never happen; all children would be born healthy and to parents who wanted and loved them. I have, however, met quite a few people who were anti-abortion.

[Stratocaster]

**

Is your point that if there is no black-and-white universal answer, that means the question is invalid?

Do you think there is no black-and-white universal answer? Strange; I thought you were anti-abortion. Anti-abortion people generally tell me that abortion is always wrong, no matter what, black and white, end of story. I don’t happen to think that way. I don’t see how my belief (that there is no black-and-white, universal answer) would make the question invalid.

**

Holly, no, I don’t believe there are universal, black-and-white answers to certain ethical questions (perhaps to all questions, to some extent). I guess that’s the point I was trying to advance, perhaps too vociferously whilst on my soapbox.

For example, I agree with St. Attilla that if one is logically consistent, one would say that all human life is inherently precious; therefore, you wouldn’t say that any abortion to save a mother’s life is necessarily unethical. So, no, I don’t believe I’d say abortion is wrong regardless of circumstance. But situations where it does seem a viable option ought to be, by definition, real gut-wrenching dilemmas.

I would say (again, given the tenet that human life is precious and as close to an absolute right as is possible) that any inconvenience to a mother’s life I can think of–regardless of how profound and real, even if it is an indisputable economic tragedy–does not subjugate the gestating human’s right to live. I find this an inherently logical position, or at least one I have yet to hear assailed successfully.

And this does not at all mean that I trivialize the situation of someone who is faced with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. As fellow humans, we have an ethical obligation to help people in such a situation if we’re able (I believe). But no matter how traumatic, it’s not as traumatic as having one’s head punctured with a scissors as an expeditious means of eliminating one’s presence.

Not to lose sight of the original question in the thread–and to be consistent–no, I don’t believe rape is a sufficient cause for an abortion. I’m sure some people will ignore the points I’m raising and choose instead to conclude that I am simply callous.

The point I was making regarding problematical questions was that often I hear people determine that if it is difficult to answer certain questions–indeed, if it is admittedly impossible to answer some things conclusively–that determination renders the question irrelevant. For example, if we can’t agree when human life begins, let’s assume that it doesn’t when this assumption is otherwise convenient. If it’s impossible to determine with certainty just how much a mother’s life is in danger, then let’s automatically defer to the fetus (or to the mother).

If I incorrectly attributed this type of thinking to you, I apologize. I do believe that only through real discussion can we ever hope to resolve this issues (if we can at all), and at times I discuss the topic in a manner that does not promote this goal.

[St.Attila]

Also, what if the cancer cells are benign and not life-threatening?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Cancer cells are not human. You can remove them at any time.

BTW, here’s the kind of definition of species I use to decide what’s human:

http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.phtml?title=species

**
By this definition [species based on DNA], a human corpse is also human; shouldn’t corpses be afforded the same rights as other humans?**

As we’re talking about one right in particular here, I have to point out the redundancy of killing a corpse.

[…]my friend had a baby with Trisomy 18 [… the baby] died when she was 10 days old. Should I inform my friend that she can stop grieving, because the baby wasn’t human anyway?

You can grieve over whatever you like. I grieved over my dead cat. Do you think she’ll stop grieving if you tell her that?

The same could be said for anyone with Down’s Syndrome.

I was under the impression that people with Down Syndrome could reproduce with other people. But this isn’t relevant, anyway, since whether or not we value human life is a purely arbitrary decision. It is in our best interest to value human life, and there is no reason why we could not extend this to any other arbitrary species we choose. Whether or not we should value the lives of other species, though, is another debate.

**What if the pregnancy doesn’t endanger your life, but will lead to a crippling medical condition? **[Example given of a woman who could not walk after having a baby.]

Bad example. Why don’t you ask your friend if she would trade her child’s life now for her wheelchair?

Are we going to play the game of which crippling medical conditions are severe enough to warrant sacrificing a life? I’ve already stated my position on killing a fetus resulting from a rape; how is this different?

**What if the doctor can’t say for certain whether or not carrying the fetus to term will kill the mother? **

Are you implying, then, that we have to kill all fetuses, just to be safe?

**At what point is it considered endangering her life: when she has a fifty percent chance of dying? Sixty?

**
One hundred.

What are the chances my overstressed coworker will go postal tomorrow? Fifty percent? Sixty? At what point do I make a preemptive strike and kill him first?

When do you have a mastectomy? When you have a fifty percent chance of getting breast cancer? Sixty? Normally, women will wait until they have breast cancer before getting a mastectomy.

You always run the risk of dying from something, whether it’s due to a pregnancy or not. You can defend your life and kill the fetus only when there is no doubt the pregnancy will kill you.

[Holly]

You can defend your life and kill the fetus only when there is no doubt the pregnancy will kill you.

Medicine cannot ever predict with “no doubt” that death will result. There is always a margin of doubt, be it 10 percent or 0.0001 percent.

Cancer cells are not human. You can remove them at any time.

But why? Why are cancer cells not human?

Are you implying, then, that we have to kill all fetuses, just to be safe?

No. You are stating (correct me if I’m wrong) that abortion is only warranted if carrying the fetus to term will, with no doubt cause the woman’s death. Since it is impossible for a doctor or anyone else to say with no doubt that death will result, you are saying that abortion should never be allowed.

When do you have a mastectomy? When you have a fifty percent chance of getting breast cancer? Sixty? Normally, women will wait until they have breast cancer before getting a mastectomy.

Usually, perhaps. However, there are many women who opt to have total mastectomies when no cancer is present at all. They choose to do this because they have a significant family history of breast cancer, even though no doctor can predict with “no doubt” that they will someday develop breast cancer. They are free to make this choice.

Bad example. Why don’t you ask your friend if she would trade her child’s life now for her wheelchair?

Now is the key word. Of course she wouldn’t trade her child’s life now; the child is a separate human being at this point. She knew that giving birth would likely result in her inability to ever walk again; she was given the choice to abort or not. She chose not to abort. Another woman in the same situation may prefer to abort. If I had known that my second child would be born with severe handicaps, I would have aborted him in the first trimester. Now he is my son, he is a separate human being, and I would gladly sacrifice my own life to preserve his.

Nevertheless, I do agree that if a fetus (or a zygote) is a separate human being the fetus has as much right to life as its mother. I simply do not agree that a first trimester fetus is a separate human being.

[Stratocaster]

**
Nevertheless, I do agree that if a fetus (or a zygote) is a separate human being the fetus has as much right to life as its mother. I simply do not agree that a first trimester fetus is a separate human being.
**

I apologize if this is territory already covered. What do you mean by “separate” and why is that an important distinction? What transformation occurs after the first trimester that changes this?

[Sweet_Lotus]

Unfortunately, this is all just coming down to opinion. I believe that as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother’s blood supply for survival, it is not a separate human being. Others say it is a separate being at conception.

[Stratocaster]

Sweet Lotus, I think you’re right, no one is likely to sway many opinions here. Still, it’s helpful for me to understand how people arrived at their conclusions. I’m open to the thought that I can at least modify aspects of my opinion (and, yes, I also hold out hope that if I understand the nuts and bolts of someone’s thoughts perhaps I can sway them to the extent his or her opinion isn’t logically constructed).

Your post, for example, does make clearer the notion of what “separate” means. Can you (or anyone else of like opinion) expand on the importance of this distinction? Does the fact that the fetus is reliant on the mother’s blood supply, by definition mean this entity can’t be distinct in any other respect (e.g., having thoughts, a soul, emotions–however you want to define the attributes that give a human individual rights)? Or is it something completely different?

Seems this thread is running out of gas, and I’m not hopeful there’ll be a lot more discussion on this, but I’ll give it a try…

[Sweet_Lotus]

**
Your post, for example, does make clearer the notion of what “separate” means. Can you (or anyone else of like opinion) expand on the importance of this distinction? Does the fact that the fetus is reliant on the mother’s blood supply, by definition mean this entity can’t be distinct in any other respect (e.g., having thoughts, a soul, emotions–however you want to define the attributes that give a human individual rights)? Or is it something completely different?
**

Well Bob, that definition that I provided is really only where I draw the line. It’s not because the fetus is dependent on the mother’s blood that I believe it is alright to abort it. That’s just the line I draw. I think that abortions should be allowed after 28 weeks (when the fetus can use their own lungs to absorb oxygen, rather than Momma’s blood), only in very extreme cases.
But I believe that first-trimester abortion should be allowed for alot of reasons; I agree with the Roe Vs. Wade decision that a woman has a right to decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not, without interference. I also agree that a fetus has no human rights before 28 weeks gestation. The court decided that it is not having “thoughts or emotions” that confers human rights, but having been born. I am willing to accept that.
Also, I recognize that abortions will take place whether they are legal or not, and I would rather live in a world where women had safe access to hygenic abortions.

I think it should be a personal choice. If someone is against abortion, then they shouldn’t have one.

---

On another topic; In Susie Bright’s book; The Sexual State Of The Union, she writes:

The antiabortion activists project the idea that sex is about “unborn and innocent childre”; and by posing on the stage of innocence and helplessness, they obscure the real issue of abortion rights, which is women’s sexuality.
If limiting abortion were REALLY about children, then we would have a radically different world then the one we have today. If we really felt that children were the focal point of human life, it would not be enough to concieve them. Children would be greeted with the utmost concern and generosity by not only their family, but the whole community. The child’s education and welfare would be the oundation of social institutions. Choosing to carry a child would be cherished, as much as birth control and abortion would be honored - if the point of giving life was to give a lifetime.
Abortion is nothing less than traige; it is preserving the right to survive for those who have a decent chance of making it. In birth it means choosing children who are wanted, who have the love and nurturing waiting for them that they need to become good parents themselves someday.
The right-to-lifers think that if a woman is pregnant, it doesn’t matter if she’s not ready to be a mom, it doesn’t matter what happens to her other children, it doesn’t matter if the child is UNWANTED, because they prize their sense of property and morality above all else - and they call their sensibility “innocence”. It is not innocent to turn a woman into a puppet, but it is extraordinarily powerful.

[St.Attila]

Medicine cannot ever predict with “no doubt” that death will result.

The best we can do is rely on expert medical opinion. There comes a point (I believe, as I’m no doctor) when it is clear that someone will die. At that point, one can consider terminating the pregnancy.

**Why are cancer cells not human? **

You can’t force a conception using “normal” human DNA and DNA from cancer cells and get a human being out of it.

[…]there are many women who opt to have total mastectomies when no cancer is present at all. […] They are free to make this choice.

Well, okay, but still we’re talking about a breast, not a fetus.

**Nevertheless, I do agree that if a fetus (or a zygote) is a separate human being the fetus has as much right to life as its mother. I simply do not agree that a first trimester fetus is a separate human being.
**

Again, no one is a separate human being. If that is enough reason to kill a fetus, it’s enough reason to kill anyone. The only place you can draw the line is at human/not human.

[St.Attila]

Unfortunately, this is all just coming down to opinion.

Really? I don’t believe I have been stating any opinions (except this one).

** I believe that as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother’s blood supply for survival, it is not a separate human being.**

And when it is possible to transplant a zygote, when it is no longer dependent on the mother, will you then believe abortions are wrong?

And while we’re on the topic of beliefs, why is your belief more important than that of one of those Christian’s in the line-ups outside the clinics? They believe not only that fetuses should not be killed, but that they have an obligation to prevent such killing. Shouldn’t we respect their beliefs? Aren’t they equal to you? Aren’t their beliefs equal to yours?

Oh, but yeah, you’ve got the law on your side. Will you accept it if the law changes?