FREEDOM OF CHOICE, ABORTION

Great Debates
61

Dignan–I’m asking why “freedom of abortion” should be legal, a la freedom of religion, speech, etc. You just seem to be repeating your assertion, that it should be a freedom, without delving any deeper. The question of “Why?” is a difficult one… ask any parent with a young child. Eventually, the parent reaches the “Because!” point. In a more advanced framework, eventually, a point is reached where certain freedoms are arbitrarily defined as “self-evident” or “inalienable.” I’m asking why freedom of abortion should be one of these inalienable freedoms.

Quick example with freedom of religion–why? The past has demonstrated that, when freedom of religion has been withheld, dire consequences result. Witness the Spanish Inquisition, the French Hugenots, the Holocaust, etc. By ensuring that people can worship as they please, without fear of repurcussions, these dark periods in history can be avoided.

If I may anticipate your response (and probably be wrong, but it’s a response I’ve heard before), the pro-choice belief in a freedom of abortion stems from a very strong belief in self-determination, especially with respect to our persons. The statement, “It’s my body, so it’s my choice” seems almost unassailable.

Yet, we [Americans] allow this every day. We consent to anti-suicide laws. We largely respect the prohibition about snorting cocaine into OUR bodies. When I turned 18, I registered for the Selective Service. This means that one day, I could be ordered to risk my life, risk my body, possibly for a cause I disagree with. They’re removing my right to self-determine my existence, and yet the government does it.

So, why do you feel abortion should not fall in the same category as registering for the draft? Why do you lump it with unassailable freedoms, such as religion?

Quix

62

Jubilation, You can’t prove when a fetus/zygote/cell becomes human. So even you can’t prove when murder starts. You really need to stop regarding the Beckwith guy’s views as gospel, did you ever stop to think that he might be wrong (what are his qualifications exactly anyway)? People tell me to examine my position, I have, I’ve said that I don’t think abortion is all that great, but I think it’s up to the woman to choose. You also need to stop saying that abortion is “unacceptable.” Yes, I know it’s unacceptable to you everyone does not feel the same way, you need to respect their right to have a different belief. You can’t save 'em all, it is not your responsibility to tell a grown woman what to do. With child abuse, the child is a seperate person, the child could survive on their own, this is not true with a fetus/cell/zygote (with the possible exception of the last month or two). Fix that broken record, don’t come back and say, but I am saving the unborn baby that can’t speak for itself. There is no concrete answer to when the baby becomes a person or human.

Cite please.

Exactly! You might not think that abortion is the right decision for you, but doing the right thing would be to let everyone make that decision for themselves.

by quixotic:

Well, was it right not to allow freedom of religion before all of these things happened? No, it wasn’t. People needed these terrible things to happen to see that freedom of religion should be a right. Should we just experiment and say, “let’s take this right away from them, until we see that it was a mistake”? I would prefer that our government doesn’t wait for some atrocity before they decide to give that right back.

63

Well no. Human life begins at conception. This is embryological fact.

See http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html
"O’Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"… the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"… [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.“13 (Emphasis added.)”

While the notion of “personhood” or “citizen” may be a philosophical notion up for debate …the product of conception is human, not bovine, not canine…but human. The term “murder” is a legal concept, defined by courts and legislation…so you or I as an individual can’t unilaterally pronounce an act as murder. I can point to the embryological evidence cited above to suggest that the product of fertilization is a unique human, and that the act of abortion is ending the life of that unique human.

By the way, I’ve seen even at least some pro choice folks posting in other threads aknowledge that the product of fertilization is a human…they usually argue that even if it is human, that the usually mentioned “rights” of the mother outweigh the “right” of the zygote/embryo/fetus to have life.

64

beagledave already answered that point. Besides, using your own argument, you don’t know that the unborn is not human… and thus, terminating the pregnancy becomes an act of willful negligence. It’s like firing at a creature in the woods without first knowing if it’s another hunter.

These were already cited in great detail, in the previous thread mentioned by beagledave. For your benefit though,

In 1960, Mary Calderone, then-president of Planned Parenthood, stated that "90% of all illegal abortions are done by physicians… Anotehr corollary fact: physicians of impeccable standing are referring their patientsfor these illegal abortions to the colleagues they know are willing to perform them."were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. (American Journal of Public Health).

Also, the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics says that only 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Such deaths are tragic, but hardly numerous – and far, far less than the 1.4 million babies who are aborted each year.

In addition, Dr. Bernad Nathanson, former NARAL activist, has said,

“How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think about it. But in the ‘morality’ of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?” (Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1973, p. 193).

The notion that women will turn en masse to back alley butchers is pure speculation – and completely unsupported by the facts at hand.

Not so. Abortion is murder, except when absolutely necessary to save someone’s life. Nobody has the right to abort a pregnancy except for such purposes. It is not a morally acceptable choice, regardless of how dire someone’s situation may be.

Besides, if you agree that we should do what’s right, even amidst difficult circumstances, then why do you persist in pointing out the hardship of a rape pregnancy? If you agree with this tenet, then such arguments have no bearing on whether abortion is justified or not.

As I said, arguments which state, “Oh, take pity on the poor raped woman! Allow her to ease her pain by ending this pregnancy!” are irrelevant. If the unborn child is not human, then no amount of pleading is necessary. Conversely, if the unborn is not human, then no amount of pleading is sufficient.

65

That’s right; in fact, due to the preponderance of medical evidence – and the ubiquitousness of medical ultrasound – most professional pro-choice advocates no longer argue that the unborn is not human. Instead, their arguments are usually as you describe – asserting that the unborn is not a “person,” or that the mother’s interests trump the unborn’s most fundamental right – the right to life.

66

So when exactly did I ever say that the cell that is conceived was not human? If the cell can’t feel pain, doesn’t have a brain, etc. then who is it hurting if the pregnant woman decides to have an abortion?

I’m done with this thread, Jubilation, beagledave, Joe “Cool”, and co. have their hearts set on fighting for this valiant cause :rolleyes: that doesn’t effect them personally at all, since there is such a shortage of good causes that need to be taken up in the world their time is well spent. There’s no way for me to convince any of you, you all just keep going around in circles. I’m tired of having my words twisted, misrepresented and then having to listen to analogies that don’t have anything to do with the situation.

67

You didn’t… but you said that we can’t know if it IS human. In addition to being false (as per a wealth of medical testimony), that viewpoint actually SUPPORTS the pro-life perspective.

There are several fallacies in that statement. To wit,

(1) Killing isn’t justified just because the victim feels no pain. If it were, then you could simply pump carbon monoxide into your mother’s lungs while she’s sleeping. Or, you could plunge a knife into a comatose, anaesthetized grandmother’s heart. Is that truly justified, just because they don’t feel pain?

(2) Your statement assumes that the act is morally justified, as long as nobody is hurt. That simply isn’t true. Peeping toms hurt nobody, except when they are caught, yet their actions are universally reviled. Ditto for a coworker who innocently snoops through your diary, or goes through your desk at work – yet most people would rightfully object to such treatment.

(3) The overwhelming majority of abortions occur when the unborn is more than just a single cell. In fact, by the time a woman knows she is pregnant. the fetus already has a heartbeat, a circulatory system, a rudimentary brain, a spinal cord, a nervous system, a liver, arms, legs, eyes and ears. By the time most abortions occur, the child can already react to sound, light and touch, and can be seek kicking vigorously within the womb.

(4) There is also ample medical evidence that unborn children DO feel pain. Some pro-choicers contest this evidence (on flimsy grounds, IMO), but the point remains – the notion that they feel no pain is questionable at best.

(5) Finally, to answer your question, it is the UNBORN CHILD who is hurt by this procedure. Even if no pain is felt, that child is deprived of its most fundamental right – the right to life. (There’s also the issue of post-abortion trauma for the mother, and for other members of the family… but even without that, the child’s death alone is sufficient to answer this question.)

In other words, Dignan’s challenge is based on fallacious premises, and it fails on multiple counts.

Are you suggesting that because there are other causes, we should ignore this one? With that kind of logic, NONE of them would ever get addressed! (Besides which, you have just condemned yourself with that accusation, since you have spent considerable time on it as well.)

Never mind the whole “this doesn’t affect you, so bug off!” attitude.

68

Quixotic78, you have nonetheless refuted that statement quite well. Still, I’d like to add one more thing.

That statement does NOT apply to the abortion issue. Why? Because the unborn child is NOT part of the mother’s body! The two are connected but distinct, just as Siamese twins are physically connected but separate in identity.

To argue that the unborn is part of the woman’s body is to ASSUME the very tenet which the less informed pro-choicers put forth — that the unborn child is not a human being. (Note that I mentioend “the less informed pro-choicers.” As I stated earlier, this argument seldom comes up in professional circles anymore, since it is medically indefensible.)

69

Gosh, this is maddening. All right, let me answer: it was here:

This second statement clearly indicates that there is at least some point at which the fetus isn’t human; one can’t “become” human if one already is. There is no other reasonable inference to be made. (You were disputing the fact that the “humanity” of a fetus should allow us to prohibit abortions, for Pete’s sake! What exactly was your point, then?)

Dignan, you have a real tendency (at least in this thread) to make a very particular point, have someone react to that point, then you react with some other qualifier that has nothing much to do with your original assertion. For example, questioning the humanity of a fetus, and then–when called on it–denying that you ever asserted any such thing and adding that the real point is whether or not the fetus can feel pain.

Your “follow-up” points may or may not have some validity, but they do NOT serve to mask the fact that you have, at several points in the thread, refused to respond to a direct question concerning your logic. Yes, you posted–you just didn’t address the point being made. You want to stop running around in circles? Acknowledge when someone makes a point–and, BTW, that acknowledgment would not imply that your entire argument is wrong.

No one is twisting your words. And there are lots of very able pro-choice debaters on this board who don’t get tied up in knots in abortion debates; they are credible because they address specific points directly.

70

Good point. I missed that one.

Also notice how Dignan suddenly shifted the discussion from “the fetus” to “the cell.” Common sense dictates that the two are NOT equivalent! (Unfortunately, such tactics are commonly used when someone is painted into a corner.)

71

Since BobCos & JubliationTCornpone have addressed your statements about the “human” nature of an embryo/zygote/fetus, I’ll address this portion of your post.

I guess I don’t understand your statements here…are you suggesting that since we have debated the merits of a pro life position, that we are therefore NOT involved in fighting for other “good causes”? (I’m trying to understand your rolleyes here)

Even assuming , for the purposes of this thread, that the abortion issue does not affect me personally…Are you suggesting that people are not entitled to hold opinions (and defend those opinions) about things that don’t impact on them directly?

Did you really expect to “convince” (your word choice) people who strongly hold and defend a pro life position …that they should change their mind? I certainly don’t think that the things I have stated here will necessarily change the viewpoints of ardent pro choice folks…but then again, I won’t whine about the fact that they still hold a pro choice view …and then take my toys and go home…