The Abortion Thread

[Galant]

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/ any thoughts?

Be interested to know how aborting in this case was morally wrong.

Whilst it's important to know all the facts, if, as seems to be the case, this was a situation where the mother's life was at stake and there was no way of saving the baby - a procedure to save the mother but which would leave to the baby's death is sad but acceptable.

The question here is relatively simple, logically speaking. if the unborn foetus is a child, a human being, then we are dealing with trying to save two lives here. The aim should be to do the most possible for both people. Not being a medical professional I don't know what are options might be available, but the pro-life stance isn't one that says they must either both live or both die. It is one who identifies both the life of the unborn and the life of the mother, and says we must do the utmost possible for both of these people and make the most of a bad situation. Whilst the death of one might be inevitable, we must never at any point say that one of them doesn't matter, that one of them isn't a life and is therefore disposable without consideration. It is that last point which anti-abortionists would want to highlight.

[TheAnimus]

Animus, I said before that I felt we almost have nothing to talk about, I think I'm at the point where I think that's true, or at least, we have no real method of moving forward. There are two things which, for me, are necessary in continuing a dialogue between us. The first is a common understanding of, and respect for, the basic concepts. My understanding of this issue is that it is an issue of justice for both sides. For the anti-abortion side - justice with regards the right to life. For the pro-choice side - justice with regards to the right to freedom. Those are both serious issues and worth consideration and pursuit, because whatever side the truth falls on, a miscarriage of justice is occurring. Of course, this assumes both of those rights for all human beings. I may have seemed forthright in some of my posts, my apologies I did not appear considerate enough, but I have full respect for each individual's right to freedom. I hope I have not come across as insulting anyone who seeks to defend freedom. I have been urgently trying to show that if there is a life at risk, though, then this becomes a right to life issue and a right to freedom issue for the baby which must therefore, also be defended.

The second thing that is necessary for me, is a commitment to listen to one another, and to communicate with one another based upon what is said, trying to understand what the others says, and respectfully.

I am at the point where I seriously doubt you either want to listen or understand - that is - to actually have a dialogue on this. I'm have the strong impression that you simply believe what you believe and have no intention of trying to understand my arguments, but rather that when I post you assume what I've said, give it no consideration, and then throw out a few ideas to shoot it down and consider the job done. I believe that, in part, since in some of your responses it seems obvious you've clicked 'reply' before you've even read my post, going through it and answering it line by line without reading ahead or thinking that a sentence later might be intended to help clarify or justify an earlier point.

I'm at the point where I suffer a loss of comprehension of your ideas. As such I'm concluding that they are somewhat in-consistent. I don't see what it is about the life that you consider 'human'.

To me I'd worry a lot more about the loss of a chimps life, than that of a 3 week old fetus. To me, from a moral perspective, I also class in-action as something to worry about. Hence why I find it hard to comprehend when people are worrying about something which by any medical definition isn't a human yet, when they aren't busily helping those who say lack clean water.

That is why I can't understand why someone interfere in the choice of someone else, whilst ignoring those who their interference would not only be welcome, but would save a 'higher' form of life.

I also fear about people who use a religious backing for the sanctity of life, lets not forget people used to get a license to hunt humans in Australia not so long ago.....

[Galant]

life [lahyf] noun, plural lives [lahyvz] , adjective
noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.


The definition of 'life'

life
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

And from the opening entry on Wikipedia:
"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate."

Definition of Human Being:

human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.

And again, from Wikipedia opening, "a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being."Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens, Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") are the only living species in the Homo genus."

Abort 73 quotes: "Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate...in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.""

And lastly: "Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..." Some years later, he would reiterate:

There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.""

Human life is a fixed definition. It is the human biological organism in a state of life rather than death. Very simple. As we have talked I have come to realise that the debate is centered around two concepts based on one foundation. The foundation is the notion of a human right to life. Accepting that such is good and proper and absolutely necessary for the functioning of a good society, question is upon what basis do we attribute the 'right to life'.

That brings us to the first concept - human life (as defined above). If it is to human life itself, then there is no question. For we consider even the lowest, single-celled organisms as being alive. Therefore, the human, even when in the status of the first cell, is alive - evidenced by the fact that it will grow. That cell might not by itself be capable of all the heights of human activity, but it is nevertheless human life, even if only a beginning. If the right to life is given to all human life. Then it has that right - inherently.

However, there is a second concept - 'personhood'.

The definition is given as:

per·son
noun
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.I think it is with regards to this concept where we have found most disagreement.

And one more time, the opener from Wikipedia:
"Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate. Historically, personhood was questioned during the abolition of slavery, the fight for women's rights, debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights as well as debates about corporate personhood."

It seems to be a fair summary of the subject to say that the concept of personhood exists to help identify and explain human biological existence in terms of personality. Nevertheless, it remains a very slippery concept, difficult to pin down. We would not normally consider animals to be people, yet individual animals of different species exhibit 'personalities', individual expressive traits. 'Person', as we use the term, is reserved for humans. What do we mean, what might we mean when we use the term?

The ability to express oneself? One's mind? There are two points to be considered here. If 'personhood' is what matters in terms of demanding and applying human rights and what we mean by 'personhood' is the attributes of the mind and not the body, then how do we apply that? Does it mean that the body itself is not demanding of human rights? If that is the case, then why? Is it because the mind 'feels pain' or feels 'injustice'; because the mind objects? As to pain, what if we precluded the possibility of pain by means of medication or a rare disease, or the fact that the body itself feels pain and receives injury? No, that cannot be it. A person in a pain-free state coud and probably would still object to someone else taking their life. If we attach rights then to a person's ability to object to having their life taken, then are we saying that violations on a living but unborn human body are acceptable when the mind is not present? If so, can we violate someone who is asleep, or under anaesthetic, or whose mind is otherwise 'absent'? We cannot. Why not? It is because it is not just their mind but their body that is protected. Their rights as a human being are given because they are a living, individual, human being. Even if their mind is not present to object, and even if they feel no pain, we are not permitted to violate their rights as a physical human being.

Whenever we begin to attempt to separate personhood from a human's physical being, all sorts of problems arise. We find that they are inextricably linked and it is the living human body to which human rights must be attached. Not only because of the problems in unravelling it all but also because of this next point.

I believe that when we consider the concept of human existence fully, from a scientific, atheistic viewpoint, whatever we might not know about the workings of the mind and the uniqueness of the human animal, we nevertheless come to the conclusion that human uniqueness and the human mind come forth from, are based in, and are in fact quite simply, the individual human body. That is to say, there is no such thing as a human being apart from the body. The human being is human biology. Incredible biology, wonderful biology, but biology nevertheless.

This being the case, the attribution of human rights to some notion of a later 'personhood' is a misnomer. Personhood is, and must be, a indirect reference to the human body. If we wish to persist in the distinction then, at best, we can describe the application of rights to 'personhood' alone as the attribution of human rights to the human being once a certain specific bodily function as begun. Of course, this position therefore states that until that specific bodily function has begun - there are no rights.

Let us explore that then. I see two ways to go from here. The first is to ask the question, "If the human physical organism does not automatically receive full rights, why then do we issue human rights, especially the right to life, in the first place?" What is it about a specific function that warrants such a right? This brings us back to the earlier question - "If the mind, then why?" - pain, objection? Is it simply that we do not like the idea of someone violating our conscience but we don't mind them violating our bodies at a time when our conscience could not be violated (as with the unborn)? If so, again, why not when asleep? No. Not allowed. Is it perhaps then the ending of what you might have achieved with your life? If so, the same argument can be put forth for an unborn human organism who also would be losing the same opportunity. So then you'd be left with the fact that it's just that you don't actually mind him or her losing that opportunity and that you also won't feel bad about it as long as he or she never knew they lost it. That leads the question - You cut short their life, or they (or someone else) cuts short yours - what's the difference? The answer - there isn't one. There is no objective difference at all. You just don't feel bad about ending their life, so you think it's right. However, in the end that would leave us in direct conflict with the concept of universal human rights and open to the possibility of someone being able to justify taking one's life for any reason. Which is, of course, unacceptable.

The other way to go on this question is to state, "If human rights are attributed according to some sort of capacity (the mind), and it's not a qualitive issue (the mind in itself), as we have just looked at, then it is quantitive". That is to say, that human beings will not all receive human rights, but only those with a certain level of capacity. The question then comes, though, "What level?" Is it a certain level of intelligence? I know we don't want to go there and kill all the people with low IQ (or whatever rating method one would feel is appropriate). If it's not that, then again, is it the ability of the mind to reason, or the potential to do so? This again brings us back to the notion that a sleeping adult isn't conscious and reasoning, or, if it's potential, so too the unborn human being has the same potential. You could actually argue for a baby having potential since they haven't 'wasted' any of their life after birth, yet.

This then is the problem I have with the idea that human rights belong to personhood apart from the body:

First, there is no personhood apart from the body. Second, any attempts to explain why it should be this way either apply to the unborn too, or else, render the adult vulnerable also. Third, considering that we've said that human life is important, that human rights are good, that we should protect the vulnerable and promote life, it seems rather contradictory to then base one's application of those practical, physical rights and the foundation for upholding those values, on something as poorly understood, ill defined and conceptually ethereal as 'personhood' - especially when a biological understanding of life is so apparent and valuable.

[Galant]

Why do we opt for this illusory application of rights? Selfishness. It suits our own needs. Out of sight, out of mind. The unborn often intrude upon our own individualistic pursuits, and we want the right and the affirmation to be able to eliminate that intrusion. Please excuse if that is offensive. I have no desire to be sensational, but I believe that it is a big part of the truth. You see this wouldn't be the first time we've done it. To whom else have we applied an illusory determination of humanity? 'Black' people - not because we reasoned it through but because slavery was convenient (though we did try to justify it - as always - to satisfy our consciences). I know the immediate response will be to bring up the most difficult and heart breaking situations about a mother at risk of losing her life, or rape. However, the fact is that those cases are the minority, not the majority. http://www.abort73.com/abortion_fact...on_statistics/ or directly, http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/.../dh_085545.pdf

The reality of abortion today is that abortions are more and more offered for any and every reason. They are abortions of convenience, not necessity. That is a reality that must be recognised because it shows the cold, hard nature of the human heart. The selfish desire to pursue one's own interests above those of everyone else, particularly where there is a conflict of interest, and something can easily be done about it. Such a desire is precisely the reason human rights were created and are enforced. They exist because we are all vulnerable and someone would seek to ignore our rights or deprive us of them if they could benefit from it. Just take a look at slavery/human trafficking today, or people who are happy to profit from other people's losses in other ways. Such is how we are. Such is why we must create these laws and enforce them. That is the reality we must also consider and remember, that the unborn, even the newly born, are easy targets for human selfishness, and yet they are individual human lives, that must be protected - and not just when they are capable of objecting. Remember, human rights are all or nothing. Everyone or no-one. That is why human rights must be attributed to the human physical being, to the body - because such is human life - from the beginning to the end - a physical entity not to be interrupted and killed. Such we state. Such we must live up to.

Now, as concerns the trickiest and most emotional circumstances, we do not accuse selfishness, but rather, we emplore compassion and seek to find the best solution for both lives involved, knowing that sometimes, for reason outside of our ability, one of those lives will have to end. Yet, in so doing, we must always uphold the value of life, and never consider a life expendable. We must do the best we can without intending simply to kill, as an option. The complicated scenarios are difficult, but if we set boundaries, as always we do and always we must, we will find ways of dealing with them. What we must not do is use them as excuses to justify actions that go far beyond them - a loophole to attempt to escape responsibility and responsible thinking and action.

Here's a link we a look at justifiable abortion: http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/...ver_justified/

If you're a TLNR kind of person - it states that cases today which place the mother's life at risk are, statistically, extremely rare and limited to ectopic pregnancies which themselves aren't always fatal. Nevertheless, 'indirect abortion' can be justified but only as a last resort. One commenter suggested as a specific illustration that in this case the fallopian tube could be removed, saving the mother but incidentally killing the child.

I believe I have, previously, given a decent understanding of the value of life, and how we can approach it from a naturalistic viewpoint. Perhaps someone else has an alternative or an improvement, please offer it if you do. Either way, I don't accept that tearing down reason without offering a justifiable alternative is acceptable in this case of holding human lives in the balance. With this question reason, honest truth and values must be applied and our actions built upon understanding and collective understanding - not misunderstandings, confusion, contradiction or the absence of knowledge.

Below are some quotes on human life from people far more qualified than myself. I was glad to discover them. I found I was not alone. I hope you will join us.

"In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.""
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

[billythewiz]

Galant, I get the impression that you have discussed this in some depth, in other forums. I've certainly seen the argument that a foetus isn't a "human life" until it has reached some unlikely milestone (24 weeks, cognitive function, etc.). Personally I'm not impressed by those arguments. The science community has a great many tools to name and categorise the various stages (and types) of life. It's a very interesting topic (exactly how "alive" is a virus or a strand of DNA ?), but in my opinion it's not relevant to a discussion on abortion.

For me the key point is when the foetus becomes capable of self sustained life, independent of its mother. Currently that is something around 24-25 weeks. It's possible for a baby to be born at that age, survive and be raised by someone other than its biological mother.

Prior to 24 weeks it is not. In the early stages of development a foetus is more akin to a cancer than a human being and as such the mother has more rights than the baby. After 24 weeks the balance tips. The mother has had adequate time to detect, assess and decide upon her pregnancy. If she reaches 24 weeks and still hasn't decided, then I'm happy that her time has run out and she becomes obliged to carry to baby to term (at which point she can put it up for adoption).

I would be interested in discussing the merits of adjusting the current 24 week limit. In recent years my views have changed in this area and I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the limit should be lowered (to 22 or 20 weeks). The number of abortions after 12 weeks is actually a small proportion of the total.

I have little time for those that advocate a significant lowering or total ban. That leads to inhuman situation they have in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, etc.

[g8ina]

For me the key point is when the foetus becomes capable of self sustained life, independent of its mother. Currently that is something around 24-25 weeks.

I've been discussing this thread with my wife, who is also a devout Christian. She holds that basically abortion is wrong, but states exactly the above as her own definition of an independent life, before that the foetus is *technically* a parasitic lifeform with the potential of becoming an independent lifeform.

AS for timing, Wiki has a page on this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
with this chart :

[peterb]

But if it isn't human life, what sort of life is it?

[Phage]

If it's incapable of independant life, it's not 'life' per se any more than your kidney.

[TheAnimus]

But if it isn't human life, what sort of life is it?

As a man of engineering, I said measure the energy in this potato.

Then turned round and said no, no, no, no. I meant the GPE, after I've taken it up to the top of the building.

This potato has more energy than you thought, than you said, how could you not respect the energy it has.

Just because something has a potential, does not make it the same as the full realised potential.

[peterb]

If it's incapable of independant life, it's not 'life' per se any more than your kidney.

You could say the same about someone on a heart/lung machine.

But it still isn't answering the question. What sort of life is it if it is'nt human?

[Phage]

On the contrary, your positing a false premise that the foetus has an independent 'life' of it's own.
It does not, and therefore the question has no meaning.

[Galant]

But if it isn't human life, what sort of life is it?

Exactly.

The magic number of 24 got blown out of the water with a baby born at 22 weeks. The viability issue misses the whole point. An individual's ability to look after themselves defines neither their humanity nor their right to life. All human beings have a right to life, and human being is defined as human organism. The use of 'parasite' here has to be of the loosest possible definition - sort of like how you might define a teenager to be a parasite because they drain the money of, and make demands on, their parents. We might want to, but we don't kill them for it. Neither can we kill unborn human beings. They are human beings just as we are human beings. As for physical resilience we have people born with diseases who can't be exposed to much direct sunlight, others whose skin is so fragile it tears or bruises at the slight aggravation and still others who are adults and because of disability can't fend for themselves but all of whom are still full human beings.

This actually brings up a newspaper article referring to a medical ethics journal wherein the logic of abortion is truly revealed. Here's the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

The summary is this - if it's right to kill children in the womb it is and should be right to kill children out of the womb. Neither one is a human 'person'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnrLv6z-mM
Summary version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWnCt...eature=related

[Phage]

We're going around in circles here.

And yes, I am well aware of that article, as I was the one who brought it, and the others, to your attention. You appear to have cherry-picked those parts you most agree with.
None of them provide any such concrete views. The former was a good exploration of the various issues, and latter a rather nasty exploration of logic by academics seeking to raise their profile by re-hashing someone else's arguments.

[Galant]

We're not going around in circles. The ability to care for yourself or provide for yourself does not define... correction - determine... your humanity.

[peterb]

On the contrary, your positing a false premise that the foetus has an independent 'life' of it's own.
It does not, and therefore the question has no meaning.

I'm not posrtulating anything. It is either alive or not alive. If it is alive, it has life. The assertion is that it is not human life, which in turn it has life of some sort. My question is seeking clarification. If it is life, but not humanm life, what sort of life is it?

[Phage]

I'm afraid we are. I refer you to Lucio's post #7 and your own OP.

You have heard no convincing arguments contrary to your opinion, and you have not advanced any that changed mine. Discussion is good, but I can't see that there can be any agreement forthcoming on this issue.

There is no definition of humanity. It's a question that has perplexed philosphers for millennia. Strictly speaking, it's not even necessary to draw such a line. It's convenient to do so.
One might even argue that ethics demands that a line be drawn. But it's quite possible to get on with life without doing so.