Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty

[professor goodstain]

That definition could be twisted given certain examples like mitochondria, but in the context of conception, I think it's sufficient.

Replace (if) with (since). Then put a (?) at the end instaed of a (.). It depends on ones opinion. The informational context that people don't get out there doesn't include mitochondria or DNA or seperate/extention of 2.

 

[Poser]

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola*tion of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom*son cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.”

I thought this was an interesting read. This made me wonder about a time in the future when it would be possible to remove the fetus from the first sign of pregnancy as an outpatient procedure and the fetus would be sustained to grow to term using machinery. I don't know if that would cause a decrease in the numbers of people that are pro-choice or pro-life? Or if it would just cause a third group to rise up for pro-womb?

 

[Lasting_Pain]

I am pro-choice for early abortions but I kind of move towards the right as the baby begins to develop.

 

[/DG/]

I thought this was an interesting read. This made me wonder about a time in the future when it would be possible to remove the fetus from the first sign of pregnancy as an outpatient procedure and the fetus would be sustained to grow to term using machinery. I don't know if that would cause a decrease in the numbers of people that are pro-choice or pro-life? Or if it would just cause a third group to rise up for pro-womb?

This is quite intriguing, if I do say so myself. If it were possible, it would make me feel more comfortable about my pro-life views, but seeing as "using machinery" in developing a fetus is unnatural, I don't know how well that would work out for the very strong religious types. Not to mention, it would be kind of strange to say that you were "born" from a machine of some sort.

 

[Poser]

This is quite intriguing, if I do say so myself. If it were possible, it would make me feel more comfortable about my pro-life views, but seeing as "using machinery" in developing a fetus is unnatural, I don't know how well that would work out for the very strong religious types. Not to mention, it would be kind of strange to say that you were "born" from a machine of some sort.

Yeah, but probably no stranger than kids now having to say they only have a mother and their dad was a donation.

 

[/DG/]

Haha so true.

 

[ceecee]

One regular protestor, it turns had all her kids taken from her by social services...I found her somewhat morally repugnant, but my point is 1) those who not capable of carrying a pregnancy either because they weren't ever capable, or no longer capable, seemed to be the most invested in pro life

I would find the repugnance in her being unable, but more likely unwilling to parent the children she chose to carry to term or to learn the skills to do so. I would have to squash the urge to slap her hypocritical face down on the ground. That and men and women well past child bearing stage being the most vehement pro lifers also puzzle me.

 

[TheLastMohican]

It does make it a separate life form, but it's still derived from pre-existing life.

Almost all life is. When it is not, we're talking about abiogenesis.

So, does having unique DNA mean that it deserves its own argument for existence?

Not necessarily. Our laws mostly apply to treatment of other humans, so human DNA is the type in question here. Until we can provide a logically sound (not arbitrary) definition for when an embryo, fetus or child becomes "human enough" to qualify for the laws that protect older humans, we are stuck with more basic criteria, like the complete DNA.

If so, what are the implications for twins that share DNA?

Identical twins don't have "unique" DNA, but it is still distinct DNA from that of either parent. The DNA is important because it means that the embryo is not really a cell or clump of cells belonging to one of the parent's bodies, but rather an organism living inside the mother's body. It is a type of foreign substance, and the body treats it that way: it keeps the blood supply separate, and builds a placenta to keep the fetus contained in its own special environment.

What about the sperm and the egg before they unite, are their existences meant to be preserved.

The sperm and egg only have 23 chromosomes each, and can never grow, eat or think without each other, so I do not think they count as human life, only cells that are entirely at the mercy of the rest of the body.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Whenever pro-life people bring up this point, I always bring up rape. I know it's a touchy subject, but it always makes people think. What if you were raped and got pregnant? Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I would never have an abortion myself.

A good amount of Pro-life people would excuse an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Because you didn't have a choice in the sex.

I actually lean more towards pro-choice, but people are deluding themselves when they argue that it isn't murder, because it is.

 

[Randomnity]

Until we can provide a logically sound (not arbitrary) definition for when an embryo, fetus or child becomes "human enough" to qualify for the laws that protect older humans, we are stuck with more basic criteria, like the complete DNA. being born

Fixed. Different groups can propose any number of "cutoff" points, with any number of corresponding rationalizations. DNA is a cutoff as much as any other.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Fixed. Different groups can propose any number of "cutoff" points, with any number of corresponding rationalizations. DNA is a cutoff as much as any other.

Conception is the beginning of the organism's existence, and therefore the earliest possible definition of life worth protecting. All other "cutoff points" are just different periods of development.

 

[Randomnity]

I believe that conception is the beginning of the organism's existence

Fixed.

I'm only arguing your wording though, not the morality of abortion. That one's futile with anyone. opinions = opinions.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Fixed.

Does anyone actually disagree with that belief (without altering the definitions of "organism" or "existence")? If so, I would like to hear some alternatives.

I'm only arguing your wording though, not the morality of abortion. That one's futile with anyone. opinions = opinions.

I'm arguing the legality of abortion, not the morality.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Unfortunately, it can be very difficult for some to distinguish between morality and legality, particularly in an issue such as this.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable about abortion past sixteen weeks, unless genetic abnormalities have been detected in the fetus. I believe it is possible for the fetus to survive at 15 weeks outside of the womb (although for how long I don't know and at what cost? Premature children often have multiple health problems lasting well into adulthood.)
I believe up to 12 weeks, there are also less problems and risks for the women involved.
At what point is the nervous system of a fetus fully developed?

 

[Kangirl]

Firey, I think the cutoff point is about 21/22 weeks, if I'm remembering that right. And at 21-22 weeks the odds of survuval are still extremely low - I think the youngest baby to have survived after premature birth was 22 weeks. Again, iirc.

As for legal arguments (in response to Orangey) I'm not making one. The point of my post was to highlight how difficult it is to have a concrete position on the issue because it does boil down to personal moral belief. Does one believe a fetus is a human being or not? That's a moral call.

My stance on this is dependent on the ability to feel pain, still. If a fetus can suffer, I oppose abortion for the personal moral reason/feeling that causing suffering is wrong. If a fetus is at a stage where is cannot suffer then I feel a lot better about being pro-choice. The sticking point is that establishing when a fetus gains the ability to suffer is, so far, impossible.

 

[Feops]

My stance on this is dependent on the ability to feel pain, still. If a fetus can suffer, I oppose abortion for the personal moral reason/feeling that causing suffering is wrong. If a fetus is at a stage where is cannot suffer then I feel a lot better about being pro-choice. The sticking point is that establishing when a fetus gains the ability to suffer is, so far, impossible.

Also depends what you consider suffering. Do you consider the twitch reflex of pain to be suffering, or the sensation afterwards? Do you consider non-painful abortion to be suffering?

 

[Edgar]

Does anyone actually disagree with that belief (without altering the definitions of "organism" or "existence")? If so, I would like to hear some alternatives.

Depends on what is your idea of an organism.

A malignant tumor that is growing inside of one's skull could be argued to be an organism.

But to me, what it all boils down to is personal liberties. A person has a right to do with his body as he pleases (barring certain limited exceptions).

It would be nice for a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term, just like it would be nice for me to donate a kidney to a person who otherwise would not survive without it. But forcing one to do so is a violation of personal liberties.

 

[Tiltyred]

What Edgar said. For me, it's not about the fetus. It's about the woman.

 

[Orangey]

As for legal arguments (in response to Orangey) I'm not making one. The point of my post was to highlight how difficult it is to have a concrete position on the issue because it does boil down to personal moral belief. Does one believe a fetus is a human being or not? That's a moral call.

Oh, no, I was agreeing with you about it being a practical issue. Women will always abort whether it is legal or not, so why not have it legalized (and regulated) so that people can have access to safer, cleaner facilities? I was also agreeing that I do sometimes have some ethical reservations about it, especially with late term abortions, but that this is beside the point when it comes to determining the legality of the act for other people.

I said the 'legal and philosophical argument' bit in my last post because I wanted to shield myself from any rebuttals, since I don't know enough about the various arguments to be able to engage. It wasn't actually directed at you or your comment.

 

[Tiny Army]

Does one believe a fetus is a human being or not? That's a moral call.

My stance on this is dependent on the ability to feel pain, still. If a fetus can suffer, I oppose abortion for the personal moral reason/feeling that causing suffering is wrong. If a fetus is at a stage where is cannot suffer then I feel a lot better about being pro-choice. The sticking point is that establishing when a fetus gains the ability to suffer is, so far, impossible.

Brain waves (actual brain waves, not the basic electrical activity resulting from a bunch of cells forming a brain) are usually measured at about 19-20 weeks.

I suppose it could theoretically feel pain around then because that's when the forebrain begins maturing.

An electroencephalograph is able to read electrical activity in the brain so long as the organism has functioning organs. This in no way indicates the organism's ability to feel or think.