Backdoor Abortion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Saying it's okay to abort the fetus ready to be born because even though it's a human it hasn't yet gone through the birth canal is obviously problematic, as is saying you can't abort the day old embryo that's not yet a human because we don't know exactly when it will become one. One way or another, we need a way to deal with fuzzy boundaries, because we face them all the time. When does a child become an adult, with implications for self-determination, financial independence, parental responsiblity, rape law, etc.? When does a person qualify as poor, with implications for taxation, welfare, etc.? When does a person qualify as mentally retarded? When does evidence add up to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? In my field, when do different dialects become different languages, or when does an <s> sound become an <sh> sound? The world isn't black and white, and acting like an issue is all black or all white because you can't find a clear boundary in the midst of the gray is not a valid solution.

Ajax

---

Point of clarification, it's not entering the birth canal which signifies life, or even crowning, it is actually the drawing of the first breath when encoulment is traditionally considered to have taken place.

In my view this is a medieval relic, and those who adhere to the "until it's born" principle are refusing to face up to the scientific reality, i.e. we are clearly alive before we are born. The problem is defining when life begins. Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide. Taking abortion up to the point of birth is just a refusal to engage with the issue at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Father Maxi

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.

And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.

---

Usually the eggs you buy at the store haven't been fertilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Point of clarification, it's not entering the birth canal which signifies life, or even crowning, it is actually the drawing of the first breath when encoulment is traditionally considered to have taken place.

In my view this is a medieval relic, and those who adhere to the "until it's born" principle are refusing to face up to the scientific reality, i.e. we are clearly alive before we are born. The problem is defining when life begins. Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide. Taking abortion up to the point of birth is just a refusal to engage with the issue at all.

---

I fear you are using the wrong term in "life". There can be no doubt that life begins the moment the zygote is formed - the fertilised egg is indisputably alive.

The argument is about at which end of the developmental spectrum do we imbue that life with humanity and the rights we currently consider concomitant to that status. I would argue that the mediaeval position you describe is actually reflective of the line we ought to draw - that is, viability. In mediaeval times, lacking our modern array of machines that go ping, viability was invariably the moment when the child drew breath. Nowadays, that line is much better understood and much greyer in terms of where it sits on the spectrum of development.

To me, the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus until the point where that foetus may survive on its own (outside her body) with a reasonable expectation of progression to adulthood. Medical intervention is clearly a factor in this assessment. At current technological capabilities, that is around 20-22 weeks (barring significant medical conditions or disabilities that may compromise viability as defined, in which case later abortions may be justifiable).

It seem to be that this is both humane and scientifically reasoned and balances the mother's rights and that of the foetus. It also appears to be the position of most thoughtful legislatures.

Indisputably alive... rather a sweeping statement for a zygote.

Roughly 1/4 pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, often due to massive genetic defects. These zygotes would never fulfil the criteria for being alive as they are unable to function independently, nor reach maturity, let alone reproduce themselves.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Indisputably alive... rather a sweeping statement for a zygote.

Roughly 1/4 pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, often due to massive genetic defects. These zygotes would never fulfil the criteria for being alive as they are unable to function independently, nor reach maturity, let alone reproduce themselves.

~:smoking:

---

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

---

And along those lines, does life even begin at conception? Aren't the egg and the sperm already alive? A new genome is certainly formed, but I'd think the life is already there.

Ajax

I don't understand the logic with basing it off functioning independently though. A lot of babies born the normal way still end up hooked up on machines keeping them alive for a while. What about babies born prematurely? Does the fact that they were born prematurely mean they can't be killed (or whatever you want to call it) in the time period when if they had not been born prematurely, they would still have been in the womb and could have been aborted?

tbh I find the whole abortion argument kind of surreal. I think many of these "reasoned" and "logical" argument for abortion will one day be looked at the same way when we today look at the "reasoned" and "logical" arguments people gave to support institutions like slavery. Screw the greater social good, it's just wrong.*

*disclaimer - this is just a gut feeling I have on the matter, and people will no doubt think it is ridiculous, but I think this is one of those issues where peoples norms are very much defined by those of their particular time and place, and those from another time and place might take a very different perspective...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

---

So is a neutrophil. So was the majority of my lunch. Just after death, most of the body is still living cells.

A living cell is not the same as a living organism.

~:smoking:

Rather than replying to other posts, I felt tempted to start from "scratch" and write down a few of my considerations:

#1. It is not a human right to be born. All the theoretically possible combinations of DNA we cannot "allow" for natural reasons - there is not enough room for all of them. This way of speaking also concludes that if two humans share the same DNA, they are in fact the same person - which is apparently not true.

#2. a) We have no empirical reasons (including everyday observations) to believe that human life start at one point. There is a point of fertilisation that "inevitably" leads to what we will later, without much doubt in our minds, call a human being. However, if we were to look at a newly fertilised egg cell in a microscope next to another cell that was not of human origin, the untrained eye would most likely not be able to tell them apart. 'Common sense' will thus lead us to the conclusion that neither of these are human beings - as long as we are not being told anything else, something which would just cloud our judgement from this perspective.

#2. b) At later stages in the development, we would see a creature with features that what we understand as human beings have - and we could thus be inclined to conclude that, indeed, there is something human about this creature - and perhaps, we could call it a human being.


#3. a) The reason one should not kill the unborn humans, I must assume is for the same reasons that it is not allowed to kill babies. We are not allowed to kill babies, because they are considered human beings. The question is then when a human being becomes a human being.

#3. b) From #2., it is demonstrated that empiricism cannot lead us to a clear cut definition of what a human being is - we may at best get a vague sensation. One could attempt to see whether there is a point at which a human being becomes self-aware. However, this point could be well after birth. It is also clear that humans kill animals with ease without asking them whether they are self-aware or not, so self-awareness seems not to be a criterium by itself.


It is then clear to me that one cannot hope for well defined ethics on this issue, for now and perhaps for ever, otherwise we get a revelation from the thunder god Þórr telling us that life starts 453 hours after conception. Thus we must accept dealing with grey areas. I am not too concerned about this; I personally cannot recall things that go back to myself crawling at the floor. Probably, we are well within in the safe zone when we are dealing with fetuses - if self-awareness matters. If it doesn't, well, then it is clearly the moral feelings of the adults that we need to protect rather than the fetuses themselves, which is dubious - to put it mildly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I fear you are using the wrong term in "life". There can be no doubt that life begins the moment the zygote is formed - the fertilised egg is indisputably alive.

The argument is about at which end of the developmental spectrum do we imbue that life with humanity and the rights we currently consider concomitant to that status. I would argue that the mediaeval position you describe is actually reflective of the line we ought to draw - that is, viability. In mediaeval times, lacking our modern array of machines that go ping, viability was invariably the moment when the child drew breath. Nowadays, that line is much better understood and much greyer in terms of where it sits on the spectrum of development.

---

I want to start by disputing that medieval doctors were focused on viability, they were clearly focused on "life", which for them meant a joined body and soul. The soul was held to be present in the body once the child drew breath, and at least initially it was the first breath by which the soul entered. You can see this is so because nothing in the theological pastoral literature provides for administering baptism before birth, or to a stillborn. By contrast, once the child drew breath it was imperative that they not die unbaptised, in extremis this allowed for baptism by the parents themselves - an act which would normally dislove their marriage.

Viability was actually set at two or three years, because of infant mortality - and you can see this in the kind of penance set for infanticide (which is still usually a seperate crime from homocide) even when it was deliberate. The penalty usually involved life long penance and fasting, but it was nothing compared to the penalty for murder, and people don't seem to have been prosecuted that often.

Quote:

---

To me, the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus until the point where that foetus may survive on its own (outside her body) with a reasonable expectation of progression to adulthood. Medical intervention is clearly a factor in this assessment. At current technological capabilities, that is around 20-22 weeks (barring significant medical conditions or disabilities that may compromise viability as defined, in which case later abortions may be justifiable).

It seem to be that this is both humane and scientifically reasoned and balances the mother's rights and that of the foetus. It also appears to be the position of most thoughtful legislatures.

---

This seems to me like the beginning of a humane position, but not the end of one. What about the mother's right to choice vs the foetus' right to life? If the mother decides she just doesn't want the child at 18 weeks she can abort, that seems wrong to me. I do not believe abortion should be a form of birth control, and that it should be a matter of welfare, not preference.

Main issues in the thread and on topics of Abortion is this.

There are many genuine and ethical concerns which forces the situation that make abortion legal. This is to provide legal high quality healthcare services to people that really need them through difficult times.

While on the issue of morality, Abortion is never "good", it is simply at best "lesser of two evils". No one should ever celebrate the fact they are having an abortion, it is simply an unpleasant reality.

The best time for the abortion is the beginning, when it is simply a bunch of cells. Late-term abortion however is pretty disgusting, as there are hardly any important factors as to why the fetus wasn't disposed of at a far earlier when it was far less developed and it borders on negligence.

Outlawing abortion altogether is another form of negligence. It is the authoritarian placing of social order on top of a far different reality.

There are arguments such as "Let them get adopted!" however, there are far more children than people wanting to adopt, and these same people want to discriminate against other race/homosexuals from adopting, further depriving the children. These same people also do not want to fund the support for these children, generally arguing against the welfare of others, stating mantras such as "Get a juub!" As this generalized example of people get everything they want, there is a very depressing Charles Dickin's picture occurring for these children.

Many people just look at the specific argument and not the wider picture.

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't understand the logic with basing it off functioning independently though. A lot of babies born the normal way still end up hooked up on machines keeping them alive for a while. What about babies born prematurely? Does the fact that they were born prematurely mean they can't be killed (or whatever you want to call it) in the time period when if they had not been born prematurely, they would still have been in the womb and could have been aborted?

---

Taking PVC:s suggestion about "hedging your bet", it either forces you to try to save those natural miscarriages (leaving people to die is illegal in most countries) or still makes you consider a embryo as something lesser than a person. Really, no position succeds with being fully coherent on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

tbh I find the whole abortion argument kind of surreal. I think many of these "reasoned" and "logical" argument for abortion will one day be looked at the same way when we today look at the "reasoned" and "logical" arguments people gave to support institutions like slavery. Screw the greater social good, it's just wrong.*

---

They'll be busy with more complicated questions. Is it wrong to genetically (this is done before the egg is fertilized in this case) create a functional human body without a brain and harvest it for the organs? It certainly feels uncomfortable for me, but try to have a black and white argument on the issue.
You already admitted that it isn't a human being and never was. So how many brain functions can we add before it becomes a human?

Besides, the pill and abortion gave females the control of their own sexuality. They also got a bit more power nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

*disclaimer - this is just a gut feeling I have on the matter, and people will no doubt think it is ridiculous, but I think this is one of those issues where peoples norms are very much defined by those of their particular time and place, and those from another time and place might take a very different perspective...

---

Maybe, but it feels more to be an issue like suecide instead of slavery. Certainly nothing to celebrate, but to accept that it exists and happens is still better than denying it. For example, mothers killing their children dropped to around half when they stopped getting executed for that crime. Need I mention that suecide was considered worse than murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide.

---

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...



You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

---

Erm... That makes no sense. I don't think I have ever heard a pro-choice type use whether or not the baby has a soul as an argument for or against abortion rights, that is almost completely the domain of pro-life types. I am pro-choice and certainly don't believe a baby magically gains a soul upon being born. I do, however, believe it is now a person and no longer a fetus.

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life.

---

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

---

For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

---

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

---

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

---

But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.

---

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

---

I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.

---

Flawed analogy is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

---

But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Flawed analogy is flawed.

---

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

---

As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)

---

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

---

But... why is that when it become a human life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

---

When the probability that a homicide is taking place approaches zero, its ability to trump other rights does the same.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.

---

I don't think I could say when exactly in the baking process a cake becomes a cake. Bring it out too soon and it'll still be gooey; but what is the exact moment when it is sufficiently done to qualify as a cake? Another gray area, just like fetal development.

Ajax

The ingredients of a cake sitting in a bowl are more analogous to some sperm and unfertilized eggs sitting in a test tube than they are to a newly conceived fetus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

---

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

I'm pro-abortion, but within limits. Legal until fetus becomes conscious. It's that simple. (Not counting when it is serious hazard for mother's life, in case of rape etc...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

---

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Legal until fetus becomes conscious.

---

When's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

---

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

When's that?

---

IIRC, 14 weeks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

IIRC, 14 weeks...

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Source?

---

Mommy dearest, M.D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

---

:huh:

I'd agree.

What we have here is, to paraphrase, a failure to communicate. Instructively, it shows the devilry inherent in this debate, where people use otherwise quite clear terms to muddy the waters, 'life' being pre-eminent among these confusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

---

It is not murder unless you kill all the cells in the organism, or destroy the conscious part. For instance, if someone incinerated your body, that would be murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

---

Beskar is right. No one wants to have an abortion, it is not a decision taken lightly.

Further, our laws should not be based upon the religious beliefs of a group of citizens. The decision to have an abortion should be up to the pregnant woman, her partner (if he is involved in her life), her doctor, and her clergy person if she is religious. It shouldn't be dictated by law. I agree with some of the others above that there is a certain point that abortions should not be allowed. However, I also believe that when a woman is early enough in her pregnancy, she should be provided with swift access to abortion services and not be faced with heavy handed attempts to guilt her into changing her mind (i.e. ultrasound bills, bills requiring doctors to read scientifically invalid "facts" about abortion, etc). Women are not emotional infants who lack the agency to make their own decisions.

Reproductive rights policy in the US is beyond screwed up right now. The vast majority of women who have abortions are not haphazardly using it as a method of birth control. Contraception fails sometimes. Further, if people are not properly educated on HOW to use a contraceptive device, it has an increased likelihood of failing. The majority of women who get abortions have incomes that are under the Federal poverty level. Policymakers in this country seek to chip away at access to abortion, which, like it or not, is currently legal in the United States. On top of that, they also seek to reduce access and affordability of contraceptives to people who could not otherwise afford them. We give mountains of cash to abstinence based education in public schools, some of which provide blatantly false information. Some states seek to define the Birth Control Pill as an abortifacient, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This is so, so wrong. If we want to reduce the number of abortions, the logical and realistic thing to do would be to increase access, education, and affordability of contraceptives.

People can get on their moral high horses about abstinence all they want. The reality of life is that people are going to have sex. People in the US need to get over themselves and realize this. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through contraception = fewer abortions.