Abortion.

[HLGStrider]

I believe it all comes down to two things:

When life begins?
and
What makes human life wrong to end?

You may think the second is a given, that everyone believes it is wrong to end a life, so why bother with the why, but the why is everything in this context. I mean, how many of us are vegetarians here? Probably at least one of us, I guess, but most of us probably eat meat or use products from "dead animals." I live on a farm and am within a quarter mile of cows we plan to kill in two months and then eat and I don't have any moral qualms about it. However, I do have moral "qualms" about killing my brother (even when he deserves it.). Why the difference?

Because I believe human beings have an immortal soul, mainly. I think humans are granted a precious gift called life. I believe in some cases it is forfeit. If a man tried to kill me and I had a gun, I'd shoot him, no bones about it. I don't want to die, and I think if I could I would kill to save my life. However, let's leave that out of the conversation for now and just assume that for some reason it is wrong to kill an innocent human.

So, why do you pro-choice people think it is wrong to start killing off your next door neighbors? Why do we have laws against murder?

I can't see any other reason than that humans have something special about them. It is something that defies definition.

And I think conception is the only reasonable place for this something to join with a human being to make it a human being.

The birth of a soul, if you will.

Viability has increased over the years. In my own state babies have survived from incredibly pre-mature ages. These children are only partially developed at the point they are "severed" from the womb. I'd say they are very much human. However, they are also at the same age when a child in the womb can be legally aborted. What is the difference between one or the other? If a nurse so much as pulled the plug on that baby's incubator, causing death, or if the parent did so, they would be prosecuted, would they not? So what does being within the mother do to make the child different?

I have heard the word parasite used to describe such a little passenger. However, parasite or not, he is still a human (Many brother-in-laws are parasites, and I can't get a hunting license on them.). A human parasite perhaps. Perhaps dependent on a mother, but when is an infant not dependent?

If you left an infant alone in a room for long enough and ignored it, it would die. If you left it on the street it wouldn't last an hour. A parent who leaves a child in the park to fend for itself would be prosecuted because that child is dependent on them. A feutus is dependent on the mother. The only specification is that for nine months the feutus is dependent on no one but ther mother, as opposed to an infant who can be passed off to the government or a relative or another set of parents.

But, if a mother gave birth while on a camping trip for some odd reason and didn't want the baby, would she be justified in leaving it in the middle of the forest to die? Let's say she is a week's journey away from someone to hand it to. We would expect her to keep it for that week, would we not? If she didn't, wouldn't we call it murder?

Why can't we expect her to keep it for nine months prior?

Dependency makes no real difference.

Then there is the amount of cells. This would be an argument that a man born with no arms is less of a man than one with arms because there is less there as far as cells goes, isn't it? I mean, you ask where to draw the line, when you say "two split cells or six" but I ask you, why not 1,000 or 1,000,000. What difference does the number of cells really make?

Less identifiable, but when do you think that something enters a human?

What truly makes it wrong to kill a human being? I'd like everyone to answer that question, if they would.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

No Rian, because to me, "pro-abortion" becomes the loaded word, because it implies, to me, that the person is ONLY pro-abortion. Hence, choice. I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, sorry.

I disagree with you here.

Several years ago, a guy at work said something like: "I don't understand why people get so upset about abortion. Why don't those who are against it just not have them and let those who are not against it have them?"

Struck by sudden inspiration (the one time in my life I knew what to say just then), I replied, "That's what people used to say about slavery."

Rian has a very good point. When we're talking about these options, it's obvious that pro-abortion means allowing the option of abortion, and anti-abortion means being opposed to the use of abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life (terms which to this point I have scrupulously used - I'm reconsidering), are just euphemisms which cloud the issue. What would we think if 150 years ago, the terms in the slavery debate had been 'pro-choice' and 'pro-free'??

Nobody would be pro-abortion in EVERY case... that EVERY pregnancy should have to be terminated by abortion, unless someone was working toward our own extinction... so it's a given that we're talking about favoring the option when desired, when we say 'pro-abortion'. Using 'pro-choice' simply allows us the luxury of talking around a very unpleasant issue (a form of denail, perhaps?).

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

As long as there is doubt, is it not reasonable to err on the side of caution?

Otherwise we kill 3,800 babies every single day in America alone... on the chance that they may not be a human life!

Nobody wanted to take this on?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Nobody wanted to take this on?

i'd say life is whatever we define it as at the moment... so there's no real "err"

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'd say life is whatever we define it as at the moment... so there's no real "err"

Oh... so who gets to be the 'we'? And what if they're wrong?

[inked]

Brownjenkins and Valandil,

Ahh, the crux of the matter: how do we define the beginning of life?

In my career the definition changed form the standard "moment of fertilization" to "implantation" in my field of medicine. This was to facilitate the use of pre-implantation embryonic cells post-fertilization. Did this in fact change anything about the nature of life's beginnings? No. It merely provided a paradigm shift to allow research.

If we look historically at definitions of life in various societies, we can report that Sparta did not recognize a newborn baby as a person until it was judged fit. Those that weren't fit were exposed on a specific location to their deaths. The practice of terminating pregnancy, or at least attempting to so do, was rife enough in the Greco-Roman world that Hippocrates included a provision in his physicians oath "I will not give a pessary to a woman to procure abortion." This clearly implies a group of persons who did so. Not all physicians are subscribers to the Hippocratic Oath as original today (for instance, the Hippocratic Oath forswears poisoning, mercy killing, surgery for kidney/bladder stones, sexual predation, and patient confidentiality viiolation).

When we get to the 4th century, the definition becomes "quickening" - when the mother senses the movement of the fetus. This is the point at which at that time the soul was thought to enter the body.

The state of affairs was pretty much there to the advent of embryological study and the development of the microscope and its application to the issue. Then we see the discovery of the union of the egg and the sperm into the zygote (from which all subsequent development occurs). So, as was memorably testified on Capito Hill, "When does life begin? The life of your puppy or kitten begins when fertilization occurs according to the veterinarian textbooks. How can it be that human life begins later than that of other animals" - to the best of my recollection, of course, reaching way back.

As to the legal status of life definition, the determination of its end has been subject to change with the advent of technologies (lack of motion and breathing, absence of heart beat after the stethescope, onset of putrefaction, flatline EKG, and brain death determination in the face of functional heart). And you can see how in reverse these markers have been used to define life: onset of heartbeat, motion, respiration, brain wave activity.

So legally the definition has been variable. And let's not forget the legalization of destroying walking, talking, breathing aggregations of fully grown post-partutition cell aggregates that were legally terminated under the Third Reich as "life unfit to live" including Germans and Jews.

So when does life begin? It would appear that medically we have pushed the frontier to the most recessive point for humans when we say that prior to the union of the sperm and egg and initiation of the zygote, there is not life.
After the union of the sperm and egg into the zygote, the initiation of life is present and observable in the processes of development. I cannot escape the reality that post-fertilization the spark we call life is present. This means to me that life begins at fertilization and is present from there forward. This is a definition of absolute minimal requirement.

Of course, some will note the reality of parthenogenesis in some animals. This means that under certain conditions female lower animals/insects can reproduce without requirement for sperm and have offspring. So one could make an argument that life is possible if only an egg is present. But I would argue that doesn't apply to humans. We know of no such occurences in human reproduction or the higher animals.

Note that I have arrived at a minimalist definition of life from a medical data standpoint and stand well within human reasoning in so doing. This is not a legal definition, however. In accord with that understanding, when I rtreat a pregnancy, I have two (occasionally more!) patients.

Then one gets into the concept of triage and valuation of other factors than the mere definition of life in management of pregnancy. But MY starting point is that I am dealing with two (or more) lives and I ACCORD both value.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

If someone in hospital who rely's on machines to keep them alive then surely a fetus who is relying on their mother is alive to.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Oh... so who gets to be the 'we'? And what if they're wrong?

the majority... and if they are wrong, laws are changed... not perfect, but it's what we've got

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

I know I should focus on the Why you believe what you believe thread right now, but I can't resist posting! http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../YU/ay0194.asp
Teens who did abortion and others who chose differently and their reactions.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

This means to me that life begins at fertilization and is present from there forward. This is a definition of absolute minimal requirement.

one could also argue that a sperm is a form of life, a short-lived one, but one nonetheless... and it can also be argued, and has been, that so is an unfertilized egg

my point, contraception, morning after pills, late-term abortion and even late-in-life mercy killing are all the destroying of "life" in a broad scientific sense

much like IRs war and capital punishment examples... the question is not the black and white idea of whether or not it is ok to destroy "life"... but rather, when is it okay to destroy life

[Valandil]

So... we have no recourse but to convert you guys to evangelical Christianity??

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Valandil

When we're talking about these options, it's obvious that pro-abortion means allowing the option of abortion, and anti-abortion means being opposed to the use of abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life (terms which to this point I have scrupulously used - I'm reconsidering), are just euphemisms which cloud the issue. What would we think if 150 years ago, the terms in the slavery debate had been 'pro-choice' and 'pro-free'??

Excellent point, Val. People that were against slavery didn't HAVE to own slaves; why didn't they just leave those slave owners, who CHOSE to have slaves, alone?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

much like IRs war and capital punishment examples... the question is not the black and white idea of whether or not it is ok to destroy "life"... but rather, when is it okay to destroy life

No, because with capital punishment, there is the idea of known consequences for a criminal act. It's not a matter of "when" with criminals that have done crimes to earn the death penalty; it's not like "well, at 1 month you can execute them, but at 9 months you can't." It's totally different. The fetus is NOT being killed because of any action it has chosen. Abortion is NOT a consequence that the fetus deserved; capital punishment is.

the majority... and if they are wrong, laws are changed...

I must say, this reminds me of the classic liberal argument that I see - when a Christian (for example) has a viewpoint that goes against most of society's opinions, we hear "oh, you're trying to force your opinion on us, you naughty Christian you!" And when a Christian holds an opinion that's in the majority, we hear "oh, just because the majority thinks it's right, doesn't mean it IS right - think of slavery!" And when we say, "hey, I thought you said I shouldn't force my opinion on you when it's a minority opinion, but that's exactly what you're doing to ME with YOUR minority opinion!", we hear "yes, but I'm RIGHT!" Well, what if I was right with MY minority opinion?

You can't have it both ways!

Personally, I think one-person-one-vote is the safest and fairest way.

EDIT - edited for clarity - I'm not saying Brownie uses this argument

[Rían]

And as far as personal experience - when I was 6 months pregnant with our second child, an ultrasound revealed that his legs were only little stubs. We were told that we could get an abortion, and some people couldn't understand why we wouldn't. This happened just after Christopher Reeve's accident. I pointed out that our child was able to move his arms and legs, and that this gave him more mobility than Christopher Reeve, and should we consider killing Christopher Reeve?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, because with capital punishment, there is the idea of known consequences for a criminal act. It's not a matter of "when" with criminals that have done crimes to earn the death penalty; it's not like "well, at 1 month you can execute them, but at 9 months you can't." It's totally different. The fetus is NOT being killed because of any action it has chosen. Abortion is NOT a consequence that the fetus deserved; capital punishment is.

its certainly not nearly as black and white as you suggest here. theres still the arbitrary nature of when do you kill a person and when do you just put him in jail for life or less. if a guy has a better lawyer chances are he wont get the death penalty. even if his crime was much worse then the next guy. and once again it also comes down to if you think there is a difference between a grown self contained adult and a group of cells. some do some dont. and no one is more right then the next on that issue. you cant really ever have a "right" answer. thats the problem.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I disagree with you here.

Several years ago, a guy at work said something like: "I don't understand why people get so upset about abortion. Why don't those who are against it just not have them and let those who are not against it have them?"

Struck by sudden inspiration (the one time in my life I knew what to say just then), I replied, "That's what people used to say about slavery."

Rian has a very good point. When we're talking about these options, it's obvious that pro-abortion means allowing the option of abortion, and anti-abortion means being opposed to the use of abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life (terms which to this point I have scrupulously used - I'm reconsidering), are just euphemisms which cloud the issue. What would we think if 150 years ago, the terms in the slavery debate had been 'pro-choice' and 'pro-free'??

Nobody would be pro-abortion in EVERY case... that EVERY pregnancy should have to be terminated by abortion, unless someone was working toward our own extinction... so it's a given that we're talking about favoring the option when desired, when we say 'pro-abortion'. Using 'pro-choice' simply allows us the luxury of talking around a very unpleasant issue (a form of denail, perhaps?).

I choose to call myself "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" because I am staunchly against making all abortion illegal. Certain methods (such as partial birth...ugh), yes, but not all. "Anti-abortion" gives the air of "we should make abortion illegal because then the problem will go away." I'm not saying that's what YOU'RE saying, but that's what many people, especially pro-choice, would see. Also, pro-life is a personal thing, and not an all encompassing thing (in my eyes). Having never been in a situation that would cause me to face this choice, I say that I would not have an abortion unless I had an ectopic pregnancy.

edit: I don't think abortion can be compared to slavery. If we do make abortion illegal, like we made slaverly illegal, can you imagine the surge of back-alley abortions? They're are extremely unsafe, and then you risk more than just the life of an unborn child, but also the mother, who is probably scared and alone.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And as far as personal experience - when I was 6 months pregnant with our second child, an ultrasound revealed that his legs were only little stubs. We were told that we could get an abortion, and some people couldn't understand why we wouldn't. This happened just after Christopher Reeve's accident. I pointed out that our child was able to move his arms and legs, and that this gave him more mobility than Christopher Reeve, and should we consider killing Christopher Reeve?

People told you to get an abortion?! I would never tell someone to get an abortion. Even though I'm pro-adoption, I wouldn't tell someone to give a child up for adoption either. That's an intensely personal choice, resting with the parents of the baby/cell blob/fetus.

*lurks*

[Lenya]

Abortion is not the answer. I believe that there will always be another way, you just have to search for it.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

What I do love is that any woman has the RIGHT to choose that course if she should so wish. It is her body, and as she must bear the burden, she should have the say.

I agree with this 100%. It is my choice whether or not to have an abortion. Fortunately, I've never been faced with that decision, but have friends who were confronted with it. They chose the course that was right for them at that time. However, that choice was not made FOR them, it was their decision to make.

Originally Posted by fenir

Its all about rights, and before you conservative lot shout to high heaven, yes even the unborn babies "rights". It really boils down to when you consider a life to be a life. At the moment of conception? one month in, two? Should the four splitting cells inside the uterus have the same rights as a woman with billions? Tell me where do you draw the line?

And I think the arguments for abstinence are a joke. These are the same people who think of drug addicts as just criminals with weak moral fibres and not as people suffering from a medical disease (addiction?), and people who think that gays have no right to marry, because homosexuality is an abomination. That view is called the religious right, though how right it is, one tends to wonder...

Right on! I have a vivid and painful memory of another group that called themselves the "moral majority" and as I recall, they were neither.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I must say, this is the classic liberal argument that I see - when a Christian (for example) has a viewpoint that goes against most of society's opinions, we hear "oh, you're trying to force your opinion on us, you naughty Christian you!" And when a Christian holds an opinion that's in the majority, we hear "oh, just because the majority thinks it's right, doesn't mean it IS right - think of slavery!" And when we say, "hey, I thought you said I shouldn't force my opinion on you when it's a minority opinion, but that's exactly what you're doing to ME with YOUR minority opinion!", we hear "yes, but I'm RIGHT!" Well, what if I was right with MY minority opinion?

i've never presented myself in any of those ways... or blamed anyone (you included ) of forcing their opinions upon me... the majority in our country determines the law... and if it conflicts with current law basically a two thirds majority is required to change things

at the present time a majority seem to be willing to allow abortion... if this changes, the laws will change

as i like to say... right and wrong are relative to the society we live in