Win me over: Abortion

[AltF4]

Since the Debate Hall is pretty dead here, so I'm going to make a thread or two with a new flavor. This is a topic for which I don't have any strong convictions, or otherwise have some strong cognitive dissonance over. I may lean in one direction initially, and will argue for it to begin with, but am largely looking for others to come in and convince me otherwise.


Abortion:

I'm going to try to take a slightly different take on this debate, and hopefully everyone will keep to it. What bothers me about the typical rhetoric in this debate is that it's not a yes/no question as I see it. It's really a question about: "When in the process of pregnancy does the embryo become 'human'?"

I think that any reasonable person would agree that a group of a dozen cells can certainly not be considered "human" by any stretch of the definition. Any arguments I've heard of to the contrary have been religious in nature, and unconvincing even on those grounds. But on the other side, any reasonable person must conclude that a child after being birthed must be "human".

So where does the line get drawn? A typical answer is "at birth", but that seems rather inadequate. I can't help but feel that there is no relevant difference made during that time. Especially when you consider that modern scientific medicine has allowed premature babies to live far behind a typical birthing schedule.

If you're going to call the child human at time X, and not human at time X-10, then something important must have happened during those 10 minutes. But drawing the line so as to call a lump of hardly animate cells a human being seems equally absurd. The best I've heard is to draw the line at the point at which the unborn child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. Making this determination can be difficult to produce in practice, but maybe it's something to start with.

I bet many of you have given this thought. Win me over.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Having my own child has definitely changed my views on this subject.

I can see your point that calling a lump of cells in the uterus "human" can be a pretty big leap for some people. Yet even if that lump does not necessarily constitute a human being, the fact remains that had my son been removed from the womb at that point, human or not, he would not be making a mess at the breakfast table as I type this.

So while we may not ever be able to know exactly when a developing baby goes from being a clump of cells to what we consider to be human, I would argue that the distinction is irrelevant anyway. Even under the most difficult circumstances, a fertilized egg will usually become a baby if left alone for 40 weeks.

Instead, I suggest that we draw the line at the point of implantation. A fertilized egg cannot become a baby if it does not implant on the uterine wall (or somewhere else as in ectopic pregnancies, but those almost always naturally terminate anyway). To me, using this point represents the best kind of compromise; it eliminates messy metaphysical questions that there really are no answers to by changing the question from, "Should this lump of cells survive?" to "Can this lump of cells survive?"

This also leaves the Plan B pill on the table. Since all it does is prevent implantation, I see no harm in it. A non-implanted fertilized egg cannot become a baby under any circumstances, whereas once implantation occurs, it usually takes something drastic (like an abortion or a miscarriage) to halt the process.




This debate is an emotional one by its nature, and I tried my best to leave out anything inflammatory, so I say the following SIMPLY AS A PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND NOT AS A POINT OF ARGUMENT. I look at my son from time to time, and I can;t believe there was ever a time in my life when I was pro-choice.

 

[AltF4]

I will confess that I have no children of my own, and that may very well have an affect on my opinion. I don't like calling myself "pro-choice" because that seems to indicate something which I'm not. Correct me if I'm mistaken but the pro-choice movement tends to draw the line at birth do they not?

As Christopher Hitchens points out, the term "unborn child" exists for a reason. We do have a concept that a fully human person can exist while not yet being born. And that person deserves to have rights protected by society. Even if it's just the most basic right of to not be killed at someone's whim.

I am not very familiar with the Biology of this topic, so please chime in with something I'm missing here. A quick search on Wikipedia tells me that upon implantation, an embryo is only a blastocyst, which contains only 70-100 cells. This is exactly the problematic situation I had earlier. I can't seem to justify to myself calling that lump of cells human, deserving of societal rights.

Under no stretch of the imagination could it possess any kind of consciousness (while admitting that we have no reliable way of testing such a claim anyway) or independence. You yourself even seem to indicate that it is likely from that point to become a fully developed human. So I would still like to find somewhere later down the line.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, if you're criteria for drawing the line is the possession of "human attributes," we should probably try to define exactly what that means.

So what makes a human human? Is it consciousness? Is it certain physical attributes? Is it based on the passage of time (a human exists after the first trimester)? What to you constitutes a human?

 

[AltF4]

Well, it's difficult to call something human if it doesn't possess any human-like attributes. So that would seem to be at least a minimum requirement. The obvious problem that we're having is that nature doesn't care about our conceptions of what is and is not "human". There isn't any built-in checkpoint that we can easily point to and have it be self-evident that an embryo has become a human at that point. What I'm looking for, I guess, is a the least arbitrary and least unsatisfactory answer.

But back to the task at hand. Some attributes and properties which would be necessary conditions for being a human?

- I mentioned consciousness, but really I shouldn't have. It's not a very reliable, nor scientific notion. So I retract any statements about it. How could such a thing be measured? It's not useful to talk of it at all.

- Brain function seems to be most important, as I see it. If you cut a man's leg off, he is still a man. If you cut his arm off, he is still a man. If you replace his lungs and heart with machines, he is still a man. But the brain is different. You can't remove someone's brain and have them be human.

And biologically speaking, brain function is the most important thing which separates us from other animals. So I would appeal to anyone who knows more of the surrounding biology to speak about at what point higher brain functions appear. Perhaps determining the quality of an unborn child could be determined in the same imperfect manner that coma patients are measured for sentience.

 

[Riddle]

I'm going to try and revive this topic because its one that gets argued about a lot.

My mom runs a health clinic in an inter-city school. Its filled with latinos and blacks and is very poor. Nobody gets a very good education, death rates are high, they have police, people go to jail, people get stabbed; the list goes on and on. But It'll suffice to say that its a horrible environment for almost everything.

One of those things that it is horrible for is child-raising. However, these uneducated, poor kids get pregnant at an alarming rate. My mom sees a couple of pregnant girls as young as 13 every week. A lot of these kids get abortions but some do not. These become uneducated teenage mothers who are very poor. These kids have fathers who are absent or in jail, their mothers are often neglectful and very poor and they have an awful upbringing. They stay in the city and go to bad schools get a bad education and many of them become teenage mothers and continue the cycle.

At this point you may ask what this has to do with the subject at hand. If abortion was limited in any way these births would increase and the number of lower class and impoverished would begin to climb. Our inner-cities would be filled with drug dealers and gangs and more teenage mothers. Our jails would start filling up and their would still be a huge amount of criminals on the street.

Whats the solution? Preventing these people from having children in anyway that we can. Cheap or free contraceptives access to Plan B and abortions at any time. This would ultimately could greatly improve the quality of life and is not a particlarly difficult solution. Contraceptives and Birth Control are often not accepted or used (the whole "I won't get pregnant, someone else will get pregnant") and we need a backup plan. Plan B doesn't always work it isn't taken fast enough or it isn't available whatever the problem the egg gets fertilized. At this point the only option is abortion and abortion stops thousands of babies from being born (I don't actually know the number). Its often the only option and while there are always those who want to keep their babies, a lot of people with unplanned pregnancies do get abortions.

The fact of the matter is that abortions are a practical solution to a horrible problem.

The moral ramifications of this problem are a whole different matter though. However I think the line of childbirth is still the best one. The moment a child is actually born it becomes independent of its mother and truly a human being in my mind. Humans aren't symbiotes or parasites, they live indepently and that should, imo, be the cut-off point.

Feel free to rip this apart, I would relish the activity.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm really not sure how you can justify the moral ramifications of "stop[ping] thousands of babies from being born" (your words) because they might, or even probably, will have terrible lives. Who are we to decide that just because your life will suck, you shouldn't have the opportunity to live it anyway?

I agree with you that teen pregnancy is bad, and even worse when those teens can't support themselves, much less a baby. But there are other ways to solve that problem than abortion. You're suggesting that abortion be used as birth control, which is the most morally problematic position to take in this debate.

 

[Riddle]

Abortion should not be used as birth control. EVER.

The truth though is that it will. People are not reliable about birth control. Thats why there are so many unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Morally speaking I completely agree with you but we have to think practically. If we could somehow force or convince people who didn't want children or couldn't support a child to take birth control I would do it in a heartbeat. But until that is possible we need to pursue further options.

I believe that the problems in cities is great enough that preventing a group of cells from ever becoming a child is a small price to pay to improve the living conditions of millions.

Can you give me an alternative way to fix this problem? You can disagree with my solution as much as you want but it won't change the fact that its very likely the most practical solution to a horrible problem despite its high price (depending on how you look at it).

Many abortions are similar to life imprisonment or the death penalty, are you against that? In those situations we are taking away the basic right of life and liberty because of a crime you comitted. While any baby born has yet to do anything harmful it will add to overpopulation and ultimately indirectly, along with the rest of the babies being born, lead to deaths and starvation in our country.

Would you kill someone you knew was going to cause the death of 10 others? I know I would.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Would you kill someone you knew was going to cause the death of 10 others? I know I would.

How do you know this? How do you know that the scenario you're describing will come to pass?

You presume (perhaps even correctly) that unwanted babies will lead to "deaths and starvation in our country." Maybe they will, but maybe they won't! Just as you can claim that those babies will lead to suffering, I can claim that one of them will cure cancer or AIDS or solve world hunger. That doesn't make either of our claims anything more than baseless conjecture.

So I don't see how you can justify abortions, something that you are morally opposed to, on the grounds that something bad might happen.

 

[AltF4]

I disagree with even the premise of your recent disagreement. And this is what I was getting at in the OP. I'm trying to break away at this "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" dichotomy.

I hope nobody here is seriously suggesting that any male who masturbates should be locked away for murder. Nor that any female who ovulates without becoming pregnant is equally guilty of murder. It's because there is in fact a profound difference between preventing life from beginning, and ending it after it has been started.

We can all agree that preventing a human from being born is not and cannot be morally or socially wrong. (For reasons stated above) And we can all equally agree that ending a human's life after it has started is the definition of murder.

The REASONS behind getting an abortion are moot. What matters is the disagreement about when a mass of cells becomes human. I'd like to hear what Riddle has to say in regards to that.


EDIT: Your first post, Riddle, is strikingly unconvincing to me. As it seems to be the equivalent to "Why don't we just round up everyone with AIDS and shoot them?" Aggregately, would this "save" lives? Quite probably. Yet I defy you to make that statement without a strong sense of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Riddle]

Well the intentionally offensive statements did raise activity lol.

Anyways, I'm going to have to back off here. I agree with AltF4 on his moral arguments. Utilitarianism is nearly always morally unacceptable.

Anyways, I am pro-choice but I believe it should be relatively difficult to get an abortion. That way abortion can be used in the event of say, ****, but it won't be used as birth control nearly as often.

The true solution to the abortion argument is promoting contraceptives and birth control. However, to answer the proposed question: I think that life begins at birth and not 1 second before. As stated before birth is the time at which humans gain independence and this I believe is part of the definition of humanity. That however doesn't stop the fact that abortion should be somewhat limited. Kind of like very strict gun safety/control laws that still allow you to get guns legally but make it very difficult.

 

[Sucumbio]

"When in the process of pregnancy does the embryo become 'human'?"

First lets re-ask the question more accurately so that it can be answered and so it may address the issue you're referring to.

"When in the process of Fetal Development does the Fetus become human?" - source

I make this distinction because the embryonic stage is actually stage 3 of the human fetal developmental process, and so it's already human by the time it's an embryo. The following is the progression a human takes from the beginning to birth.

CONCEPTION

When sperm is deposited in the ******, it travels through the cervix and into the Fallopian tubes.

ZYGOTE

2.) A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell, and the resulting cell is called a zygote. The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a child. Half of the genetic information comes from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm. The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form a ball of cells.

BLASTOCYST

The zygote continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

The blastocyst reaches the womb (uterus) around day 5, and implants into the uterine wall on about day 6. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the lining of the uterus has grown and is ready to support a baby. The blastocyst sticks tightly to the lining, where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream.

EMBRYO

The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation. It leads to the various cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells).

There is rapid growth, and the baby's main external features begin to take form.
----------------------------------

note: The Zygote is a HUMAN Zygote. Not a chicken zygote, or a hamster zygote. A Human one. At this point, it WILL BE BORN HUMAN. Or die trying. Or die forcibly at the hands of external measures. To suggest otherwise is not only inaccurate, but foolish. It has nothing to do with anything other than pure scientific fact. The Zygote has Human DNA, it must. be. human. and it must. be. born. only disease, complications, abortion, etc can stop that.

SO to answer your question, the Zygote stage. True it can't walk around, talk, breath, eat, ****, do all the things PEOPLE can do, it's not a Person yet, but it IS human... it's a human Zygote. And as such, ... what? Should be protected under some right to life? No, actually. People have little real rights, let alone a blob of cells. I believe a mother should have final say in whether or not her parasitic-like organism she's carrying around should be allowed to pop out. That's another story. Just wanted to answer -your- question, and accurately.

I think that life begins at birth and not 1 second before.

Well you're entitled to your belief even if it's innacurate. As stated above, "life" begins at the moment of conception, when the Zygote is formed. What you're saying is more about Living. Big difference. A zygote can't go and buy a car, or shoot hoops, or eat a pbnj sammich... or post on a message forum. That's what a GROWN human can do. A Born one. Abortion is all about killing your Zygote/embryo/human life form -before- its born. There's even some abortions, coined "late-term" or postnatal (ew) where the doctor will suck the baby's brains out -after- it's come out the mother. GROSS. GHASTLY. real...

So, no, Riddle, Life doesn't begin at Birth. It begins at Conception, and Living (whatever you may hold that to be) begins at birth.

 

[AltF4]

Oh, good, I was hoping someone with more knowledge of biology would come in.

I think I want to try to make clearer what I was trying to say. This is merely a problem of terminology, for which I may be to blame. I'm not at all well versed in this sort of thing, so excuse the lack of precise terms. And thank you for correcting me in my use of them.

By "human" I was trying to imply a being which is deserving of societal rights. Something which, as a whole, is a "human being". I am a "human being" and so are you. At one point, I was merely a blob of cells. And as a society, we do not offer equal rights to mere blobs of cells. You have to be a "human being".

So if I may quote you...

note: The Zygote is a HUMAN Zygote. Not a chicken zygote, or a hamster zygote. A Human one. At this point, it WILL BE BORN HUMAN. Or die trying. Or die forcibly at the hands of external measures. To suggest otherwise is not only inaccurate, but foolish. It has nothing to do with anything other than pure scientific fact. The Zygote has Human DNA, it must. be. human. and it must. be. born. only disease, complications, abortion, etc can stop that.

I'm not sure what the point of this paragraph is. I think it might be refuting a point that I didn't make, but perhaps wasn't clear enough about not making. Surely, I was not trying to imply that a human zygote could grow into a dog. My use of the word "human" is not to draw contrast to other animals, but rather other objects which are not "a person". (If you prefer that term)

I think the fact that you have to say "Human Zygote" is demonstrative of the fact that it's not "completely human". If it were fully human, then you could just say "person", or "child". I'm splitting hairs, I know, but I'm trying to be clear not make a point.


I want to discuss the point at which you can speak of the fetus as a human. (Human as a noun.) And not a "human fetus". (Human as an adjective.) To use human as an adjective is to say: "human-like". I don't want something "human-like". I want to talk about when it is a complete human.

 

[Jam Stunna]

This is an impossible debate then, because we're always going to come back to, "Well, that doesn't mean human to me." We can't even talk about this because we're not defining the terms in the same way.

That's why abortion debates always devolve into emotional shouting matches, because there's really no science here, or at least none that will answer the question of what it means to be human in a satisfactory way.

 

[Sucumbio]

This is an impossible debate then, because we're always going to come back to, "Well, that doesn't mean human to me." We can't even talk about this because we're not defining the terms in the same way.

Not at all, Jam we can so debate this. He's made a clear distinction is all, which yes, my "note" was fully intended on clearing the way for. It's of paramount importance to signify and understand the difference between life and living, blob-o-cells and baby.

I want to discuss the point at which you can speak of the fetus as a human. (Human as a noun.) And not a "human fetus". (Human as an adjective.) To use human as an adjective is to say: "human-like". I don't want something "human-like". I want to talk about when it is a complete human.

Absolutely, that is the key to it all, right there.

The reason why I made that note, why I so-bolded the Zygote phase in particular, is because there is a path involved.

huge statement: A Human Zygote will become human, and as such is subject to the Laws of Humanity.

This is a fundamental break with traditional thinking on the subject. Normally we see the zygote as having no natural rights, fellow "human" rights to speak of, because it's not ... coalesced. However, this ... lack of form SHOULD be irrelevant -because- we know it won't become a dog by chance. It can only ever grow into a human.

This same distinctiveness is actually employed like crazy in law. Minor vs Adult. A minor, is still afforded certain "inalienable human rights" and yet society imposes its own restrictions based on that status, based on their development, if you will.

So too should a Zygote be viewed. In essence, think of it as a REALLY young child. So young it's not even developed yet. Euphemistically it's been in jokes. "Who was that Fetus you cheated on me with," meaning who's the young gal/guy you cheated on me with. But I submit that in all practical meanings of the word, a Fetus, regardless of its developmental stage (Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo), will eventually be a Newborn, and as such deserves consideration as a Human being -especially- because abortion is the act of terminating said fetus during these stages of development.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That's pretty much my position as well- it doesn't matter when a zygote/blastocyst/fetus becomes human, all that matters is that it will become human if left alone.

 

[Riddle]

@Sucumbio

I'm not trying to define life biologically here. I just believe that "human life" is the point at which humans gain rights and I believe this is where they are born. A human zygote may turn into a human but it isn't a human. I could take this one step farther. A human egg isn't going to turn into a dog or a chicken its going to turn into a human or die. Obviously this is different because it hasn't been fertilized but the basis remains the same.

Just because something will turn into a human doesn't mean it is a human or deserves the same rights as humans. Give me some reason why a zygote deserves rights other than its ability to turn into a human, because for all intents and purposes it is not a human.

 

[Sucumbio]

Just because something will turn into a human doesn't mean it is a human or deserves the same rights as humans.

Well sure. A fetus does not deserve the right to bear arms. Or the right to due process. Or the right to collect alimony. It does not have the obligation to pay taxes. It cannot walk, talk or sing. It can't dance.

But is that the rights we're referring to? Is that what Human is? No... we're referring to one right, actually. One truth. The Right To Exist. Why should a Zygote have this right? Because of its potential. Existence is a self-righteous state. We can take this to mean something very simple, or something very complex.

Simple: A Zygote, or "pre-birth human", has as much right to exist as a "post-birth human."

Complex: Because a Zygote's worth is based solely on potential, its existence serves no purpose other than to realize that potential. To deny a Zygote its purpose, is to deny a Zygote's worth and therefore its potential.

 

[Riddle]

Are you against the killing of all animals? Are you a vegetarian? Animals have potential to. Some (dolphins) think complexly, **** for pleasure, mate for life. Things that humans do as well. Should they have an unalienable right to life?

Let me again, go down the slippery slope of your argument. It is unarguable that the egg or the sperms only function is to create another human. Should humans be forced to procreate as much as possible? After all, everytime an egg isn't fertilized its purpose is denied and so is its worth and potential.

 

[Sucumbio]

Are you against the killing of all animals?

We shouldn't kill endangered species if at all possible.

Are you a vegetarian?

nope.

Animals have potential to. Some (dolphins) think complexly, **** for pleasure, mate for life. Things that humans do as well. Should they have an unalienable right to life?

Dunno... if you asked them they'd prolly say yes, though. That's also completely missing my point. It's not about what gives a human the right to life. It's that being human = a right to be alive, so being a zygote = a right to be alive, because a human = zygote (in lesser form).

Let me again, go down the slippery slope of your argument. It is unarguable that the egg or the sperms only function is to create another human. Should humans be forced to procreate as much as possible? After all, everytime an egg isn't fertilized its purpose is denied and so is its worth and potential.

Again this has nothing to do with what I said. Lets back up a bit as I feel we've gone tangent.

My original statement is this: A Human Zygote will become human, and as such is subject to the Laws of Humanity.

An egg alone cannot become a human being. Nor a sperm. Only when combined can this happen. Therefore, the combination of egg and sperm, aka Zygote, IS human, because by no other means can a human be created. It's all a matter of developmental stages.

Sperm + Egg > Zygote > Blastocyst > Embryo > Fetus > Newborn > Infant > Child > Teen > Adult

Notice that at each and every stage, one leads to the next. Also notice that at each stage we're dealing with ONE entity, except for the first stage, in which there are two. This is not only important, but goes towards proof of what I'm saying. You cannot skip any steps. A Newborn cannot become a newborn right from Zygote, it's gotta go through 3 developments first. These developments are simply means of describing the various stages of human life.

Now I know what the OP is asking. When on this timeline does the lifeform gain "rights" the same as a Newborn. Your posit is that it's not until Newborn. Mine is way back at Zygote. Key difference? Newborn is outside the womb, the preceding steps are inside the womb.

This distinction in habitat for the lifeform -should- be irrelevant, but in your view it's not, it's paramount. It matters... the fact that it's not yet out of the womb means it has no rights the same as a lifeform that -has- left the womb.

Why do I challenge this? Because the location of the life form is irrelevant. The right of a human to exist is as much inalienable as is the right for a zygote to exist. This is because the zygote will be a human in approximately 9 months time. This 9 months of life is no less living than the decades to follow. It may be in a strictly subdued manner, with no freedom to roam around, or exist alone, but it's still alive. And it's still human. I simply cannot allow time to be a factor in deciding if life has truly begun or not. Not when all the evidence points to the contrary.

Also I want to clear something up in case there's any misunderstanding. I am NOT advocating for or against abortion. I am simply showing that abortion IS killing a human. Not an alien blob of cells. To think otherwise is to conveniently dismiss abortion as an inert act, with no ramifications, because its not a "human life" yet. And this is just plain inaccurate.

 

[Riddle]

How is the existence of the fetus/human irrelevant? If its inside the womb then its not living independently. Just because it can become a human doesn't mean it is. You make broad statements like 'thats inaccurate" and "this is irrelevant" but you don't back them up with anything but your opinion.

Not when all the evidence points to the contrary.

What evidence?

A zygote isn't a human. Just because it may become a human doesn't mean it is one. Abortion isn't an inert act there are ramifications. Its just as bad as killing dolphins for food like they do in Japan or eating meat (which I do). That doesn't change the fact that in my eyes until a fetus leaves the uterus that it isn't human. Does that mean abortion should be legal? Maybe not. It is after all still killing something (we obviously both agree that it is alive).

I challenge you to provide me data or give me any sort of evidence showing that fetuses are humans.

 

[Crimson King]

First, in response to Riddle's assessment that "abortion should not be a form of birth control," I stand by the notion if someone is irresponsible to see it as such, they probably will be an awful parent ANYWAY.

Secondly, and most importantly, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice means you are FOR a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. And while Jam's correct in trying to find where the human life begins or ends will lead to a never solving argument, it's irrelevant because the baby needs its mother to survive, and she should have the choice to have a legal abortion if she so chooses.

 

[Riddle]

I'm not saying that abortion shouldn't be used to prevent children from being born to terrible mothers. Instead, my point is that abortion should not be used as a replacement for birth control. And I agree with your opinion on pro-choiceness

 

[AltF4]

huge statement: A Human Zygote will become human, and as such is subject to the Laws of Humanity.

I don't see why you can't make this same statement about an egg immediately following conception. It WILL become human... unless something goes wrong.

But I think you're emphasizing the wrong word in your sentence. It is: It will BECOME human. Which is to say that it is, in its current state, NOT a human. And thus not deserving of human rights.

I've posited higher brain function as a possible qualifier for humanity, I'd like to see some thoughts on that.

 

[Riddle]

Whats your definition of higher brain function and how is that possible to quantify?

Acording to [source] brain development takes place mostly in weeks 27 to 30 of pregnancy. I think this seems like a reasonably enforcable/measurable cut off point for abortion.

However is this the right way to do it? Brain function is important obviously but when the fetus gains brain function is it a human? I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about that. Its very hard to define the term 'human' but it seems to be that the best definition is still birth. This is a very clear-cut time in which the baby becomes an independent life-form and is undeniably human. Why should we use an earlier cut-off?

 

[Jam Stunna]

Acording to [source] brain development takes place mostly in weeks 27 to 30 of pregnancy. I think this seems like a reasonably enforcable/measurable cut off point for abortion.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/04/27/extreme_preemies/

And then there was Amillia Sonja Taylor, a Florida girl born after just 21 weeks and six days of gestation, weighing less than 10 ounces and measuring 9 1/2 inches long out of the womb. When she was discharged from a Miami hospital in February 2007, four months after her birth, her story attracted worldwide attention and mesmerized the public. Amillia's doctors and parents spoke of her survival as a "miracle" and described the minimal consequences of her prematurity, along with the prediction that she would have a relatively normal childhood. She celebrated her first birthday last October.

A baby has survived as early as 21 weeks. I'm not so sure that requiring higher brain function is a good line to draw.

Secondly, and most importantly, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice means you are FOR a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. And while Jam's correct in trying to find where the human life begins or ends will lead to a never solving argument, it's irrelevant because the baby needs its mother to survive, and she should have the choice to have a legal abortion if she so chooses.

This seems like an implicit admission that something human is being destroyed, but that we should allow it because a mother has a right to end a human life that is dependent on her. Does that apply to after birth as well?

 

[Riddle]

The statement about the extremely premature babies is interesting, because it makes it very hard to draw the line for brain growth. Oh well =/. I still stand my opinion that birth should be the cutoff.

 

[Crimson King]

This seems like an implicit admission that something human is being destroyed, but that we should allow it because a mother has a right to end a human life that is dependent on her. Does that apply to after birth as well?

The line is drawn after birth because the baby doesn't require any one person to survive: it can be put up for adoption, cared for by the father or other people, etc. As long as it's still developing and requires the mother to survive, then the mother should have the right to terminate. The case you linked to is a really rare case. Most early births by more than a few weeks end in death.

Also, there are moral ramifications from being staunchly pro-life. What of the woman who is ***** by family members or a stranger? Should she be forced to carry the burden forever? I've known a friend whose girlfriend was molested and ***** by a step-father when she was younger. She STILL has the emotional scarring from it some 10 - 12 years later. Had she gotten pregnant, should she have been forced to keep it?

Also, what about the mother who is in danger of dying if she keeps the pregnancy to term?

Yes, abortion is usually done for other reasons, but by ghettoing oneself in pro-life, you hurt these people too. It's not my decision whether each and every case is valid, but the mother's.

 

[KrazyGlue]

This is an impossible debate then, because we're always going to come back to, "Well, that doesn't mean human to me." We can't even talk about this because we're not defining the terms in the same way.

That's why abortion debates always devolve into emotional shouting matches, because there's really no science here, or at least none that will answer the question of what it means to be human in a satisfactory way.

I'm gonna have to agree with Jam here.

My personal opinion is that higher brain function should be the cutoff (like CK pointed out, those cases of 21 week gestation periods are extremely rare). I believe that while a fetus is still dependent on the mother (meaning it couldn't survive on its own) it is not an independent human and therefore shouldn't receive the rights of human. Essentially it's still just another part of its mother's body, and she can do whatever she wants to her own body.

However, I would also understand if someone believed that my opinion was wrong or even offensive. There's many unanswerable questions involved in this, and I honestly don't think we're ever going to reach a consensus, nor do I think anyone is necessarily right or wrong.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Also, there are moral ramifications from being staunchly pro-life. What of the woman who is ***** by family members or a stranger? Should she be forced to carry the burden forever? I've known a friend whose girlfriend was molested and ***** by a step-father when she was younger. She STILL has the emotional scarring from it some 10 - 12 years later. Had she gotten pregnant, should she have been forced to keep it?

Also, what about the mother who is in danger of dying if she keeps the pregnancy to term?

Yes, abortion is usually done for other reasons, but by ghettoing oneself in pro-life, you hurt these people too. It's not my decision whether each and every case is valid, but the mother's.

There are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't mean the exception should be the rule. I'm not opposed to abortion in the case of ****/incest and for legitimate medical reasons. Yet the vast majority of abortions are not for those reasons.

As long as we're throwing out anecdotes, I know a woman who gave birth at 24 weeks, still below the threshold for higher brain activities (as we've defined it). That baby is now a year old and walking. It may be rare now, but as technology progresses, it will become more common.

 

[AltF4]

I don't understand why a fetus being born at 21-24 weeks and eventually surviving is a counter-argument to defining humanity at brain functionality.

If you like, I would be happy to amend my statement to say: Abortion should be illegal after either brain development and function can be demonstrated, or birth. (Also including the exceptions that you guys outlined above)

 

[Sucumbio]

Just because it can become a human doesn't mean it is.

Just because it may become a human doesn't mean it is one.

I challenge you to provide me data or give me any sort of evidence showing that fetuses are humans.

Actually your own words have done it for me. Notice you use words like "can" and "may". This is the inaccuracy I'm referring to. It's not Can. It's not May. It's WILL. It's an absolute.

Evidence that fetuses are humans? Again we have to re-think, re-evaluate our working definition of Human. "What is a Man? A miserable pile of secrets!" What is a human? Does it HAVE to have higher brain function? Are brain-dead people no longer people? *******, what of them?

No, the evidence is self explanatory, in my little time line up there. A human being just looks different early on in life, while it's still in the womb. It acts differently, has different requirements. But these differences are NOT justification for treating it differently in terms of the One Right, the right to exist. We don't have to start assigning SSNs to fetuses. We should however be cognizant of the fact, that if abortion is chosen, it's abortion of a human being. Why? Because to suggest otherwise is to suggest that abortion of a fetus may Not result in the abortion of a human being. You cannot abort a fetus, and still get a baby out of it. Kill the fetus, kill the baby.

I don't see why you can't make this same statement about an egg immediately following conception. It WILL become human... unless something goes wrong.

Well that's technically what I -have- done. Zygote is the state of egg immediately after conception, it's literally instantaneous, sperm + egg = zygote. The state of things once an egg is fertilized, is the creation of a human. Yes, it'll become post-birth human in 9 months. Post-birth humans can walk, talk, sing, dance, etc. Pre-birth humans cannot. But -I- want to emphasize the importance of reclassifying Human as Pre-birth and Post-birth. That way we can all agree that Abortion is the killing of a Human, in particular, a pre-birth one.

But I think you're emphasizing the wrong word in your sentence. It is: It will BECOME human. Which is to say that it is, in its current state, NOT a human. And thus not deserving of human rights.

Well yes, this distinction is why it's more accurate to classify humans in general as being either pre-birth or post-birth. This way we can qualify the life form as being human from start (conception) to finish (death). Abortion is simply the act of bringing about a human's death, while in the pre-birth phase of life.

I've posited higher brain function as a possible qualifier for humanity, I'd like to see some thoughts on that.

As stated above, I question the logic of this idea. Someone who is literally incapable of higher or even lower brain function, can still be classified as "human" even while they are classified as "brain-dead."

Then again, "Higher Brain Functions in the brain are maintained not by the brain centers or by brain mass but by systems of interacting components." A Fetus also enjoys this complex unity of systemic dependence on brain function and body function. Therefore if Humanity begins with the onset of higher brain function, this would suggest Humanity begins with the creation of a human being, which brings us back to "when does that happen?" From my eyes its at the moment of conception. Not because it will "become" human eventually or after 9 months. It's already human, it just looks different (somewhat), acts different (somewhat), and has different requirements for living (somewhat).

As for the pro life/choice arguments, I'm with CK. Mom's got the right to yay or nay her baby. It's her body, carrying it around. If she chooses to kill the human growing inside her, that's her prerogative.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, people in a persistent vegetative state are considered human, just like a zygote is considered human. But actually the right to choose whether to keep them alive is often placed in the hands of their closest relatives (i.e. spouse, parents, etc.). Of course that is also a debate of its own.

Anyway, I do think the mom should generally have the right to choose what to do, but I don't think the choice should be available right before birth. I mean, I was born a week early as a perfectly functioning baby, and I wouldn't be alive today if my mom had chosen to have an abortion the day before. I think at that point the baby is definitely old enough to be considered a human that deserves human rights.

I personally disagree that the point of conception should be that cutoff either. No woman knows at the point of conception that she is pregnant, and therefore can't really have any choice. Some would argue that that's a good thing and that a mother should never have the option of having an abortion, and honestly I don't know what I'd argue back. The zygote will eventually become a human, so if that's what someone considers to be a person, I can't say they're wrong (although I would argue that it's unfair to the mother who may have been ***** or have medical problems with birth).

 

[Riddle]

What is your cutoff point KG? You see if your mom had aborted you a day before you were born you wouldn't be here but you wouldn't be here if you were aborted at like 7 weeks either. I still think that the cutoff point should be birth and nobody has persuaded me otherwise.

@ Sucumbio

I truly don't believe that a pre-birth 'human' as you put it is human. Its a zygote that may become human if it isn't aborted or their aren't human but it isn't a human. Humans and human zygotes are just different.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What is your cutoff point KG? You see if your mom had aborted you a day before you were born you wouldn't be here but you wouldn't be here if you were aborted at like 7 weeks either. I still think that the cutoff point should be birth and nobody has persuaded me otherwise.

As I've stated, the cutoff I'm in favor of is at the point of higher brain function.

You see, 7 weeks before my birth, I couldn't have survived on my own without my mother. However, the day before I was born I could have survived on my own and it would have been unfair to kill what essentially was a perfectly functioning baby that was just about to come out. The only difference between the day before by birth and the day of my birth is that I'm in a different location on the latter day.

 

[Jam Stunna]

As I've stated, the cutoff I'm in favor of is at the point of higher brain function.

You see, 7 weeks before my birth, I couldn't have survived on my own without my mother. However, the day before I was born I could have survived on my own and it would have been unfair to kill what essentially was a perfectly functioning baby that was just about to come out. The only difference between the day before by birth and the day of my birth is that I'm in a different location on the latter day.

Do you mean you personally couldn't survive 7 weeks before your birth (due to some medical condition), or that babies in general aren't viable at that time? Because that's not the case.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Do you mean you personally couldn't survive 7 weeks before your birth (due to some medical condition), or that babies in general aren't viable at that time? Because that's not the case.

I meant in my case, not babies in general. Although isn't it fairly rare for an infant to survive if it is born 8 weeks prematurely?

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Sucumbio

I truly don't believe that a pre-birth 'human' as you put it is human. Its a zygote that may become human if it isn't aborted or their aren't human but it isn't a human. Humans and human zygotes are just different.

Come again?

Anyway I thought about something last night... to present this in a wholly new fashion. Algebraically!

a Zygote isn't an Infant. True statement.
a Zygote isn't an Adult. True statement.
an Infant is a Human. True statement.
an Adult is a Human. True statement.

Z is not I AND Z is not A
I is H AND A is H.

Z is not (I is H) AND Z is not (A is H)
Z is not H AND Z is not H
Z is not H

So as we can see, indeed a Zygote is not a Human.

As I see it, we have 2 options for the side of 'killing fetuses is wrong.'

1.) Make a set of Rights for Fetuses.
2.) Redefine "Human" to include Fetuses. (as I am proposing with pre-birth/post-birth)

As I've stated, the cutoff I'm in favor of is at the point of higher brain function.

That's not bad, and as I pointed out from the article on higher brain function, such functions are established during the time full mind-body systemics are established...

I'd go for week 6 myself, its when the brain and heart autonomous system is up and running. But either way it puts it within weeks 6-12 or first trimester which is far better than it being the day you're born.

I meant in my case, not babies in general. Although isn't it fairly rare for an infant to survive if it is born 8 weeks prematurely?

"Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows." -source

 

[KrazyGlue]

"Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows." -source

Huh, interesting. I stand corrected. I guess technology is improving!

Although the study also said this:

But Parikh says parents are concerned about more than just a baby's survival. Premature infants are at very high risk of devastating disabilities, including paralysis, blindness, hearing loss and mental ***********. He says he looks forward to follow-up studies of babies when they are 2½ years old. By that time, doctors will have a better idea of whether the babies' survival came at a very high cost.