A secular debate about abortion

[camoguard]

You had me at estopple.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Borrowed from atheistforums.com

The public interest also tilts in favor of granting an injunction,” Pratt said, because the federal government has threatened partial or total withholding from the state as much as $5 billion dollars a year in Medicaid funds, affecting almost 1 million residents.

“Denying the injunction could pit the federal government against the state of Indiana in a high-stakes political impasse,” Pratt said. “If dogma trumps pragmatism and neither side budges, Indiana’s most vulnerable citizens could end up paying the price as the collateral damage of a partisan battle.”

Somebody is acting like they have a lick of sense.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-2 ... judge.html

[Coito ergo sum]

[Tero]

Lawmakers ban anortion past 6 weeks
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/us/north- ... .html?c=us

What's next? Ban abortion that takes place after...what's earlier?...hangover that happened with the sex?

[Seth]

Lawmakers ban anortion past 6 weeks
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/us/north- ... .html?c=us

What's next? Ban abortion that takes place after...what's earlier?...hangover that happened with the sex?

Go read Roe v. Wade.

[PsychoSerenity]

Lawmakers ban anortion past 6 weeks
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/us/north- ... .html?c=us

What's next? Ban abortion that takes place after...what's earlier?...hangover that happened with the sex?

They're basing it on whether the foetus has detectable heartbeat. Did nobody explain to them that the heart is just a pump? It really doesn't carry any significant meaning and is certainly not the sort of thing to be making this sort of decision on.

[Seth]

Lawmakers ban anortion past 6 weeks
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/us/north- ... .html?c=us

What's next? Ban abortion that takes place after...what's earlier?...hangover that happened with the sex?

They're basing it on whether the foetus has detectable heartbeat. Did nobody explain to them that the heart is just a pump? It really doesn't carry any significant meaning and is certainly not the sort of thing to be making this sort of decision on.

Did anybody tell you that your opinion of the nature, significance or propriety of fetal heartbeat limits on abortion is of only marginal interest to the state legislature.

Many other people believe that life begins at conception, and their opinion is as valid as yours.

The purpose of a legislature is to reflect the social mores of the electorate and pass laws according to the will of the people.

Since the detectable fetal heartbeat is a determinable point in fetal development, just as the formation of the zygote is a determinable moment, it's an appropriate benchmark to use in regulating abortion...from the biological perspective. However, the legislature only has the authority under Roe v. Wade to regulate abortion at a time of its choosing consistent with the language of Roe v. Wade regarding the point in fetal development beyond which the state gains a legal interest in protecting the unborn child.

Which is why this exercise in pandering to the electorate will eventually be overturned, so there's no need to get all het-up about it.

[Cunt]

Life doesn't begin at conception. It began a long time ago. It seems really pointless to focus on a stage of fetal development like this.

Seems better to just let people have choice.

[FBM]

Life doesn't begin at conception. It began a long time ago. It seems really pointless to focus on a stage of fetal development like this.

Seems better to just let people have choice.

Is that to say that you believe in free will, then?

[Rum]

Life doesn't begin at conception. It began a long time ago. It seems really pointless to focus on a stage of fetal development like this.

Seems better to just let people have choice.

Is that to say that you believe in free will, then?

Sneaky.

[lordpasternack]

I believe life begins at conception - I just don't consider this fact to be significant, and find no ethical concern with women who, say, choose to terminate said life at 5 weeks post-conception.

[Coito ergo sum]

I believe life begins at conception - I just don't consider this fact to be significant, and find no ethical concern with women who, say, choose to terminate said life at 5 weeks post-conception.

I believe life begins pre-conception, since certainly eggs and sperm are not "dead" - they are living things. So is skin, blood and muscle -- it's living tissue.

I think the blur occurs when folks are talking about "life" as in "a human being." When does living tissue or living things acquire a legally protectible interest in survival?

This is why I am comfortable with a compromise position between the absolutes - the absolutists today say "conception" (or "fertilization") on the one hand and "birth" on the other -- but both of these cut-off points are essentially as arbitrary as picking any other time. They just "seem" less arbitrary because they have the illusion of being some sort of defined, black-and-white moment where it goes from this to that.

The birth moment doesn't make sense to me, because, babies can be born normally over a range of dates -- 40 weeks estimates your "due date" but 2 weeks early is not necessarily "early." And, if a c-section is called for, then the birth occurs at a scheduled time. So, if birth is the dividing line, then the difference between an abortion and a child with a right to live is arbitrary. It seems decidedly arbitrary that one could schedule a c-section or an abortion for 38 weeks, just depending on desire. If so, then why not schedule the c-section and then kill it? What's the difference?

The conception moment doesn't make sense to me either, because even though you have a knowable, defined moment of sperm meeting egg, the only things you have shortly after that are a few cells. They are dividing. They are a potential, but many of those potentials are expelled from the woman's body for one reason or another in "natural" abortions. A few cells, however, are a few cells, not a human being, yet.

So, somewhere in between seems to me to lie the point -- and it may even be different from pregnancy to pregnancy. But, at some point from conception on the fetus develops to the point where it is more of a human being than bunch of cells. It's that point that seems to me to make the most sense.

It is a difficult line to draw, and it will be imperfect, which sucks. But, as a practical matter, we can't have a society without this procedure.

[Seth]

Life doesn't begin at conception. It began a long time ago. It seems really pointless to focus on a stage of fetal development like this.

Seems better to just let people have choice.

Except, of course the "person" who has the most to lose by not being consulted about the "choice."

And therein lies the conundrum.

Your argument is fallacious because we DO focus on the stage of "fetal development" already. For hundred of years at least the stage of fetal development at which the "person" involved has a right to be protected against being murdered has been the moment of full delivery. Therefore your argument is invalid, and all that's going on is an adjustment in the specific time during fetal development at which such legal protections apply. This is a matter of law, and therefore societal determination, and not a matter of biology.

The biological fact is that from the moment the parental DNA combines and the zygote is formed, a new, unique living human being exists, and continues to exist and develop as a distinct living being at every point in time from that moment until death. The moment of birth is a rather arbitrary point in that constant state of change if you think about it. There are a few points in the existence of a human being that are identifiable as milestones. The first is the formation of the zygote. This is a known point in time after the fertilization of the egg by sperm that occurs about 22 to 26 hours after fertilization when the chromosomal material aligns along the spindle apparatus and a new, completely unique DNA identity is created. The second is implantation of the trophoblast into the uterine wall at about day 6 or 7, the third is the formation of the primitive streak at 3 weeks, which is when embryologists generally cease embryonic research for ethical reasons. The third is the transformation of the embryo to the fetus at 8 weeks (56 days).

According to estimates, over 90% of the 4500 designated structures of the adult body are already established - and can be distinguished - during the embryonic period (1). During the fetal period the organs that formed during the embryonic period grow and differentiate (organogenesis).

Source

After 8 weeks, it is a matter of continuing development of existing structures, not a formation of new structures.

Thus, it's not unreasonable to say, in the law, that a "person" exists, in his/her complete though undeveloped form, at 8 weeks.

Everything after that time, until death, is merely development (addition) and replacement of the differentiated cells of the complete formed human body.

So, depending on your beliefs, the murder of a person could logically and scientifically occur at any of those points. I tend to favor either 3 weeks, when it is possible that pain may be experienced, or 8 weeks, when the embryo becomes a fully-differentiated fetus with heartbeat and brain structure.

I think either is sufficient time for any woman to make the decision to abort or carry to term. You snooze, you lose. If you want to abort, do it early or don't do it at all. Pretty simple really. Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of having sex is becoming pregnant. One of the consequences of failing to make a decision when pregnant ought to be that you are barred from terminating the fetus after a particular stage of development.

[Seth]

I believe life begins at conception - I just don't consider this fact to be significant, and find no ethical concern with women who, say, choose to terminate said life at 5 weeks post-conception.

So, if I don't consider the fact that you are 20 years old to be significant, may I abort you post-partum? If not, why not?

[lordpasternack]

I believe life begins at conception - I just don't consider this fact to be significant, and find no ethical concern with women who, say, choose to terminate said life at 5 weeks post-conception.

So, if I don't consider the fact that you are 20 years old to be significant, may I abort you post-partum? If not, why not?

I am a complex, sentient, self-aware, thinking, feeling being, with memories, hopes and dreams, who has made a tangible impact for the better on a number of people's lives, and I will be mourned for those qualities if you decide to take such a decision arbitrarily.

There's also the crucial fact that I'm not inhabiting your body or otherwise trespassing against you that I am aware of - so there's no material reason why you in particular should be granted any right to take such action against me.