A secular debate about abortion

[Blind groper]

The basic difference between killing an adult and aborting a fetus is that the adult is human and the fetus is not.


The difference is based, as it must be, on brain size. If the brain is too small to permit thinking and self awareness, then it is not human. An early term fetus will have a brain no bigger than the brain of an earthworm, and has the awareness of an earthworm. I have no qualms about cutting an earthworm in half with my garden spade accidentally, when digging. I see no problem aborting a fetus with a brain so tiny that it is far from human.

Nor is the tired old argument about "potential human" valid. If you wanted to protect every "potential human", you would have to force every woman to be perpetually pregnant between puberty and menopause, in order to avoid depriving a "potential human" of its chance at life.

Mind you, I might be persuaded to assisting in the duty of creating those pregnancies......

[lordpasternack]

I contend that it is human life, in a pedantic sense - but I don't believe that it is a person. That's the distinction.

[rachelbean]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

[Coito ergo sum]

The basic difference between killing an adult and aborting a fetus is that the adult is human and the fetus is not.


The difference is based, as it must be, on brain size. If the brain is too small to permit thinking and self awareness, then it is not human.

Yes, but not all unborn children are fetuses by this definition. My daughter was born at 38 weeks. Was she a fetus or a baby at 37 1/2 weeks?

An early term fetus will have a brain no bigger than the brain of an earthworm, and has the awareness of an earthworm. I have no qualms about cutting an earthworm in half with my garden spade accidentally, when digging. I see no problem aborting a fetus with a brain so tiny that it is far from human.

Nor is the tired old argument about "potential human" valid. If you wanted to protect every "potential human", you would have to force every woman to be perpetually pregnant between puberty and menopause, in order to avoid depriving a "potential human" of its chance at life.

Mind you, I might be persuaded to assisting in the duty of creating those pregnancies......

The fetal stage starts at about 8 weeks and continues until birth. So, the question becomes, when is the cut-off point? I think for most abortions, the first 3 months ought to be plenty of time. I would not have any cut-off for situations that threaten the life of the mother.

[Blind groper]

Coito

That is a good, rational argument.

[lordpasternack]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Yep - that's a much biggrin difference.

One thing that always gets me about this argument, though, is that one day it will likely be possible to incubate a fetus to full-term, outside of a woman's body. Or, even sooner, it will become feasible to transplant fetuses into surrogate mothers and have them brought to term that way.

And there will likely come a case hot on the heels of any such advancement, when some "pro-life" doctor removes a fetus from a woman intending to abort, has it incubated or gestated to full-term, and then compels the biological mother to come and accept the baby.

If the predominant concern that feminists have really is the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, then they should have no problems with this happening. After all, the biological mother clearly chose what to do with her own body - but there was nothing in that which stated that she had an express right to have the fetus's life terminated, if the fetus were living once outside her body. And certainly, there is no way that the biological mother could interfere with the fetus if it came to be inside another woman's body.

If feminists have more invested in the issue of abortion than bodily autonomy, as I suspect they do - then they are going to have to seriously tighten and refine their arguments as and when that day comes. Because there's nothing in the right to bodily autonomy that decrees that the fetus must die.

As a corollary - the right to bodily autonomy is logically valid throughout pregnancy, and women should arguably be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at any stage - but this doesn't necessarily confer the right to terminate the life of the fetus/baby. In practice, this may simply amount to being able to elect for a pre-term C-section, or inducement of birth - and doctors could probably drag their heels in getting around to doing it, unless there were a genuine medical emergency.

[Hermit]

If you wanted to protect every "potential human", you would have to force every woman to be perpetually pregnant between puberty and menopause, in order to avoid depriving a "potential human" of its chance at life.

"Menstrual blood is the tear of nature over the loss of another potential life." Or, as the potted petunia said: "Oh no, not again."

[Seth]

The only argument you or other pro-abortionists can make to refute this logic is to simply dismiss the notion that beginning with the alignment of the chromosomes along the spindle apparatus and at every stage of development thereafter until full delivery of the infant that the organism within the mother's womb is not a human being. Only by denying the fundamental nature of the organism residing in the woman's womb can you begin to justify abortion. But that's both logical and scientific fallacy, and anyone willing to look at the question in an unbiased, scientific and logical fashion, rather than one clouded by emotion and political belief can do nothing other than admit that at all stages of development subsequent to the formation of the zygote, the organism is indeed a living human being. It is undeniably human, and it has achieved the state of "being" (or existing), and attempting to deny this is mere sophistry.

Question - If you were working in an IVF centre and you formed a bunch of zygotes in a test tube ready for freezing and implanting and then accidentally dropped that test tube on to the ground, it smashing into a load of pieces, would you feel, have that same emotional resonance, as though you had just killed a bunch of humans? Would you be as distraught about it as you would if you had just dropped a bunch of babies killing them?

Perhaps you should be.

If so, well, I'd find that hard to believe, but how and ever.
If not, why not? And why should it matter if the same zygote is aborted?

One act is an accident, the other is deliberate. Huge difference in motive, intent and opportunity.

Personally I'd just mop up the liquid and chuck the glass in the bin. I might be annoyed that my work was ruined but I'd just start again.

Good thing your mom didn't stick a knitting needle up her twat when you were in utero isn't it? Ever stop to think what your life would have been like if she'd done that? You wouldn't be espousing any opinions at all, would you? It's easy to terminate someone else's life before they have had a chance to object. But I bet you'd object if someone tried to terminate your life right now, wouldn't you? That's rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

[Seth]

The basic difference between killing an adult and aborting a fetus is that the adult is human and the fetus is not.

Really? Then what is the domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species of that fetus pray tell? Be specific. Is it an orangutang? How about a dog? Or a lion? Or perhaps a chestnut tree? Do tell, what does the alignment of maternal and paternal human chromosomes along the spindle apparatus at the formation of the zygote create exactly?

The difference is based, as it must be, on brain size.

No the difference is genetic. If it's a fetus resulting from the combination of human semen and a human egg, it's a human being. This is scientific fact that only makes you look like an ignoramus if you dispute it.

If the brain is too small to permit thinking and self awareness, then it is not human.

So it's a parrot? Or a slime mold? Or a fish? Please, use some common sense and stop playing an idiot on the web.

An early term fetus will have a brain no bigger than the brain of an earthworm, and has the awareness of an earthworm.

But it's not an earthworm, is it?

I have no qualms about cutting an earthworm in half with my garden spade accidentally, when digging.

How about deliberately? Abortions aren't accidental after all. Go have a chat with some Buddhists about the morality of killing other living creatures for pleasure or convenience and get back to us.

I see no problem aborting a fetus with a brain so tiny that it is far from human.

But it's irrefutably and inescapably human, at all stages of development. It isn't one species that turns into another. Just because it has an earthworm-sized brain doesn't mean it's an earthworm. Are you really this dense?

Nor is the tired old argument about "potential human" valid. If you wanted to protect every "potential human", you would have to force every woman to be perpetually pregnant between puberty and menopause, in order to avoid depriving a "potential human" of its chance at life.

Again, there's a huge distinction between the mortality of zygotes, embryos, and fetuses due to natural causes and the deliberate and intentional destruction of a living human being in utero. If what you believe is true, then you would have no problem if someone came up and shot your daughter or wife in the head for no particularly good reason.

Mind you, I might be persuaded to assisting in the duty of creating those pregnancies......

And perpetuate the genetic disaster that lead to your form and quality of reasoning? No thanks.

[Seth]

I contend that it is human life, in a pedantic sense - but I don't believe that it is a person. That's the distinction.

You are correct if the definition of "person" means "human person endowed with rights that must be respected by other human persons."

But the definition of "person" is a matter of social and therefore legal determination. It is not a fact of science. A "human being" is a fact of science. It's a living organism comprised of human genetic material replicating and differentiating from the formation of the zygote to eventual death.

And since "personhood" is a purely social, moral, ethical and legal determination, nothing at all inhibits any society from deciding to protect the dignity and life of a "person" at any stage of development it chooses. What this means is that abortion is not a right, it's a permission given by the society which is subject to revocation if the society deems the interests of the helpless "person" in the womb outweigh the temporary imposition on the host and therefore decide to ban abortion.

[Seth]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Why not? The fetus was invited to live there, and like any tenant, can have its rights of occupancy protected by the law.

[Seth]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Yep - that's a much biggrin difference.

One thing that always gets me about this argument, though, is that one day it will likely be possible to incubate a fetus to full-term, outside of a woman's body. Or, even sooner, it will become feasible to transplant fetuses into surrogate mothers and have them brought to term that way.

And there will likely come a case hot on the heels of any such advancement, when some "pro-life" doctor removes a fetus from a woman intending to abort, has it incubated or gestated to full-term, and then compels the biological mother to come and accept the baby.

You mean sort of like a woman solicits a sperm donation from a man and then sticks him with the bills? Gee, hoist on your own petard there I'd say.

If the predominant concern that feminists have really is the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, then they should have no problems with this happening. After all, the biological mother clearly chose what to do with her own body - but there was nothing in that which stated that she had an express right to have the fetus's life terminated, if the fetus were living once outside her body. And certainly, there is no way that the biological mother could interfere with the fetus if it came to be inside another woman's body.

If feminists have more invested in the issue of abortion than bodily autonomy, as I suspect they do - then they are going to have to seriously tighten and refine their arguments as and when that day comes. Because there's nothing in the right to bodily autonomy that decrees that the fetus must die.

Yup. "Fetal viability" is now the metric in the law, and as that threshold comes closer and closer to zygotic formation, abortion becomes less and less acceptable.

As a corollary - the right to bodily autonomy is logically valid throughout pregnancy, and women should arguably be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at any stage - but this doesn't necessarily confer the right to terminate the life of the fetus/baby. In practice, this may simply amount to being able to elect for a pre-term C-section, or inducement of birth - and doctors could probably drag their heels in getting around to doing it, unless there were a genuine medical emergency.

If society is going to ban abortion of viable fetuses, at whatever stage of development science and technology allow that fetus to survive and mature, then it is society's duty to take custody of that fetus and raise it at society's expense and relieve the mother of that burden if she so chooses. I'm all in favor of such a law, even to the point of removing a zygote for artificial gestation rather than permitting abortion on demand.

[Blind groper]

Really? Then what is the domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species of that fetus pray tell?

Silly argument, Seth.

If I cut myself, and spill blood, so that the white blood cells (the ones with a nucleus) die, then each one is human by your implied standard, since each has human DNA.

If I accidentally cut off the tip of a finger, is that a human? It has the same DNA as what you are talking of. Is a baby born with anencephaly (no cerebral cortex) a human? It has a human body but no human brain. It normally dies soon after birth, luckily, which saves the parents from the agonising decision of whether to save a lump of living tissue looking like a human baby, but without a human brain.

If an adult is in a terrible accident, and is left with no functioning higher brain, but kept alive on sophisticated life support machinery, is that person still human? No, clearly not, and medical people recognise that fact by allowing that body without a human brain to die of starvation.

An early fetus, with a brain smaller than an earthworm, is not human. Given time, it may become human. But that statement applies to every sperm and egg combination ever produced, whether fertilisation ever occurs or not.

[Tero]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Why not? The fetus was invited to live there, and like any tenant, can have its rights of occupancy protected by the law.

Ah but we go to the constitution. Nowhere does it say a fetus has rights. Even blacks were not humans back then. Then we have to consider where a law is active. The castle concept. A woman's body is her castle. The law cannot have any jurisdiction inside her. Law only deals with interactions of fully formed humans, lands, common areas.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think an even biggrin difference is that one lives inside of another persons body. I don't think that little factor can be dismissed, or, reasonably, compared to having a boarder. Really.

Why not? The fetus was invited to live there, and like any tenant, can have its rights of occupancy protected by the law.

Tenants are subject to their lease agreements. If there is no written lease, then the tenancy depends on the frequency of rent payments. If it's weekly, then the tenant can be evicted weekly, etc. If the lease is gratuitious, however, and the tenant pays no rent, then the landlord can evict anytime. Since fetuses have no written leases, and since they pay no rent, the fetus can be evicted at the pleasure of the landlord (mother).

That's why not.