Abortion Poll

[challenger]

I think a far more important question than "When does life begin" has to be "Is a fetus a person". Thats what we're all dancing around here: Does an abortion constitute the ending of a persons life or the abortion of the development of life?

 

[Rev. Smith]

I think a far more important question than "When does life begin" has to be "Is a fetus a person". Thats what we're all dancing around here: Does an abortion constitute the ending of a persons life or the abortion of the development of life?

That sums it up pretty nicely. Why the problem is so intractable is that while we disagree on when the fetus becomes a person; we agree once that happens abortion becomes murder. Unless one subscribes to the it's only a person once it is living outside of the mother school, our current law is encourageing some women to murder people.

 

[challenger]

That sums it up pretty nicely. Why the problem is so intractable is that while we disagree on when the fetus becomes a person; we agree once that happens abortion becomes murder. Unless one subscribes to the it's only a person once it is living outside of the mother school, our current law is encourageing some women to murder people.

I'd say that once the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the mother, it becomes tatamount (but not equal) to murder because the child could have had a chance, its not necessary to abort.

 

[jayem]

.

As for determining when this human becomes a person, This is as well a non-issue. You see, according to our constitution certain rights, such as the right to life, are "recognized" by our country as inalienable. That means that the right to life is always applied to any human being regardless of citizenship, mental or physical state, or anything else.

In that respect, "personhood" in it's strictest legal sense really has no bearing on the right to life. If it's human (which it is) and it's living (which it is) it's recognized to possess the right to life.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. As has been pointed out, the issue is not whether an embryo is alive, or human in the biological sense, the real question is--does it have the legal status of a "person" with rights independent of it's mother? And I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it defines explicity what is a "person." (And BTW, it's the Declaration of Independence that talks about inalienable rights. But our laws are based on the Constitution, not the Declaration.) Your assertion that if an entity is living, and is human, then it is automatically a legal "person" is totally unsupported. (Example: Skin cells in tissue culture are alive, and are human, with 46 chromosomes and human DNA. But in no way are they "persons.") The Roe v. Wade opinion goes into this in some detail. The fact is, there is no long tradition, either in statutory law, or in precedent for considering a fetus as a "person." This is the crux of the issue. There is no consensus for when a fetus acquires 14th amendment rights. I think the point of natural viability (24-25 weeks) strikes a good balance.

 

[Magisterium]

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. As has been pointed out, the issue is not whether an embryo is alive, or human in the biological sense, the real question is--does it have the legal status of a "person" with rights independent of it's mother? And I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it defines explicity what is a "person." (And BTW, it's the Declaration of Independence that talks about inalienable rights. But our laws are based on the Constitution, not the Declaration.) Your assertion that if an entity is living, and is human, then it is automatically a legal "person" is totally unsupported. (Example: Skin cells in tissue culture are alive, and are human, with 46 chromosomes and human DNA. But in no way are they "persons.") The Roe v. Wade opinion goes into this in some detail. The fact is, there is no long tradition, either in statutory law, or in precedent for considering a fetus as a "person." This is the crux of the issue. There is no consensus for when a fetus acquires 14th amendment rights. I think the point of natural viability (24-25 weeks) strikes a good balance.

Ah! at last, we get to the crux of the matter and a valid point of contention!

I stand corrected on my misstatements between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. However, if you read my post carefully, I never said that the fertilized egg is a "person". I stated that it's "personhood" is irrelevant to discussion of its right to life. Precisely because the right to life is "recognized" as being intrinsic to the human being and that no government or earthly authority has the power to grant this fundamental right because it is

"self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis added).

That said, you raise an important point in your post. If laws are indeed based upon the constitution in complete neglect of the Declaration of Independence, one may reasonably argue that though the signers of the declaration may have believed that the right to life is intrinsic to all human beings, we will not conceed to this assertion for the legislation of laws. In which case, we must then carefully read the constitution and see what it has to say about the right to life and to whom and what it applies.

However, while this debate is in progress, it remains true that when there is a question whether or not a human being is worthy of certain rights, the prudent course of action is to afford those rights until such time as it is determined that they are not applicable.

As for the idea that 24-25 weeks being the point of "natural viability" I'm not sure what you're asserting. The fact is, even an infant (already born) relies completely upon it's mother for nutrition "naturally". Without The mother to supply milk or some artificial replacement for this maternal nourishment (such as formula through a bottle) the infant will certainly die. What's more if an infant is born at 24-25 weeks and not given some sort of artificial developmental aid, it will most likely die as well (I'll check the stats on chances of survival). Again, please explain what you mean by "naturally viable and why a fetus should not be recognized as a person, but an infant should.

 

[jayem]

Again, please explain what you mean by "naturally viable and why a fetus should not be recognized as a person, but an infant should.

Gladly. But bear with me. I'm going to use a line of reasoning that I think is valid, though I certainly don't expect everyone to agree. I just want people to think about it.

What I'm talking about here is really a legal issue. I'm not trying to argue that a fetus in not alive, or is not human. Only what legal rights does it have, and how to balance its interests against those of the mother. Because I believe both have valid interests that should be respected. An embryo/fetus is clearly a separate individual, with distinct DNA. But when it is in utero it makes a direct physiologic demand upon its mother's body. It uses her heart, her lungs, her GI tract, her kidneys, etc. And this demand is biologically obligatory. It is totally different than the demand made by a newborn baby. An infant actually makes no biologically obligatory demand on its birth mother. It can thrive perfectly well under the care of any individual who can provide proper nutrition, nurturing, and protection. And to directly use another person's body requires that person's consent. It is my opinion that becoming pregnant does not imply automatic consent for a full nine month gestation. Consent is an ongoing process. This is the standard in any other medical situation. For example, if I were to give consent to begin a nine month series of radiation or chemotherapy treatments for cancer, it does not obligate me to complete the entire treatment. I can withdraw my consent at any time. Even if I were undergoing surgery, if I were conscious, I could have the surgeons halt the procedure (at any safe point) and they would have to close me up. I believe a woman has the right to give ongoing consent to have her uterus and organ systems used to support a fetus. But, when the fetus reaches a point when it no longer requires her direct physiologic support, then it should be considered a "person" with its own autonomous rights. This occurs at two points: 1) When it is born, whenever that occurs, and 2) when it has developed such that it has a reasonable chance of survival by natural means--that is, when nature gives it the physiolgic maturity to survive without needing intensive, artificial life support. (If you look at the older neonatal literature--before the use of ventilators, total intravenous feeding, lung surfactant, etc.--premature infants have just over 50% survival rate at 24-25 weeks.) Natural viability is more biologically fixed, and using this standard obviates the effect of advancing technology, which could provide a continually moving target. Let me emphasize that this 24 week milestone applies only in utero. As stated earlier, once born, no matter how premature, an infant is a legal "person", no matter how much life support it may require. So, to summarize, I think that legal personhood occurs at birth, or if still in utero, at 24 weeks, whichever comes first. Abortion should not be criminalized up to 24 weeks. After that, states can make reasonable restrictions. I think this is a fair compromise that recognizes rights of both mother and fetus. And I think a Constitutional amendment which defines "personhood' this way is the proper way to enact it. But hey, this is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree, but here it is as food for thought.

 

[TasManOfGod]

There was nothing wrong with this post.

It is interesting that somebody thought there would have been

 

[Thithy]

I think a far more important question than "When does life begin" has to be "Is a fetus a person". Thats what we're all dancing around here: Does an abortion constitute the ending of a persons life or the abortion of the development of life?

Does it matter? Even if it is not "technically" a person, you are depriving it of the right to become a human. Is a baby inside a mother's womb the day before it's born still a fetus? Would you have a problem with a mother having an abortion at that moment? It's almost born, so does that mean it's only almost a person? I don't think it matters if it is human or not. It's still alive. I feel that it is wrong to kill anything that is alive and breathing (minus for food) human or not.

 

[Magisterium]

Gladly. But bear with me. I'm going to use a line of reasoning that I think is valid, though I certainly don't expect everyone to agree. I just want people to think about it.

What I'm talking about here is really a legal issue. I'm not trying to argue that a fetus in not alive, or is not human. Only what legal rights does it have, and how to balance its interests against those of the mother. Because I believe both have valid interests that should be respected. An embryo/fetus is clearly a separate individual, with distinct DNA. But when it is in utero it makes a direct physiologic demand upon its mother's body. It uses her heart, her lungs, her GI tract, her kidneys, etc. And this demand is biologically obligatory. It is totally different than the demand made by a newborn baby. An infant actually makes no biologically obligatory demand on its birth mother. It can thrive perfectly well under the care of any individual who can provide proper nutrition, nurturing, and protection. And to directly use another person's body requires that person's consent. It is my opinion that becoming pregnant does not imply automatic consent for a full nine month gestation. Consent is an ongoing process. This is the standard in any other medical situation. For example, if I were to give consent to begin a nine month series of radiation or chemotherapy treatments for cancer, it does not obligate me to complete the entire treatment. I can withdraw my consent at any time. Even if I were undergoing surgery, if I were conscious, I could have the surgeons halt the procedure (at any safe point) and they would have to close me up. I believe a woman has the right to give ongoing consent to have her uterus and organ systems used to support a fetus. But, when the fetus reaches a point when it no longer requires her direct physiologic support, then it should be considered a "person" with its own autonomous rights. This occurs at two points: 1) When it is born, whenever that occurs, and 2) when it has developed such that it has a reasonable chance of survival by natural means--that is, when nature gives it the physiolgic maturity to survive without needing intensive, artificial life support. (If you look at the older neonatal literature--before the use of ventilators, total intravenous feeding, lung surfactant, etc.--premature infants have just over 50% survival rate at 24-25 weeks.) Natural viability is more biologically fixed, and using this standard obviates the effect of advancing technology, which could provide a continually moving target. Let me emphasize that this 24 week milestone applies only in utero. As stated earlier, once born, no matter how premature, an infant is a legal "person", no matter how much life support it may require. So, to summarize, I think that legal personhood occurs at birth, or if still in utero, at 24 weeks, whichever comes first. Abortion should not be criminalized up to 24 weeks. After that, states can make reasonable restrictions. I think this is a fair compromise that recognizes rights of both mother and fetus. And I think a Constitutional amendment which defines "personhood' this way is the proper way to enact it. But hey, this is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree, but here it is as food for thought.

Brilliantly presented argument! Well thought out and intelligently stated. By far the best argument I've ever seen for the abortion side. (if I could have added some reputation to you, I would have a few times by now.)

However, that said, there are a few problems with the ideas you've posted. The first of those problems is the complete dependence of the fetus upon the mother.

An embryo/fetus is clearly a separate individual, with distinct DNA. But when it is in utero it makes a direct physiologic[al] demand upon its mother's body. It uses her heart, her lungs, her GI tract, her kidneys, etc. And this demand is biologically obligatory.

This is indeed true. In fact, this statement brings to bear part of the basis of my position. When with child, a woman has a biological obligation to the individual within her womb. As you stated, this being is indeed a human individual. Therefore, the idea that this individual who is completely helpless except for the protection and nourishment provided by it's mother, can be discarded with impunity is not only callous and crude, but immoral. In fact, I'm surprised and a little disturbed that you, recognizing that this is indeed a human life (regardless of legal "personhood") would consent to it's destruction at the whim of the mother as if it's dependency nullifies it's intrinsic value.

It is totally different than the demand made by a newborn baby.

You are right, the demands of a newborn can indeed be transferred to another human being. However, how is it logical to assert that homicide is justified as long as the victim is completely (and non-transferrably) dependent upon the perpertrator.

It is my opinion that becoming pregnant does not imply automatic consent for a full nine month gestation.

Clearly you must have expected contention on this point. Unlike medical treatments, persistent consent is not applicable in the case of such a biological process as pregnancy. Pregnancy, once initiated, sets in motion a natural and self propelled course of development. Unlike a course of medical treatment which must be sustained by external forces to avoid ending, the course of pregnancy must be forcefully "aborted" in order to induce an end. For this reason, getting pregnant is necessarilly consent for all that pregnancy entails.

That said, it is an undeniable fact that a great many women who find themselves pregnant never made an intellectual assent to endure the requirements of pregnancy. However, by their actions, the consent is stated indirectly. One should, before engaging in any activity, be sure to be well informed of all the possible consequences of that activity. The willful engagement in sexual intercourse is necessarilly an indirect statement of consent to pregnancy.

Finally, the idea that

when the fetus reaches a point when it no longer requires her direct physiologic[al] support, then it should be considered a "person" with its own autonomous rights.

presents a few problems of its own.

First of all, until now, the dependence upon the mother has been the asserted justification for homicide. However, now it seems that if the depencency is transferrable to another human being, homicide is no longer justifiable.

Logically, if complete dependency justifies homicide (as you're asserting for the fetus), then if the dependency is transferred, so should the justification of homicide. In other words, If the mother can kill the fetus because it depends completely upon her, then the foster or adoptive caregiver should also be allowed to kill an infant because the infant is now completely dependent upon them.

Effectively, what this all boils down to is that if you use dependence justification of homicide, then infanticide (and euthanasia) must be logically be allowed. If you don't, abortion cannot be allowed. You can't logically have it both ways.

 

[jayem]

Effectively, what this all boils down to is that if you use dependence justification of homicide, then infanticide (and euthanasia) must be logically be allowed. If you don't, abortion cannot be allowed. You can't logically have it both ways.

Firstly, I do appreciate your complimentary comments.

Pregnancy is a unique situation. We have two entities who can each make a claim for "rights." And these claims may conflict with each other. An embryo/fetus can make a claim not to have its life terminated. On its face, that is certainly valid. But in reality, no one has an absolute right to life. We recognize taking a life is sometimes necessary--for example, in self defense, or in wartime. And then there is the long accepted ethical prinicple of autonomy--that a person of sound mind and adult years has the right to decide what will be done to his/her body. It certainly covers that one must consent if one's body will be used for the benefit of another individual. This is also not absolute. We incarcerate people, or do procedures under court order in some instances. My main point is that we must find a balance between the legitimate claims of mother and fetus. A fetus is physically attached to the mother's body and directly uses her organs. It is this fact, not just a state of dependency, that raises the issue of her bodily autonomy, and requires her consent. In answer to your quote above, once born, and detached from the mother's body, then it is a "person" with the same rights as anyone else. You are absolutely correct that there can be a real difference of opinion about what constitutes consent for pregnancy. I think it's far too restrictive and authoritarian to insist that any act of intercourse implies consent for pregnancy. Birth control methods can fail. Even under the best circumstances, so called "natural" family planning has 1-2% failure rate (and higher in women without regular periods.) A woman can inadvertantly take an antibiotic or other medication that interferes with oral contraceptives. Even vasectomy and tubal ligation have a remote, though not zero, risk of failure. (And not to get off on a tangent, but a small number of pregnancies do result from rape. Does this means of conception also imply consent?) I admit, this is a philosophic question about which people will disagree. What seems most reasonable? In any event, as before, I think a woman's bodily autonomy has primacy only to a point. And when the fetus no longer requires the direct use of her organs--when it is born, or when it is viable--then it's autonomy and rights must be respected. This is a practical compromise. It won't satisfy everyone (or anyone?) It's not perfect. But we don't live in a perfect world, and there is rarely a perfect answer to every problem. But I think it provides a reasonable measure of fairness to both parties. Let me pose a hypothetical to illustrate my position in a different way: if there should ever be a total artificial womb, where fetal development can take place from fertilized egg to delivery, without requiring the use of the mother's body at all (aside from harvesting an egg to be fertilized in vitro) then the mother would have no right to terminate such a gestation. It's not dependency per se, it's the fact that another entity is physically using her body that makes her autonomy an issue. I hope I made my point clearly.

 

[Magisterium]

In fact you have made your points quite clearly. What's surprising to me is your candid intellectual honesty. There are many who effectively believe as you do but hide behind false issues of "when life begins" and "if it looks human yet".

I must say however, that I am deeply disturbed by the casual ease with which you clearly recognize that its a human life, but have no apparent compunction about terminating that life according to the convenience of another. This apparently stems from the idea that

no one has an absolute right to life.

However, this is entirely untrue. In fact, the idea that every [hu]man has the inalienable right to life is one of the primary tenets upon which American law and society are anchored. As for matters of self defense and wartime, neither of these are simple justification in and of themselves for the taking of human life. In self defense as in war, all reasonable alternatives must have been exhausted before homicide is justifiable. Additionally, it must be apparent that the perpetrator intended to inflict bodily harm or death. If these are not present, then homicide is not justified even in self defense. As for war, this is not a license to kill either. In military engagements, care must be taken to safeguard the lives of non-combatants and even neutralized enemy soldiers. Indescriminant slaughter is never permitted. The reason for this is the respect and protection of all human life.

Apart from our clear disagreement on the invaluable intrinsic value of human life and the obligation we all share to protect and defend life at all stages, I am puzzled by the idea that willful engagement in sexual intercourse does not imply consent for pregnancy. Stranger still to me is the idea that

it's far too restrictive and authoritarian to insist that any act of intercourse implies consent for pregnancy

.

As for the fact that contraceptives and NFP (Natural Family Planning) have a failure rate, this fact is clearly stated by all producers of these products on their packaging. If someone wilfully engages in sexual intercourse without properly reading this information, they have acted irresponsibly. As you know, irresponsibility and culpable ignorance do not nullify obligations. For example, if I enter into a contract such as a home or auto loan with a variable rate of interest in the hopes that intrest rates will remain low, I am still responsible to pay back the loan if rates increase. It just didn't work out as I had hoped. This is the case with willful engagement in marital relations with the hope that no child will result. Every birth control method explains their failure rates and methods of perfect use. Everyone is taking a chance. By willfully engaging, you affirm that you are willing to take that chance.

Additionally, how is this position authoritarian or restrictive? I can see how one might label it "restrictive" through a failure to distinguish between license and liberty. That distinction being that liberty and freedom are naturally restricted by the liberties and freedoms of others. If one's individual liberty impedes the liberty of another, it ceases to be liberty and becomes license. (This fact becomes more evident when you consider the activities which require a license.) However, I can't see the logical connection with "authoritarian".

In closing, you are effectively willing to grant the mother license to end the life of her unborn child. Most would argue (quite validly and successfully) that this is a human rights abuse and that no human being should be granted for any reason license to take the life of another. The popular pro-abortion stance, attempts to skirt this problem by hiding behind a false smokescreen of obscurity about when life begins and whether this life is separate or "part of the woman's body".

 

[Gallego]

As for the fact that contraceptives and NFP (Natural Family Planning) have a failure rate, this fact is clearly stated by all producers of these products on their packaging. If someone wilfully engages in sexual intercourse without properly reading this information, they have acted irresponsibly. As you know, irresponsibility and culpable ignorance do not nullify obligations. For example, if I enter into a contract such as a home or auto loan with a variable rate of interest in the hopes that intrest rates will remain low, I am still responsible to pay back the loan if rates increase. It just didn't work out as I had hoped. This is the case with willful engagement in marital relations with the hope that no child will result. Every birth control method explains their failure rates and methods of perfect use. Everyone is taking a chance. By willfully engaging, you affirm that you are willing to take that chance.

I will give an example:
if producers says that the efficinecy is 99.99%. If there is a mistake is it my fault?
When a jury condems a accused person with a DNA test with 99.99% percentage to be true and afterwards it is demonstrated by another technique that he is innocent. It is clear that it is not the jury's fault, as they were trusting in a very reliable method, weren't they?
What must the jury do?
a) Go on with his error and condem him? They knew that every method has an error.
b) Change their decission?

 

[jayem]

I must say however, that I am deeply disturbed by the casual ease with which you clearly recognize that its a human life, but have no apparent compunction about terminating that life according to the convenience of another.

Thanks for your reply. Let me clarify that I don't for a minute feel abortion is a casual matter, or than terminating a pregnancy is a trifle. My respect for human life is as deep as anyone's. I work in health care, and treating illness, relieving pain, and saving lives (as much as possible) is my goal, and life's work. But my political philosophy tends toward the libertarian. I have, I think, a healthy distrust of government, which is the true, Jeffersonian conservative position. I think any abortion is tragic, and means that something has failed somewhere. But nearly all of the pro-life proponents seem to emphasize criminalization, at least as much as other means to reduce abortion. This is really my biggest issue. If you think about it, the so-called "right" to an abortion isn't really a right belonging to a pregnant woman. In fact, it is an immunity which belongs to a health care provider. Decriminalization really means that a physician can perform an abortion without threat of prosecution. I will agree with you that abortion purely for reasons of "convenience" (how often that really happens is very arguable) is morally wrong. But I think giving police and prosecutors the power to interfere in a medical matter between a doctor and patient is worse. I've given reasons why I don't feel that a fetus, in the earlier stages of development has the same status as a child. It's just not yet a "person" who has rights independent of its mother. An abortion is not murder. And thus, I feel an earlier term abortion is a private medical decision between doctor and patient. The state can already regulate such matters as regards licensing, and informed consent, and standard of care issues. But government has no business making medical decisions. Like I've said, nothing is perfect. When we allow people freedom to make decisions, some will make bad ones, and some bad things will happen. But I honestly believe that excessive government control is the greater evil. And really, it's not necessary. Look at western European countries. In the Netherlands, and Germany they have one third to one half the rate of abortion as we do here, yet they do not have restrictive laws. Abortion can and should be reduced by voluntary means--education, and conscientious use of all methods of birth control by men and women. (Abortion is the US is already going down--and that is a good thing.)

Abd BTW, this has been a good discussion. As they say, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[Ave Maria]

Life begins at conception but how can one condemn the use of the morning after pill? I mean, you can't possibly know if you are pregnant or not within 3 days after sexual intercourse. Regardless, I think that the morning after pill should still be avoided.