Why Abortion is Immoral

[blackribbon]

When does a baby become a baby? I find it ironic that "developed lungs" is never the criteria for a fetus to become a "baby" even though that is primarily the reason why premature babies can't survive outside the womb.

I personally believe a baby is a baby at conception and believe that a woman who has miscarried deserves the same right to grieve at 12 weeks as a woman who lost her baby at 40 weeks. I do not believe that we are justified in killing a baby at any stage though I have mixed feelings toward babies who have been exposed to things (such as drug use) in early pregnancy that stands a huge chance of causing developmental defects. In the end, most of these severely damaged fetuses will miscarry naturally though. The rest must have a important place in God's world whether or not we recognize it.

 

[blackribbon]

This is a good argument, but I think it unintentionally supports abortions before the fetus stage, at the beginning of which a spinal cord develops, and you can't have pain without a nervous system to register it.

The brain and spinal cord start to develop at Week 5 ... which means the mother has been pregnant for 3 weeks (the first two weeks are prior to pregnancy but we count since we date a pregnancy from the last menstrual cycle). Very few abortions are performed at this stage because the mother doesn't even know she is pregnant yet. This would only be "one week late" for the woman who is regular which many women are not.

 

[Received]

The brain and spinal cord start to develop at Week 5 ... which means the mother has been pregnant for 3 weeks (the first two weeks are prior to pregnancy but we count since we date a pregnancy from the last menstrual cycle). Very few abortions are performed at this stage because the mother doesn't even know she is pregnant yet. This would only be "one week late" for the woman who is regular which many women are not.

At-home pregnancy tests can't pick up pregnancies before week five?

 

[blackribbon]

At-home pregnancy tests can't pick up pregnancies before week five?

Most home pregnancy test are not good until about one week after the patient is one week "late"...which would be week five ( few are more accurate ... and much more expensive ). And a woman has to actually wonder if she is pregnant before she even takes a test. Many women don't really keep close track unless they are trying to get pregnant. Others go a couple months before it dawns on them that they have "missed" and start counting backwards.

 

[Belk]

i guess i just believe human beings are special because im a human being if i was a horse maybe i would think horses are special i can only speculate on that of course but maybe . the human experience is amazing i enjoy living i think everyone has a right to this experience and noone has a right to take it away from someone else regardless of their own opinions on life and humanity they can have any opinion they want when this human being develops they also will very soon have their own opinions and they have a right to have them just as much as you or i or their mother does.

you have stumbled upon the secret to 95% of human morality.

 

[Belk]

so at what age does "it" become a human being with a right to life?

At what point does blue become green? There is no definitive answer so I find myself tending to agree with the SCOTUS that we should draw the line at fetal viability.

 

[Armoured]

And at what stage is considered quite late?

Is a mind that is incapable of complex thought no longer human? Do my comatose patients not qualify as humans any more? How about the brain damaged patients? What about the severely developmentally delayed people?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

 

[Belk]

Here's a quote from an article on the subject that a PhD from Princeton University put out:

"To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced."

Published in the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. This isn't exactly news.

I believe the highlighted piece is a rather important distinction that was missing from your previous comment.

 

[Belk]

A brain dead human being is fundamentally different from a fetus for two reasons:

1) A brain dead person has no potential to become a fully functioning, thinking, conscious person. So, from the perspective of the OP's arguments, killing a brain dead person does not deprive them of any future experiences because it is impossible for them to have such experiences anyway. Thus, the premises of the OP's argument are not fulfilled and it can be reasonable to suggest that a brain dead person can be killed amorally.

2) A brain-dead person may have been not brain-dead at some point. This raises the possibility that they could have given consent to different scenarios. If the brain-dead person had previously discussed such scenarios with family members, legal entities or physicians, then that will affect the decision. A fetus cannot give consent and so, in being consistent with all other medical situations, the default position is to keep the fetus alive. This is consistent with other scenarios such as a paramedic finding an unconscious human being on the side of the road: without consent, the default position is to keep that person alive.


With those two points in mind, I think it is okay to kill a brain-dead person assuming:

1) They have given some form of prior consent and;
2) There is no chance they will recover into a fully-functioning, thinking, human being.


I think the crux of the difference is that a brain-dead person is dying while a fetus is just coming alive. One is bursting with potential experiences while the other is incapable of ever experiencing anything every again.

It would seem your definition is becoming more narrow. Why did you go from not wanting to use person to define a fetus because

In the case of such a serious matter as killing of human beings, I think it is better to take the conservatively broad definition

But immediately invoke it when dealing with the other end of the spectrum?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The brain and spinal cord start to develop at Week 5 ... which means the mother has been pregnant for 3 weeks (the first two weeks are prior to pregnancy but we count since we date a pregnancy from the last menstrual cycle). Very few abortions are performed at this stage because the mother doesn't even know she is pregnant yet. This would only be "one week late" for the woman who is regular which many women are not.

The majority of abortions in my country of origin are performed within the first month.

 

[Davian]

Not officially.

Good. We are free then to comment on your silliness.

Well the two arguments do not really directly communicate with each other. They do pose interesting problems for one another, but in an angular way. Both arguments cannot be true. It would create this conundrum:

1. Abortion is immoral.
2. A woman is not obliged to carry a child to term. She is permitted to terminate the pregnancy.

They cannot both be true. So if Marquis' argument is successful or unchallenged then Thomson's argument has no leg to stand on.

I do not consider either of these to be truths. That would imply that there exists an objective morality by which these could be measured. Morality is descriptive. There are no absolute rights or wrongs.

Do you concede the balance of my post?

Um. I don't think so. Why?

Just curious. It is a general impression I get - perhaps from the media - is that the outrage over the subject of abortion falls quiet once that child has been born, say, into a society that does not provide basic health care to children. For example, there are those that would, on one hand, have the state make abortion illegal (or immensely difficult to procure), while on the other have the state deny basic health care to its people (and their children). I find that to be hypocritical.

Where do you fall on that subject?

 

[blackribbon]

The majority of abortions in my country of origin are performed within the first month.

What country is that? and how do these women know they are pregnant to get tested and have abortions that early? (not challenging, really just curious)

 

[blackribbon]

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I am sorry. I really don't understand what the question is that I haven't answered. Is it about when does the "mind" develop? Well, what makes up the "mind"? Conscious, directed thought?...does that mean unconscious people no longer have minds or severely brain damaged people don't have "minds"? Do they lose their human rights at this point, if so? Is it ability to feel pain? and if so, how is this measured? What is the "mind"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What country is that? and how do these women know they are pregnant to get tested and have abortions that early? (not challenging, really just curious)

I would rather not say, because I don't like people to have even the slightest idea as to where I live. But I imagine that they use pregnancy tests, some of which are effective under the 2 week mark.

Just to bring up the abortion morality point though, here is my situation: I have to take a medication in order to function and take care of myself. This medication would be toxic to an unborn child, and if it didn't cause me to miscarry, it would put a child at extremely high risk of heart and mental problems. I could never live with myself if I inflicted this upon an unborn child, but I could never hold a job or even do basic activities needed to keep myself alive if I didn't take it.

The only options I would have would be to go 9 months without my medication, risking malnutrition from not remembering to eat and infection from not remembering to generally take care of myself, and most certainly losing any source of income I had.

Take my medication, even though it places the child at extremely high risk, and live the rest of my life knowing that any defect they are born with is my fault.

Or have an abortion and move on with my life.

What say you to this situation? Note that you cannot assume that I have people that could or would take care of me for 9 months.

 

[blackribbon]

I would rather not say, because I don't like people to have even the slightest idea as to where I live. But I imagine that they use pregnancy tests, some of which are effective under the 2 week mark.

Just to bring up the abortion morality point though, here is my situation: I have to take a medication in order to function and take care of myself. This medication would be toxic to an unborn child, and if it didn't cause me to miscarry, it would put a child at extremely high risk of heart and mental problems. I could never live with myself if I inflicted this upon an unborn child, but I could never hold a job or even do basic activities needed to keep myself alive if I didn't take it.

The only options I would have would be to go 9 months without my medication, risking malnutrition from not remembering to eat and infection from not remembering to generally take care of myself, and most certainly losing any source of income I had.

Take my medication, even though it places the child at extremely high risk, and live the rest of my life knowing that any defect they are born with is my fault.

Or have an abortion and move on with my life.

What say you to this situation? Note that you cannot assume that I have people that could or would take care of me for 9 months.

I would say first it would be important to use very effective birth control and not get pregnant. And I can't comment about the medication without knowing what it is. If it is really that toxic, chances are that you would miscarry. I am sorry that you have to make choices like this but no, I would never recommend that you go without your medication. Since it sounds like your condition is probably not one likely to change, permanent birth control options would be safer and healthier for you than relying on abortion because once pregnant, your changed hormonal cycle would probably change how your psychiatric medications work, abortion or no abortion.

I still wonder how these women even know they are pregnant and why the girls are testing for pregnancy before they miss their first period.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would say first it would be important to use very effective birth control and not get pregnant.

Of course, although it is important to note that some medications interfere with birth control pills. I was conceived despite such measures.

And I can't comment about the medication without knowing what it is. If it is really that toxic, chances are that you would miscarry.

If I relied on that to resolve the issue, it would be the equivalent of a self-performed abortion. Besides, while the medication is highly toxic to a developing infant, I have taken it for so long that my liver will clear it out of my system within a week or so, beyond slight traces at levels too low to do anything. Unfortunately, the medication does its worst in the first month of development, which is where the heart defects come in. For some background information, it is an extremely strong stimulant medication. The pregnancy class is C, but I know what it does to the animals, even if human studies have not been performed extensively.

I am sorry that you have to make choices like this but no, I would never recommend that you go without your medication. Since it sounds like your condition is probably not one likely to change, permanent birth control options would be safer and healthier for you than relying on abortion because once pregnant, your changed hormonal cycle would probably change how your psychiatric medications work, abortion or no abortion.

That is irrelevant to the situation. What would you have me do if I found out that I was pregnant? This is why my situation, weirdly enough, is the ultimate test of the blurry line where most people divide allowable abortions and inexcusable ones. If I was pregnant and didn't take my medication, my life would be wrecked and unlikely to recover enough to support a child properly, or myself for that matter. If I did take my medication, I would knowingly be endangering my child. If I get an abortion, well, it's an abortion. Yet, my medication in and of itself does not keep me alive, so the argument that abortions should only be allowed if the mother will die should she take it to term does not apply here. Where do you draw the line?

I still wonder how these women even know they are pregnant and why the girls are testing for pregnancy before they miss their first period.

Because people are paranoid about being pregnant, and would rather find out as soon as possible. Why wait that long to test yourself if you know you performed risky activities?

 

[blackribbon]

At what point does blue become green? There is no definitive answer so I find myself tending to agree with the SCOTUS that we should draw the line at fetal viability.

What is "viable"? Viable independent of the mother or a viable fetus meaning that everything is function correct to develop into an independent baby. If we are talking about the chance of the baby surviving if born, do we just keep changing the age as technology finds a way to keep these babies alive? 24 weeks is the accepted age now...but it may be moving toward 22 weeks. Is a baby really defined as becoming a baby by the status of our technology and in a constant flux? Does a third world baby become "human" later than a first world one that has access to the finest technology since they are most likely further along gestationally before they do survive premature births?

 

[blackribbon]

Of course, although it is important to note that some medications interfere with birth control pills. I was conceived despite such measures. If I relied on that to resolve the issue, it would be the equivalent of a self-performed abortion. Besides, while the medication is highly toxic to a developing infant, I have taken it for so long that my liver will clear it out of my system within a week or so, beyond slight traces at levels too low to do anything. Unfortunately, the medication does its worst in the first month of development, which is where the heart defects come in. For some background information, it is an extremely strong stimulant medication. The pregnancy class is C, but I know what it does to the animals, even if human studies have not been performed extensively. That is irrelevant to the situation. What would you have me do if I found out that I was pregnant? This is why my situation, weirdly enough, is the ultimate test of the blurry line where most people divide allowable abortions and inexcusable ones. If I was pregnant and didn't take my medication, my life would be wrecked and unlikely to recover enough to support a child properly, or myself for that matter. If I did take my medication, I would knowingly be endangering my child. If I get an abortion, well, it's an abortion. Yet, my medication in and of itself does not keep me alive, so the argument that abortions should only be allowed if the mother will die should she take it to term does not apply here. Where do you draw the line?


Because people are paranoid about being pregnant, and would rather find out as soon as possible. Why wait that long to test yourself if you know you performed risky activities?

Monthly pregnancy tests are an expensive way to manage your reproductive cycle. It would be better to stop engaging in "risky behaviors". Even so, the best pregnancy tests aren't reliable until one day after your missed period. And from what I am reading, a lot of places won't do abortions before 5 or 6 weeks because they can't actually see the pregnancy to make sure it was aborted properly.

As for your situation, the best option would be to eliminate the risk of pregnancy on a permanent basis...then you don't have to worry anymore and can take your medication without fear. An abortion isn't a "non-event"...it is a pregnancy and an expulsion of the fetus/along with all the hormonal changes that go with a pregnancy and the ending of a pregnancy. Permanent birth control would also be the cheaper option.

And based on what you say, your medication is necessary for life (unable to function is not ever acceptable medically). So your health does out weight the danger to the baby. Again, prevent the pregnancy. That really isn't that hard if you have no anticipation of ever being able to be pregnant safely.

 

[blackribbon]

Of course, although it is important to note that some medications interfere with birth control pills. I was conceived despite such measures. If I relied on that to resolve the issue, it would be the equivalent of a self-performed abortion. Besides, while the medication is highly toxic to a developing infant, I have taken it for so long that my liver will clear it out of my system within a week or so, beyond slight traces at levels too low to do anything. Unfortunately, the medication does its worst in the first month of development, which is where the heart defects come in. For some background information, it is an extremely strong stimulant medication. The pregnancy class is C, but I know what it does to the animals, even if human studies have not been performed extensively. That is irrelevant to the situation. What would you have me do if I found out that I was pregnant? This is why my situation, weirdly enough, is the ultimate test of the blurry line where most people divide allowable abortions and inexcusable ones. If I was pregnant and didn't take my medication, my life would be wrecked and unlikely to recover enough to support a child properly, or myself for that matter. If I did take my medication, I would knowingly be endangering my child. If I get an abortion, well, it's an abortion. Yet, my medication in and of itself does not keep me alive, so the argument that abortions should only be allowed if the mother will die should she take it to term does not apply here. Where do you draw the line?

Which is it? Is the medication "highly toxic to a developing infant" or is it a "Class C" drug? They are NOT the same thing and to represent it as such is a misrepresentation.

The other option that you never listed that is often considered is going without your medications for the first trimester and then going back on it when it poses a lower risk for the baby. But many psychiatric diagnoses also carry a genetic risk of the baby getting the same disorder and that has to be weighed into the decision on whether or not to get pregnant (always preferable over making a decision about abortion after the fact).

 

[Norbert L]

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

Untrue.

Sperm and eggs only have a potential to become a human and have a VHF, totally unlike a human during the gestation portion of life. It takes two to tango.