Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Brian Peacock]

No, but it is enforcing an obligation on the pregnant.

Thanks for pointing out that there is an obligation to be enforced, and what's wrong with enforcing an obligation...that's why it's an obligation.

The clue is in the 'FORCE' of 'enforce'.

The salient point is that when a persons undertakes an obligation voluntarily they are agreeing that the duty to be performed may be enforced. Undertaking an obligation and then refusing to abide by that obligation is an initiation of fraud (and/or force) upon those to whom the obligation is made, which in Libertarian philosophy authorizes enforcement of the meeting of that obligation.

If one does not wish to be forced to meet one's obligation, then one need only not incur such an obligation. Thus, if one says "I will undertake to deliver to you two bushels of corn in return for your lending me some money to buy fertilizer" and then you refuse to deliver the obliged amount of corn after the other person has met his obligation of providing you with fertilizer, then you are defrauding that person and he may take whatever action is required to collect that debt to fulfill the obligation you voluntarily undertook.

The same applies to an obligation undertaken that requires action or inaction. Thus, if I say "I will undertake to fly you from point A to point B safety and in accordance with aviation safety regulations" and I perform dangerous aerobatics or act recklessly or negligently while doing so I have initiated both force and fraud upon you and you are justified in doing whatever is required in order to secure your personal safety that is jeopardized by my actions, which may include killing me and taking control of the aircraft if that is what is necessary to preserve your life.

This applies even when you undertake an obligation that requires that you inconvenience or endanger yourself in order to comply with the voluntarily obligation, such as military service. Thus, if you undertake military service and agree to be bound by the regulations and laws of the UCMJ, but you abandon your post in the face of the enemy you are initiating force and fraud against your fellow soldiers and may be punished accordingly, up to and including summary execution.

Therefore, when a woman undertakes to have voluntary sexual relations with a fertile male, she does so knowing, as the soldier know he may be killed in combat, that pregnancy is a risk she is accepting as a part of the act. In the absence of a prior agreement on the part of the state to permit abortion of any resulting child which eliminates any obligation to carry the child to term, the woman is accepting the risk of pregnancy and therefore incurs an obligation to bring the child to term and deliver it without interfering with that gestation based on the societal determination that it is not acceptable for the woman to undertake that risk without being subject to enduring the consequences thereof.

Society may therefore enforce compliance with that voluntary obligation by prohibiting the mother from harming the child if it chooses to do so. The mother accepts that risk by voluntarily engaging in sexual activity, but need not subject herself to that imposition (not initiation) of force in defense of the child, she need only refrain from having sex with fertile males or use one of the many other methods of ensuring she does not become pregnant that are available to her.

In sum, there is nothing in Libertarian theory that precludes a Libertarian society from using force or compulsion to cause an individual to meet his or her voluntarily undertaken obligations or to prevent the individual from initiating force or fraud upon any other person.

OK. So you see the state of being pregnant as necessarily invoking a de facto state-enforcible obligation to remain pregnant and go to term regardless of circumstances and/or the wishes of the mother.

If you think there are any exemption conditions from this enforced obligation what are they, and why?

[Forty Two]

It's indisputable because it has been proven beyond any doubt by scientific investigation that the organism that is created by the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes of two human beings within a fertilized human egg is entirely comprised of human DNA and it is in fact a new, living, presently single-celled organism beginning development into a fully-developed human being.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word indisputable. Would you like to give us YOUR definition?

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is a POTENTIAL human being.
A fertilised human egg is not a human being to most people. Even you called it a single celled organism. You need to make your mind up. Is it a human being, or a single celled organism?

When a baby dies shortly after it's born, people say it only lived X hours.
They don't say it lived 9 months and X hours.

You are correct mistermack, within your definition of human being, and Seth is correct within his. You're defining the terms differently.

Where, i think, Seth differs is that in his mind "human" and "human being" are the same thing. He shows, and is correct, that an embryo or blastocyst of two humans is human, but then he assumes from that that it must be afforded all the same rights as born humans.

This is not at all the case. I have not mentioned "rights" as applied to the fetus as of yet. At the moment I'm trying to resolve the question of whether the fetus is human or not.

There is nothing to resolve there. Genetically, it's human. But, that doesn't resolve the ultimate issue of abortion.

Pro-abortionists base the majority of their justifications for permitting abortion on the fallacious claim that a fetus is not a living human being (organism)

And, there you have illustrated how you and they are using terms differently. A thing can be human without being a human being. It is not fallacious to say that a fertilzed egg is a human fertilized egg, but is not a human being.

but rather is something else that turns into a living human being

Yes, indeed. It is a fertilized human egg which later turns into a human being.

upon exiting the birth canal.

Not all pro choice folks use the exit of the birth canal as the point at which a human fetus becomes a human being. A pro-choicer like me doesn't know exactly when it becomes a human being, and frankly the term doesn't have much relevance to me in the abortion context. I view it more as a pragmatic balance. Whatever you call the developing embryo or fetus, there just, as a practical matter, has to be available abortion for a variety of reasons. However, that availability does not have to be unlimited. At a certain point, and I think this is before birth, there has been enough time to decide, and the fetus is too close to birth to be arbitrarily killed.

My position is not based on the humanity of the tissues. It's based no pragmatism, an attempt to sensibly balance competing necessities.

This is merely a fallacious expedient they use so that they can evade the moral implication of killing a living human being inside the womb simply by blithely denying it's true nature.

For some, it might be. For me, it's not. However, I can rationally separate the difference between a fertilized egg and a 12 week embryo from a 28 week fetus. These are different things. While I think it is not a good thing to terminate even a 10 or 12 week pregnancy, I think it is necessary that the procedure be available, for a variety of reasons.

I have not yet stated a position on the morality or ethics of doing so, although I certainly will if the discussion proceeds rationally...which I rather doubt.

The morality has little to do with the legality, in my view. A great many immoral things not only "can" be legal, but "should" be legal. Legality, to me, should be based on a rational and pragmatic approach to what provides the best outcome while serving legitimate governmental interests and achieving proper governmental purposes. There will, of course, be a wide range of opinion as to what are legitimate interests and purposes of government. However, protecting life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare, are all pretty well accepted purposes of government. In the case of abortion, there is no clear or perfect way to serve those interests, so it's a balancing of interests -- life vs liberty -- what is in the general welfare? That kind of thing.

If we can agree that it's a new and genetically unique living human being (organism) at all times after formation of the zygote then we can proceed to discussing the moral, ethical and legal issues involved.

I reject this condition. We can agree that it is human, without agreeing that it is a "human being." We can also discuss the moral, ethical and legal issues involved in things that involve something other than human beings. Also, people can differ as to whether something is human or a human being, and still discuss moral, ethical and legal issues involved. There is no logical necessity that we have to agree that it's a new living human being at all times after formation of the zygote, in order to discuss morals, and legalities.

However, as for me, I will agree that the sperm and egg are human, and that when they unite, they form a human fertilized egg and a process then continues to form zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult human, who eventually grows old and dies. There are many acceptable reasons to kill a human at any stage of development. Self-defense, as punishment for heinous crimes, defense of others, perhaps sometimes to preserve one's own life even if not under attack (morals of people trapped in a lifeboat), or perhaps in other situations too.

Is it moral to kill one person to save 10? Is it moral to let 10 people die, to keep from killing 1?

Are there reasons to kill a several week old embryo, whether you call it a human being or not? What if it were determined by physicians that the woman's life would be significantly threatened by carrying it? what if the woman was a 10 year old girl who had been raped by her father and grandfather, and would have to wait until after birth to determine which was the father of the child? What if genetic testing revealed that the child would likely be born without a functioning brain?

But I refuse to get caught in the inevitable dodge pro-abortionists use of resorting to "it's not a human being" or "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" as if "fetus" is a taxonomic description of the organism, which it's not.

So, don't get caught up in that dodge. What if you just speculate whether there is any reason you could think of where an abortion of a one or two week after fertilization thing (or human being, whatever you want to call it), should be legally terminable, even if such termination is, in your view, immoral?

The true issue here is strictly a social and moral one that pits the "right" of a woman to autonomy in decision making about the fetus inside her body against the "right" of the fetus to protection by the state in the interests of its continued survival.

Actually, I think you left out the state's interest in preserving the life, and the state's interest/purpose to protect the liberty of the mother, too. There are certainly articulable competing rights and interests involved.

Do you think the issue must be resolve with one right or interest receiving a 100% victory over all others? One must be paramount, and the others must be secondary? Isn't it possible to strike a balance?

I'm happy to discuss the moral, social, legal and ethical considerations but first insist on some common ground upon which to argue, which pro-abortionists quite deliberately and mendaciously refuse to stand upon, preferring shifting sands and animated goalposts because they actually have little ability to argue reasonably on this subject.

You can't claim that now -- I've given you the common ground above.

To me, it's not a bright line -- but, a very grey line, from a fertilized egg to a human being. I look at it this way. A human sperm is human, but it isn't a human being. A human egg is human, but it isn't a human being. A fertilized egg is human, but it isn't a human being.

Any place along the spectrum from there to birth is arbitrary. Some people even argue that birth is arbitrary, and I tend to agree. Some have advocated for post birth abortion for a period of time, because a newborn is not a human being.

There is no scientific "proof" that anything is a human being.

Of course there is. It's called "DNA."

That proves it is human. But, my hand is genetically human, but it's certainly not a human being. Sperm are human, but not a human being. Eggs are human, but not human beings.

It's an indisputable fact that from zygote stage to death the living organism is human.

If you are using "human" and "human being" synonymously, then I would say that zygotes are human beings that should be terminable at the will of the pregnant mother.

I, however, consider the zygote human, without calling it a human being, because it has not developed sufficiently to be that. Basically, I submit that balancing needs to take place to set a fairly reasonably point at which the developing entity can and cannot be killed under given circumstances.

Even an 8th month fetus/baby must sometimes die to save the life of the mother, if there are certain kinds of complications during childbirth, etc.

The difference between a human egg, a human sperm, a fertilized human egg fertilized with human sperm and a zygote is that until the zygote forms the living cells involved (egg and sperm) are uniquely identifiable as being from the respective donors, and in their natural state neither has the ability to become a distinct and new living organism with its own unique DNA composition.

I don't view that as a particularly relevant distinction, although you are correct that until the egg is fertilized, the rest of the development stream will not start. That being said, a zygote has the ability to develop into a baby, but a zygote is not a baby. At the zygote stage, I think there has to be significant provision for legal abortions, due to a balancing of all the rights and interests involved, and a pragmatic understanding of human behavior.

The views you state are loosely based on an unspoken, and perhaps not carefully considered judgment that before time X the fetus is something different from what it is at time Y.

It is something different -- just like I am something different now than I was 30 years ago.

It would be useful for you to examine your motivations and justifications for choosing those demarcation points in development and see if they withstand truly critical scrutiny or whether they are just as arbitrary as those of the most militant pro-abortionist.

They aren't completely arbitrary - what it is is a compromise among competing interests and rights, and in the face of uncertainty and an unclear dividing line. You might find it useful to examine why you insist on "clear demarcation points" in order to justify a given public policy.

That, you see, is the nut of the problem we face. Most people never actually critically examine the subject in a logical, rational and scientific manner and base their decisions on sound reasoning and science. Rather, they base their support or opposition to abortion based on knee-jerk reactionary emotions that too often utterly ignore science and fact, and that is true of both sides of the debate.

I think you place too much importance on whether the embryo is human. The question is, are there good enough public policy reasons to justify not criminalizing the killing of the developing zygote or embryo? There are plenty of public policy reasons that justify not criminalizing killings. Some jurisdictions allow killing in self-defense or even in defense of property (sometimes). Some jurisdictions allow the death penalty as punishment of crime, merely to deter others by example. These are seen as good reasons for murder. Some jurisdictions say that if you kill someone in the "heat of passion" it's not murder, but maybe manslaughter. Some killings are justifiable as defense of others.

Saying "it's human" is not the end of the discussion. The question is, even if it is human, then are the circumstances sufficient, from a public policy standpoint, for the State to refrain from criminalizing abortion at that time and/or for given reasons?

If a fetus is significantly threatening the life of the mother, I think that's a sufficient circumstance. I think if a child is raped and impregnated, then that's a sufficient circumstance. I think, actually, if the pregnancy is detected very soon, that an early abortion ought to be allowed, because of the overarching pubic policy concerns, women's health issues, and given that there is, early on, insufficient development of the entity to provide a significant state interest to protect.

[Seth]

Your foreskin, placed inside the uterus of a woman, will not naturally reproduce itself into a fully-mature human being.

So like I said previously, you are relying on what something MIGHT BECOME to define what it is today.

Wrong. I'm discussing what the fertilized egg HAS BECOME upon the formation of the zygote, which is a new, living genetically-unique human being.

[Brian Peacock]

What if that genetically unique human being is developing with a genetic disorder abnormality?

[Seth]

There is nothing to resolve there. Genetically, it's human. But, that doesn't resolve the ultimate issue of abortion.

As long as we agree that it is a human being, which is to say that it is a living organism comprised of human tissue based on unique human DNA formed at the formation of the zygote, we can agree.

Pro-abortionists base the majority of their justifications for permitting abortion on the fallacious claim that a fetus is not a living human being (organism)

And, there you have illustrated how you and they are using terms differently. A thing can be human without being a human being. It is not fallacious to say that a fertilzed egg is a human fertilized egg, but is not a human being.

A fertilized human egg is not a human being. The biological materials involved are genetically identical to the parent donors until the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. At that moment the biological materials change irrevocably from two distinct DNA patterns of the parents to a new, distinct and unique DNA pattern of the new human organism, which at that moment achieves the status of "being" (or existing) and is therefore properly classified at that moment, and at all time thereafter until death, as a "human being."

You are correct to say that "a thing", which I take to mean tissue originating from a human being, can be "human" without being a "human being." Thus, foreskin is "human" but not a "human being." The zygote, however, is something entirely different from every other cell in a human body in that it is a new and unique combination of DNA creating a new living human being at the zygotic stage of development. The new living human being never changes character thereafter, it merely continues to develop and mature. It becomes comprised of human tissue as the cells divide and differentiate into different roles, but at all times that tissue comprises a living human being, not some unknown or abstract creature of undefined genetic origin or purpose that suddenly and miraculously becomes a human being only when ejected from the birth canal.

Thus, the zygote, and all it's arbitrarily labeled stages such as blastocyst, embryo or fetus, is at all times a human being. That is simply a scientific fact.

Whether that human being is entitled to respect for its fundamental rights is an entirely different and non-scientific question.

Not all pro choice folks use the exit of the birth canal as the point at which a human fetus becomes a human being.

Indeed. But they are still wrong no matter when they choose to draw that conclusion because they are simply scientifically ignorant and wrong.

A pro-choicer like me doesn't know exactly when it becomes a human being, and frankly the term doesn't have much relevance to me in the abortion context.

It's always a human being, from the moment the zygote is formed. Whether it is endowed with independent rights is a political and social question, not a scientific one.

I view it more as a pragmatic balance. Whatever you call the developing embryo or fetus, there just, as a practical matter, has to be available abortion for a variety of reasons. However, that availability does not have to be unlimited. At a certain point, and I think this is before birth, there has been enough time to decide, and the fetus is too close to birth to be arbitrarily killed.

My position is not based on the humanity of the tissues. It's based no pragmatism, an attempt to sensibly balance competing necessities.

And therein lies the conundrum. It's easy to discount the rights of the fetus (if there are any) by refusing to admit that it's a human being, which makes the balancing you refer to tipped heavily in favor of killing the fetus. This is the essential disconnect of the pro-abortion contingent. They, which includes you, refuse to acknowledge the fundamental scientific facts involved by denying that the organism living within the woman is in fact a living human being. By denying its humanity you tilt the balance away from reason and logic and towards politics and emotion.

Only by squarely facing the true facts involved, all of them, no matter how disturbing they might be to your political and social ideas, can a truly rational balancing of the competing "necessities" (I prefer "interests") be made.

As a philosophical exercise, try examining your pragmatic stance on abortion from the position of fully acknowledging that in authorizing abortion you are in fact authorizing the killing of a living human being. Under what circumstances do you think it is rational and logical, and moral and ethical, to end a human life, any human life?

I certainly believe that there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, moral and ethical to end a human life. The question that remains here is whether, or at what point it becomes immoral, unethical and unjustifiable to end a human life inside the womb.

And that is the core of the issue here, but it's an issue that cannot be rationally addressed when one side of the debate resorts to distorting and denying objective scientific fact as a central component of its argument. That's utterly irrational, which ought to be anathema here, of all places.

The morality has little to do with the legality, in my view. A great many immoral things not only "can" be legal, but "should" be legal. Legality, to me, should be based on a rational and pragmatic approach to what provides the best outcome while serving legitimate governmental interests and achieving proper governmental purposes. There will, of course, be a wide range of opinion as to what are legitimate interests and purposes of government. However, protecting life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness of individual citizens, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare, are all pretty well accepted purposes of government. In the case of abortion, there is no clear or perfect way to serve those interests, so it's a balancing of interests -- life vs liberty -- what is in the general welfare? That kind of thing.

This presumes that a "legitimate government interest" or "proper government purpose" is the mandate of the law, which is to say it presumes (falsely I believe) that the interests of government (which is to say the collective in any democratic system) are always more important than the interests of the individual AGAINST the interests of the collective.

Your justification for abortion is more than a little fuzzy, which indicates to me that you have not spent much time truly examining the issue and your rationalizations and justifications for your position. I was the same way for most of my life, until, frankly, I began examining my reasoning and motives in response to posts at RDF and its progeny, including Rationalia. I've spent a lot of time in introspection and examination of the facts and my beliefs, which have resulted in substantial changes in my attitudes about abortion through reason and logic.

That's why I continue to participate in this kind of thread. Each time it gives me the chance to reexamine my own reasoning and justifications and therefore makes me a more informed person capable of seeing nuance and standing for rational propositions respecting the regulation of abortion.

If we can agree that it's a new and genetically unique living human being (organism) at all times after formation of the zygote then we can proceed to discussing the moral, ethical and legal issues involved.

I reject this condition. We can agree that it is human, without agreeing that it is a "human being."

Then we cannot agree on anything because you are denying scientific and rational fact.

We can also discuss the moral, ethical and legal issues involved in things that involve something other than human beings.

But we're not discussing something other than human beings, we're discussing the deliberate and intentional killing of a human being. That's rather the most essential point I'm trying to make. If you cannot justify an abortion practice to the degree that it remains justifiable and rational when it involves the deliberate killing of a human being then you cannot, in my opinion, justify any abortion practice at all because you cannot make a rational judgment based on patently and obviously false beliefs about the nature of the organism you're seeking permission to kill.

Also, people can differ as to whether something is human or a human being, and still discuss moral, ethical and legal issues involved.

Not really. We can't discuss baseball if you think the object involved is a football. We have to agree on the nature of the object under discussion before any sort of debate about anything makes any sense. As I've said, yours is the most commonplace impediment to rational discussion of abortion because the moral, ethical and legal issues involved encompass decisions about the life or death of a human being. If we're discussing the ethics of using antibiotics on E. Coli bacteria we cannot have a rational discussion if you persist in denying that the organism under discussion is E. Coli. This is obviously because any discussion of ethics or morality encompassing the deliberate killing of E. Coli require an examination of the nature of the organism involved and its effects on things (like human life) that we wish to preserve (or destroy).

You surely recognize that the morality of killing E. Coli involves it's fundamental physical and scientific nature, which is based on it's unique genetic makeup and existence as an E. Coli "being" do you not?

How is the issue of the nature of the human fetus any different when it comes to assessing the morality of killing it?

There is no logical necessity that we have to agree that it's a new living human being at all times after formation of the zygote, in order to discuss morals, and legalities.

There is an absolute logical and rational necessity to do so. Not doing so leads to irrational conclusions.

However, as for me, I will agree that the sperm and egg are human, and that when they unite, they form a human fertilized egg and a process then continues to form zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult human, who eventually grows old and dies. There are many acceptable reasons to kill a human at any stage of development. Self-defense, as punishment for heinous crimes, defense of others, perhaps sometimes to preserve one's own life even if not under attack (morals of people trapped in a lifeboat), or perhaps in other situations too.

Is it moral to kill one person to save 10? Is it moral to let 10 people die, to keep from killing 1?

Are there reasons to kill a several week old embryo, whether you call it a human being or not? What if it were determined by physicians that the woman's life would be significantly threatened by carrying it? what if the woman was a 10 year old girl who had been raped by her father and grandfather, and would have to wait until after birth to determine which was the father of the child? What if genetic testing revealed that the child would likely be born without a functioning brain?

Thank you. I agree, there are many reasons one might morally kill a living human being. But the most fundamental decision one has to make when contemplating such action is whether the organism involved is a human being or an E. Coli being, because the moral issues are, I think you will agree, substantially different.

And I agree that there may be valid ethical and moral reasons to kill a human being in the womb, including perhaps some of the examples you cite. But as I said, we cannot proceed to that discussion until we agree upon the definition and nature of the thing we are discussing. Is it a human being or is it an E. Coli being?

But I refuse to get caught in the inevitable dodge pro-abortionists use of resorting to "it's not a human being" or "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" as if "fetus" is a taxonomic description of the organism, which it's not.

So, don't get caught up in that dodge. What if you just speculate whether there is any reason you could think of where an abortion of a one or two week after fertilization thing (or human being, whatever you want to call it), should be legally terminable, even if such termination is, in your view, immoral?

I think that there are a number of instances in which the taking of the life of the fetus may be a moral or ethical imperative. Such instances are highly circumstance-dependent and individualized and not generally amenable to blanket rules in any respect.

One instance in which I feel that it is completely IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to allow the killing of a human being at any stage of development at all is the mere convenience or wish of the mother absent any other justification. In other words, absolute on-demand abortion for no medically or ethically necessary reason at any stage of development without consideration for the relative impacts of permitting versus prohibiting it in a particular instance is entirely unacceptable in my view.

The true issue here is strictly a social and moral one that pits the "right" of a woman to autonomy in decision making about the fetus inside her body against the "right" of the fetus to protection by the state in the interests of its continued survival.

Actually, I think you left out the state's interest in preserving the life, and the state's interest/purpose to protect the liberty of the mother, too. There are certainly articulable competing rights and interests involved.

I agree. I thought I made that point indirectly, but thanks for clarifying.

Do you think the issue must be resolve with one right or interest receiving a 100% victory over all others? One must be paramount, and the others must be secondary? Isn't it possible to strike a balance?

This issue is all about striking a balance, which is something that on-demand abortion sans review or justification denies. At the moment, a woman can (in the US) abort a fetus at any time in the first trimester without any reason or necessity at all, but merely because she wants to, for good reason or no reason at all. I think balances MUST be struck for abortion to be ethical or moral at all.

I'm happy to discuss the moral, social, legal and ethical considerations but first insist on some common ground upon which to argue, which pro-abortionists quite deliberately and mendaciously refuse to stand upon, preferring shifting sands and animated goalposts because they actually have little ability to argue reasonably on this subject.

You can't claim that now -- I've given you the common ground above.

I'll provisionally accept your concession so long as you don't resort to the "but it's not a human being, it's a fetus" argument. So long as we can agree that there are competing interests at work between the mother and the "fetus" at all times after the formation of the zygote, interests which society has an interest in as well, then we can proceed on that provisional basis.

That proves it is human. But, my hand is genetically human, but it's certainly not a human being. Sperm are human, but not a human being. Eggs are human, but not human beings.

See above. You are correct, but incomplete. Eggs and sperm are human tissue, but a zygote is a human being.

It's an indisputable fact that from zygote stage to death the living organism is human.

If you are using "human" and "human being" synonymously, then I would say that zygotes are human beings that should be terminable at the will of the pregnant mother.

The distinction is better described as "human tissue" and "human being" I think. This more accurately reflects the true dispute here. Your foreskin, or your fingernails are "human tissue," but a zygote, fetus et. al. is more than just human tissue, it is a human being in development. This is what makes the fetus different from the human cells and tissue of the mother or the father.

I, however, consider the zygote human, without calling it a human being, because it has not developed sufficiently to be that. Basically, I submit that balancing needs to take place to set a fairly reasonably point at which the developing entity can and cannot be killed under given circumstances.

Even an 8th month fetus/baby must sometimes die to save the life of the mother, if there are certain kinds of complications during childbirth, etc.

The problem with this statement is that it's loaded in two ways. First, you deny that the fetus (let's agree that "fetus" means "from the zygote stage to full delivery" for convenience for the moment) is a human being because it is insufficiently developed, but then again you do not tell us what exactly it IS other than "human." "Human" what? Human tissue? Yes, it's obviously human tissue. But whose human tissue is it? Is it the tissue of the mother or the father? No, it's neither, and both. Examined genetically it's its own being, genetically and identifiably distinct from both parents.

Note that this does not mean that there is a moral imperative that the fetus live, it merely means that you cannot rationally use the stage of development of the new, unique human being as a justification in and of itself for terminating its individual and unique life. There may be circumstances under which factors in play outweigh the life of the fetus, but I do not see the stage of development itself as a valid justification for permitting the mother to kill it without taking into account other circumstances or considerations that might weigh against such termination.

The difference between a human egg, a human sperm, a fertilized human egg fertilized with human sperm and a zygote is that until the zygote forms the living cells involved (egg and sperm) are uniquely identifiable as being from the respective donors, and in their natural state neither has the ability to become a distinct and new living organism with its own unique DNA composition.

I don't view that as a particularly relevant distinction, although you are correct that until the egg is fertilized, the rest of the development stream will not start. That being said, a zygote has the ability to develop into a baby, but a zygote is not a baby. At the zygote stage, I think there has to be significant provision for legal abortions, due to a balancing of all the rights and interests involved, and a pragmatic understanding of human behavior.

You are being inconsistent here. You admit that the zygote "has the ability to develop into a baby" and then say that a "balancing of all the rights and interests involved" is necessary, but you try to deny that there are any rights or interests that inhere to the zygote. Thus you put your thumb on the scale of justice by claiming that the zygote is not a "baby" without defining what a "baby" is and why, when and how rights would accrue to the "baby" but not to the zygote.

You appear to be making your argument based on stages of development, but you haven't explicated any rational basis for making those distinctions, nor have you shown that you understand why biologists divide development into those arbitrary stages, much less justified apportioning rights and interests based on any particular stage of development.

But you're at least heading down the right path of using reason to examine the issue rather than resorting to dogma, propaganda and emotion, which I have to say I appreciate. Thanks for that, it's a refreshing change from the status quo here.

The views you state are loosely based on an unspoken, and perhaps not carefully considered judgment that before time X the fetus is something different from what it is at time Y.

It is something different -- just like I am something different now than I was 30 years ago.

Is it? In what way is it "different?" You are still a homo sapiens sapiens and have been since you were a zygote. In what way have you changed that would justify your being killed for no better reason than the whim and caprice of another?

It would be useful for you to examine your motivations and justifications for choosing those demarcation points in development and see if they withstand truly critical scrutiny or whether they are just as arbitrary as those of the most militant pro-abortionist.

They aren't completely arbitrary - what it is is a compromise among competing interests and rights, and in the face of uncertainty and an unclear dividing line. You might find it useful to examine why you insist on "clear demarcation points" in order to justify a given public policy.

Why aren't they "completely arbitrary?" Can you explain what changes occur in the development of the zygote that cause biologists to apply such labels to the development?

As to why one should have clear demarcation points, it should be obvious that in order for public policy to be applied consistently and fairly, and in obedience to the requirements of the Constitution for equal protection of the law and due process objective demarcation points are necessary in order that the laws may be applied properly.

The danger is, of course, that without clear demarcation points abuse of the law is not just possible, but certain, because either the enforcing authority will do so arbitrarily or the citizen will act arbitrarily and claim justification for those actions because the law is vague and its prohibitions cannot be discerned by a person of reasonable intelligence.

That, you see, is the nut of the problem we face. Most people never actually critically examine the subject in a logical, rational and scientific manner and base their decisions on sound reasoning and science. Rather, they base their support or opposition to abortion based on knee-jerk reactionary emotions that too often utterly ignore science and fact, and that is true of both sides of the debate.

I think you place too much importance on whether the embryo is human.

I think you place too little importance on the fact that a human embryo is human.

The question is, are there good enough public policy reasons to justify not criminalizing the killing of the developing zygote or embryo?

Usually, when it comes to killing of human beings the metric is that there must be a strong justification for allowing the killing, which is otherwise strictly proscribed by most societies. Why should the burden be reversed when it comes to a zygote or embryo?

There are plenty of public policy reasons that justify not criminalizing killings.

Indeed.

Some jurisdictions allow killing in self-defense or even in defense of property (sometimes). Some jurisdictions allow the death penalty as punishment of crime, merely to deter others by example. These are seen as good reasons for murder. Some jurisdictions say that if you kill someone in the "heat of passion" it's not murder, but maybe manslaughter. Some killings are justifiable as defense of others.

Saying "it's human" is not the end of the discussion. The question is, even if it is human, then are the circumstances sufficient, from a public policy standpoint, for the State to refrain from criminalizing abortion at that time and/or for given reasons?

As I said, the general human presumption throughout history is that, from a public policy standpoint, it's unlawful to kill a human being unless you have a strong and valid justification to do so that outweighs the historical presumption of the right to life. You seek to reverse that and demand that society provide a reason NOT to kill a fetus. Why is that a rational construction?

If a fetus is significantly threatening the life of the mother, I think that's a sufficient circumstance.

Yes, I would agree. But what if the fetus is NOT threatening the life of the mother? Is is better public policy to say "you can kill the fetus for any reason or no reason at all because in some circumstances it might threaten your life," or is it better public policy to say "you may not kill the fetus unless it is threatening your life?" I think the latter is better public policy because it's more consistent with the rest of our legal precepts and presumptions about the value of human life.

I think if a child is raped and impregnated, then that's a sufficient circumstance.

This is a knotty problem that in my view requires a nuanced and considered approach on an individualized basis because of the number of variables involved.

I think, actually, if the pregnancy is detected very soon, that an early abortion ought to be allowed, because of the overarching pubic policy concerns, women's health issues, and given that there is, early on, insufficient development of the entity to provide a significant state interest to protect.

The Supreme Court seems to agree with you here, but as you must admit, that's a political and social matter, not one of biology or science, so it could go either way, depending on what the collective will is.

[Seth]

What if that genetically unique human being is developing with a genetic disorder abnormality?

I don't know...what if? That seems to be a question ripe for careful consideration of the individual facts involved. It does not seem to me to be any sort of justification for a blanket permission for on-demand abortion at any stage of development.

[Seth]

In sum, there is nothing in Libertarian theory that precludes a Libertarian society from using force or compulsion to cause an individual to meet his or her voluntarily undertaken obligations or to prevent the individual from initiating force or fraud upon any other person.

OK. So you see the state of being pregnant as necessarily invoking a de facto state-enforcible obligation to remain pregnant and go to term regardless of circumstances and/or the wishes of the mother.

No, I see that getting pregnant may result in the acceptance of an obligation to gestate and deliver the child. I did not say "regardless of the circumstances."

If you think there are any exemption conditions from this enforced obligation what are they, and why?

Why don't you state an exception and I'll tell you if I agree.

One thing I don't agree on is that "the wishes of the mother" without further justification, necessity or review being adequate justification for interfering with the interests of the fetus, the father of the child, or the state, as they may appear.

[surreptitious57]

The woman only wants a boy not a girl
The woman has been raped by a stranger
The woman has been raped by her partner
The condom which the man was wearing split
The woman was drunk so does not know if she gave consent
The woman does not want a child because she cannot afford it
The baby will be born disabled but it will have a reasonable quality of life
The baby will be born disabled but it will not have a reasonable quality of life
The woman willingly had unprotected sex but was not expecting to get pregnant
The woman became pregnant as a surrogate mother but has since changed her mind

[mistermack]

The woman had multiple embryos implanted during IVF, and more than one successfully attaches.

The woman was failed by the state, and brought up as uneducated scum. She fucks for crack money.

[Tero]

"The condom which the man was wearing split."

All those babies should be kept, unless the daddy has five kids already. He seems to be a fine young man with potential. He was too cheap to buy a good brand of condoms but had the negotiating skills to have sex with the woman anyway! Frugality is a useful gene to inherit.

[Seth]

The woman only wants a boy not a girl

Disagree. Sex preference does not justify taking a human life. And, as China proves, it's extremely bad public policy to encourage or facilitate such actions.

The woman has been raped by a stranger

Difficult question. The woman has been traumatized and will likely be traumatized by carrying the child, but on the other hand the child is not guilty of any crime against anyone. In such cases timing is everything, as are her actions after being raped. If she fails to report the crime and waits 9 months to cry rape, then no, abortion is not justifiable. If she reports the crime immediately and participates in the investigation and seeks immediate contraceptive care then I don't have a problem with it. Sit on your rights for too long and you lose them. Time is of the essence.

The woman has been raped by her partner

Same as above.

The condom which the man was wearing split

Known consequence of using condoms, which fail about 15% of the time, therefore the risk was accepted as part of the sex act and an unlimited right to abortion does not seem to weigh heavily against the life of the fetus. However, since it takes 22 to 26 hours for the zygote to form, contraceptive efforts taking place before then would be entirely acceptable. After that time, other considerations come into play as the fetus develops and the longer the woman waits the more compelling the competing interests become. Don't like the risk? Don't have sex.

The woman was drunk so does not know if she gave consent

I presume she became drunk voluntarily because if she was drugged against her will it would be rape. In the case of voluntary intoxication consent can sometimes be presumed depending on the particular circumstances. Consent may be given while intoxicated even though she does not later remember doing so. Unconsciousness is a different matter entirely however. I do not accept the proposition that a person who becomes voluntarily intoxicated must always be free to cry rape and that consent cannot be given merely because they choose to place themselves in circumstances where their memory may be impaired. Thus, having a couple of drinks to get a buzz on and lower inhibitions, followed by going to a hotel room and having sex, followed by more drinking and more sex that results in loss of memory the next day does not axiomatically mean that no consent was given, it merely means that the memory of doing so is impaired, and that is insufficient reason to either justify an abortion or justify a rape claim against one's sex partner. The obvious solution is not to become voluntarily intoxicated to the degree that one's memory or ability to decline are impaired. Society owes no duty of care to the voluntary drunk, either before or afterwards, that would make allowing an abortion mandatory. Individuals must be held responsible for their own behavior and conduct and must be expected to suffer (or enjoy) the consequences of their actions. That's the only way to get people to act responsibly in the future.

The woman does not want a child because she cannot afford it

Adoption.

The baby will be born disabled but it will have a reasonable quality of life

Natural risks of childbearing. Inconvenience is not a reasonable justification for abortion.

The baby will be born disabled but it will not have a reasonable quality of life

Who determines what a "reasonable quality of life" is?

The woman willingly had unprotected sex but was not expecting to get pregnant

Ignorance of biology and improper operation of one's sex organs is hardly justification for taking a human life. Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so without ending a human life merely for your own convenience. Pretty simple really.

The woman became pregnant as a surrogate mother but has since changed her mind

Absolutely not, she's contractually obligated to gestate and deliver the child and can be compelled to do so by law. Refusing to do so is an initiation of both force and fraud.

[Seth]

The woman had multiple embryos implanted during IVF, and more than one successfully attaches.

Don't have multiple-implant IVF if you're not prepared to raise all of the babies.

The woman was failed by the state, and brought up as uneducated scum. She fucks for crack money.

Women can't be failed by the state because the state has no duty to care for or educate her, that's her responsibility. The use of her reproductive organs for commerce is her right, but she has to accept the consequences of doing so and probably should get herself permanently sterilized. That is something which I WOULD support the use of public funds for, unlike expending public funds for condoms or birth control pills so that horny college girls can have sex as much as they like without worrying about the consequences of their actions. If you want to have unlimited college sex without worrying about having children, then get your tubes tied permanently. That I fully and heartily approve of and would contribute to without hesitation. That you can't later have children...well, that's the choice you have, so suck it up and make your choice and live with the consequences.

[mistermack]

Don't have multiple-implant IVF if you're not prepared to raise all of the babies.

Who are you to tell people what to do with their own bodies? Go fuck yourself.

[surreptitious57]

If she fails to report the crime and waits 9 months to cry rape then no abortion is not justifiable

The law in this country does not require a woman to report a rape but it does require her to have an abortion within twenty four weeks [ it might be
different in America ] if she wants one regardless of the reason. A woman who wants an abortion as a result of being raped is obviously going to have
it as soon as possible. But twenty four weeks is the legal limit so just saying. Now compelling a woman to report a rape within nine months is entirely
unacceptable because it does not take in to account the psychological trauma she may be experiencing which would be exacerbated by having a rape
trial. Consequently the woman should only press charges if she wants to not if any one else wants her to. It is not necessary to report the rape before
she has an abortion if she decides to press charges. However a jury would be more sympathetic toward her if she did have an abortion before any trial

[Seth]

Don't have multiple-implant IVF if you're not prepared to raise all of the babies.

Who are you to tell people what to do with their own bodies? Go fuck yourself.

When women get pregnant it's not just their bodies, and that's the point. When you create another living human being, other interests than your own appear and may be considered by public policy in regulating how you treat others.

Thus sayeth the Supreme Court, so you go fuck yourself instead. But wear a condom.