Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Brian Peacock]

...

I see it as necessary that women be able to abort for sure through 12 week so, maybe to 20. As we get past there, though, I really can't see an argument for abortion unless there is an issue of the life or substantial health risk to the mother. I.e., I come from the school that there has to be limit. I'm flexible as to where that limit is, as to what is reasonable. But, I can't fathom how anyone could think it would be reasonable to kill a 28 or 30 week fetus. That's just a premature baby. There may be reasons that NECESSITATE it occurring, but whim should not be one of those reasons, IMO.

I tend to agree. Though circumstances may necessitate a late second- or third-trimester termination I become increasingly uncomfortable with the idea as the number of weeks in the pregnancy goes up - as I am with the idea of termination on the grounds that the child may have some level of disability or impairment. I too don't think it's reasonable to use an abortion as a 30-weeks-late method of contraception but I don't find declarations that a zygote is a human being with inalienable human rights, or that women forsake some of their rights of ownership and control of their bodies when pregnant, or that the well-being of a foetus usurps the well-being of its host, or that society has an over-riding obligation to protect and ensure the survival of the unborn even if that does not necessarily extend to individuals postpartum, very well-founded either.

[Tero]

>>don't know where you get this "majorities decide things that involve more than 1-2 people" -- but, that isn't the explcit rule in any country on Earth. Maybe you're talking about what you'd like it to be, but it certainly isn't the way it is anywhere in the world right now.-<<

In many parts of the world honor killing is allowed. But we don't have to go even that far. If two people decide to live in an abusive relationship, say constant verbal abuse, I don't see that any majority outside them has any business separating them until there is a threat of physical harm. The judges and senators can wag their fingers all they like. Even if they represent the majority.

In the case of a mother and fetus I deny the father any claim until a live birth happens. Keep it simple.

[Tero]

I think Tero is saying that there are no fundamental rights of the sort that are not granted by the state, that it is humans that confer rights, or deny them. This would apply equally to the right to life and the right to abort a foetus. A right is what we define it to be and what rights there are or are not vary over time.

Okay, that's a fine description of the socialist view of rights and confirms what I've been saying, which is that a woman's "right" to privacy manifested as an abortion is subject to revocation at the will of the collective, which means it's not a "right" at all, it's a privilege or permission granted by the government only for so long as the government chooses to do so.

Do you see the conundrum this causes for socialists who try to insist that women have an unassailable "right" to an abortion? They don't. They have a temporary and perilous permission to do so only for so long as the collective decides that they do. If the collective, for whatever reason, changes its mind, it can direct the government to revoke that permission, can't it?

All rights are created, bestowed and denied by humans, be they socialist or otherwise. Even the ones contained in the US constitution. Look at the 18th and 23rd amendments, for example. In fact, all 27 ratified amendments are ample evidence that rights are neither immutable nor unchangeable. That is why it took your nation almost a century since the formulation of its "unalienable rights" abolish slavery and well over a century to give women the right to vote.

Modern life has caught up with some realities. The permissive society has come up with some standard. The UN declared certain human rights. But none of that is a given. We may even have to give up some rights as we overpopulate the planet. Realities always control life. We can always explain and justify.

Science has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It may take away some guilt, but all in all our 20 weeks is arbitrary. You could say 10 weeks or 30 weeks. we could come up with more reliable methods of birth control. all females over 10 on the pill.

Back in medieval times the church fathers used to control society by controlling who could marry. You had to read and write and believe in god in Lutheran times. Idiots could not marry or cohabit. Some babies were just disposed if the thing was just too immoral to the rulers and moral police.

[Seth]

Trolling is a confusing business. You forget the bollocks you wrote earlier.

No I don't, you just continue to misunderstand them.

Much of the confusion is generated by the term ''human being''.
Seth is using it like it's a definition. IT'S NOT.

Sure it is.

It's a common name. We apply the name to the animal, but the animal is not defined by the name.

"Human" is merely shorthand for the taxonomic identification "homo sapiens sapiens." The organism is not defined by the name, the name identifies what the organism is.

Just as Hooded Crows don't wear hoods, and Shovelers don't have shovels and pussy willows don't have pussies.
This is what is so ridiculous about Seth's attempt to say, "it's human, and it's being, so it's a human being".
I wonder what he thinks of sea horses ?

"seahorse" is a short identifier for members of the:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Syngnathiformes
Family: Syngnathidae
Subfamily: Hippocampinae
Genus: Hippocampus

What you cannot understand is that a fetus of the human species, which is to say more precisely, a member of:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

is never a seahorse, it's always a member of the human species. It holds that classification from the instant it becomes a new living member of the species until it dies.

That being the case, if it exists, it has achieved the state of "being" and is therefore a "human being", as opposed to, say, a "seahorse being."

Just because you are unwilling to acknowledge scientific fact doesn't mean you are correct in your assertions. You're not, you're merely demonstrating ideological bias and ignorance.

[Seth]

All rights are created, bestowed and denied by humans, be they socialist or otherwise. Even the ones contained in the US constitution. Look at the 18th and 23rd amendments, for example. In fact, all 27 ratified amendments are ample evidence that rights are neither immutable nor unchangeable. That is why it took your nation almost a century since the formulation of its "unalienable rights" abolish slavery and well over a century to give women the right to vote.

Again, thank you for reinforcing my point. I disagree however because our Constitution makes it quite plain that certain unalienable rights are not bestowed by humans, they are attributes of our existence that accrue regardless of the political or social organization and, in the Founder's view, are bestowed by God. In my view certain unalienable rights are natural, inherent and are a function of our very existence as living organisms. But, even assuming you are correct, that still doesn't help the case for unlimited on-demand abortion.

Abortion, in your construction, is a privilege, not a right, and may be revoked at the will of the people. That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Insisting that women have a "right" to an abortion, if you view rights as state-granted and therefore collectively controlled, is a bootless argument. The import being that if the fetus has no right to life, the mother has no right to abortion and all such decisions are vested in the collective, which can change it's collective mind at any point. All that is required is a change of sentiment in the collective, which seems to be trending away from unlimited on-demand abortion permission in the US at present, with the majority being against it.

On the other hand, if the mother has a "right" to an abortion that may be exercised in defiance of the collective will, then there is no reason why the fetus cannot also have a right to life that may be protected in defiance of the mother's desire to abort.

The question that remains is how such conflicting rights are best balanced to achieve the goals and ideals of the society involved.

[Seth]

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. 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) but rather is something else that turns into a living human being upon exiting the birth canal. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. All this "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" rhetoric is merely a smokescreen and diversion to prevent any rational discussion because pro-abortionists know that if they admit that a fetus is a human being their case for plenary control of its life by the mother is substantially weakened if not destroyed completely.

So, I continue to challenge the attempt at evasion I'm seeing yet again, for the uncounted infinity of times I've seen it before every time this subject comes up.

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.

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." It's an indisputable fact that from zygote stage to death the living organism is human. 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. Only upon formation of the zygote, which is defined as the alignment of the maternal and paternal chromosomes along the spindle apparatus, does the first cell of a new, unique living human organism come into being. And that organism retains its identity as a living human being at every stage thereafter until death, without exception.

You are correct in saying that after formation of the zygote any point along that developmental path is arbitrary because it's not "staged" at all, it is a continuous process of development. We tend to identify "stages" of development for various reasons, but factually you are correct in saying that all such determinations are arbitrary.

The only clearly identifiable point in time (at present) that science can accurately say that the biological materials involved change from one distinct thing to another distinct and genetically unique thing is at the formation of the zygote, which takes place between 22 and 26 hours after fertilization of the egg by the sperm. At every point thereafter the organism remains genetically the same and is merely in the process of development into a fully-mature organism. Thus, any determination of it's actual biological status after that point is arbitrary and does not serve to prove that the organism is at one moment one species and at another moment a different species. It is, of course, at all times human.

I am prochoice as a matter of pragmatism. But, I'm not absolutist. I really don't think that abortion has to be all or nothing -- legal and unrestricted until birth -- there is room for a compromise. I mean, once a child is past 28 weeks, it can be born alive and live. How different is that from a 28 weeker that just happens to wait longer. If the woman goes into labor and births it, can you just kill it? Why not?

I see it as necessary that women be able to abort for sure through 12 week so, maybe to 20. As we get past there, though, I really can't see an argument for abortion unless there is an issue of the life or substantial health risk to the mother. I.e., I come from the school that there has to be limit. I'm flexible as to where that limit is, as to what is reasonable. But, I can't fathom how anyone could think it would be reasonable to kill a 28 or 30 week fetus. That's just a premature baby. There may be reasons that NECESSITATE it occurring, but whim should not be one of those reasons, IMO.

I like to think that I'm trying to be reasonable about abortion. Some feminists tend to get bent out of shape out of the mere mention of any sort of limit. This is, I think, an American phenomenon, though. I sometimes wonder why there is so little public outrage about the 20-odd week limits found in almost all western industrialized nations, yet in the US, limits on late term abortions are viewed as misogynistic over-reaching of the State.

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 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.

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.

[Seth]

It's a very libertarian perspective to suggest that anything inside people's skins is outside the power of the State. It's also a very American thing these days to talk about are limited government and the power of the state being limited. Most of the democratic world seems to go by the presumption that majority opinion is enough, and that if most people want something then that 's what should happen, and the concept of fundamental rights or areas where the government cannot go are deemed antiquated and obsolete.

Until the state steps up to feed and clothe the new human for 18 years, they really have no say in the matter. Majorities decide things that involve more than 1-2 people.

That's a political, not a scientific opinion. I could just as easily say that unless the state steps up and provides me with 24/7 professionally-trained armed security at no expense, nobody has any say in the matter of whether I carry a gun for self defense or not.

Which is not to say that I completely disagree with you. I feel that if the state decides to intervene in the decision of terminating a pregnancy, then the state automatically takes financial responsibility for the consequences of that intervention. If the state refuses to permit an abortion then I agree that the mother should be able to simply hand the child over to the state and disclaim all financial and legal responsibility.

Oh, wait, the state can and does do exactly that, all the time, at the simple request of the mother. All she has to do is say she doesn't want the baby and the state will take custody of the child.

Imagine that. What a concept.

Thus your argument is pretty thoroughly dismantled. Better luck next time.

[Tero]

Abortion and laws relating to it is politics. Not science. You did not know that?

[Seth]

Abortion and laws relating to it is politics. Not science. You did not know that?

Of course I do, but the problem is that pro-abortionists try to cloak their political arguments in a veil of science to delude people into making wrong decisions. My intention is to rip away that false cloak of legitimacy they use and reveal them for what they really are, which is political hacks who will lie and kill to achieve their political agenda. We start demolishing their web of lies by speaking basic scientific truths to debunk the propaganda they spew at every turn.

[Tero]

It's just a cloak of less guilt. Some of them liberals are still religious and they feel bad. The fetus has no soul but they think it does. And the soul is not v ery developed. It just goes "mama" and "dada."

[Brian Peacock]

...
I feel that if the state decides to intervene in the decision of terminating a pregnancy, then the state automatically takes financial responsibility for the consequences of that intervention. If the state refuses to permit an abortion then I agree that the mother should be able to simply hand the child over to the state and disclaim all financial and legal responsibility.

Oh, wait, the state can and does do exactly that, all the time, at the simple request of the mother. All she has to do is say she doesn't want the baby and the state will take custody of the child.

Imagine that. What a concept.

Thus your argument is pretty thoroughly dismantled. Better luck next time.

Adoption as contraception eh? While, on this premise, the state ensures a constant supply of fresh children by forbidding abortion. And there was I thinking you were uncomfortable with the state exploiting its citizens.

[Seth]

...
I feel that if the state decides to intervene in the decision of terminating a pregnancy, then the state automatically takes financial responsibility for the consequences of that intervention. If the state refuses to permit an abortion then I agree that the mother should be able to simply hand the child over to the state and disclaim all financial and legal responsibility.

Oh, wait, the state can and does do exactly that, all the time, at the simple request of the mother. All she has to do is say she doesn't want the baby and the state will take custody of the child.

Imagine that. What a concept.

Thus your argument is pretty thoroughly dismantled. Better luck next time.

Adoption as contraception eh? While, on this premise, the state ensures a constant supply of fresh children by forbidding abortion. And there was I thinking you were uncomfortable with the state exploiting its citizens.

The state forbidding abortion doesn't mean it's compelling pregnancy.

[Brian Peacock]

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

[Hermit]

our Constitution makes it quite plain that certain unalienable rights are not bestowed by humans

Correction: Some humans assert that some rights are not bestowed by humans. The Declaration of Independence makes that crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "We hold"? On what grounds? Jefferson never explains. He just asserts it is a self-evident truth.

[Hermit]

As for the right to an abortion, yes it is a right - when it is granted, like all other rights, by the will of the people, and no, it is not a right when it is denied by the will of the people, just like every other individual right or collection of rights. Please note that your constitution was likewise assented to by the majority of enfranchised people in the majority of the then existing former colonies. Without such consent by the relevant people the allegedly self-evident truths and unalienable rights would not have become the foundation of your nation.