Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

When Does Life Begin?


Noggy

Recommended Posts

"When does life begin?" isn't a helpful question in the abortion debate. That debate is really about a seeming conflict between the rights of the woman and the rights of what she's gestating. To me, the meaningful question then becomes, "When are rights able to be exercised, bestowed or enforced?" The obvious answer is that nothing locked within the body of a human with rights has rights. Rights can't be acted upon by anything locked in another body. Nor can rights be granted to or protected for anything locked within a person with rights -- that would have as much meaning as would rights being granted to a kidney.

Not to be snarky, but then how do you explain conjoined twins? : /

 

Easy. Equality of status. "Joined together" is not "locked within."

 

Noggy, the case of the famous violinist is a sophomoric construct, useless as a parallel to the very real complexities faced by a pregnant woman.

 

I fail to see how it is obvious, however. It may seem "obvious" to you, but it clearly does not to someone else.

 

I dont see how, when a woman has a late term fetus in her, that the doctor says would be capable of living outside the mother, it would still be moral to kill the child. Why cant they just remove the child instead, and then put it up for adoption. The consequences against the womans "rights" are the same, except now we don't have a dead fetus. If the woman would be harmed by bringing the child to term, or by the C-section, then I can understand. The rights of a full life outweigh the rights of a life "locked within", but you cant just kill them when there is a very real, and more humane alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious answer is that nothing locked within the body of a human with rights has rights. Rights can't be acted upon by anything locked in another body. Nor can rights be granted to or protected for anything locked within a person with rights -- that would have as much meaning as would rights being granted to a kidney.

 

The real problem is that that doesn't seem to be obvious. Have you heard the case of the famous violinist?

 

 

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [if he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

 

I find that to be a very unconvincing moral dilemma for many reasons:

 

1. It's supposed to matter that he's a "famous violinist", and if that makes him more worthy, more deserving, than (for example) a homeless guy. It comes off as saying "one of the upper classes is ill, and since you are a mere peasant, he has every right to your bodily resources". So from the start, this example is NOT supporting the idea that human life is valuable in and of itself, because this famous person is obviously more deserving than me.

 

2. Medical ethics were violated when my medical records were accessed.

 

3. I was not consulted. The kidnappers/assaulters never considered that I was worth asking, that if they had bothered to present their case to me that I might have given my consent willingly, or bargained out a price that I thought would be worth it to me. This is incredibly dehumanising.

 

4. The violinist was not consulted. If I were him, and I woke up months later to discover that my fans had performed criminal acts against an innocent person on my behalf, I'd be furious and ashamed. I personally would rather die than have another human being forced to be my life support.

 

The only reason I would hesitate to pull the plug is that the violinist himself did not authorize the crimes against me. I would call the cops, have the Society members charged for the criminal acts against me, ask a doctor whether there is truly no other way for the violinist to recover, and if I really was the only way for him to live then I'd ask his family/the sane fans/music label if they'd be willing to pay for my lost wages, physical therapy (if I'm stuck to him for nine months, I'm not going to be getting much exercise), a shrink for the trauma of the kidnapping and assault (yes, sticking needles into my flesh to pump poisons into my veins is assault), and the capacity to keep up my job skills so that I can return to the work force later, then I'd think about it, but consider it fully in my rights to say no. If I had a spouse and/or children I would be neglecting during this time, all the money in the world might not be worth it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious answer is that nothing locked within the body of a human with rights has rights. Rights can't be acted upon by anything locked in another body. Nor can rights be granted to or protected for anything locked within a person with rights -- that would have as much meaning as would rights being granted to a kidney.

 

The real problem is that that doesn't seem to be obvious. Have you heard the case of the famous violinist?

 

 

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [if he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

 

I find that to be a very unconvincing moral dilemma for many reasons:

 

1. It's supposed to matter that he's a "famous violinist", and if that makes him more worthy, more deserving, than (for example) a homeless guy. It comes off as saying "one of the upper classes is ill, and since you are a mere peasant, he has every right to your bodily resources". So from the start, this example is NOT supporting the idea that human life is valuable in and of itself, because this famous person is obviously more deserving than me.

 

2. Medical ethics were violated when my medical records were accessed.

 

3. I was not consulted. The kidnappers/assaulters never considered that I was worth asking, that if they had bothered to present their case to me that I might have given my consent willingly, or bargained out a price that I thought would be worth it to me. This is incredibly dehumanising.

 

4. The violinist was not consulted. If I were him, and I woke up months later to discover that my fans had performed criminal acts against an innocent person on my behalf, I'd be furious and ashamed. I personally would rather die than have another human being forced to be my life support.

 

The only reason I would hesitate to pull the plug is that the violinist himself did not authorize the crimes against me. I would call the cops, have the Society members charged for the criminal acts against me, ask a doctor whether there is truly no other way for the violinist to recover, and if I really was the only way for him to live then I'd ask his family/the sane fans/music label if they'd be willing to pay for my lost wages, physical therapy (if I'm stuck to him for nine months, I'm not going to be getting much exercise), a shrink for the trauma of the kidnapping and assault (yes, sticking needles into my flesh to pump poisons into my veins is assault), and the capacity to keep up my job skills so that I can return to the work force later, then I'd think about it, but consider it fully in my rights to say no. If I had a spouse and/or children I would be neglecting during this time, all the money in the world might not be worth it to me.

 

 

Certainly the analogy was not perfect. It was merely an analogy brought forth by people many years ago to try to explain abortion, and has been useful in letting other people see the reasons for other peoples different views.

 

There is evidence on either side, it is not black and white as everyone seems to suggest. The only difference is certain people put a different weight on the value of certain arguments within the debate. Pro-Choices tend to view the womans rights as more important, while Pro-lifers tend to view the childs rights as equally important to the womans. Everyone knows the evidence for both sides, people just make different judgements. There is no way to say that your way is right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is evidence on either side, it is not black and white as everyone seems to suggest. The only difference is certain people put a different weight on the value of certain arguments within the debate. Pro-Choices tend to view the womans rights as more important, while Pro-lifers tend to view the childs rights as equally important to the womans. Everyone knows the evidence for both sides, people just make different judgements. There is no way to say that your way is right.

 

Noggy, any "right" which can be more or less important than another competing "right" is not a "right." It may be a privilege, but it is not a "right." "Rights" are absolutes; they don't come in degrees. This is why a woman's "right" to have full say over what happens to her body is absolute, just as it is the absolute "right" of a man. If a woman has this "right" of bodily integrity except during pregnancy, then she does not have this "right" at all, and we are entered into the arena of Equal Protection Under the Law, e.g., men cannot have a "right" which women do not have.

 

The moment a fetus is expelled from within the body of a woman it becomes imbued with the full "rights" of all other living humans. Until that moment, the fetus was given the "privilege" of development by its host: a woman with "rights."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is evidence on either side, it is not black and white as everyone seems to suggest. The only difference is certain people put a different weight on the value of certain arguments within the debate. Pro-Choices tend to view the womans rights as more important, while Pro-lifers tend to view the childs rights as equally important to the womans. Everyone knows the evidence for both sides, people just make different judgements. There is no way to say that your way is right.

 

Noggy, any "right" which can be more or less important than another competing "right" is not a "right." It may be a privilege, but it is not a "right." "Rights" are absolutes; they don't come in degrees. This is why a woman's "right" to have full say over what happens to her body is absolute, just as it is the absolute "right" of a man. If a woman has this "right" of bodily integrity except during pregnancy, then she does not have this "right" at all, and we are entered into the arena of Equal Protection Under the Law, e.g., men cannot have a "right" which women do not have.

 

The moment a fetus is expelled from within the body of a woman it becomes imbued with the full "rights" of all other living humans. Until that moment, the fetus was given the "privilege" of development by its host: a woman with "rights."

 

Nothing of what you said is a fact. It is all just an opinion. That is the problem with this debate.

 

You may agree with the law, but the law can be incorrect. But in this case, I don't believe there is really a good standard of correct and incorrect, it seems to just be public opinion.

 

And your male/female argument is a terrible one. If a man had a baby in his belly, the law would work the same way. It's not our fault that only women can get pregnant. for example: there are laws against sticking your penis in stuff. is that discriminatory against men? no. its discriminatory against penises. but you have to discriminate to have any sort of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When does life begin?" isn't a helpful question in the abortion debate. That debate is really about a seeming conflict between the rights of the woman and the rights of what she's gestating. To me, the meaningful question then becomes, "When are rights able to be exercised, bestowed or enforced?" The obvious answer is that nothing locked within the body of a human with rights has rights. Rights can't be acted upon by anything locked in another body. Nor can rights be granted to or protected for anything locked within a person with rights -- that would have as much meaning as would rights being granted to a kidney.

Not to be snarky, but then how do you explain conjoined twins? : /

 

Easy. Equality of status. "Joined together" is not "locked within."

I don't think this is a successful way of parsing the situation.

 

Why is it obvious that things 'locked within' other things don't have rights? (human centipede slightly altered?)

Why can't rights be acted upon by anything locked in another body? (guardian ad litem?)

What if the fetus became conscious at 4 weeks and could communicate telepathically with Mom? With others? Still no rights? Still OK with an abortion?

 

"Locked within" fails as a distinction, I think. As do rights.. rights are just more imaginitive human constructs, like souls & "persons."

 

 

Pro-lifers have this going for them: new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual. It's extremely logical. Life may keep on rolling right along, but we the living parse it out by our individual lifespans -- that start at conception.

 

So. Where does life begin? There simply is no question that an individual's life begins at conception. How you deal with those facts is your business, but people should at least have the courage to face reality.

 

 

I've come to believe that the reality of our situation forces us to be savage. It's a terrible situation, and it's only wishful thinking that let's people think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nothing of what you said is a fact. It is all just an opinion. That is the problem with this debate.

 

Fact/opinion... have it your way... but there is also logic, one of my personal favorites.

 

You may agree with the law, but the law can be incorrect. But in this case, I don't believe there is really a good standard of correct and incorrect, it seems to just be public opinion.

 

Or maybe logic. :grin:

 

And your male/female argument is a terrible one. If a man had a baby in his belly, the law would work the same way.

 

I believe it was Rose F. Kennedy who said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

 

It's not our fault that only women can get pregnant.

 

Nobody here is blaming men for that fact. :shrug:

 

for example: there are laws against sticking your penis in stuff. is that discriminatory against men? no. its discriminatory against penises.

 

Actually, there are laws against anybody using any part of their body or any object to assault, in any way, the body of another person. (There are women who have been convicted of rape.)

 

but you have to discriminate to have any sort of law.

 

Yikes! And here I thought one of the purposes of law was to overcome discrimination. Or... maybe you meant lawmakers have to be discriminating individuals?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-lifers have this going for them: new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual. It's extremely logical. Life may keep on rolling right along, but we the living parse it out by our individual lifespans -- that start at conception.

Each sperm and ova is a new combination of the host's DNA. I think it's Mendel's second law, the law of independent assortment (i.e. recombination of the two sets of DNA into one single set).

 

Life does not start with conception. The ova and sperm are not dead. Unless you want to explain why haploid is dead, while diploid is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-lifers have this going for them: new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual. It's extremely logical. Life may keep on rolling right along, but we the living parse it out by our individual lifespans -- that start at conception.

Each sperm and ova is a new combination of the host's DNA. I think it's Mendel's second law, the law of independent assortment (i.e. recombination of the two sets of DNA into one single set).

 

Life does not start with conception. The ova and sperm are not dead. Unless you want to explain why haploid is dead, while diploid is not.

I'll explain two things. First, we aren't talking about life qua life. Spiders are alive, but we don't care about smashing them right? We aren't even talking about human life qua human life. As you argued earlier, human life just keeps going and going and going. So no one is saying that a haploid is dead.

 

All I'm saying is that a human individual's life begins at conception because it's there that s/he acquires their DNA that they keep until they die. I suppose things would be different if we changed our DNA over the course of our lifespans... like, if we cocooned or something. hm. ..... I will think about that and get back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll explain two things. First, we aren't talking about life qua life. Spiders are alive, but we don't care about smashing them right? We aren't even talking about human life qua human life. As you argued earlier, human life just keeps going and going and going. So no one is saying that a haploid is dead.

Ok. I only reacted to this statement of yours: "new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual." I find such a definition faulty.

 

All I'm saying is that a human individual's life begins at conception because it's there that s/he acquires their DNA that they keep until they die.

Ok.

 

I suppose things would be different if we changed our DNA over the course of our lifespans... like, if we cocooned or something. hm. ..... I will think about that and get back to you.

The mRNA gets shorter. Our body changes. The biological system changes. And so on. Is DNA the definition of a human life? Everyone's DNA is different. Not everyone has the same number of chromosomes even (trisomy-21 etc).

 

As has been pointed out earlier, life, even human life, or individual existence, is a continuous and blurry concept. We define, in society, what we mean with beginning and end.

 

Abortion is a tricky thing, but it makes sense that the mother makes the decision instead of a group of old narrow-minded men, regardless if we like the idea or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate will only remain the topic of discussions boards and a few crazies picketing abortion clinics.

 

The onus is on the pro lifers to change the legal status quo.

 

Forgive me for sounding racist here, but the rightards who ess. are still color biased in many ways, seeing that abortion stats fall within the poorer non white demographic, abolishing it will simply exasperate many issues relating to their problems of socialism, welfare and national health care amongst this demographic.

 

The mostly white affluent will still be able to get their abortions legally and via accepted procedures and their medical aid will pay for it.

 

The pro lifers are merely beating a long dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noggy,

 

To say "this is all just opinion" seems like more of a deflection than anything. What you are asking are moral questions question of values and social norms. Matters of scientific fact might inform , re-frame and change the nature of those values and norms, but what we are discussing is a domain of dialog which can only be laden with opinion.

 

Though you asked "when does life begin" are you actually asking "does a life reach a stage of physcal development where it becomes important enough to warrant the protection and intervention of law?"

 

I guess there could be some moral right to continue to live regardless of questions of law. In which case, the question could be framed "at what point does a developing human obtain a moral standing where their life "'ought' to be preserved?"

 

Because in any stage of the process the woman carrying an unborn child takes upon herself a great risk, she alone has the right to determine whether that pregnancy should continue. Even in the scenario where the baby is viable outside of the womb, the woman still has to decide which procedure with which she is willing to risk her health and well being. Even so routine a procedure as a c-section can result in death, brain damage or coma just from the anesthesia.

 

Does a judge or a social worker have a right to tell a woman in what way she will be allowed to risk her life? Perhaps the judge could order a delay for the sake of making sure the mother has all the relevant medical information. But even with the best pre-natal vitamins and medical care, the woman bears a great risk to herself in bringing a child to term. Not just physical risks to her life, but the risk of her life's future direction due to whatever social and economic consequences follow from the pregnancy.

 

So , to me, life began billions of years ago and continued up through the birth of humans. The individual life begins at conception, but the so called "right to life" is not absolute. The woman carrying the child to term has the right to end the pregnancy. The child in the womb has the right of protection from outside threats as long as the mother desires to carry the child to term. The woman carrying the child has a responsibility to reasonably keep the child out of danger from malnutrition or physical danger. Once the child is born and the woman is no longer bearing the child at risk to her life, the child has the right to full protection as a person (under the guardianship of others, of course).

 

If you don't like my conclusions, then you may very well say "that's just your opinion." But hopefully you will thoughtfully consider the question of who has the right to tell a person to risk their life to see a pregnancy through.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noggy,

 

To say "this is all just opinion" seems like more of a deflection than anything. What you are asking are moral questions question of values and social norms. Matters of scientific fact might inform , re-frame and change the nature of those values and norms, but what we are discussing is a domain of dialog which can only be laden with opinion.

 

Though you asked "when does life begin" are you actually asking "does a life reach a stage of physcal development where it becomes important enough to warrant the protection and intervention of law?"

 

I guess there could be some moral right to continue to live regardless of questions of law. In which case, the question could be framed "at what point does a developing human obtain a moral standing where their life "'ought' to be preserved?"

 

Because in any stage of the process the woman carrying an unborn child takes upon herself a great risk, she alone has the right to determine whether that pregnancy should continue. Even in the scenario where the baby is viable outside of the womb, the woman still has to decide which procedure with which she is willing to risk her health and well being. Even so routine a procedure as a c-section can result in death, brain damage or coma just from the anesthesia.

 

Does a judge or a social worker have a right to tell a woman in what way she will be allowed to risk her life? Perhaps the judge could order a delay for the sake of making sure the mother has all the relevant medical information. But even with the best pre-natal vitamins and medical care, the woman bears a great risk to herself in bringing a child to term. Not just physical risks to her life, but the risk of her life's future direction due to whatever social and economic consequences follow from the pregnancy.

 

So , to me, life began billions of years ago and continued up through the birth of humans. The individual life begins at conception, but the so called "right to life" is not absolute. The woman carrying the child to term has the right to end the pregnancy. The child in the womb has the right of protection from outside threats as long as the mother desires to carry the child to term. The woman carrying the child has a responsibility to reasonably keep the child out of danger from malnutrition or physical danger. Once the child is born and the woman is no longer bearing the child at risk to her life, the child has the right to full protection as a person (under the guardianship of others, of course).

 

If you don't like my conclusions, then you may very well say "that's just your opinion." But hopefully you will thoughtfully consider the question of who has the right to tell a person to risk their life to see a pregnancy through.

 

 

Maybe you will actually read my posts and notice that I say that when someone life is at risk, abortion is validated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

 

Maybe you will actually read my posts and notice that I say that when someone life is at risk, abortion is validated.

 

I missed that particular statement. But I did read your posts. That(your position) is certainly more generous than many people would be.

 

But please recall, women bear a risk to their lives and their health as long as they are pregnant. One does not have to wait until some crisis develops and a catastrophic medical event occurs. And who is going to do the validating?

 

The statement "when someone's life is at risk, abortion is validated," essentially says it is up to some third party to determine if there is enough risk to "allow" an abortion. If the mother is mentally competent, why does she have to give up her autonomy in this matter? How is that right?

 

And don't forget to consider the question of who gets saddled with he economic responsibility for the medical care of the mother in your scenario? Economic risk is very real in a country where low income women get the crappy medical care and the wealthier women get the hotel-like maternity wards and insurance coverage for ob/gyn care.

 

At the base of this whole dialog is the question, "why don't you think women responsible enough to consider what is best for themselves and the baby they carry?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-lifers have this going for them: new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual. It's extremely logical. Life may keep on rolling right along, but we the living parse it out by our individual lifespans -- that start at conception.

 

How exactly does that count in favor of the antis? Tumors have their own DNA as well, but I have yet to see any protests agaisnt cancer treatment centers.

 

Is crushing an acorn the same as cutting down an oak tree? If I eat a pumpkin seed, is it the same as eating a whole pumpkin? Or eating an egg the same as eating a whole chicken?

 

I think a better scenario to show which stage of life carries more weight is this - suppose there is a raging fire in a hospital. There are two rooms near you but you only have enough time to run into one and save the occupants from the fire. In one room there are five frozen fertilized embryos. In the other room there are five newborn babies. Which room do you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. You have no moral objection to a healthy mother killing a healthy child, when there is the option to have the child removed from the mother AT NO COST to the family in any way? i.e. this would be funded by PP or someshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. You have no moral objection to a healthy mother killing a healthy child, when there is the option to have the child removed from the mother AT NO COST to the family in any way? i.e. this would be funded by PP or someshit.

Noggy,

 

I'm not sure if that question is directed at me or not. If not, then who are you addressing?

 

If it was, then I am curious why the question was framed in such a polarizing way. You assume a whole lot of conditions in your question that nobody but the mother has the ability to address. Plus, the question is vague. What do you mean by healthy? And this "option." It still involves the person who bears all the risk carrying a child to term but having to yield to a third parties judgement and not necessarily her own. It would be great if a woman could get funding for her medical care. But PP and all other agencies have red tape, conditions, provisos and finite budgets. Certainly the availability of such funds would be a consideration for a woman carrying a child. But the underlying thrust of the position you seem to take here is that the woman's choice is limited, but she still bears all the physical risk. There may be other factors that the woman has to consider that would diminish the viability of the "option" you mention. Why should a third party get involved with that process and circumvent a competent person's right to decide?

 

You did not answer the questions I posed to you. At least I don't see how your post addresses these questions:

 


     
  1. If the mother is mentally competent, why does she have to give up her autonomy in this matter? How is that right?
     
  2. At the base of this whole dialog is the question, "why don't you think women responsible enough to consider what is best for themselves and the baby they carry?"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. You have no moral objection to a healthy mother killing a healthy child, when there is the option to have the child removed from the mother AT NO COST to the family in any way? i.e. this would be funded by PP or someshit.

Noggy,

 

I'm not sure if that question is directed at me or not. If not, then who are you addressing?

 

If it was, then I am curious why the question was framed in such a polarizing way. You assume a whole lot of conditions in your question that nobody but the mother has the ability to address. Plus, the question is vague. What do you mean by healthy? And this "option." It still involves the person who bears all the risk carrying a child to term but having to yield to a third parties judgement and not necessarily her own. It would be great if a woman could get funding for her medical care. But PP and all other agencies have red tape, conditions, provisos and finite budgets. Certainly the availability of such funds would be a consideration for a woman carrying a child. But the underlying thrust of the position you seem to take here is that the woman's choice is limited, but she still bears all the physical risk. There may be other factors that the woman has to consider that would diminish the viability of the "option" you mention. Why should a third party get involved with that process and circumvent a competent person's right to decide?

 

You did not answer the questions I posed to you. At least I don't see how your post addresses these questions:

 

  1. If the mother is mentally competent, why does she have to give up her autonomy in this matter? How is that right?
  2. At the base of this whole dialog is the question, "why don't you think women responsible enough to consider what is best for themselves and the baby they carry?"

 

 

The reason I asked my question in such a polarizing way is because THIS is my view. My view is very simple. I'm not trying to change the entire abortion landscape, I just think I've come up with a cute little middleground that no one really has any good arguments against: Late-term needless abortions shouldn't happen.

 

I believe most women are competent. The kind of legislation that I am implying by asking this question wouldn't affect 99% of abortions. I realize that. I like the abortion system we have now, but I am not a fan of these healthybaby-healthymom abortions. They don't happen often, but I feel like it should NEVER happen.

 

to specifically answer your questions:

 

1. I feel that if the mother is mentally competent, then she wouldn't decide to kill her child, when she could just give it up for adoption.

 

2. See above post.

 

in the end, if there is a healthy woman and a healthy child, and the child is able to live outside of the mother, and there wouldn't be any complications removing it, i think the baby should be removed. if the mother doesnt want to pay for it, we will. the child would then be placed for adoption. I think that anyone who would choose to kill a child in this scenario isn't "mentally competent".

 

 

Also, this would be funded by the taxpayers. I wouldn't mind paying an extra dollar a year and having that go (collectively) to save the lives of a few thousand children.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. You have no moral objection to a healthy mother killing a healthy child, when there is the option to have the child removed from the mother AT NO COST to the family in any way? i.e. this would be funded by PP or someshit.

 

. . .

 

  1. If the mother is mentally competent, why does she have to give up her autonomy in this matter? How is that right?
  2. At the base of this whole dialog is the question, "why don't you think women responsible enough to consider what is best for themselves and the baby they carry?"

 

 

The reason I asked my question in such a polarizing way is because THIS is my view. My view is very simple. I'm not trying to change the entire abortion landscape, I just think I've come up with a cute little middleground that no one really has any good arguments against: Late-term needless abortions shouldn't happen.

 

I believe most women are competent. The kind of legislation that I am implying by asking this question wouldn't affect 99% of abortions. I realize that. I like the abortion system we have now, but I am not a fan of these healthybaby-healthymom abortions. They don't happen often, but I feel like it should NEVER happen.

 

to specifically answer your questions:

 

1. I feel that if the mother is mentally competent, then she wouldn't decide to kill her child, when she could just give it up for adoption.

 

2. See above post.

 

in the end, if there is a healthy woman and a healthy child, and the child is able to live outside of the mother, and there wouldn't be any complications removing it, i think the baby should be removed. if the mother doesnt want to pay for it, we will. the child would then be placed for adoption. I think that anyone who would choose to kill a child in this scenario isn't "mentally competent".

 

 

Also, this would be funded by the taxpayers. I wouldn't mind paying an extra dollar a year and having that go (collectively) to save the lives of a few thousand children.

 

Surely you see that your reasoning here is quite circular. You're essentially making the test for competence to be whether or not a person holds your point of view. That's not very reasonable. Nor does it provide sufficient grounds to take over control of a woman's body.

 

 

While the case of a late-term fetus is more troubling because it could live outside the mother's body, it is still a fact that any medical procedure that involves giving birth or carrying out a C-section contains life or death risks. That's just a fact. The probabilities vary but the woman bears 100% of that risk in any scenario. You still haven't cogently or humanely resolved that risk. At what point do you steal autonomy and dignity from women and declare that they no longer matter?

 

"Late-term needless abortions shouldn't happen."

 

This statement of your might need to be reworded, otherwise you are stacking the deck. Of course needless things shouldn't happen. That's practically a tautology. Who gets to define "needless?" And why should a third party's definition of "needless" trump the mother's definition of "necessary" in the case of her pregnancy?

 

Perhaps you meant "Late-term abortions are needless and shouldn't happen." This is less susceptible to the charge of circularity. But , again, there is the whole problem of the woman still bearing all the risk to her health and life and/or having reasons of her own not containable in any body of legislation.

 

We can't declare people incompetent or evil just because they make decisions about their life that are different from what we would have them do. You might consider a late term abortion needless. I consider most late term abortions needless as well. But I will never be a woman carrying a baby facing the life ahead of me that I have to live. Nor will you. It is best to let women make that choice. Society should do what it can to support and inform women as they consider what is right to do, but should never wrest control from them as if they are incompetent, unimportant, unaware and thoughtless. That is the argument against what you call "a cute little middleground."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe most women are competent. The kind of legislation that I am implying by asking this question wouldn't affect 99% of abortions. I realize that. I like the abortion system we have now, but I am not a fan of these healthybaby-healthymom abortions. They don't happen often, but I feel like it should NEVER happen.

 

Separating the question of "should this type of abortion happen" from "should this type of abortion be legal", I argue that even if such abortions should not happen, they need to be legal because the law is bad at separating the 99% from the 1%.

 

There are way too many examples in the US of women in need of medical abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, and there is no chance of survival for the fetus, where it is STILL a fight for her to get needed medical care. Like all the women at Catholic hospitals (and a frightening large number of hospitals in the US are religious) who are left to bleed to death because a non-viable fetus still has a beating heart (or the procedure is performed and then the nurses/nuns/doctors/ethic committee members are excommunicated). In light of this situation, I find it more ethical to permit the 1% to happen than to risk suffering and death to the 99%. Also, doctors are not physic and often have to rely on probabilities. What if there is a 90% chance of a successful birth, but a 10% chance of serious but survivable trauma to the mother? What if it's 95%, 99%? Where should the law draw that line? What if one doctor thinks the woman has a 10% chance of death and the woman and her doctor choose not to take that risk and abort, but another doctor says she only had a 1% chance of dying and thus the woman faces criminal charges? I just don't think the law has any business making that sort of medical decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe most women are competent. The kind of legislation that I am implying by asking this question wouldn't affect 99% of abortions. I realize that. I like the abortion system we have now, but I am not a fan of these healthybaby-healthymom abortions. They don't happen often, but I feel like it should NEVER happen.

 

Separating the question of "should this type of abortion happen" from "should this type of abortion be legal", I argue that even if such abortions should not happen, they need to be legal because the law is bad at separating the 99% from the 1%.

 

There are way too many examples in the US of women in need of medical abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, and there is no chance of survival for the fetus, where it is STILL a fight for her to get needed medical care. Like all the women at Catholic hospitals (and a frightening large number of hospitals in the US are religious) who are left to bleed to death because a non-viable fetus still has a beating heart (or the procedure is performed and then the nurses/nuns/doctors/ethic committee members are excommunicated). In light of this situation, I find it more ethical to permit the 1% to happen than to risk suffering and death to the 99%. Also, doctors are not physic and often have to rely on probabilities. What if there is a 90% chance of a successful birth, but a 10% chance of serious but survivable trauma to the mother? What if it's 95%, 99%? Where should the law draw that line? What if one doctor thinks the woman has a 10% chance of death and the woman and her doctor choose not to take that risk and abort, but another doctor says she only had a 1% chance of dying and thus the woman faces criminal charges? I just don't think the law has any business making that sort of medical decision.

 

Meh. You're probably right. When biology/human medicine gets less shitty though, I think my idea is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll explain two things. First, we aren't talking about life qua life. Spiders are alive, but we don't care about smashing them right? We aren't even talking about human life qua human life. As you argued earlier, human life just keeps going and going and going. So no one is saying that a haploid is dead.

Ok. I only reacted to this statement of yours: "new DNA is new DNA, the start of a new individual." I find such a definition faulty.

 

All I'm saying is that a human individual's life begins at conception because it's there that s/he acquires their DNA that they keep until they die.

Ok.

 

I suppose things would be different if we changed our DNA over the course of our lifespans... like, if we cocooned or something. hm. ..... I will think about that and get back to you.

The mRNA gets shorter. Our body changes. The biological system changes. And so on. Is DNA the definition of a human life? Everyone's DNA is different. Not everyone has the same number of chromosomes even (trisomy-21 etc).

 

As has been pointed out earlier, life, even human life, or individual existence, is a continuous and blurry concept. We define, in society, what we mean with beginning and end.

 

Abortion is a tricky thing, but it makes sense that the mother makes the decision instead of a group of old narrow-minded men, regardless if we like the idea or not.

I don't have a point yet, only questions:

 

Human DNA is distinguishable from other kinds of DNA, so while all human DNA is different to an extent it is still all clearly human, no?

 

Doesn't human DNA define an individual human? What would, apart from DNA? We keep our DNA from conception to death, it carries our genetics, it's in every human cell... Is there really a better marker?

 

Even though beginnings and endings are part of language, aren't they also objective? I mean, with no humans around, 5 boulders in a line would still be 5 boulders in a line with one in the middle. We can deconstruct 'middle' all day long, but whatever signifier we end up linking to the signified is going to point to the center boulder. As opposed to rights, which would -not- exist with no humans around. Beginnings and endings have real meaning by themselves at least as descriptors of material things, no?

 

What's troubling me is yesterday's thought of a species with multiple stages of biological development where nothing from the early stage carries over entirely. DNA really wouldn't mean much to that kind of species -- that kind of post-human, even. (it's possible). So it really would fail as a definition for that kind of individual. It's at this point where I feel like throwing my hands up and surrendering to Gene Wolfe -- give me the autarch's brain on a plate with minced onions, please, and 'I' will build a ship and lead us from Urth's smoldering sun...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends, I suppose, how one uses the word "life". In general, when we speak of a person's life, we speak of the interval between birth and death, we say "George Washington lived from 1732 to 1799" or something like that. Scientifically speaking, I'd say life clearly begins at conception. That doesn't mean one's rights as a person do, or should, begin at that time. That's a matter of opinion, and it is not likely we will all agree about that anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a point yet, only questions:

 

Human DNA is distinguishable from other kinds of DNA, so while all human DNA is different to an extent it is still all clearly human, no?

To 99%, yes. Where do we draw the line? 99%? 98% 98.9%

 

After studying anthropology and the ancestral line of genus Homo, I'm not sure exactly where the line for "human" should be drawn.

 

Was the archaic Homo sapiens human? Was it because of the exact match of DNA (which we can't confirm) or the behavior of the individuals?

 

What makes a human a human? Is it only DNA, or is it more than that?

 

Doesn't human DNA define an individual human? What would, apart from DNA? We keep our DNA from conception to death, it carries our genetics, it's in every human cell... Is there really a better marker?

Everyone has their own DNA. How can that be a marker of "human-kind"? We're considered human because we had parents that were considered to be human.

 

The definition of what "human" is, is very much a social definition based on traditions and culture. Much more than just DNA, which is unique for every individual.

 

Even though beginnings and endings are part of language, aren't they also objective? I mean, with no humans around, 5 boulders in a line would still be 5 boulders in a line with one in the middle. We can deconstruct 'middle' all day long, but whatever signifier we end up linking to the signified is going to point to the center boulder. As opposed to rights, which would -not- exist with no humans around. Beginnings and endings have real meaning by themselves at least as descriptors of material things, no?

Most of the cells in your body came into existence within the last 7 years. You don't even have the same cells as you had when you were born.

 

If you line up five boulders and keep on replacing them with other boulders. Is the line of five boulders the same line of five boulders that you started with? What if you replace them with plastic boulders? Or a different kind of rocks? Or painted? Or...

 

Beginning of your life started before you were conceived. It started with your parents. And it started even earlier, it started with their birth, and beyond that, and farther beyond that...

 

And a very long time ago, your and my ancestors were not even "human" but animals, and we have no problem killing animals today because they're too far away in concept of "life." Animals aren't alive because they're not capable of contribute to our society. So the differences aren't that great, really. We're killing out of necessity, and if we should draw hard lines, we should not kill any life.

 

What's troubling me is yesterday's thought of a species with multiple stages of biological development where nothing from the early stage carries over entirely. DNA really wouldn't mean much to that kind of species -- that kind of post-human, even. (it's possible). So it really would fail as a definition for that kind of individual. It's at this point where I feel like throwing my hands up and surrendering to Gene Wolfe -- give me the autarch's brain on a plate with minced onions, please, and 'I' will build a ship and lead us from Urth's smoldering sun...

Human expansion and treatment of this planet is very similar to how a parasite or bacteria takes over. Why are "humans" so darn important that they have to be saved, but killing animals is acceptable?

 

If we should talk about absolutes, then we should draw the line between life and non-life. Stop aborting cows, chicken, and pigs!

 

My point is that rights follow a continuous line and is not something absolute. Life is not absolute either. Life, and human life, is an abstract line and not absolute. Where we draw the line for one right and not another right depends on society, not biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't human DNA define an individual human? What would, apart from DNA? We keep our DNA from conception to death, it carries our genetics, it's in every human cell... Is there really a better marker?

 

Not all of us have the same DNA from conception to death, though the vast majority of us do. Some people are chimeric, where non-identical twins fuze early in development to form a single fetus. A chimeric human ends up with some organs having a different set of DNA than other organs.

 

Then what of identical twins? They have the same DNA, but are clearly two separate humans.

 

I define "myself" as "my experience of myself", which is much more nuture-based than nature-based. DNA is a guideline, not a rule. Even my phenotype, my physical body, is not fully defined by my DNA. It is affected by my mother's hormones in utero and by my environment growing up. Humans growing up at higher altitudes develop different ribcages than humans who grew up at lower altitudes, regardless of their DNA. My skin color and hair color change slightly with exposure to the sun even as an adult. My base personality may be formed early, but it is shaped by my life experiences. You cannot get a sample of my DNA and use it to tell me who I am. You can't use my DNA to determine my favorite color, my political preferences, what job I will be happiest working at. If you get some of my DNA and make a clone, that clone will be very different from me. I am the ever-changing sum of my unique experiences.

 

Edit/P.S.: Not all our human DNA is formed at conception; our mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly from our mothers and is present in every human cell in our bodies. Our digestive tract requires bacterial symbiots to function. In fact, we have a larger number of non-human cells in our bodies than human cells (though our mass is mostly human, because our human cells are much larger than our bacterial cells). So speaking genetically, I am a combination of the unique-to-me human DNA formed at conception, my mother's mtDNA, and various bacterial DNAs. I'm an ecosystem!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.