Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

I am going to upset some people, I know, but there is an issue here that needs to be addressed on this question.In one sense, once you start arguing about "when does life begin" you need to take the argument to it's logical conclusion: the first cell. {added by edit} By the first cell, I mean the very first living cell, 3.5 billion years ago. {end edit}What is important to consider is when does the life start being human?This distinction is important: on common moral grounds it needs to be consistent with current medical practice in determining when a life has ended, as these criteria have been developed over a significant period of time with a lot of ethical input from all sides into the specific considerations involved.There are two levels considered. One is the concept of clinical death where doctors declare a patient to be dead. The other is the concept of brain dead, where the body can continue to breath and circulate blood as long as nutrients are supplied, but there is no conscious brain activity capability left.On the first the standards are clear - from the Legal Definition of Death (click): That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of [heart\lung] system or total brain failure.The first category is a little more into the grey area, as it cannot be determined definitively unless the patient is taken off life support — a rather drastic test. Typically the limit of saving premature babies depends on the level of development of the lungs - before a certain point the lungs just cannot be made to function. Likewise the heart needs a certain level of development before it is capable of sustaining circulation - on it's own - within the fetus. This point follows after the brain differentiation, and so it would be the latest legal limit for using this definition of death as a threshold for life, below which the fetus has not reached the status of being legally alive. This point would have to be determined by professionals in each case, based on the actual level of development the fetus has reached.If a fetus does not meet the criteria to pass this life/death test then it legally could be declared dead, and abortion would no longer be an issue. In my opinion this sets a lower limit on the question of abortion to the point where legal death cannot be ruled out, and anything below that cannot be justified from a legal standpoint.The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood. From Biology, Consciousness, and the Definition of Death (click)This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" - in this case the family - can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulator and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.Certainly in cases where continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, the doctors could perform an early-term C-section, and once the {fetus\premature child} was removed the family could direct that no heroic measures be taken to see if the {fetus\premature child} survives or dies a natural death on its own — this choice is currently legal, as there are people of certain religious beliefs that they would chose to let nature take its course and have insisted on their right to their beliefs. This certainly fits with the end of the material quoted above: I submit to all for consideration, that any method that results in the removal of a fetus from a womb, but that does not harm or endanger the {patient} in any way except for the removal of life-support only by request of the immediate family, results in a legal death due to natural causes.The issue of rights is such that a standard that allows all people to enjoy a right that does not inflict harm on other persons cannot be refused, but any that tries to impose a standard that restricts such behavior for some is unethical — even though people may choose to live by that higher standard themselves (if they do not harm other persons by doing so). In this regard the concept of personhood shows where the legal choices should be allowed.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-07-2004 10:02 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

... so do I get a POTM for it? (image of little boy jumping up and down) huh? huh? pleeeeeze? thanks.

woo-hooooo!!!

%

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my mother, who has been a feminist from before the word was first used, and my father who has encouraged free thinking on all social aspects and ... {{UUURKK!!!}} Sorry for the interuption folks, the interlocutors have been directed to the proper forum for this issue. We now return you to your regular OT ...{and no, the irony of that statement is not lost on me}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

My fault for not being clearer: I meant the first cell 3.5 billion years ago. There has been a continuing transfer of living material from that point in time to every living thing. THAT is when life started. Thus to state that a fertilized egg is the point in contention is just as arbitrary as saying it is when a child is born. A couple points here (1) the phrase is "irreversible cessation" and if there is no evidence of those functions then there can be no "reversible cessation" and (2) this is understood to mean "by available medical practices" so that if a child is born naturally premature at a stage where it cannot be kept alive by the amazing techniques currently available it will perish, and likewise a child born premature where current technology can save the childs life, but the parents belong to a religious sect that rejuects medical assistance then the child will perish as they have the right to refuse treatment. Make that not infringing on the rights of another person, and getting into the definition of "personhood" and I will agree to a point.Going back to the legal definition of death, there is a point before any of the critical features have developed, and there would be no question of "personhood" rather just on sustainability. To me this means there is no question about a time period in which an abortion should be legally available to all with no questions. After that it becomes a dialogue between the doctor and the patient on where the cutoff line is for the patient.There needs to be as flexible a set of options at one end as there is at the other in order to account for and allow the range of personal beliefs that free people have.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I go further than that -- when they accept responsibility for taking care of the mothers, so that they would only be bringing children into loving, caring and functional homes.When we have single teenage chidren having a second child there is something wrong with the system that takes care of them.Telling such a child that she may not have an abortion is not the answer.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No the operation is not similar, as the person being operated on has developed personhood.And yes, sort of: if it is like other life that does not get any special treatment (rather than like a dead thing). More like a non-significant life.And yes this discussion will bring up both infanticide and euthanasia as more extreme positions. Personally I have no problem with people choosing to die peacefully, but the more touchy situation is the severly mentally disabled. Do they have "personhood" or not?I would argue that babies as they are born already have different personalities, and this would speak to their personhood at that level of development. The thing to keep in mind is that people are not restricted from maintaining a higher standard for themselves (as long as it does not endanger other people), but that preventing a lower standard that does not endanger other people is not ethical. Particularly if a similar condition exists where the standard is not prevented.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No, the legal definintion of death and the "personhood" guidelines are different documents, one legally binding the other not. Those who believe in a soul are free to use their belief in making up their own minds, they cannot ethically impose it on other people who do not believe in a soul. um, ok. What I am looking for, I guess, is a standard that will go to the supreme court with consistency, logic and a rational plan for allowing people to be as irrational as they want to be. (and based on legal precedent.)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

One is an absolute guideline for legal death to be declared. The other is a guideline for cases where the conditions for legal death are not met, but there is very little chance of recovery, such as loss of all upper brain activity leaving a living shell that only survives because it is given life support. Or people will be fed up with the strident nonsense and move on to other more pressing issues, like how to get out of Iraq after 20 years of war ... Of course this will also be in a perfect world where research continues on fetal stem cells to counter real health problems in real living persons.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It is part of the ethical debate.Do I think that abortion should be across the board on demand? No. Because at some point the question has to be raised, "why now, why not earlier?" -- especially as we get to later term abortions.Do I think that it should be used as a "final answer" form of birth control? Yes, BUT ONLY until the conditions for legal death no longer apply: there should be no question about the legality of the "morning after" pill being freely available over the counter (and if anyone thinks this would become the control method of choice has not been paying attention: I think one experience with it will make uncautious women much more cautious). I also think it is totally the woman's choice at this point. After that point has been passed there has been a decision, conscious or not, to go beyond that (legal life\death} point, and other ethical questions are raised.Do I think there are other justifications for abortion? Yes, certainly to save the life of the mother (right up to the moment of birth) but also: where the condition of the fetus indicates a medical problem, then it becomes an ethical question for the family on whether or not they want to continue life support. Families normally do not "pull the plug" on comatose patients that are otherwise healthy and mentally complete. Also, where late term abortions are considered, it might be more appropriate to do a C-section than the crush and extract methods.Using the logic of the requirements for legal death first, and then on the family judgment on absence of personhood at one end, should be equally applicable on the other end.There is a third marker that could be discussed, but as noted before, it leads towards touchy situations for the severely mentally handicapped, and that is the question of human-like - but for me this is between the legal life and personhood question. When does the fetal development of a human differentiate it from the fetal development of a chimpanzee? (I used to have a site with a picture of a chimpanzee fetus similar to the ones the anti-choice crowds use and looking at it you would not know the difference). BUT - I don’t think argument in this area is fruitful as the provisions above are more inclusive and direct in dealing with the issues.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the living dead?good point. I will incorporate that in my formal essay on this.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}