My views on abortion

At what risk, though? In my mind this is infanticide. I realize that some people don't see the unborn as infants. But for me I think of it merely as differentiating between different periods of gestation or development, rather than saying that at this point in your life you're just a mass of cells and at this point in your life you are a human.Humans never really stop developing, particularly from childhood, teenage, and early adult years. Besides if the DNA is no different the time of conception to the time of birth, except for pehaps the mutations, isn't it then reasonable to in fact classify a fetus as a human being and therefore deserving of rights? Shouldn't they get habeus corpus too before we sentence them?Maybe it's just easier because you don't see it, out-of-sight, out-of-mind. There was an interesting book I read on killing that was literally entitled, "On Killing," which detailed the psychological responses towards killing other human beings.The obvious conclusions were that it's much easier psychologically to push a button that sends a cruise missle 40 miles away to an intended target than to walk up to someone, look them in the eye, and systematically butcher them. After all, isn't this what we find so disturbing about sadistic murders; that they can so callously dismember people without a shred of remorse?My point is that when you look at a newborn, at least for me, I just can't fathom how anyone could allow for an abortion. It seems an abomination to me. I don't see "parasites" and I don't see "a mass of cells." That's just me though. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

I actually agree with you.I only push for a law to be made to protect a woman's rights for the same reason I agree with laws made to protect other people's rights.People don't generally do what they "should."People "should" be able to vote for whoever they like without fear of reprecussions.
However, because people don't do what they should... we end up with laws about secret ballots and such so that folks don't get beat up.People "should" be able to practice whatever religion they want (or none at all).
However, because people don't do what they should... we end up with laws about the seperation of church and state (US), or freedom of religion (Canada) and such.Along the same lines...People "should" be able to have a legal abortion at any time during their pregnancy.
However, because people don't do what they should... we (hopefully one day) will end up with some laws that protect this area of woman's rights.There are women, right now, who are being wrongfully refused abortions. I think the immediate plights that these women face outweigh the potential plights from a protective law. Especially if the law can simply be worded correctly (but that's likely asking too much from the system ).However, all that's not so much about abortion and right/wrong anymore... it's more about feasibility and idealistic views. I think we generally agree where abortion and right/wrong are concerned. We're likely just a bit different on where we think feasibility and practicality should enter in on the idealistic view. Such things are possibly moving off-topic.

Non-autonomic, non-motor brain functions, particularly those related to abstract thought.For instance, the brain functions that regulate the heart, breathing, or muscle control are not higher brain functions.The ability to consider the meaning of "self," admire artwork, conceive of and make plans relating to the future, the ability to assess relative values of risk, etc are all examples of higher brain functions. You could summarize it as the capacity for abstract thought.A mentally handicapped person may have a significantly lower IQ than other people, but he/she will still retain the ability to think abstractly. The quality or speed of that thought is irrelevant (IQ typically measures processing speed and memory recall along with simple problem-solving and logic; these don't really have anything to do with whether a person is capable of higher brain function or not).These functions are concentrated primarily in areas such as the frontal lobe of the brain. It's relatively easy for doctors to take a brain scan and determine whether a person's brain is still engaged in such activity. When they are not, we typically refer to them as being in a persistent vegetative state, or being brain-dead.

You're certainly allowed to have your own opinion on this, especially as it isn't a black and white issue. There are few facts we can point to, let alone ones that will trump our emotional response.The question I ask, though, is what makes it human? To me, and to many on this thread, the higher brain functions are what make it human. A clump of cells on a uterine wall are not capable of feeling anything. They don't desire, they don't strive, they don't interact, they don't dream, they don't cry, they don't fear. They simply divide. You're right, development is a continuing process that continues to and through death. Decomposition is development just as much as gestation is. The body is undergoing changes at a measured pace due to natural laws. The way I look at it, it starts as two germ cells, becomes a fused cell, and divides and develops until personhood is reached. Personhood, to me, requires higher brain functions. If you're using DNA as the basis for defining "human" then every skin cell you've ever swept up is a human and deserving of rights. I know you don't think this, so while it sounds like a convincing argument, DNA is a poor one. It requires more than even the most rabid person would argue for. We don't even give actual, born children habeus corpus. That right is retained by the parent until such time as the child reaches the age of majority. But this brings a good point, rights are garnted at certain levels of development. For instance, the right to order a beer if one wants is, in the US, not gained until the age of 21. The right to engage in marriage, legal contracts, military service, and most other self-deterministic pursuits is not fully gained until age 18, though there are some grey areas as we pass age 15 or so.Not all humans have the same rights. Rights, even of the born, are dependent on level of devlopment, and I don't think that should stop being the case because the entity in question is in a womb. In fact, I think it should be even more the case. While this may play a part, I'm not consciously aware of it. I'm a very empathic person. When I was younger, I would rotate the stuffed animals on my bed at night so they wouldn't get sad or envious. I anthropomorphize to an unnecessary extent, if I stop and think about it, but I just can't get myself to view one set of cells any different fomr another set of cells that are not differentiated. The fact that it comes from a sperm and egg doesn't sway me in the slightest. Personhood is a gradual process that continues even after birth. But this is where your emotions are getting the better of you. The thing inside a newly impregnated woman is not a newborn. It doesn't desire, it doesn't strive, it doesn't interact, it doesn't dream, it doesn't cry, it doesn't fear. It simply divides. It can't look at you with those big eyes and evoke an emotional response. Even if I were to see the blastocyst in a microscope before it was destroyed, I would feel no emotional connection to it, any more than a skin cell under a microscope.But beyond all this, even if we agree the entity in question is a baby and fully human, its rights don't trump the rights of the woman.

Wait, aside from me asking you to define what "higher brain function" meant, where were you going with this? That unless an organism has a higher brain function, they should have no rights, correct?That would be inclusive to people all the way up to nearly three years old, when they learn abstract concepts. Surely this can't be a qualifier for you, is it?

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

I agree, and I think we are going to see a change in attitude over the next few years around 'rights of animals'. Particularly as we find more and more ways in which we are similar to them as time goes by.

Stile, regarding eating animals: hey, there may be developments on the way. there was talk of harvesting beef off the side of a live cow and having the cow grow it back to be harvested again & again...does that help?or just clone different kinds of meat in a lab.the word i came up with years ago was Speciism - a logical extension of Racism. and indeed why confine it only to the Earth?"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all highly intelligent life forms (HILFs) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."how do you get to be a HILF? just the mere wish to be one is all you need, perhaps. letting the rest of us know would be the buggaboo, though.

---

- xongsmith

But again, that's a reductionist argument. If you keep reducing things eventually you'll have atoms or even a smaller particle of matter, and atoms comprise all matter. So going by that nothing would be safe from destruction.As I pointed out to Rhavin, higher brain functions, as in abstract thought or self-awareness, typically does not occur until a child is about 2 or 3. If this is your qualifier in determining what is "human," then that obviously excludes people under the age of two. Obviously that is not a sole qualifier, just like higher brain finction could not be a sole qualifier. There are a few things conjunction to make for a definitive qualifier. But I suppose that's what we're going over now. Not so in cases of neglect. The parents will is superseded by the welfare of the child on behalf of the state or government. And that is only because we have a concept that everyone is fundamentally entitled to habeus corpus... Errrr, unless of course you are a prisoner at Camp Xray. That's kind of cute... and creepy And thank God I am[figuratively, not literally]!!! Call it an emotive argument if you want, but imagine the SS officer who questioned whether or not killing the Jews (who were considered sub-humans) was a righteous thing to do, and his superiors said, "Your emotions are getting the better of you. Can't you see that they're not real people? They're more like parasites that invade a host" So as long as it stays within the 1st trimester, you support abortion. How about when it develops beyond this time and can feel fear and self-preservation? Then why shouldn't a mother should be able to put her children to death at anytime, which makes the biblical outlook all the more God-inspired?It's not a matter of trumping in my opinion. I think they should both have equal rights. Not being allowed to kill the other isn't a right! That's not taking a woman's right away, that's giving all the power to one by taking all the power from another because they don't have the ability to protect themselves.Have you ever heard of a botched abortion where the child comes out horrifically mangled. What then? Can she cash in at anytime and have little Johnny executed at any time since she didn't technically get what she payed for? Then think of it from another perspective, as in the perspective of the survivor. How would you feel if your arm was chopped off in utero and then to have a mother who tried to execute you? Or how would you feel if you opted for an abortion and have to look at that face everyday knowing that your child was mangled on account of you? I think it is only when you see the finished product, hold the finished product, and connect with the finished product that one will understand the gravity of the situation.I am of the opinion that a very large percentage of pro-abortionists are only that way because they can't yet conceptualize what its entailments actually are.Besides uou have to remember that unless we're talking about a rape case, the woman placed herself in her own predicament. She's a co-conspirator in her own misery since a fetus cannot come in to existence apart from her participation. This all sounds very archaic and the reason why things like slavery and genocide can come to pass.Ever see the movie "Gattica?" Perhaps one day only genetically engineered people will have rights, and only pro-eugenicists will determine what constitutes life. And the whole world will have gone mad because they reduced human beings just as they've done to justify slavery, to justify holocausts, to justify crusades, to justify genocide.Think about it. You first have to assassinate your own conscious before you can assassinate anyone else.I'm not saying that you need to take me at my word, but I think it is healthy for us to debate such important topics like this one.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

If you read my posts, you'll discover that I specifically argued against that view. Ah, you see now that's a different matter. But, Hyroglyphx, there is a natural assumption when someone replies to one of your posts that there is a link between what one posted, and what the replier is saying. I posted my view my view that the whole issue is the use of the mother's body as incubator and has nothing at all to do with the fetus, to which you replied. Naturally I assumed that what you were saying was supposed in some way to follow from what I said, which - quite clearly - it doesn't.To answer your question; no, it isn't equal but that inequality arises entirely from differences in biology and not from any false or misapplied principle. The woman has the right to control her body, the man the right to control his; it just so happens that only women can gestate so the fair application of this principle results in an apparent unfairness. Note I say 'apparent', as it's quite clear on examination that the unfairness disappears on close analysis.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.Edited by Mr Jack, : Trying out an exciting new tag

There are a number of different elements here- when does an embryo / fetus become 'not part of' the mother?
- when does it become an individualised self?
- when does the 'potentiality' to be a human being kick in?
- when does an embryo / fetus acquire rights?The answer to the first one is clear, in my view: at conception. This is the first point at which the genetic basis of a new individual is created, which is distinct from that of the mother. I believe that this genetic difference is essentially what distinguishes one human being from another. Before conception, eggs and sperm just contain subsets of the genes of their originators. But after fertilization, being a genetically distinct entity, the egg cell is no longer part of the mother.For the next two, its a matter of degree not a simple yes /no answer and there's plenty of scope for honest differences. My disagreement with the fetus / skin cell comparison is that the two are not really comparable. The skin cell has a similar status to a sperm cell, not to a fetus.For the last point, it's purely down to an individual's own belief system. I think it's very hard to claim that any position is strictly logical.My own view on these questions is :-- there is no concept of 'selfhood' or 'individualized self' without some degree of mental function. 'Selfhood' is not an intrinstic property of a fertilized egg. Nor does the concept apply to all forms of life. I'm not sure you meant 'individualized self' that way - but I've picked up your concept and adapted it.- the potentiality to be a human being takes a step change at conception, and at implantation. There's an element of probability to it - how likely is it that this entity will become a human being?In terms of rights - there are no absolute rights on either side, a balance must be struck. There's little point in even debating the rights of fertlised eggs before implantation given that, as you say, the majority fail to implant. Post implantation, I would say there is value in granting the fetus rights even before consciousness is achieved. But I'm not clear exactly what those rights should be. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

That's not reductionist, that's literally all there is there. I would say any brain activity in the frontal lobe counts as higher brain function. Habeus Corpus pertaining to a child would be if the child did something criminal. In that case, the parents, not the child, would be held liable. The child might be taken away and placed with a foster family, all without consulting the child whatsoever. But that's a bad argument. By any objective definition of "human" that includes a German, a Jew would be included. Besides, a Jew experiences higher brain function, function in their frontal lobe, so by my definition, they're human, while embryos aren't. Any definition of "human" you can come up with that would include embryos will also include things like sperm cells, skin cells, etc; all things you wouldn't want to include. If you have to bend the definitions to the breaking point to include something you want to include emotionally, then maybe you need to take a step back and rationally think if that thing should be included. I'm not sure a 2nd trimester fetus can feel fear, but even if it can, then the question comes down to how many rights does the fetus have, and do those rights trump the mother's rights. Because the baby, once it's born at the very least, has enough rights to protect it's existence. If we could come up with a scenario whereby the mother's life was in danger of being ended by the existence of the baby, then maybe killing the baby is a justified thing. I can't conceive of such a scenario actually happening where removing the baby from the situation by some other means won't suffice. Ok, so they have equal rights. Who do we defer to when the rights of one is in conflict with the rights of another? I say, in most cases, we defer to the mother, who is unarguably a human life, whereas the fetus, for a time at least, is in a grey area. Do you mean a very late-term abortion where the baby somehow survives the abortion attempt? As I've said, the point at which a baby can survive outside of a woman's womb, they have reach another level of human rights and we reach a new point of discussion. But we're, in most cases, not talking about the finished product. Right now, it would be criminal, from a legal and cultural standpoint for a person to go and destroy the Mona Lisa. However, when Leonardo was apinting it, if he had stopped when it was but a vague outline, would it be morally wrong for him to stop, since the finished product would be so great? Until the product is finished, we have to go on what we actually have, not what we might have in the future. For one thing, I am not PROabortion. If I could set up a perfect world, abortion would never be necessary. I don't like abortion at all. I just recognize the real world we live in and understand the tragic necessity of it. I know exactly what abortion entails, and what its consequences are. It's a difficult choice, and I don't think I'm in a position to tell any woman, especially one I don't know, that her situation could never be such that an abortion is preferred. Not if she took appropriate precautions. If she had unprotected sex, full cognizant of the consequences of her actions, then this could have some weight, but I still don't think, even in that situation, that a clump of cells magically gets human rights. In many cases, however, appropriate protection was used, a condom or birth control, and due to some unknown malfunction or defect, conception occured. In that case, I think the mother took all appropriate action to prevent conception and is fully justified in taking the next step when those other steps failed. I like that movie, it's a very good dystopian future. And why is it so bad? Because we recognize that the non-genetically modified people are still people. They still meet all the requirements for personhood. If Gattaca like situations ever come down, I'll be right next to you protesting any such laws. You're right. Isn't it a good thing that I'm not advocating killing a person, merely taking a clump of cells from a place where nutrients will allow cell division and placing it in a place where they won't. Emotional appeals won't work if I disagree that a clump of cells is a human being. I agree. I have a philosophy major precisely because I like debating topics like this. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to debate.

So identical twins? Mosaics? Chimeras? Not to mention the complete failure of that view as soon as you stumble out of humanity and into the bright lights of natural diversity.Equating genetics with individuals is bollocks.

Good challenge.In response to 'identical twins?' I will shift ground slightly and say that the genetic difference between the mother and the fetus is sufficient to make them separate individuals, but genetic difference is not always necessary for two individuals to be classed as separate, as in the example you describe.I don't know enough about mosaics and chimeras to comment on that - can you explain how they affect the argument? Likewise can you expand on your last sentence? Note that my claim only relates to the identity of humans, so the situation in other species is not strictly relevant to my argument.Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

A more reasonable position I agree, but that's where this comes in: Mosaics and chimeras are people with multiple genetic codes. It's actually enormously common, in that nearly all women who have children have a small number of cells with the genes of their children in, which passed across the placenta and made their home in her body. More extreme examples are believed to emerge when paternal twins merge early in life, so that you have a single person formed from two distinct gene lines with different parts of their body having different genes. As you will realise this scotchs the notion that differing genes are sufficient to distinguish individuals.It's also worth noting that people carry a fairly large number of minor somatic mutations so that even if the two processes above don't occur you will have cells with subtly different genetic codes - and increasingly so as you age.

You're not understanding. Higher brain functionality is present after the 2nd trimester - it's certainly present in newborns and toddlers.Lack of language doesn't mean their brains aren't processing. You don't need to "learn" the capacity for abstract thought - you only learn individual abstract concepts, and that's something different altogether.Once the higher brain functions begin, you can legitimately say that there is a conscious individual present. Before that point the only brain functions you'll see are basically autonomic - functions like heartbeat regulation. Those don't encompass what we would call "thought."I think that, before higher brain functions are detectable, there is no need to consider the rights of the fetus at all. After higher brain functions begin, at least some consideration is necessary, but that doesn't mean treating the fetus like a full human being yet, either.Think of it this way: those who believe in a "soul" typically characterize the concept as the very core of what makes a person unique; their immortal self; their personality. While I clearly don't believe in the "immortal" bit, you could make a rough analogy and say that I think the emergence of higher brain functions is the point at which the fetus develops a "soul."But I think Mr. Jack has the better argument going here. Abortion rights have little or nothing to do with the fetus. They have everything to do with a woman's right of self-determination, to choose what her body will and will not do. I don't think the state or the potential father or anyone else has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and more than I have the right to force you to undergo an appendectomy. Anti-abortion laws do exactly that - they strip away a woman's right to control her own body. That's unconscionable.