Abortion

[MD]

The topic of abortion comes down to whether the life of a human or the right for a woman to choose whether she wants to end that life is more important.

But what is life? How do we define it? I think a much more scientific way to define life is to define sentience. And through better brain mapping we will one day be able to know when a fetus experiences a sense of things. When it has subjective experience. I think when we can reach that point, then we can and should draw the line for abortion. We will be able to mathematically define the level of consciousness a fetus has. IIT by Koch and Tononi have already stated that one of the best applications for IIT is to measure the level of consciousness in brain dead patients. I think it will have applications for measuring other animals and A.I. conscious states as well.

We have to move on from the way abortion is debated now, it has become an irrational battle between religious fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. We need to go ahead with a more scientific definition of when it is ethical to abort a life. To claim that life begins at conception or at birth are legal and religious definitions, it has no basis in science. To claim that an infant isn't dependent on its mother after birth is also a non scientific claim, as it was only until recently did we create formula that is reinforced with the right vitamins to feed infants. What about infants that can survive after 24 weeks outside the womb? What if they can survive after 16 weeks? What if a morula can be retrieved and grown in a test tube, would people then state that abortions should only happen before 3 days?

Personally I've become a more pro choice, but let's not kid ourselves. 25% of all pregnancies end up as elective abortions, and if we are to apply the same argument that the emotional and mental well being of the mother is at risk, then why draw the line at birth? Why is infanticide illegal? Because the child is legally an independent human being? But the law isn't fact, it's simply consensus based on arguments. Children are heavily dependent on their parents throughout their youth psychologically, which shapes the physiological maturation of the brain.

We live in a time where science should be combined with law. We will very soon be approaching a moment in our civilization where we can engineer our own children, but without an extremely scientific ethical board or legal system, eugenics will become the norm. And engineering such children will require several embryos to be created, and most discarded.

I think this child should be allowed to abort her baby, but I'm coming at it from a personal position. I think it's sick what has happened to her, and I do feel very bad for the child. I would say abort it if this was my relative, and I would try my best to get her somewhere to allow the abortion. However, from an ethical perspective, are we justifying the killing of one life to spare the agony of another?

 

[Marisa]

The topic of abortion comes down to whether the life of a human or the right for a woman to choose whether she wants to end that life is more important.

But what is life? How do we define it? I think a much more scientific way to define life is to define sentience. And through better brain mapping we will one day be able to know when a fetus experiences a sense of things. When it has subjective experience. I think when we can reach that point, then we can and should draw the line for abortion. We will be able to mathematically define the level of consciousness a fetus has. IIT by Koch and Tononi have already stated that one of the best applications for IIT is to measure the level of consciousness in brain dead patients. I think it will have applications for measuring other animals and A.I. conscious states as well.

We have to move on from the way abortion is debated now, it has become an irrational battle between religious fundamentalists and liberal fundamentalists. We need to go ahead with a more scientific definition of when it is ethical to abort a life. To claim that life begins at conception or at birth are legal and religious definitions, it has no basis in science. To claim that an infant isn't dependent on its mother after birth is also a non scientific claim, as it was only until recently did we create formula that is reinforced with the right vitamins to feed infants. What about infants that can survive after 24 weeks outside the womb? What if they can survive after 16 weeks? What if a morula can be retrieved and grown in a test tube, would people then state that abortions should only happen before 3 days?

Personally I've become a more pro choice, but let's not kid ourselves. 25% of all pregnancies end up as elective abortions, and if we are to apply the same argument that the emotional and mental well being of the mother is at risk, then why draw the line at birth? Why is infanticide illegal? Because the child is legally an independent human being? But the law isn't fact, it's simply consensus based on arguments. Children are heavily dependent on their parents throughout their youth psychologically, which shapes the physiological maturation of the brain.

We live in a time where science should be combined with law. We will very soon be approaching a moment in our civilization where we can engineer our own children, but without an extremely scientific ethical board or legal system, eugenics will become the norm. And engineering such children will require several embryos to be created, and most discarded.

I think this child should be allowed to abort her baby, but I'm coming at it from a personal position. I think it's sick what has happened to her, and I do feel very bad for the child. I would say abort it if this was my relative, and I would try my best to get her somewhere to allow the abortion. However, from an ethical perspective, are we justifying the killing of one life to spare the agony of another?

I agree with some of what you're saying, but personally feel you're trying to bring the philosophical conversation of "when does life begin" into the realm of science when it doesn't belong, and isn't required to belong in order to evaluate the subject of choice. It's a very simple evaluation to make. No person, regardless of their state of health, location or stage of development has the right to force another person to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. We don't need to argue over whether a fetus or an embryo is a "life". We can assume it is, and still answer this question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally I've become a more pro choice, but let's not kid ourselves. 25% of all pregnancies end up as elective abortions, and if we are to apply the same argument that the emotional and mental well being of the mother is at risk, then why draw the line at birth? Why is infanticide illegal? Because the child is legally an independent human being? But the law isn't fact, it's simply consensus based on arguments. Children are heavily dependent on their parents throughout their youth psychologically, which shapes the physiological maturation of the brain.

It's because once the child is born, the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant is moot.

The right to abortion isn't about the right to kill a fetus; it's about the right not to be pregnant. The only way that viability comes into play is in the medical decision about whether the pregnancy should be ended by abortion ir by inducing a live birth (or, I suppose, by removing the morula and growing it in a lab, if that ever becomes a realistic option). Once the pregnancy has ended, e.g. by live birth, the question of how the pregnancy should be ended has been settled.

Edit: once it's not in your body, it's no longer a matter of your bodily security.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It's because once the child is born, the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant is moot.

The right to abortion isn't about the right to kill a fetus; it's about the right not to be pregnant. The only way that viability comes into play is in the medical decision about whether the pregnancy should be ended by abortion ir by inducing a live birth (or, I suppose, by removing the morula and growing it in a lab, if that ever becomes a realistic option). Once the pregnancy has ended, e.g. by live birth, the question of how the pregnancy should be ended has been settled.

Edit: once it's not in your body, it's no longer a matter of your bodily security.

Indeed.

Also to consider, all visits to the OBGYN and to Labor and Delivery for a pregnant woman begin with her vital signs first and foremost every single time. Her health is priority. The fetus growth and gestation is entirely dependent on her health first. Ideally, society needs to accept this means of medical ethics as well that her health and well-being every single time first and foremost takes priority in all cases and conditions.

When I was pregnant, when I was tested/checked for gestational diabetes, hypertention, pre-eclampsia, etc....it was under no presumption that I was being selfish. My health came first, and ethically, doctors needed to be sure if pregnancy being the medical condition that it is was impacting my health detrimentally in any way.

Even as something as "little" (I've been told on these forums, too) as the nausea and vomiting that comes with pregnancy is considerable, since any exorbitant amount of vomiting leading to weight loss during a time when a pregnancy necessitates weight gain because of a fetus extracting nutrients from the woman 24 hours a day 7 days a week....this is something a woman's OBGYN needs to attend to.

All of these examples show that people who argue against a woman's choice disregard a woman's health as not as important over the existence of a fetus. When a woman's health is at all compromised, typically the pregnancy itself becomes a moralizing tactic against her and treated as a punishment, but only if sex was consensual. I've found arguments that disregard a woman's health with her body to be an all-around sexist stance...that women are not as entitled to full health as men are because philosophically or ideologically she is expected to compromise her health for the well-being, existence, or pleasure for others.

But going back to your argument...I think that's a very very good point. Then again, you typically say things much better than I do in regards to reproductive health rights.

 

[leibowde84]

Basic morality.
If you make someone dependent you are obligated to carry them through.
Tom

So, are you saying that having sex is "making someone dependent"? Only the woman will have her bodily autonomy infringed upon, but the man gets to have sex too, so how does that work? Is it just bad luck that the man has no possibility of bodily autonomy infringement and the woman must carry the child alone? Shouldn't our legal system try to even the playing field a bit, not forcing women to give up bodily autonomy unless there is an equal requirement for men? I understand that this is impossible, but this is why I feel that abortion must remain legal. But, this has nothing to do with my view of abortion morally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even as something as "little" (I've been told on these forums, too) as the nausea and vomiting that comes with pregnancy is considerable, since any exorbitant amount of vomiting leading to weight loss during a time when a pregnancy necessitates weight gain because of a fetus extracting nutrients from the woman 24 hours a day 7 days a week....this is something a woman's OBGYN needs to attend to.

A few months ago, I was one of the first people on the scene at a rollover on the interstate in Detroit. No emergency services were on the scene yet. I stopped to help, but the vast majority of cars didn't... and that's their right.

Nobody passing by had any idea about the condition of the driver or whether anyone there even knew first aid. As far as they knew, their help could have meant the difference between life and death... but even though the risk that they'd be rear-ended while sitting there or hit while they were out of the car is literally less than one in a million, it's their right to say "that risk is too high for me" and keep on driving.

Heck - it would be their right to keep on driving even if their only reason for not stopping is that they're late for their favourite TV show.

I agree with your point about the frequent sexism in the anti-abortion movement. We don't ever question people's motives in other similar situations that could involve men or women.

But going back to your argument...I think that's a very very good point. Then again, you typically say things much better than I do in regards to reproductive health rights.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks to everyone for keeping their cool here. I realize this is a hotly debated topic in our world.

I'm unable to stand in the NICU and look at two dozen premature babies and then contemplate aborting babies that age.

I've held a man who sobbed on my shoulder, "It's my baby, too, but she will abort!"

I've met a man who sang a song in public he composed to his raped mother. He longed to tell her his love for her and for her bravery, having never met her but having been adopted in a happy home. Every person in that audience was moved deeply within.

This is an issue that is of the heart for me, not just cold logic. What my rationalist mind tells me, however, is that most people who are pro-choice would never have an abortion themselves, but would support the rights of others to do so, a stance which seems admirable, before I recall how there were northerners in the 1860's saying, "Personally, I'd NEVER own a slave, however, we all need cotton to have enough resources..."

This country needs a new civil rights movement IMHO, not for what I do sexually but for the product of sex, the unborn. Who will speak for them?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thanks to everyone for keeping their cool here. I realize this is a hotly debated topic in our world.

I'm unable to stand in the NICU and look at two dozen premature babies and then contemplate aborting babies that age.

I've held a man who sobbed on my shoulder, "It's my baby, too, but she will abort!"

I've met a man who sang a song in public he composed to his raped mother. He longed to tell her his love for her and for her bravery, having never met her but having been adopted in a happy home. Every person in that audience was moved deeply within.

This is an issue that is of the heart for me, not just cold logic. What my rationalist mind tells me, however, is that most people who are pro-choice would never have an abortion themselves, but would support the rights of others to do so, a stance which seems admirable, before I recall how there were northerners in the 1860's saying, "Personally, I'd NEVER own a slave, however, we all need cotton to have enough resources..."

This country needs a new civil rights movement IMHO, not for what I do sexually but for the product of sex, the unborn. Who will speak for them?

I've heard this before, and yet it rings true for me:

It's easy to champion the rights of the unborn when the person acting as the vessel is so disregarded in the process.

I see no heart in the pro-life movement for the woman unless she is victimized enough to meet somebody's standards of acceptable suffering.

If she claims ownership of her body, that is in itself a radical act.
If she claims it unapologetically and without remorse, or purely on her terms, she is considered an outcast, a liar, a *****, a prude, a ****, or a murderer.

 

[MD]

I agree with some of what you're saying, but personally feel you're trying to bring the philosophical conversation of "when does life begin" into the realm of science when it doesn't belong, and isn't required to belong in order to evaluate the subject of choice. It's a very simple evaluation to make. No person, regardless of their state of health, location or stage of development has the right to force another person to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. We don't need to argue over whether a fetus or an embryo is a "life". We can assume it is, and still answer this question.

Well how else do you define when life begins? Science has to lead the way, not social science or law.

When people have sex they have to accept the responsibility that there is the possibility that they are creating life. We cannot just toss aside fetuses like garbage bags if it doesn't suit our needs, and if they have sentience.

 

[MD]

It's because once the child is born, the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant is moot.

The right to abortion isn't about the right to kill a fetus; it's about the right not to be pregnant. The only way that viability comes into play is in the medical decision about whether the pregnancy should be ended by abortion ir by inducing a live birth (or, I suppose, by removing the morula and growing it in a lab, if that ever becomes a realistic option). Once the pregnancy has ended, e.g. by live birth, the question of how the pregnancy should be ended has been settled.

Edit: once it's not in your body, it's no longer a matter of your bodily security.

It comes down to whether the rights of a mother are more important than the rights of an unborn child. If a child has sentience, and a great deal of it, it should be illegal. The fetus is not only the mothers, there is the paternal DNA in it as well. There is always a risk with sex, and that risk is conception.

You can extend your statement and say that the rights of a child can be infringing on the rights of a mother to live her life, even after it's born. Does that mean a mother has the right to kill an infant? How do you differentiate an infant from a 34 week old fetus? Physiological dependence? Dependence remains for many years, and one can argue that the psychological to physiological neural growth throughout childhood is important as well..

 

[Marisa]

Well how else do you define when life begins?

I don't, it's not necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've held a man who sobbed on my shoulder, "It's my baby, too, but she will abort!"

But it's not his uterus. She gets ultimate say in what happens there.

Maybe in the future, as Marisa suggested, we'll have the means to end a woman's pregnancy at any point but still allow the embryo or fetus to develop outside the womb. We aren't there yet.

I've met a man who sang a song in public he composed to his raped mother. He longed to tell her his love for her and for her bravery, having never met her but having been adopted in a happy home. Every person in that audience was moved deeply within.

This is an issue that is of the heart for me, not just cold logic. What my rationalist mind tells me, however, is that most people who are pro-choice would never have an abortion themselves, but would support the rights of others to do so, a stance which seems admirable, before I recall how there were northerners in the 1860's saying, "Personally, I'd NEVER own a slave, however, we all need cotton to have enough resources..."

"Personally, I'd never enslave anyone... except a pregnant woman."

This country needs a new civil rights movement IMHO, not for what I do sexually but for the product of sex, the unborn. Who will speak for them?

There's no shortage of people claiming rights for fetuses. They're not failing because of lack of support; they're failing because their positionis hypocritical, baseless, and denies the rights of women.

 

[MD]

I don't, it's not necessary.

It is, and that's the point the pro choice crowd completely misses.

 

[Marisa]

You can extend your statement and say that the rights of a child can be infringing on the rights of a mother to live her life, even after it's born. Does that mean a mother has the right to kill an infant? How do you differentiate an infant from a 34 week old fetus? Physiological dependence? Dependence remains for many years, and one can argue that the psychological to physiological neural growth throughout childhood is important as well..

Incorrect leap of logic. Proof: adoption.

 

[MD]

Incorrect leap of logic. Proof: adoption.

Bull**** argument fail, as usual.

 

[Marisa]

It is, and that's the point the pro choice crowd completely misses.

It is not, and it's the tool the anti choice crowd uses to obfuscate the point in question, which is whether or not a pregnant female is correctly forced to abdicate the bodily autonomy everyone otherwise agrees she possesses.

 

[Marisa]

Bull**** argument fail, as usual.

Refutation? Or are you simply going to rely upon histrionics? If so, we need carry this no further.

 

[MD]

It is not, and it's the tool the anti choice crowd uses to obfuscate the point in question, which is whether or not a pregnant female is correctly forced to abdicate the bodily autonomy everyone otherwise agrees she possesses.

Well maybe the pro lifers don't want to continue to see you people continue to murder millions of lives.

If adoption is an option, then all fetuses which have met viability should be extracted and allowed to live as well.

 

[MD]

Refutation? Or are you simply going to rely upon histrionics? If so, we need carry this no further.

Your arguments are flawed as usual, this is why social science isn't respected. You can't run societies based on opinions, there has to be FACT.

 

[Marisa]

Well maybe the pro lifers don't want to continue to see you people continue to murder millions of lives.

If adoption is an option, then all fetuses which have met viability should be extracted and allowed to live as well.

On your last point, I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure you saw my much earlier post in which I made clear I tend to be against abortion once viability is achieved.