About Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception...

[Penumbra]

To clarify on induced pregnancy, I view it along the following lines as per one of my recent posts:

-Pregnancy itself just carries on naturally. It doesn't take deliberate action to sustain it, but it does take deliberate action to end it prematurely through abortion. (Now sustaining it in the healthiest possible way through proper nutrition and all that does take effort.)

-The ethics of inducing labor depend on the specific contexts. If labor is being induced in a healthy person very early in the pregnancy with the knowledge that the baby will likely be very unhealthy due to this and will face a very difficult path towards life, then that's similar to abortion. If the baby is likely going to die if born now, and action is being taken towards that, then it's just kind of an uncertain abortion. Because at that point, if the mother and child are healthy but the mother doesn't want the child (despite not aborting it within the first 12 weeks or first 20 weeks), the reason for inducing it would be to lower its chances of survival of a possibly viable baby. That's kind of messed up.

-If labor needs to be induced quite early for reasons of health for the mother or child, or it's induced for arbitrary reasons only a little bit earlier where health is not likely to be compromised, then that's a different matter. That's for the doctor and mother to decide. Abortions for health reasons are very different in my view than abortions due to not wanting the child. Abortions that occur due to not wanting the child should occur, like 99% of them, while it is a clump of cells without perception. Any later abortions should only be done due to genuine health problems, in my view.

 

[Storm]

To clarify on induced pregnancy, I view it along the following lines as per one of my recent posts:

-Pregnancy itself just carries on naturally. It doesn't take deliberate action to sustain it, but it does take deliberate action to end it prematurely through abortion. (Now sustaining it in the healthiest possible way through proper nutrition and all that does take effort.)

-The ethics of inducing labor depend on the specific contexts. If labor is being induced in a healthy person very early in the pregnancy with the knowledge that the baby will likely be very unhealthy due to this and will face a very difficult path towards life, then that's similar to abortion. If the baby is likely going to die if born now, and action is being taken towards that, then it's just kind of an uncertain abortion. Because at that point, if the mother and child are healthy but the mother doesn't want the child (despite not aborting it within the first 12 weeks or first 20 weeks), the reason for inducing it would be to lower its chances of survival of a possibly viable baby. That's kind of messed up.

-If labor needs to be induced quite early for reasons of health for the mother or child, or it's induced for arbitrary reasons only a little bit earlier where health is not likely to be compromised, then that's a different matter. That's for the doctor and mother to decide. Abortions for health reasons are very different in my view than abortions due to not wanting the child. Abortions that occur due to not wanting the child should occur, like 99% of them, while it is a clump of cells without perception. Any later abortions should only be done due to genuine health problems, in my view.

ITA, and may I compliment you on your excellent articulation. Frubals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dunno, I think it's a valid compromise for legal purposes. Presuming accessibility of abortion (which I realize is not a safe assumption, but it is a goal I wholeheartedly support), the mother has over 20 weeks to make up her mind whether or not to terminate.

And if the woman changes her mind later, this shouldn't be accommodated?

In the other recent abortion thread, I mentioned something that happened to a friend of mine: her husband just up and left while she was pregnant. In her case, she decided to continue the pregnancy, but I imagine that for some women, something like that could make the difference between wanting to have a child or not.

Or say a woman gets diagnosed with cancer when her pregnancy is at 20 weeks. She can choose to either wait several months before starting chemotherapy or have an abortion and start it right away. I'm not going to say that she has to go without treatment of her disease if that's what she would choose.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, circumstances change over the course of a pregnancy and new facts can come to light, so I don't think we can automatically assume that the woman has had months and months to weigh all the factors and come to a decision.

At any rate, I supported unlimited access to abortion up to the point of viability. Under those conditions, I see no reason to permit unnecessarily cruel procedures like inducing labor so that a premature baby can die a lingering death from organ failure. In my book, that's not an abortion, it's infanticide.

If a mother (or father) decided not to give their teenage child a kidney if they needed it, the child could die a lingering death from organ failure too, but that would be perfectly legal.

 

[crossfire]

To clarify on induced pregnancy, I view it along the following lines as per one of my recent posts:

-Pregnancy itself just carries on naturally. It doesn't take deliberate action to sustain it, but it does take deliberate action to end it prematurely through abortion. (Now sustaining it in the healthiest possible way through proper nutrition and all that does take effort.)

Doesn't any medical condition just carry on naturally?

 

[Penumbra]

Doesn't any medical condition just carry on naturally?

Yes.

How does that affect the point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm fair certain Penguin misspoke and meant "inducing labor," not pregnancy. I don't think anyone's out to ban sex, as even Fred Phelps likes it fine if you're married.

Yeah, I meant "inducing labour." Sorry - brain fart.

 

[idav]

That strikes me as much more arbitrary than fertilization. The formation of the brain has the same problem, though to a lesser degree since the brain actually has a solid link to sapience. The heart is really just another muscle.

Not being quite sapient isn't an issue for whether it is life or not. Once the baby gets to the point that you can see and hear a heartbeat during an ultrasound is very significant for proof of life.

 

[Storm]

And if the woman changes her mind later, this shouldn't be accommodated?

Generally, no. As I said, having a time limit for such a weighty decision is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

In the other recent abortion thread, I mentioned something that happened to a friend of mine: her husband just up and left while she was pregnant. In her case, she decided to continue the pregnancy, but I imagine that for some women, something like that could make the difference between wanting to have a child or not.

Presuming this was past the point of viability, I would encourage her to adopt out if she didn't want the baby anymore. I do not think she should be permitted to kill a viable fetus simply because she no longer had a partner, anymore than she should be allowed to kill a born baby. That's why we have adoption agencies in the first place.

Or say a woman gets diagnosed with cancer when her pregnancy is at 20 weeks. She can choose to either wait several months before starting chemotherapy or have an abortion and start it right away. I'm not going to say that she has to go without treatment of her disease if that's what she would choose.

I do agree with exceptions based on the mother's own health, however.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, circumstances change over the course of a pregnancy and new facts can come to light, so I don't think we can automatically assume that the woman has had months and months to weigh all the factors and come to a decision.

Again, the time limit is not ideal - or even fair - in its very existence, but it IS inescapable. As the individual human progresses from zygote to adult, it likewise progresses in accumulation of rights.

I see no inherent difference in a baby 5 minutes after birth, as opposed to 5 minutes before. Any legal line we draw will by necessity be somewhat arbitrary, but viability of the fetus strikes me as the most reasonable.

If a mother (or father) decided not to give their teenage child a kidney if they needed it, the child could die a lingering death from organ failure too, but that would be perfectly legal.

And, should they deliberately induce the teenager's kidney failure, they would likely be charged with a crime, as well they should. I don't know the legal minutia that would justify or reject forced organ donation in that scenario, but it would be a most fitting sentence for that crime.

Push comes to shove, I can only justify late term (by which I mean past the point of viability) in cases of serious jeopardy to the mother's health. Even then, I cannot in good conscience permit abortion via inducing premature birth when there are vastly more merciful methods.

 

[crossfire]

Yes.

How does that affect the point?

Medical conditions affect individuals differently. One person may catch the flu and have it run its natural course with no ill effects. Another individual may catch the same flu virus and die from its running its natural course.

How useful will general moral/ethical judgements regarding this flu virus be when applied to the spectrum of individual circumstances? Will it be useful enough to make a law about it?

 

[Storm]

Not being quite sapient isn't an issue for whether it is life or not. Once the baby gets to the point that you can see and hear a heartbeat during an ultrasound is very significant for proof of life.

It's alive when it's a single cell, this is proven. It's irrelevant to the abortion debate, unless life is the only measure of personhood, but it is a biological fact.

I brought up sapience because it's a much more relavant measure of personhood than life. An amoeba is alive, but it isn't a person.

 

[Penumbra]

Medical conditions affect individuals differently. One person may catch the flu and have it run its natural course with no ill effects. Another individual may catch the same flu virus and die from its running its natural course.

How useful will general moral/ethical judgements regarding this flu virus be when applied to the spectrum of individual circumstances? Will it be useful enough to make a law about it?

Again, what does this have to do with my point?

The statement was in regards to a counter-argument that in most legal cases, people do not have to sustain the life of another human being and do not have to use their own bodies to do so. This logic was applied to a fetus- why would people be obliged to sustain it?

My point to that statement was that being pregnant takes no deliberate action to sustain it. The body naturally sustains it, and it takes deliberate action to kill it rather than to sustain it. So purposely ending a pregnancy is different than simply choosing to not take care of another person.

What does this have to do with the flu?

 

[idav]

It's alive when it's a single cell, this is proven. It's irrelevant to the abortion debate, unless life is the only measure of personhood, but it is a biological fact.

I brought up sapience because it's a much more relavant measure of personhood than life. An amoeba is alive, but it isn't a person.

Conception isn't a complete indication of viability. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarraige and those are the ones we know about.

 

[Storm]

Conception isn't a complete indication of viability. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarraige and those are the ones we know about.

I've said several times over the course of this thread that "alive," "viable," and "person" are totally unrelated measures, so I'll thank you not to say I'm the one conflating them.

 

[crossfire]

Again, what does this have to do with my point?

The statement was in regards to a counter-argument that in most legal cases, people do not have to sustain the life of another human being and do not have to use their own bodies to do so. This logic was applied to a fetus- why would people be obliged to sustain it?

My point to that statement was that being pregnant takes no deliberate action to sustain it. The body naturally sustains it, and it takes deliberate action to kill it rather than to sustain it. So purposely ending a pregnancy is different than simply choosing to not take care of another person.

What does this have to do with the flu?

Not all pregnancies naturally lead to a live birth. Not all cases of flu pass without incident. You can make general predictions based upon statistics, but that is no guarantee that it will apply to any given individual circumstance. (Much to the chagrin of "managed care" providers. Over generalization leads to collateral damage, which happens to be individual human beings in the case of medical care.)

I do agree with you that there is a difference between letting any medical condition run its natural course and in seeking some sort of medical intervention, and that the ethics of different medical interventions is something that individuals and their medical providers should discuss. One might even be able to draw useful general conclusions that are useful when applied to a wide range of cases with minimal collateral damage.

The point that I am trying to get acrossed is the fine art of knowing when to let go of generalizations and to examine the specific circumstances regarding an individual incidence in order to minimize collateral damage from over-generalization. This can be a real problem with polarizing issues like this. (I brought up the flu as an example of a medical condition that is not as polarizing as this one, where people are less likely to become entrenched and cling to the generalizations as if they were law and represented the totality of reality.)

Sorry if this is considered to be a derail.

 

[Penumbra]

Not all pregnancies naturally lead to a live birth.

I didn't say they did.

Not all cases of flu pass without incident. You can make general predictions based upon statistics, but that is no guarantee that it will apply to any given individual circumstance. (Much to the chagrin of "managed care" providers. Over generalization leads to collateral damage, which happens to be individual human beings in the case of medical care.)

I do agree with you that there is a difference between letting any medical condition run its natural course and in seeking some sort of medical intervention, and that the ethics of different medical interventions is something that individuals and their medical providers should discuss. One might even be able to draw useful general conclusions that are useful when applied to a wide range of cases with minimal collateral damage.

The point that I am trying to get acrossed is the fine art of knowing when to let go of generalizations and to examine the specific circumstances regarding an individual incidence in order to minimize collateral damage from over-generalization. This can be a real problem with polarizing issues like this. (I brought up the flu as an example of a medical condition that is not as polarizing as this one, where people are less likely to become entrenched and cling to the generalizations as if they were law and represented the totality of reality.)

Sorry if this is considered to be a derail.

I don't think this particularly reflects the posts I made.

 

[idav]

I've said several times over the course of this thread that "alive," "viable," and "person" are totally unrelated measures, so I'll thank you not to say I'm the one conflating them.

They are not totally unrelated. When trying to measure an individual human life there are many things to consider, most of all if they are alive. However being an individual rests on the natural ability to survive the womb.

 

[crossfire]

I didn't say they did.


I don't think this particularly reflects the posts I made.

Well this thread is about individuals, no? How far can you generalize before you lose the individual?

 

[Penumbra]

Well this thread is about individuals, no? How far can you generalize before you lose the individual?

What have I generalized?

 

[Storm]

They are not totally unrelated. When trying to measure an individual human life there are many things to consider, most of all if they are alive. However being an individual rests on the natural ability to survive the womb.

I don't appreciate deliberate obfuscation on your part anymore than others'. While I may have not used the most precise of all possible phrasings, I believe I made my point clear more than once.

 

[idav]

I don't appreciate deliberate obfuscation on your part anymore than others'. While I may have not used the most precise of all possible phrasings, I believe I made my point clear more than once.

I'm not doing anything deliberately. I notice we talk passed each other a lot. Just trying to address your responses.

An individual life is a life even if they aren't as sapient or intelligent as others.