Argument for allowing early Abortion

[Polymath257]

Does it even matter if the fetus is able to feel pain though?

I mean, surely if it does and if we think it is alright to kill it we should seek the least painful way, but that doesn't address the main point: whether it is alright to kill it in the first place.

Think of it this way: Imagine I am unable to feel pain. You all certainly don't think it would be alright to kill me, right?

Perhaps the debate is about whether pain points towards consciousness? Well... Cattle feels pain and it is conscious, still...

I think the pain aspect is a red herring. The relevant aspect is the existence of higher brain functions. We should have the 'start' of life be consistent with the end of life: brain death/brain life.

And that occurs about 20-21 weeks of pregnancy.

So, at that point, care should be taken *if possible* to ensure that life is preserved.

BUT, there is still the absolute right of the woman to insist that the fetus be removed from her body, even if that results in its death.

We can attempt to ensure that death does not occur in such a case, but the woman still has the right to her own body whether or not that is possible. Otherwise, the fetus is essentially putting her into involuntary servitude.

 

[wellwisher]

My consistent argument for allowing pre-20 week abortion is the mother wants it or if circumstances demand is as follows:-
1) Only presently existing beings (not future beings) have intrinsic right to life in the moral sphere.
2) Beings exist only when their physical stratum has the capability to host (or generate) complex consciousness with inner mental states (the mind, the self, etc.). This is a minimum criteria. It is the mind that defines a being as a being. (Justification here LINK).
3) The physical substratum of pre 20 week fetus has no such capability according to currently understood science. See Evidence here LINK. Original Article here LINK
4) Thus a pre-20 week fetus do not have an intrinsic right to life.
5) Given (4) mother's bodily autonomy and choices take precedence over the fetus prior to 20-21 weeks. Whatever right the fetus has (or does not have) comes from her mother (extrinsic or derived rights).
6) So if a mother chooses to, she can abort the fetus without any moral objections. Or she can carry it to term.
7) Post 20 week things get more complicated. And you will need justification of clear danger to the mother's life to justify abortion.

I would like to hear the arguments against these points.

The science definition of life applies to things like trees that are not conscious. The seed of any veggie that gets water and starts to grow, will satisfy all the science criteria of life. Some communities will not allow you to chop down trees in our own backyard, if the trees meets certain criteria. Based on your definition, all plant life is free game with me able to abort any veggie anywhere. Or can just women do this?

If you look at the search for extra terrestrial life, the definition of life is left even wide open by science. To be able to notice any potential and unknown form of alien life, they assume life might be based on other forms and combinations of chemicals that are not found on earth, such as silicone based. Science is more open minded than political posturing, which seeks to impose itself with self serving science that uses casino math to make fuzzy data, to fit the bill.

The other consideration is connected to the idea of abortion and the notion of women's rights. The Left is now also pushing the notion of genders and how biological sex is less important than how consciousness views itself in terms of gender.

So how do you define women's right to abortion in the light of the new Leftist fad of gender rights? As a scenario, say a male and female, by their DNA, copulate and the female, by DNA, gets pregnant. However, in this case, the male, based on DNA, sees himself as herself. Does she also have a women's right to keep the baby? Based on the gender notion maybe the answer is yes. If the court decides the biological mother has the exclusive right to abort does that mean biology and DNA then supersede the notion of gender preference? Males who want children with women who seek abortion, should claim to suddenly feel like a she, and test this in court.

Beyond that, if we have women's right, then what are men's rights? If only one sex has specials rights, this violates human rights, which are designed to apply to all. Human rights apply to all. Specialty rights, if they do not apply to all and violate another's choices, violate humans rights.

Currently the male does not have any right to choose when it comes to abortion, yet he is liable if the woman chooses birth. This means he is two rights behind women and needs to be make whole with two rights of his own choice. If not, then his human rights are in violation. What are men's rights and if these do not exist, are women's rights imaginary, sexist and therefore illegal?

 

[Koldo]

And, again, that only applies in circumstances where I and those I care about are not at risk.

Most pregnancies posit minimal risks though.

And once again, I have the right to insist that a person that inhabits my body leave. Even if that means the other person dies.

Don't you think it makes a difference if you have created the situation in the first place?

You wake up in the morning connected to my body. I did it to you and now if I abruptly and suddenly disconnect you... you are dead. And there is no way to fix this situation without waiting some time. Do I have the right to disconnect you any time I wish?

 

[Polymath257]

Most pregnancies posit minimal risks though.

Actually not true. Most pose substantial risks. They are minimized by modern medicine, but the risks are there.

The death rate from delivery alone is non-trivial.

Don't you think it makes a difference if you have created the situation in the first place?

No. If I agree to go on a machine so that my kidneys are shared with another, I still have the right to disconnect *at any time* even if the other person will die as a result.

You wake up in the morning connected to my body. I did it to you and now if I abruptly and suddenly disconnect you... you are dead. And there is no way to fix this situation without waiting some time. Do I have the right to disconnect you any time I wish?

Absolutely. I also think you were in the wrong for doing the initial connection to a conscious being.

 

[Koldo]

I think the pain aspect is a red herring. The relevant aspect is the existence of higher brain functions. We should have the 'start' of life be consistent with the end of life: brain death/brain life.

And that occurs about 20-21 weeks of pregnancy.

So, at that point, care should be taken *if possible* to ensure that life is preserved.

BUT, there is still the absolute right of the woman to insist that the fetus be removed from her body, even if that results in its death.

We can attempt to ensure that death does not occur in such a case, but the woman still has the right to her own body whether or not that is possible. Otherwise, the fetus is essentially putting her into involuntary servitude.

I think brain life is a good parameter.
My only concern is: What makes humans special enough that we can't kill them even though we can kill (as in being morally permissible) other animals? In principle, shouldn't the arise of that trait be the dividing line? What trait is it though?

 

[Koldo]

Actually not true. Most pose substantial risks. They are minimized by modern medicine, but the risks are there.

The death rate from delivery alone is non-trivial.

Modern medicine exists to be used. If the woman has access to proper health care the risk is fairly minimal. Now, obviously, this does mean that I most certainly support quality health care to all pregnant women.

No. If I agree to go on a machine so that my kidneys are shared with another, I still have the right to disconnect *at any time* even if the other person will die as a result.

Absolutely. I also think you were in the wrong for doing the initial connection to a conscious being.

This is where we are really going to disagree. If I have put you, without your consent, into a situation where your life relies on mine I can't just unplug you any time I wish. How is this any different from murder (consider we are talking about two adults here)?

 

[Polymath257]

Modern medicine exists to be used. If the woman has access to proper health care the risk is fairly minimal. Now, obviously, this does mean that I most certainly support quality health care to all pregnant women.

Still not minimal risk. Eclampsia, diabetes, pain and suffering, etc. are ALL risks (or even guarantees) of pregnancy.

This is where we are really going to disagree. If I have put you, without your consent, into a situation where your life relies on mine I can't just unplug you any time I wish. How is this any different from murder (consider we are talking about two adults here)?

Yes, you would be guilty of an assault on a living person that lead to their death. And, even if you remained connected, you would still be guilty of an assault that put another living person at serious risk of death.

if there is any restriction on you, it is because of the crime you already committed against me.

Again, that is not the case in a pregnancy.

 

[Polymath257]

This is where we are really going to disagree. If I have put you, without your consent, into a situation where your life relies on mine I can't just unplug you any time I wish. How is this any different from murder (consider we are talking about two adults here)?

Let me put it this way.

Suppose I attached myself to you without your permission in such a way that removing me would kill me.

Are you saying you don't have the right to have me removed?

I most certainly think that you do.

 

[Koldo]

Still not minimal risk. Eclampsia, diabetes, pain and suffering, etc. are ALL risks (or even guarantees) of pregnancy.

When the risk is comparable to dying in a car crash, I insist on calling it minimal. I just don't see people refusing to walk outside their homes because of that.

Yes, you would be guilty of an assault on a living person that lead to their death. And, even if you remained connected, you would still be guilty of an assault that put another living person at serious risk of death.

if there is any restriction on you, it is because of the crime you already committed against me.

Again, that is not the case in a pregnancy.

Let me put it this way.

Suppose I attached myself to you without your permission in such a way that removing me would kill me.

Are you saying you don't have the right to have me removed?

I most certainly think that you do.

But the fetus doesn't attach to the mother's body out of its' volition. Except for rape, it is the mother (and the father) that willingly engages into the activity that attaches the fetus to her body.

 

[sayak83]

The science definition of life applies to things like trees that are not conscious. The seed of any veggie that gets water and starts to grow, will satisfy all the science criteria of life. Some communities will not allow you to chop down trees in our own backyard, if the trees meets certain criteria. Based on your definition, all plant life is free game with me able to abort any veggie anywhere. Or can just women do this?

If you look at the search for extra terrestrial life, the definition of life is left even wide open by science. To be able to notice any potential and unknown form of alien life, they assume life might be based on other forms and combinations of chemicals that are not found on earth, such as silicone based. Science is more open minded than political posturing, which seeks to impose itself with self serving science that uses casino math to make fuzzy data, to fit the bill.

The other consideration is connected to the idea of abortion and the notion of women's rights. The Left is now also pushing the notion of genders and how biological sex is less important than how consciousness views itself in terms of gender.

So how do you define women's right to abortion in the light of the new Leftist fad of gender rights? As a scenario, say a male and female, by their DNA, copulate and the female, by DNA, gets pregnant. However, in this case, the male, based on DNA, sees himself as herself. Does she also have a women's right to keep the baby? Based on the gender notion maybe the answer is yes. If the court decides the biological mother has the exclusive right to abort does that mean biology and DNA then supersede the notion of gender preference? Males who want children with women who seek abortion, should claim to suddenly feel like a she, and test this in court.

Beyond that, if we have women's right, then what are men's rights? If only one sex has specials rights, this violates human rights, which are designed to apply to all. Human rights apply to all. Specialty rights, if they do not apply to all and violate another's choices, violate humans rights.

Currently the male does not have any right to choose when it comes to abortion, yet he is liable if the woman chooses birth. This means he is two rights behind women and needs to be make whole with two rights of his own choice. If not, then his human rights are in violation. What are men's rights and if these do not exist, are women's rights imaginary, sexist and therefore illegal?

This does not look like a response to my OP, but an entirety unrelated set of thoughts. Can you tell me the connection?

 

[sayak83]

Does it even matter if the fetus is able to feel pain though?

I mean, surely if it does and if we think it is alright to kill it we should seek the least painful way, but that doesn't address the main point: whether it is alright to kill it in the first place.

Think of it this way: Imagine I am unable to feel pain. You all certainly don't think it would be alright to kill me, right?

Perhaps the debate is about whether pain points towards consciousness? Well... Cattle feels pain and it is conscious, still...

It was tangential to my original argument. I was merely responding to another's argument. Anyways, there is no need to concern about things that do not happen, like pre 20 week fetus feeling pain.

 

[Heyo]

I disagree. Abstract entities are conventional and invented by intelligent beings.

We invent math, logic, and morality.

We've had that discussion, didn't we? This is one of the rare cases where I disagree with you. I think maths (at least the basics) is discovered, not invented. Platonic ideals exist (though they are not real) and are distinct from constructs.
/off topic

 

[Heyo]

Does it even matter if the fetus is able to feel pain though?

I mean, surely if it does and if we think it is alright to kill it we should seek the least painful way, but that doesn't address the main point: whether it is alright to kill it in the first place.

Think of it this way: Imagine I am unable to feel pain. You all certainly don't think it would be alright to kill me, right?

Perhaps the debate is about whether pain points towards consciousness? Well... Cattle feels pain and it is conscious, still...

I don't think that it can be bound to a single cause and it can't recognize all possibilities.
My suggestion would include
1. Human (or at least, if we ever make hybrids, a human brain). I know that is speciesist but we are anyway and one has to draw a line.
2. Sentience, i.e. the ability to feel pain.
3. Based on averages, not measurements. Thus, the absence of pain receptors in the individual are not important when they are expected to be there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the fetus doesn't attach to the mother's body out of its' volition. Except for rape, it is the mother (and the father) that willingly engages into the activity that attaches the fetus to her body.

Sorry, but the embryo may still be attempting to attach without permission. Yes, it is wise to use birth control, but sometimes one forgets, the birth control does not work, or one just does not like birth control. That is not an open inivtation.

For example. It is wise to lock your door when you leave your house. Most of us, at one time or another have forgotten to do so. When I was a kid we did not even know where the keys to the house were. We had a half a mile long driveway and knew that if someone wanted to break in when we were not home a lock was not going to stop them. We still went on vacation trips.

But say that you leave your house unlocked and find someone in your house. And he won't leave. Is he part of your household as long as he wants? Or would you do something to get rid of him?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I argue that people with opinions about what constitute life, do not have the right to exert their opinions on such a serious matter.
Since they cannot demonstrate with sufficient certainly that life has not begun from the time a cell starts to divide, they should leave that decision alone, and allow "natural processes" to take their course.

The question of when - or whether - a fetus should be considered a person are irrelevant to most arguments for pro-choice laws.

BTW: I'll ask you the same question I asked @Wildswanderer : what's the citizenship of a fetus?

An animal tries to impregnate its mate, for the purpose of carrying on its lineage.
That's the purpose of sex - procreation.

If you think that procreation is the only purpose of sex, then I pity your wife.

It was a former member here who first pointed out some things to me that I'll now point out to you:

- there are lots of examples in the animal world of "going into heat" - i.e. only being interested in sex when fertile. Humans aren't like that - we're interested in sex even when the female partner isn't ovulating.

- there are lots of examples in the animal world of overt ovulation - i.e. an outward physical sign that a female is fertile. Humans aren't like that - we have covert ovulation.

If we're going to infer our "designer's" intent from our "design," what do you think we should infer from the fact that we're apparently designed to have lots of non-procreative sex?

 

[Subduction Zone]

BTW: I'll ask you the same question I asked @Wildswanderer : what's the citizenship of a fetus?

Can we make them Mexican? Then the right will surely go into a tailspin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can we make them Mexican? Then the right will surely go into a tailspin.

I was thinking more in the other direction: if two undocumented Mexicans conceive while in the US, then presumably the fetus would be a US citizen, right?

#anchorfetuses

Edit: the main thing I was getting at is that the "fetuses should be legally recognized as people" argument would have implications way beyond the issue of abortion. People have things like nationalities... and the right to enter and remain in countries where they hold citizenship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was thinking more in the other direction: if two undocumented Mexicans conceive while in the US, then presumably the fetus would be a US citizen, right?

#anchorfetuses

Edit: the main thing I was getting at is that the "fetuses should be legally recognized as people" argument would have implications way beyond the issue of abortion. People have things like nationalities... and the right to enter and remain in countries where they hold citizenship.

To be legally consistent that is how it should be. But I don't think that Republicans will see it that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be legally consistent that is how it should be. But I don't think that Republicans will see it that way.

Right... and this gives away the fact that they don't actually consider fetuses to be people and it's just a convenient line to use when it suits them on the abortion issue.

Edit: on a personal note, my ex-wife had several miscarriages when we were together, all at 1 to 2 months. Never on any of them did my "pro-life" in-laws respond as if an actual child had died. Same with my ex's Catholic church: we weren't ever offered a funeral or anything else that would normally happen with the death of a child.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, but the embryo may still be attempting to attach without permission. Yes, it is wise to use birth control, but sometimes one forgets, the birth control does not work, or one just does not like birth control. That is not an open inivtation.

For example. It is wise to lock your door when you leave your house. Most of us, at one time or another have forgotten to do so. When I was a kid we did not even know where the keys to the house were. We had a half a mile long driveway and knew that if someone wanted to break in when we were not home a lock was not going to stop them. We still went on vacation trips.

But say that you leave your house unlocked and find someone in your house. And he won't leave. Is he part of your household as long as he wants? Or would you do something to get rid of him?

I don't find that analogy to be proper.
It would be more like: You leave your house unlocked, then you act in a way that is conducive to someone entering your house (sex). Someone decides to come over and enter the house (zygote). Then you put a bomb on his body and the trigger is him leaving the house within the next 6 months. Now you want to force him to leave your house.