Debate on Abortion.

[MSizer]

Might I point out that life does not begin at conception, but that it began 3.5 billion years ago and contiues to go on? As others have said, a sperm is a living piece of human biology. Life is an ongoing process, and to look at it as divided into different individual pieces among beings is a flawed view IMO. The question IMO should have nothing to do with "when does life begin" but rather "what triats deserver moral consideration with respect to life". IMO the answer is sentience. Therefore, there are stages of life which do not have the same consideration as beings in other stages. If I'm indefinately unconcious, I'm no longer sentient, so I may as well be a carrot from a moral patience point of view. If I'm only 6 weeks old in the womb, I'm not sentient. Therefore, I again am comparable to a carrot. Once I develop the capacity to sense and suffer however, the rules change IMO. At that point, I have the capacity to experience deep existential harm, and therefore deserve moral consideration by other humans.

Off my soapbox now.

 

[MountainHumanist]

If sperm is life then I commit manual genocide at least three times a week.

I believe that abortion is immoral. On a secular AND on a religious level.

It is immoral for many reasons, I will list these as the debate goes on.

For starters, here is an essay that summarizes my position entirely. we can debate the points made in this essay.

A sperm is life. An egg is life. “Life” in this term does not necessitate our concern. We aren’t concerned with scratching our arm because we don’t want to kill skin cells. Humans, however, are quite important, and are deserving of protection and respect. Some may claim that a sperm and an egg combined and a sperm and egg separated are essentially the same (in other words, there is no critical distinction between the separated sex cells and the sex cells combined). However, I find this to be quite untrue. There is a very important distinction between the two.
When a sperm and egg cell combine, it becomes something fundamentally different. It becomes a human being in its early stages. The embryo has the information necessary to develop into a fully-functioning human being like you or me. In addition, the embryo is already in the process of developing into a human like you or me. The only essential difference between the embryo and a full-grown human is that they are in different stages of life.
There are also several advantages to identifying the beginning of human life at conception. It is simpler than all other points of identification. It leaves no room for doubt as to when the unborn deserves protection (there is no “limbo” between humanity and inhumanity). Also, identifying humanity at conception leads to no moral dilemmas. In short, there are good reasons to accept my definition of the beginning of humanity and no good reasons to reject them. But some may disagree.
If a pro-abortionist can come up with a better distinction for the beginning of humanity, then it is possible that abortion is a moral act, at least in the secular sense. Thus, I will examine attempts to create different criteria, and I will see if any of them fare better than my own definition.

Physical Characteristics
There are a number of unscholarly arguments used by unsophisticated abortion advocates. Here is a partial list of such arguments:
1. The embryo doesn’t even look human, it’s like a limp fish.
2. The embryo is so tiny it’s just a speck.
3. The embryo has a tail, gill slits, and other animal features. It’s not really a human yet.
It is almost needless to say that such arguments are invalid. Since when has protection by the law been determined by looks or size? Are people that look like monkeys unprotected? What about midgets? Obviously, the physical appearance of the embryo is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not abortion is a moral action.
But even if that were not the case, it is oftentimes untrue that aborted fetuses look very different than a small child. Unborn children develop human-like characteristics at an early stage.

Viability
A slightly more powerful argument advanced by abortion advocates is that the unborn becomes a human being worthy of protection once it has the ability to survive without the mother. Fetuses are typically viable after about 24 weeks, so this argument cannot be used to advocate abortions beyond the 24th week of pregnancy. In any case, viability fails as a valuable criteria for two important reasons.
1. Viability, or the point in which the fetus is able to survive outside the mother, has changed throughout history. Viability used to be considered to occur quite a bit after the 24 week period. These days, due primarily to increased medical technology, the point of viability has changed. Surely we cannot consider viability to be a valuable and objective criteria for determining the humanity of the embryo/fetus. It is ridiculous to suppose that the humanity of the fetus changes depending on the time. The implications are disastrous. 100 years ago we could allow millions of abortions to take place on fetuses that are now considered viable! Perhaps in the future fetuses will become viable at week 15. All of the sudden, every single abortion that we had previously between the time of 16 and 23 weeks was murder of an innocent human being.
2. Viability also depends on medical technology available. The unborn fetus in the U.S. becomes viable much earlier than the unborn fetus in Sudan. However, it is ridiculous to suppose that there is anything objectively different between the unborn in Sudan and the unborn in the U.S.
For these reasons, the proposed criteria of viability must not be used as a criteria for the humanity of the unborn.

Dependence
Another common pro-abortion argument is that, since the child is dependent upon the mother, the mother has the right to kill the embryo/fetus.
This criterion has disastrous implications. Consider Siamese Twins, John and Fred. John is the dominant one and doesn’t require Fred to live but Fred requires John in order to live. Does John have the right to kill Fred? I would think not. (In actuality, Fred’s dependence could be much more taxing on John than the dependence between a mother and child. Furthermore, the mother and child will eventually discontinue dependence- which is not the case with conjoined twins. It seems rather hypocritical for us to allow termination in the case of the unborn but disallow it in the case of conjoined twins.)
In any case, it is unclear as to whether or not dependence ends at birth anyways. Sometimes the mother is the only person who can help the baby survive. Nobody would then wish to argue that the mother has the right to kill the infant because the infant is “dependent” on her. Either way, it is obviously not true that the mother has the right to kill the unborn merely because the unborn is dependent upon the mother.

Brain Function
A very popular pro-abortion argument is that there is a significant difference between an embryo/fetus without higher brain function and a fetus with the ability for higher brain function. However, fetuses in the womb have registered brain waves so this argument is not sufficient to allow abortions at any period during the pregnancy.
However, I fail to see how the ability for minimal brain function is really all that significant at all. After all, the most important functions of the brain are to provide self-concept, personality, memories, etc. These are the important things that make us into the people we are. The mere possession of brain tissue is quite insignificant in the whole scheme of things. Since brain function by itself is not a valuable criterion for determining the humanity of the fetus, it should be rejected unless conjoined with the proposition that one must have personality, self-concept, memories, etc. in order to deserve protection as a human being.
Of course, personality, self-concept, etc. all develop much after childbirth. This criterion would lead to legal infanticide, so I doubt it would be supported by any moral man.
Another major problem with the criterion of brain function is that persons in a coma would not be deserving of protection. But just because persons in a coma do not have the ability to think does not mean that they are undeserving of protection, as almost all will agree. So, it seems to me that brain function is a useless criterion for determining the point of humanity.

Sociological Arguments
A whole different class of arguments deals not with whether or not the fetus is a human, but with the supposed sociological, economical, and political backlashes of the illegalization of abortion. Thus, the following are a few good examples:
1. The illegalizaton of abortion will lead to increased deaths from unsafe abortions.
2. There will be nobody to adopt the millions of babies.
3. It is emotionally harmful to force a women to have a baby against her will.
This is just a small sampling. Arguments of this form are extremely numerous. However, they are actually quite irrelevant to the issue. After all, none of the above, even if true, leads to the justification of killing innocent human beings. These arguments are nothing but a distraction from that main issue- whether or not abortion is a form of murder.
Most of these arguments, in my mind, are definitely faulty. However, I will not address them here because they are nothing but a distraction.

Conclusion
The final plea of the pro-abortionist is “don’t impose your morality on me!” However, there are times when it is quite appropriate to impose your own standards upon others. In the same manner that I will not tolerate infanticide, I will not sit idly by while abortions are carried out.
This does not mean that I have no compassion for those who have had abortions or those who support the practice of abortion. Many of them may be honestly mistaken. However, it is very important that our society discontinues the practice of abortion now. It is perhaps the most important issue our society faces today.

Skeptical Christian: Abortion

 

[MountainHumanist]

Might I point out that life does not begin at conception, but that it began 3.5 billion years ago and contiues to go on? As others have said, a sperm is a living piece of human biology. Life is an ongoing process, and to look at it as divided into different individual pieces among beings is a flawed view IMO. The question IMO should have nothing to do with "when does life begin" but rather "what triats deserver moral consideration with respect to life". IMO the answer is sentience. Therefore, there are stages of life which do not have the same consideration as beings in other stages. If I'm indefinately unconcious, I'm no longer sentient, so I may as well be a carrot from a moral patience point of view. If I'm only 6 weeks old in the womb, I'm not sentient. Therefore, I again am comparable to a carrot. Once I develop the capacity to sense and suffer however, the rules change IMO. At that point, I have the capacity to experience deep existential harm, and therefore deserve moral consideration by other humans.

Off my soapbox now.

That was WAY too rational!

 

[MSizer]

Actually, I think the more proper definitions would be that an egg and a sperm are products of A human life. Once they are joined together, and thereby complete the makings of A human DNA chain...they are a separate human life. An egg or a sperm are no more separate human entities as are fingernails, hair strands, or skin samples. Each carry samples of a human's DNA. Each are products of a particular human. Neither, however, are a human lifeform. An egg and a sperm combined create a zygote, with it's own unique DNA and therefore, is a human life unto itself.

But at that point however, they still don't have the capacities which we consider to deserve moral consideration. For example, people would throw fingernail clippings into the garbage, but not children. That's because children are aware, they can suffer, they can feel pain.... A zygote, like fingernail clippings, can't experience any of those criteria by which humans and animals are sentient, and can be harmed existentially.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

But at that point however, they still don't have the capacities which we consider to deserve moral consideration. For example, people would throw fingernail clippings into the garbage, but not children. That's because children are aware, they can suffer, they can feel pain.... A zygote, like fingernail clippings, can't experience any of those criteria by which humans and animals are sentient, and can be harmed existentially.

Let me hop on my soapbox for a minute.

This is exactly why I say according to a God (at least in my imagination) our human suffering is that of a zygote to God, and it is of my opinion we regard human suffering all too much higher than it deserves. :run:

 

[MSizer]

That was WAY too rational!

I'm not sure whether this is a critique, or a compliment, or just an off the cuff statement, but it seems to me that rationality is the most valuable means humans have for making decisions.

 

[Willamena]

Might I point out that life does not begin at conception, but that it began 3.5 billion years ago and contiues to go on? As others have said, a sperm is a living piece of human biology. Life is an ongoing process, and to look at it as divided into different individual pieces among beings is a flawed view IMO.

It's not a "flawed" view, it's just a different view. I have no doubt you would not hesitate to distiguish a human life from other life if the circumstances warranted it.

The question IMO should have nothing to do with "when does life begin" but rather "what triats deserver moral consideration with respect to life". IMO the answer is sentience. Therefore, there are stages of life which do not have the same consideration as beings in other stages. If I'm indefinately unconcious, I'm no longer sentient, so I may as well be a carrot from a moral patience point of view. If I'm only 6 weeks old in the womb, I'm not sentient. Therefore, I again am comparable to a carrot. Once I develop the capacity to sense and suffer however, the rules change IMO. At that point, I have the capacity to experience deep existential harm, and therefore deserve moral consideration by other humans.

Off my soapbox now.

Sentience (the physical ability to sense surroundings) deserves moral consideration? *backs away slowly* To me, things that deserve moral consideration are the things of human character and behavior --ideals like ethical choice, compassion for our fellow beings, and crime.

When is a child developed enough to be an agent of human behavior?

 

[MSizer]

It's not a "flawed" view, it's just a different view. I have no doubt you would not hesitate to distiguish a human life from other life if the circumstances warranted it.


Sentience (the physical ability to sense surroundings) deserves moral consideration? *backs away slowly* To me, things that deserve moral consideration are the things of human character and behavior --ideals like ethical choice, compassion for our fellow beings, and crime.

When is a child developed enough to be an agent of human behavior?

Well, by your definition, when it turns 20 or so it would seem, since individuals don't fully mature morally until adulthood. By my criterion, after about 8 weeks in the womb. There's reason to believe that at that point they may have the capacity to feel pain (based on the neural develpment that exists at that stage). By your criterion, animals would be deserving of no moral consideration at all. It should be perfectly acceptable by your definition to walk up to an innocent dog, kick it in the side so as to break a few ribs, and walk away without remorse, since that dog doesn't have the capacity to make ethical choices, or compassion, or consider whether an act is criminal. In fact, by your definition, I should be able to do that to a 1 year old human too, because they don't posess those traits either. As a result of my definition, I don't purchase or consume animal products (with rare exceptions). That's not a matter of ascetics for me, it's a matter of not causing harm. (and I sure don't do it for fun, believe me, it flat out sucks sometimes).

 

[MountainHumanist]

I'm not sure whether this is a critique, or a compliment, or just an off the cuff statement, but it seems to me that rationality is the most valuable means humans have for making decisions.

It was sarcasm and, as such, a compliment from one hopefully rational thinker to another.

 

[Willamena]

Well, by your definition, when it turns 20 or so it would seem, since individuals don't fully mature morally until adulthood. By my criterion, after about 8 weeks in the womb. There's reason to believe that at that point they may have the capacity to feel pain (based on the neural develpment that exists at that stage). By your criterion, animals would be deserving of no moral consideration at all. It should be perfectly acceptable by your definition to walk up to an innocent dog, kick it in the side so as to break a few ribs, and walk away without remorse, since that dog doesn't have the capacity to make ethical choices, or compassion, or consider whether an act is criminal. In fact, by your definition, I should be able to do that to a 1 year old human too, because they don't posess those traits either. As a result of my definition, I don't purchase or consume animal products (with rare exceptions). That's not a matter of ascetics for me, it's a matter of not causing harm. (and I sure don't do it for fun, believe me, it flat out sucks sometimes).

I was thinking more like 35, but 20's good.

Animals do display human characteristics, the like-us characteristics that we observe in them. Every one of them. And for the most part they are exempted from our moral considerations, regardless. The significant point, though, is that there are a set of characteristics and behaviors that we identify as "human," some of which can be seen even in the womb. There is a point at which we can point at a thing and say, "That is human behavior"; and there is a point at which we can imagine that a "human-behaved life" begins.

 

[MSizer]

I was thinking more like 35, but 20's good.

Animals do display human characteristics...

No, animals display animal characteristics. We are animals, so we share some characteristics with other speicies.

the like-us characteristics that we observe in them. Every one of them. And for the most part they are exempted from our moral considerations, regardless. The significant point, though, is that there are a set of characteristics and behaviors that we identify as "human," some of which can be seen even in the womb. There is a point at which we can point at a thing and say, "That is human behavior"; and there is a point at which we can imagine that a "human-behaved life" begins.

Even if that's correct, what does that have to do with morality? So then a person who is paralyzed and unable to perform actions that are moral doesn't deserve moral consideration then? A child with down syndrome? Are they human enough? Of course I know (well suspect) that you think they are, but my point is that "human" doesn't matter to me IMO. "Can it suffer" is what I think matters.

 

[Draka]

But at that point however, they still don't have the capacities which we consider to deserve moral consideration. For example, people would throw fingernail clippings into the garbage, but not children. That's because children are aware, they can suffer, they can feel pain.... A zygote, like fingernail clippings, can't experience any of those criteria by which humans and animals are sentient, and can be harmed existentially.

I never said a zygote can "feel" anything did I? I just distinguished between "products" of a human with samples of that particular human's DNA and a zygote, which is a random compilation of DNA samples from two different humans forming its own completely different DNA and is, therefore, a separate human life to consider. Whether or not you attach requirements for "moral consideration" doesn't matter to the biological facts that separate human products from human lifeforms. The "capacities" of that lifeform do not change the fact that it is a separate and unique lifeform.

 

[Willamena]

Even if that's correct, what does that have to do with morality?

Whether or not it can suffer because it is sentient, and so "morality" applies, whether or not it is at one stage of development "human" and another not (conception), whether or not it is "human" by a display of characteristics, each arbitrarily assigned definitional boundary provides us a point at which we --each --could state "here, life begins."

Not "flawed" viewpoints, just different.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

So, the act of detaching this quasi-tumor (which is "certainly alive and a human") from its mother is what renders its elimination no longer generally acceptable?

You misread my post as when I mentioned the quote you quoted, it was in favour of abortion, not against it.

 

[Mikael]

I won´t bother reading through the whole discussion. I´ll just say this, using the words of my beloved:
"I believe that every child that is born is meant to be born, and every child not born is meant not to be born".

To think that we can interfere with karma in any way is just vanity. As if the cosmic superpowers do not KNOW about abortion, and by using the method we are somehow cheating GOD. Silly.

Let those be born who are born.

 

[Rightmind]

Might I point out that life does not begin at conception, but that it began 3.5 billion years ago and contiues to go on? As others have said, a sperm is a living piece of human biology. Life is an ongoing process, and to look at it as divided into different individual pieces among beings is a flawed view IMO. The question IMO should have nothing to do with "when does life begin" but rather "what triats deserver moral consideration with respect to life". IMO the answer is sentience. Therefore, there are stages of life which do not have the same consideration as beings in other stages. If I'm indefinately unconcious, I'm no longer sentient, so I may as well be a carrot from a moral patience point of view. If I'm only 6 weeks old in the womb, I'm not sentient. Therefore, I again am comparable to a carrot. Once I develop the capacity to sense and suffer however, the rules change IMO. At that point, I have the capacity to experience deep existential harm, and therefore deserve moral consideration by other humans.

The difference between a carrot and a fetus is that a carrot will always remain a carrot and therefore lack sentience. A fetus on the other hand, provided all things go according to plan, will undoubtedly become sentient if given time to grow.

Consider this situation. You've come across a nest with the egg of an endangered condor inside (they're still endangered right?). The egg may not have all the characteristics that we would assume a condor to have, what with it being inanimate and completely dependent on it's mother for care, but we still wouldn't be allowed to harm it. We recognize that even though it isn't technically a condor yet it will become one in time, and so we provide it with protection.

Judging something's worth based on it's immediate traits just seems flawed and shortsighted to me, and denying a human being the right to live simply because it's a week away from technically qualifying for that right seems outright malicious.

 

[gnomon]

Isn't this little more than word wacking, Sunstone? Let me ask you as question: when do you believe it legitimate to speak of a developing fetus as human life and why?

One can refer to a fertilized egg as human life.

That holds little bearing on the issue of abortion.

 

[Panda]

The difference between a carrot and a fetus is that a carrot will always remain a carrot and therefore lack sentience. A fetus on the other hand, provided all things go according to plan, will undoubtedly become sentient if given time to grow.

Consider this situation. You've come across a nest with the egg of an endangered condor inside (they're still endangered right?). The egg may not have all the characteristics that we would assume a condor to have, what with it being inanimate and completely dependent on it's mother for care, but we still wouldn't be allowed to harm it. We recognize that even though it isn't technically a condor yet it will become one in time, and so we provide it with protection.

I don't think this is a good analogy. I would protect the egg because it is an endangered species and I wouldn't want to see the species disappear off the planet not for any other reason.

 

[MSizer]

The difference between a carrot and a fetus is that a carrot will always remain a carrot and therefore lack sentience..

False. The carrot will be consumed and digested by a rabbit which means the molecules which had made up the carrot become part of the rabbit, which is a sentient being.

A fetus on the other hand, provided all things go according to plan, will undoubtedly become sentient if given time to grow.

Which plan? (I suspect I know your answer, but I don't believe it exists). Plan or no plan, it is not sentient at the zygote stage. Do you refrain from digging dirt in your backyard on the grounds that through the ecological cycle the dirt has the potential to become a part of a sentient being? Of course not.

Consider this situation. You've come across a nest with the egg of an endangered condor inside (they're still endangered right?). The egg may not have all the characteristics that we would assume a condor to have, what with it being inanimate and completely dependent on it's mother for care, but we still wouldn't be allowed to harm it.

Law is often based on morality, but they are independent normative concepts, and immoral laws have existed. (ie Jim Crow laws & failure to recognize gay marriage) So to say "we would not be allowed to harm it" is not a case for the moral nature of harming or protecting it.

We recognize that even though it isn't technically a condor yet it will become one in time, and so we provide it with protection.

Correct, but not for the sake of the condor, for the sake of the ecology. That individual fetus in the egg is not yet sentient (assuming we're talking about a pre-sensory neurally developped stage) so the moral consideration is not for the contents of the egg, but for the benefit of the ecosystem (which of course works best with condors included - assuming that it's a local species).

Judging something's worth based on it's immediate traits just seems flawed and shortsighted to me,...

Well that's what you do each time you dig up the soil in your garden, so the pot is calling the kettle black.

and denying a human being the right to live simply because it's a week away from technically qualifying for that right seems outright malicious.

False. My purpose is to arrive at an opinion which best nurtures a considered situation with regard to the termination of life. Where human suffering is expected to occur, I believe we should take actions to alleviate the suffering.

 

[Rightmind]

I don't think this is a good analogy. I would protect the egg because it is an endangered species and I wouldn't want to see the species disappear off the planet not for any other reason.

But isn't the potential human being in question endangered as well, seeing as people are considering it's termination? I suppose it comes down to the value you place on individual human life.