Planned Parenthood and Abortion

[civilcynic]

I would agree that the main issue here is "personhood". From a scientific perspective, (and yes I realize many still disagree, but there are some fundamental facts at work here that we can all agree on), the embryo is a human life form at the moment of conception. It contains human DNA, it is certain that it will grow and be born as a human and remain human for the rest of it's life. Also, logically speaking, if it wasn't human, of what species would it be?

And so, on to personhood. I don't know about you, but this seems like very subjective ground to me.

Human beings are composed of living cells (skin cells, nerve cells etc and we also harbor other living creatures...bacteria, etc. in our body. I agree that a fertilized egg, embryo is living. We both agree that the main issue in abortion is "personhood" and, as you have stated this is a subjective opinion that even scientists with all their hard facts and logic have been unable to agree upon.

Since the issue is "personhood" and is not whether an embryo is living then the determination regarding where you stand on abortion is subjective not objective. You are suggesting that the subjective point of view of anti-abortionists (a fertilized egg/embryo is alive and therfore a person) should supercede the views of pro-choice (a fertilized egg/ embryo is alive but has not acheived personhood).

As far as the issue of trusting the medical doctors.....Please note that the quote you excerpted from my previous post was quite clear. I did not question the medical ethics of doctors of why they perform abortions but stated that anti-abortionists are claiming doctors performing abortions for all sorts of nefarious reasons....You followed up on that quote by suggesting that doctors are doing abortions for financial gains;

In terms of legislation, I am not quite clear on who you believe should be responsible for developing guidelines on when abortion is acceptible....Scientists and medical community who are the most knowledgeable on the subject are divided and as, you noted, one can never assume that they aren't biased.

If abortion legislation banned all abortions with the exception of in the case of serious health risks...let's get to the specifics:
1. Abortifacients would become illegal...including birth control pills and IUD's.
How would banning birth control pills be enforced? What about compliance? Will women face criminal charges if it is somehow learned that she is using birth control pills for family planning? Will we have the 'sex police' or require doctors/pharmacists to ensure compliance?

2. Abortion is legal when there are serious health risks:
--"Serious Health Risks" too vague a term....What constitutes "Serious Health Risks": Does that mean only in cases of serious physical health risk or
include psychological?

What is the criteria for Serious in determining the legal right
to abort? Does it mean only in the case where the mother's
is at risk of dying.....Since pregnancy/delivery all have inherent
risk, we must define what level or percentage of 'death' risk a
woman should be at bffore an abortion would be legal....what
should be the 'cut-off...50% chance of dying, 75%, 80%?
Would a woman who may suffer from severe physical and/or
psychological damage but not die be allowed to abort? If yes
then again -what criteria would be used to define serious?


Does it mean that the detection of severe birth defects (a
considerable health risk to pre-born) will or will to allow for
abortion. If so, what malformations; genetic defects, diseases,
will be in these guidelines; Wiil there be a it list or can there
be an 'appeal' to consider a case which has not been listed..
What committee would be charge and can the decision be
done in a timely fashion.

How will this be monitored? Will there be an Oversight
Committee making sure that medical practitioners are following
the letter of the law? How will this been done? Will doctors
be required to turn over confidential medical records to the
government for monitoring or for investigative purposes?

I would like some specifics outlining anti-abortion legislation that addresses some of the above questions. Tell me who will develop this legislation and its specifics...Lawyers, doctors, ministers, scientists, politicians? How will the be appointed and what are their qualifications and who gets to appoint them and for how long. Give me specifics on who will qualify and who won't qualify for an abortion? How will the approval for a specific abortion be provided....by application, committte decision, by personal doctor (can he be trusted?). I would also like to learn how this law will be enforced.

Lastly, in regards to the auto parts / car analogy. Car parts, in and of themselves, are not an automobile. It is only after they are fully assembled does the vehicle become an automobile.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Lastly, in regards to the auto parts / car analogy. Car parts, in and of themselves, are not an automobile. It is only after they are fully assembled does the vehicle become an automobile.

By that reasoning, since newborn babies have quite a long way to go before they become 'fully assembled' they too have no inherent right to live (nor four year olds, for that matter). I just don't accept that.

I would support a compromise--legislation that protects the rights of an unborn baby in the second and third trimesters (except in case of serious health risks to the mother), but not of an embryo in the first trimester. This is a complex issue and I see "personhood" as a gray scale that gradually shifts starting with conception and continues to change after birth and into infancy and adolescence.

--"Serious Health Risks" too vague a term....What constitutes "Serious Health Risks": Does that mean only in cases of serious physical health risk or
include psychological?

I don't really see how this would be any more vague than lots of laws in our country. What is "speech" and when is the "freedom" of it being infringed upon? I don't see why abortion laws would have to address every single specific situation any more than all of our other laws do. I would support the legislation I mentioned earlier with the knowledge that the success of any law depends on competency and objectivity on the part of judges who interpret it in light of specific circumstances. Sometimes our judges make poor decisions, and sometimes they make good decisions, but I think the aforementioned legislation would aid them in making better decisions.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Human beings are composed of living cells (skin cells, nerve cells etc and we also harbor other living creatures...bacteria, etc. in our body. I agree that a fertilized egg, embryo is living. We both agree that the main issue in abortion is "personhood" and, as you have stated this is a subjective opinion that even scientists with all their hard facts and logic have been unable to agree upon.

Since the issue is "personhood" and is not whether an embryo is living then the determination regarding where you stand on abortion is subjective not objective. You are suggesting that the subjective point of view of anti-abortionists (a fertilized egg/embryo is alive and therfore a person) should supercede the views of pro-choice (a fertilized egg/ embryo is alive but has not acheived personhood).

I have made the fatal error of being unclear. Allow me to correct myself and clarify my position:

The issue is "personhood" as far as what pro-abortion groups have as an argument. I do not consider an embryo to be human because of it's "personhood". I consider an embryo to be human because it contains human DNA and is living.

Personhood is indeed highly subjective, which is why I don't think it's a good idea at all to judge the worth of someone's life by it. My dog has more "personhood" than a newborn baby--does that make him human? What about people who have been relegated to a vegetable state. Do they still have "personhood"?

I can accept the argument that an embryo doesn't contain "personhood", but as I stated earlier, neither does a newborn baby. Should babies be allowed to be killed within months after their birth because they haven't developed this "personhood"? How about four year olds, who even still contain an incomplete sense of self. Like I said earlier, this fits in with the 'degree of development' reason.

As far as the issue of trusting the medical doctors.....Please note that the quote you excerpted from my previous post was quite clear. I did not question the medical ethics of doctors of why they perform abortions but stated that anti-abortionists are claiming doctors performing abortions for all sorts of nefarious reasons....You followed up on that quote by suggesting that doctors are doing abortions for financial gains;

We misunderstood each other, but now I hope we both see each other's views on this issue clearly

In terms of legislation, I am not quite clear on who you believe should be responsible for developing guidelines on when abortion is acceptible....Scientists and medical community who are the most knowledgeable on the subject are divided and as, you noted, one can never assume that they aren't biased.

Well, I say that embryo's should be considered human because they contain human DNA and are living. There's no scientist out there who can disagree with that. If just one scientist can find for me a difference other than the four I've already stated, I will reconsider my views on abortion. Other than that, I feel it is only a matter of time before general abortion is outlawed. It seems quite obvious to me.

1. Abortifacients would become illegal...including birth control pills and IUD's.
How would banning birth control pills be enforced? What about compliance? Will women face criminal charges if it is somehow learned that she is using birth control pills for family planning? Will we have the 'sex police' or require doctors/pharmacists to ensure compliance?

Only birth control pills which destroy a living embryo would be banned. They make up a very small majority of contraceptives. And yes, I do think that women caught using them should be prosecuted.

2. Abortion is legal when there are serious health risks:
--"Serious Health Risks" too vague a term....What constitutes "Serious Health Risks": Does that mean only in cases of serious physical health risk or
include psychological?

Well then, let's get some doctors together and write up some criteria! Just because it seems vague now, doesn't mean it can't be whittled down. Check on what Spinkles said too.

I would like some specifics outlining anti-abortion legislation that addresses some of the above questions. Tell me who will develop this legislation and its specifics...Lawyers, doctors, ministers, scientists, politicians? How will the be appointed and what are their qualifications and who gets to appoint them and for how long. Give me specifics on who will qualify and who won't qualify for an abortion? How will the approval for a specific abortion be provided....by application, committte decision, by personal doctor (can he be trusted?). I would also like to learn how this law will be enforced.

Phew that's a lot of questions! I don't have time for this now, but I'll be back later hopefully. In the meantime, keep in mind that you are just as able to answer those questions as I am.

 

[civilcynic]

A fertilized egg is directly dependent upon the physiological workings of the mother's body while newborns, children, etc; are not physically attached to the mothers' bodies and are not dependent upon that physical attachment is an inappropriate comparison.
A newborn can be easily cared for by another individual but a fertilized egg is part of the women's body and cannot be cared for by another...It is not a separate entity whereas a newborn, 4 yrs. old and up are.

Cancer cells have human DNA and can multiply but it is not human. Not to be repetitive but the medical profession and scientists cannot agree whether that a fertilized egg is necessarily equal to a human being. You beleive that a fertilized egg =human being...I don't....I agree that the fertilized egg is living and has the potential of being human.....Scientists and the medical profession have not yet agreed upon this issue....I suggest therefore that your viewpoint is no more valid or less valid than mine...it is simply a viewpoint and one in which will not agree.

In re: to the questions I posed about the establishment of criteria for when an abortion is OK....I have made myself clear in numerous posts that I do not know how to establish such criteria because of the numerous variables already mentioned. So in response to your statement "..Keep in mind that you are just as able to answer those questions as I am".....NO, I am not just as able.....I do not have the answers and frankly, I haven't heard any suggestions from you other than consult the medical profession. That is somewhat circular thinking because the reason one wants anti-abortion legislation is because you have no trust that the medical profession performing appropriately. In fact, we have specific legislation that bans late term abortion unless there are serious health risks but you don't seem to want to acknowledge this.

You state that most doctors are pro-life yet the birth control pill which requires a prescription is the most popular and wide-spread form of family planning. If most MD's are pro-life (by your definition of pro-life), why are they prescribing abortifacients left and right. I am in the health profession and I have never come across a single MD that refused to prescribe birth control pills for family planning. In fact, it is usely the first thing that most MD's suggest as an option.

I seem to be having to become redundant in my posts. Pro-choice, as I have mentioned before, is not pro-abortion. Pro-abortion suggests that I and other pro-choice individuals promote abortion....Would you say I am pro-alcohol consumption or pro-smoking because I do not support a national ban on these substances? Pro-choice individuals support the right to choose to have an abortion, we do not promote abortion....there is a big difference. Using that term is your prerogative but it is nothing but a misnomer that does not enhance your argument. Despite your use of this terminology, I will continue to respect your wishes and not define your stance as anti-choice.

Lastly, it seems we have come to a standstill in this debate and we are doing nothing but flogging a dead horse. Although we agree that a fertilized egg is living, we cannot agree whether it is human life with all the rights afforded to the post-born, so everything else becomes a moot point. This debate has certainly helped me strengthen my convictions and has also provided me with some confidence that abortion rights will remain legal. I have not seen anything from any anti-abortion group or individual that has provided any coherent and specific criteria for appropriate anti-abortion legislation that will ultimately hold up in court.

Thanks for the debate, it really helped solidify my thoughts.

 

[Ceridwen018]

A fertilized egg is directly dependent upon the physiological workings of the mother's body while newborns, children, etc; are not physically attached to the mothers' bodies and are not dependent upon that physical attachment is an inappropriate comparison.
A newborn can be easily cared for by another individual but a fertilized egg is part of the women's body and cannot be cared for by another...It is not a separate entity whereas a newborn, 4 yrs. old and up are.

I would still argue that it is an appropriate assesment. Although a 4 year old is not physcially attached to it's mother, it still requires an adult to care for it in order to survive.

You are correct that an embryo cannot be cared for by another, yet a four year old can. Someday science will be able to take a developing embryo out of a mother's womb and develop it for 9 months in a lab, or put it in another woman's uterus (can they do this already?).

Lastly, to say that an embryo isn't a separate entity is inconsistent with science. It contains different DNA than the mother, so although it may be attached, that doesn't make it a physical part of the mother.

Cancer cells have human DNA and can multiply but it is not human.

Actually, cancer cells which have human DNA are human, just as cancer cells which have dog DNA are canine. When a cell mutates, it changes it's function and it's interaction with other cells, not it's species.

You might argue: "Well then, how can you be willing to kill a human cancer cell, but not an embryo? Aren't they basically the same?" The answer is no. For one thing, a human skin cell, for instance, only contains DNA which pertains to the skin. Bone cells only have bone DNA, blood cells only have blood DNA, etc. The difference between an embryo and the average human cell then, is that an embryo contains a full set of DNA, whereas a single human cell contains only a portion. Another difference, is that a cancerous cell is a detrimental anomaly, whereas an embryo is most certainly not.

Not to be repetitive but the medical profession and scientists cannot agree whether that a fertilized egg is necessarily equal to a human being. You beleive that a fertilized egg =human being...I don't....I agree that the fertilized egg is living and has the potential of being human.....Scientists and the medical profession have not yet agreed upon this issue....I suggest therefore that your viewpoint is no more valid or less valid than mine...it is simply a viewpoint and one in which will not agree.

I think we agree that the main reason scientists and doctors don't agree on this issue is due to personhood. I have commented on personhood in earlier posts, but you haven't replied to any of that.

Reading this little bit made me think of something: you mentioned that you only consider an embryo to be a potential human life. It seems to me, that a large reason of why you don't consider an embryo to be human is because you cannot see it or touch it. Much in the same way as you might react to reading of a disater in a foreign location, verses having that diaster happen directly to you. Did you look at Spinkles' site of pictures yet?

I do not have the answers and frankly, I haven't heard any suggestions from you other than consult the medical profession.

Alright then, here is what I think should be done. I think that abortion should be ok if a) the mother's life is in jeopardy (less than 50% chance of survival, or a number close to 50%), b) if the baby will die (to prevent needless suffering for the baby).

That is somewhat circular thinking because the reason one wants anti-abortion legislation is because you have no trust that the medical profession performing appropriately. In fact, we have specific legislation that bans late term abortion unless there are serious health risks but you don't seem to want to acknowledge this.

Whoa there, you're twisting my words again. I never said I didn't trust the medical profession. You said earlier that the ban on late term abortion didn't allow for it to be ok in light of serious medical risks, which is why I disagreed with it. I fully acknowledge that our country has a later term abortion ban with regards to serious health risks, and I am very happy about that.

You state that most doctors are pro-life yet the birth control pill which requires a prescription is the most popular and wide-spread form of family planning. If most MD's are pro-life (by your definition of pro-life), why are they prescribing abortifacients left and right.

If women ask for them and they meet health criteria, it is their right to have them as they are a legal drug in the US right now. A doctor cannot not prescribe a legal drug just because they don't like it. Even if a doctor weren't to prescribe a drug, the woman could easily go elsewhere, or sue.

Birth control pills that prevent ovulation are widespread and being prescibed left and right, but abortifacients (the ones I have a problem with) are much less common due to their rather unpleasant side affects.

I seem to be having to become redundant in my posts. Pro-choice, as I have mentioned before, is not pro-abortion. Pro-abortion suggests that I and other pro-choice individuals promote abortion....Would you say I am pro-alcohol consumption or pro-smoking because I do not support a national ban on these substances?

I understand that abortion is not necessarily something you personally would recommend to a friend, but what I'm saying is that there are some things which should not be left up to choice, such as killing human beings.

we cannot agree whether it is human life with all the rights afforded to the post-born, so everything else becomes a moot point.

Well, you haven't really responded or presented any contrary evidence to my earlier comments on personhood. There's nothing I can do about that.

I have not seen anything from any anti-abortion group or individual that has provided any coherent and specific criteria for appropriate anti-abortion legislation that will ultimately hold up in court.

I see this as a bit beside the point. If we couldn't come up with suitable criteria for punishing arsonists, would we allow the practice to continue, even though we knew it was wrong? Of course not! Legislation will come in time--it's too easy to just sit there and say "Well, since we don't have it all worked out we have to assume it won't work." Before we create any kind of specific rules at all, we need to agree on the basic point, that abortion is wrong. Another thing that you haven't really responded to, is my comments pertaining to the scientific aspect of abortion.

Thanks for the debate, it really helped solidify my thoughts.

Given the stingyness of your presentation, mine have also been solidified. So far, you have not even attempted to really prove me wrong in what I say. Until that happens, I have no more reason to change my opinion of the pro-choice view.

 

[Pah]

I would still argue that it is an appropriate assesment. Although a 4 year old is not physcially attached to it's mother, it still requires an adult to care for it in order to survive.

"Care for" is wrongly used here. The child can breath on it's own digest food on it's own, eliminate waste on it's own. A fetus can not! This argument, as you present it, is a red herring. It does not address the most basic functions of a body.

Someday science will be able to take a developing embryo out of a mother's womb and develop it for 9 months in a lab, or put it in another woman's uterus (can they do this already?).

No - and until that time a fetus shares characteristics with a pararsite

Lastly, to say that an embryo isn't a separate entity is inconsistent with science. It contains different DNA than the mother, so although it may be attached, that doesn't make it a physical part of the mother.

See above answer.

Your comments about "personhood"

The issue is "personhood" as far as what pro-abortion groups have as an argument. I do not consider an embryo to be human because of it's "personhood". I consider an embryo to be human because it contains human DNA and is living.

Personhood is indeed highly subjective, which is why I don't think it's a good idea at all to judge the worth of someone's life by it. My dog has more "personhood" than a newborn baby--does that make him human? What about people who have been relegated to a vegetable state. Do they still have "personhood"?

I can accept the argument that an embryo doesn't contain "personhood", but as I stated earlier, neither does a newborn baby. Should babies be allowed to be killed within months after their birth because they haven't developed this "personhood"? How about four year olds, who even still contain an incomplete sense of self. Like I said earlier, this fits in with the 'degree of development' reason.

"Personhood" is the distinction between living human tissue and a living human being. The distinction is not subjective in the law. A person is a citizen under the 14th amendment and that applies to person just born. Your dog will never be a citizen.

For one thing, a human skin cell, for instance, only contains DNA which pertains to the skin. Bone cells only have bone DNA, blood cells only have blood DNA, etc

Absolutely wrong. Each human cell contains complete DNA. Crime labs use skin from inside the mouth, from blood, from urine, from bone marrow, from hair focilules

It seems to me, that a large reason of why you don't consider an embryo to be human is because you cannot see it or touch it. Much in the same way as you might react to reading of a disater in a foreign location, verses having that diaster happen directly to you. Did you look at Spinkles' site of pictures yet?

Having the appearance of a human does not make it a human being. Dolls that move look like a human being. A dairy looks like a book but has blank pages and is not a book until an entry is made. A car on the assembly line is only a shell until all the parts are installed. Have you seen pictures earlier in the human development process where the "entity" looks like a sea horse? I guess you would not mind abortion at thet point because it looks like a sea horse. In fact, all mammals -all mammals- look the same as a sea horse at one point.

Non-functioning and immature elements do not classify as a human being which is precisely why there are different names that describe the function and structue in development

Alright then, here is what I think should be done. I think that abortion should be ok if a) the mother's life is in jeopardy (less than 50% chance of survival, or a number close to 50%), b) if the baby will die (to prevent needless suffering for the baby).

Your generosity overwhelms me. Fifty percent eh?

That's enough for now.

-pah-

 

[Pah]

The "sea horse" top row for 8 different animals. The gill slits are still visible in the second row. Appearences are deceiving

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have to disagree with Ceridwen here, and take a bit of a more moderate stance. I realize that in the very early stages--such as the fertilized egg stage and the 'seahorse' stage pah has described--there is great uncertainty as to the unborn's personhood. I too am glad that late term abortion is illegal except in the case of serious health risks, though unlike Ceridwen, I wouldn't put an actual number on that terminology. I would simply like to see this late term ban extended to protect the rights of the unborn in the second trimester as well. A seahorse like creature being destroyed is far less disturbing than a five-fingered, five-toed fetus sucking its thumb being dismembered.

Absolutely wrong. Each human cell contains complete DNA. Crime labs use skin from inside the mouth, from blood, from urine, from bone marrow, from hair focilules

I'm afraid he may have you there, Ceridwen.

No - and until that time a fetus shares characteristics with a pararsite

How many varieties of tapeworm are known to suck their thumbs? Just curious.

I definitely agree with civilcynic on one thing: we need to focus on getting people educated about safe sex so we can avoid the problem of unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

 

[Sunstone]

I definitely agree with civilcynic on one thing: we need to focus on getting people educated about safe sex so we can avoid the problem of unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I agree. I think the solution to the abortion mess lies in this direction. But how would you go about educating people about safer sex?

By the way, Mr. Spinkles, you and Ceridwen have convinced me over the last few weeks that abortion is a much greater evil than I had thought at first. I'm still pro-choice, but now I'm much less thoughtless about the issue of abortion. Strangely enough, you managed to convince me that something must be done about abortion without calling anyone "evil" for supporting choice. Isn't that odd?

 

[Ceridwen018]

*Cracks knuckles* Okay, let's see about this:

"Care for" is wrongly used here. The child can breath on it's own digest food on it's own, eliminate waste on it's own. A fetus can not! This argument, as you present it, is a red herring. It does not address the most basic functions of a body.

I agree with you that a 4 year old's bodily systems can function on their own, whereas an unborn baby depends directly on it's mother's body to keep functioning. I do not, however, agree that this is grounds for considering the unborn baby inhuman. The difference between the unborn baby and the 4 year old in this instance is the degree of dependency. There is also a difference in dependency between a 4 year old and a 24 year old. Is a 24 year old more human because it is less dependent, therefore?

No - and until that time a fetus shares characteristics with a pararsite

Lot's of things can be considered parasites, pah, but that doesn't mean they should be killed. A family who feels obligated to take in their aging grandparents when they are no longer able to care for themselves might see these new additions as parasites. Can they kill them?

Also, science boasts the ability to clone humans. Wouldn't the embryos of these clones be developed in a lab? It seems to me that perhaps science does have those abilities....I'm going to go look it up.

"Personhood" is the distinction between living human tissue and a living human being. The distinction is not subjective in the law. A person is a citizen under the 14th amendment and that applies to person just born.

Well then, what is a 'living human being'? People who have been relegated to a 'vegetable' like state due to injury or otherwise are pretty much no more than 'living human tissue', yet they are still considered human, not to mention citizens.

Citizenship doesn't warrant humanity either. You don't have to be a citizen of the US, or anywhere else for that matter, to be human.

Absolutely wrong. Each human cell contains complete DNA. Crime labs use skin from inside the mouth, from blood, from urine, from bone marrow, from hair focilules

Pah, I was indeed wrong--thank you for correcting me. However, although I may have been incorrect in detail, my main idea is still on track. A skin cell may contain a full set of DNA, but it doesn't read and code for the entire strand--it only pays attention to the parts of the DNA that have to do with skin. Stem-cells are cells that are unspecialized, and therefore do not have a preference for a certain part of the DNA. After a stem-cell undergoes cellular differentiation, however, it becomes specialized and although it may contain a full strand of DNA, it doesn't use or pay attention to the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Cellular%20differentiation
http://www.stemcell.lu.se/celldiff/

Having the appearance of a human does not make it a human being. Dolls that move look like a human being. A dairy looks like a book but has blank pages and is not a book until an entry is made.

But don't you see pah? Every entry has been made--it's called DNA. Now, it just needs to be read.

Having the appearance of a human being doesn't make one human, I agree, but having human DNA does.

I guess you would not mind abortion at thet point because it looks like a sea horse. In fact, all mammals -all mammals- look the same as a sea horse at one point.

I am fully aware of that, and can confidently state that I am against abortion even when the baby looks like a seahorse. It's not about the looks for me.

Non-functioning and immature elements do not classify as a human being which is precisely why there are different names that describe the function and structue in development

Earlier in this post we talked about the difference in 'level of dependency'. Now we shall talk about 'degree of development'. With your reasoning, a person could not be considered human until they finish puberty. Only then could they be sure to nopt have any non-functioning or immature elements to their bodies.

Your generosity overwhelms me. Fifty percent eh?

It's just a number I threw out there because she kept asking for one. Coming up with a fair percentage is the least of our problems though. Personally, I don't think that that's what is at issue here. First we need to agree if one is even necessary.

 

[Pah]

*Cracks knuckles* Okay, let's see about this:



I agree with you that a 4 year old's bodily systems can function on their own, whereas an unborn baby depends directly on it's mother's body to keep functioning. I do not, however, agree that this is grounds for considering the unborn baby inhuman. The difference between the unborn baby and the 4 year old in this instance is the degree of dependency. There is also a difference in dependency between a 4 year old and a 24 year old. Is a 24 year old more human because it is less dependent, therefore?

I really like your choice of "charged" words - "baby for your argument - "inhuman" for mine

"I agree with you that a 4 year old's bodily systems can function on their own, whereas an unborn baby depends directly on it's mother's body to keep functioning."

That's all we need to talk about. As long as the mother is providing, at her own risk, the basic essentials of life for a fetus, it is her decision. It is her body. There is no comparable risk to the caretaker of a 4 year old or even a new born.

I'm not sure at what point in pregnancy you consider a "baby" being carried. Perhaps you can make a case for a human being at a stage earlier than viability or fully functioning brain?

Lot's of things can be considered parasites, pah, but that doesn't mean they should be killed. A family who feels obligated to take in their aging grandparents when they are no longer able to care for themselves might see these new additions as parasites. Can they kill them?

Your example tells me you do not understand parasite. A parasite takes resources from the host before the host can utilize them. It satisfies itself first. It exerts control over the host to meet those demands A parasite can kill the host.

Also, science boasts the ability to clone humans. Wouldn't the embryos of these clones be developed in a lab? It seems to me that perhaps science does have those abilities....I'm going to go look it up.

Cloning is done with the ova - material is removed from the ova and replaced with the nucleus of what you want cloned. Embryo's are not involved.

Well then, what is a 'living human being'? People who have been relegated to a 'vegetable' like state due to injury or otherwise are pretty much no more than 'living human tissue', yet they are still considered human, not to mention citizens.

And the fate of the "vegetable" is determined by a guardian much like the mother is lawfully charged with the decision to "pull the plug" on a fetus.

Citizenship doesn't warrant humanity either. You don't have to be a citizen of the US, or anywhere else for that matter, to be human.

Under the law, all humans are citizens of somewhere and all citizens are human.

Pah, I was indeed wrong--thank you for correcting me. However, although I may have been incorrect in detail, my main idea is still on track. A skin cell may contain a full set of DNA, but it doesn't read and code for the entire strand--it only pays attention to the parts of the DNA that have to do with skin. Stem-cells are cells that are unspecialized, and therefore do not have a preference for a certain part of the DNA. After a stem-cell undergoes cellular differentiation, however, it becomes specialized and although it may contain a full strand of DNA, it doesn't use or pay attention to the whole thing.

You are still wrong. A stem cell is not a skin cell or vice versa. It is separate and distinct from a skin cell and must be extracted from the rest of the cells in skin or any other place where stem cells are plentiful.

But don't you see pah? Every entry has been made--it's called DNA. Now, it just needs to be read.

Given there are/were two wrongly held assumptions on this point, I'm really unsure where you are going with your statement.

Having the appearance of a human being doesn't make one human, I agree, but having human DNA does.

So do cancer cells - so do bone cells - so do brain cells. Having human DNA does not make a human being. Frozen sperm cells also carry human DNA.

So where do you go now for a definition of a human being?

I am fully aware of that, and can confidently state that I am against abortion even when the baby looks like a seahorse. It's not about the looks for me.

Do you go back further? To conception? At what point in the conception process does a human being exist? When the sperm penetrates the ova? When there are two 23 chromosonal strands floating around in the ova?

Earlier in this post we talked about the difference in 'level of dependency'. Now we shall talk about 'degree of development'. With your reasoning, a person could not be considered human until they finish puberty. Only then could they be sure to nopt have any non-functioning or immature elements to their bodies.

Nope! I consider a viable fetus a human being

It's just a number I threw out there because she kept asking for one. Coming up with a fair percentage is the least of our problems though. Personally, I don't think that that's what is at issue here. First we need to agree if one is even necessary.

You arbitrarily picked a number?

No percentage of risk can be specified by law. The risk is known to the doctor on a case by case basis; the woman evaluates the risk and proceeds on her decision. That's the law.

-pah-

 

[Ceridwen018]

CAH-RAP!!! I just replied to that whole thing, pah, and then proceeded to lose it in the abyss of computerland, or wherever the heck it goes! Don't worry though, it is coming soon enough!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree. I think the solution to the abortion mess lies in this direction. But how would you go about educating people about safer sex?

By the way, Mr. Spinkles, you and Ceridwen have convinced me over the last few weeks that abortion is a much greater evil than I had thought at first. I'm still pro-choice, but now I'm much less thoughtless about the issue of abortion. Strangely enough, you managed to convince me that something must be done about abortion without calling anyone "evil" for supporting choice. Isn't that odd?

Well, I'm glad that you have been thus affected by my arguments and Ceridwen's. I too have found the arguments of other people on this forum--namely TVOR, civilcynic, and pah--pretty convincing. I think there is probably much more common ground in the issue of abortion than people realize. I wonder if those who are pro-choice but think that abortion is unethical (except in special circumstances) would support groups who encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion, rather than supporting places like Planned Parenthood that only advise the abortion option. That might be a good way to get people to make ethical choices without taking away their legal right to choose.

 

[Pah]

CAH-RAP!!! I just replied to that whole thing, pah, and then proceeded to lose it in the abyss of computerland, or wherever the heck it goes! Don't worry though, it is coming soon enough!

I'm truely sorry to hear that you lost the post. Been there, done that.

At least we agree on something in this thread.

-pah-

 

[Sunstone]

Well, I'm glad that you have been thus affected by my arguments and Ceridwen's. I too have found the arguments of other people on this forum--namely TVOR, civilcynic, and pah--pretty convincing. I think there is probably much more common ground in the issue of abortion than people realize. I wonder if those who are pro-choice but think that abortion is unethical (except in special circumstances) would support groups who encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion, rather than supporting places like Planned Parenthood that only advise the abortion option. That might be a good way to get people to make ethical choices without taking away their legal right to choose.

This has been a very reasonable discussion of the abortion issue and I think it shows that there is much more common ground than people realize. I wonder why we are able to find so much common ground, but our political leaders are not? Could it be that the abortion issue is being manipulated by politicians in such a way as to bring it to an impass? Naw! Politicians would never do such a thing! They're all honorable! Concerned only for our own good!

Seriously, I'd be willing to bet that given enough time and effort this board could work out a compromise on the abortion issue that would fail to satisfy everyone equally, but which everyone could live with. The trouble is that it would never be implemented on the national level.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Sunstone! That's a fabulous idea! We could act as our own little pseudo-Senate in a conference comittee, arguing over a bill to ban abortion. I seriously agree though-- I believe we can absolutely reach a consensus if we're all willing to give a little here and there. For instance, I acknowledge that I'm probably not going to convince everyone that an embryo is a full human life from the moment of conception, however, pro-choice people might have to set the deadline for abortions a little sooner than what it is now.

Wow, this has got me really excited! We have such different thinkers on this board, I think we adequately represent the diversity of opinions in the country. I genuinely think that we can work this out!

 

[Pah]

Sunstone! That's a fabulous idea! We could act as our own little pseudo-Senate in a conference comittee, arguing over a bill to ban abortion. I seriously agree though-- I believe we can absolutely reach a consensus if we're all willing to give a little here and there. For instance, I acknowledge that I'm probably not going to convince everyone that an embryo is a full human life from the moment of conception, however, pro-choice people might have to set the deadline for abortions a little sooner than what it is now.

Wow, this has got me really excited! We have such different thinkers on this board, I think we adequately represent the diversity of opinions in the country. I genuinely think that we can work this out!

I hate to be the fly in the ointment but it is not up to the Senate nor the House. It is up to the Supreme Court. Now perhaps you'd like to be a conference of the Courts law clerks who suggest and advise the justices on cases before the court. But at this meeting you would have to give Constitutional reason for deciding that a fetus (or other) has rights under the Constitution that outweigh the rights of a woman. You have to come up with that balancing act. It is not the time when a person becomes human but their rights having priority over another person's rights. That is the real decision that must be made.

You may consider the woman's rights to be less than the right to life, liberty, etc., but then you should consider that you are speaking of life only in potentiality when you talk of the unborn. I believe that the law is founded for living, breathing people although I recognize a human being before that moment. Law in nearly universal in not endorsing potentiality.

Roe v Wade was couched in terms of state interest but I believe what I have just said is the underlying principle that was applied.

-pah-

 

[civilcynic]

I would still argue that it is an appropriate assesment. Although a 4 year old is not physcially attached to it's mother, it still requires an adult to care for it in order to survive.

You are correct that an embryo cannot be cared for by another, yet a four year old can. Someday science will be able to take a developing embryo out of a mother's womb and develop it for 9 months in a lab, or put it in another woman's uterus (can they do this already?).

Lastly, to say that an embryo isn't a separate entity is inconsistent with science. It contains different DNA than the mother, so although it may be attached, that doesn't make it a physical part of the mother.


Actually, cancer cells which have human DNA are human, just as cancer cells which have dog DNA are canine. When a cell mutates, it changes it's function and it's interaction with other cells, not it's species.

You might argue: "Well then, how can you be willing to kill a human cancer cell, but not an embryo? Aren't they basically the same?" The answer is no. For one thing, a human skin cell, for instance, only contains DNA which pertains to the skin. Bone cells only have bone DNA, blood cells only have blood DNA, etc. The difference between an embryo and the average human cell then, is that an embryo contains a full set of DNA, whereas a single human cell contains only a portion. Another difference, is that a cancerous cell is a detrimental anomaly, whereas an embryo is most certainly not.


I think we agree that the main reason scientists and doctors don't agree on this issue is due to personhood. I have commented on personhood in earlier posts, but you haven't replied to any of that.

Reading this little bit made me think of something: you mentioned that you only consider an embryo to be a potential human life. It seems to me, that a large reason of why you don't consider an embryo to be human is because you cannot see it or touch it. Much in the same way as you might react to reading of a disater in a foreign location, verses having that diaster happen directly to you. Did you look at Spinkles' site of pictures yet?


Alright then, here is what I think should be done. I think that abortion should be ok if a) the mother's life is in jeopardy (less than 50% chance of survival, or a number close to 50%), b) if the baby will die (to prevent needless suffering for the baby).


Whoa there, you're twisting my words again. I never said I didn't trust the medical profession. You said earlier that the ban on late term abortion didn't allow for it to be ok in light of serious medical risks, which is why I disagreed with it. I fully acknowledge that our country has a later term abortion ban with regards to serious health risks, and I am very happy about that.


If women ask for them and they meet health criteria, it is their right to have them as they are a legal drug in the US right now. A doctor cannot not prescribe a legal drug just because they don't like it. Even if a doctor weren't to prescribe a drug, the woman could easily go elsewhere, or sue.

Birth control pills that prevent ovulation are widespread and being prescibed left and right, but abortifacients (the ones I have a problem with) are much less common due to their rather unpleasant side affects.


I understand that abortion is not necessarily something you personally would recommend to a friend, but what I'm saying is that there are some things which should not be left up to choice, such as killing human beings.


Well, you haven't really responded or presented any contrary evidence to my earlier comments on personhood. There's nothing I can do about that.


I see this as a bit beside the point. If we couldn't come up with suitable criteria for punishing arsonists, would we allow the practice to continue, even though we knew it was wrong? Of course not! Legislation will come in time--it's too easy to just sit there and say "Well, since we don't have it all worked out we have to assume it won't work." Before we create any kind of specific rules at all, we need to agree on the basic point, that abortion is wrong. Another thing that you haven't really responded to, is my comments pertaining to the scientific aspect of abortion.


Given the stingyness of your presentation, mine have also been solidified. So far, you have not even attempted to really prove me wrong in what I say. Until that happens, I have no more reason to change my opinion of the pro-choice view.

I have been offline for several days and just now have the opportunity to respond to this post.

1. I believe that I have responded to your posts adequately. Specifically you mention that I did not address the subject of "personhood" and the "science of abortion". My posts clearly indicate that I believe that "personhood" is the main issue in abortion and, in fact, you agreed in one of your posts.....we even agreed that it was very subjective...then you did a flip-flop and claimed that statement was a "fatal error" (your words not mine) on your part. As for the "science of abortion"...frankly I have no idea what you are talking about...The only 'science' addressed was whether a fertilized egg/embryo was living....a point which we both agreed on. We differed in the area of 'personhood'. You believe that the fertilized egg is a human being and I maintained that, though living, a fertilized egg/embryo is not necessarily a human being with all the entitlements of a post-born individual.

2. There is NO realistic comparison that can be made between a life of a fertilized egg/embryo and a 4 yr. old. To suggest that the only difference is the stage of development is ridiculous. A 4 yr. old is not attached to the mother's body and does not require the mother's body to survive. A 4 yr. old can survive without its mother. A fertilized egg/embryo is physically attached to the mother's womb and cannot survive if separated from that womb. That is a BIG difference that cannot be ignored.

3. Re: Abortion legislation.....What do you mean discussing the details of abortion legislation is besides the point????? It IS the point! Of course, trying to pin you down on abortion legislation is like trying to nail jello to the wall! On one hand, you applaud the recent passage of abortion legislation (which has been overturned as unconstitutional)that makes all late term abortions illegal without any exception even to save the life of the mother yet you say that there should be exceptions for serious health risks...so which is it? We already have legislation that bans late term abortions except in the cases of serious health risks....so why don't you support the existing law....why do you applaud new legislation that does not allow for these exceptions? Very contradictory. As for your suggestion that a 50% chance of serious health risk/death should be the determining factor as to whether to allow an abortion or not....lol....I will let that speak for itself!

4.Re: Birth Control Pills: According to your posts, the reason birth control pills, the most popular form of family plannig, are prescribed by doctors whom you describe as being overwhelmingly pro-life, is because the pills are legal and patients request them. Certainly you can't be serious! Patients do not give orders to doctors telling the MD's what to prescribe. The doctor is in charge of the medical treatment and will order medication or medical treatment the doctor deems appropriate. A doctor can refuse to provide a particular treatment/medication requested by a patient and both patient and doctor can terminate their relationship if no agreemanet can be made. If you know any doctors who are prescribing medications based simply on patients' request, I advise you to contact your State Medical Board.

5. In an early post, I explained why I don't use the term 'pro-life', preferring 'anti-choice or anti-abortion' and why I thought the term 'pro-abortion' was inappropriate. You said you found the term 'anti-choice' offensive....Since that time, I never used the term 'anti-choice' in our discussions out of respect for your wishes. You, on the other hand, chose to use the 'pro-abortion' term despite my expressed opposition. That is your perogative but it is petty and does nothing to enhance your position.

6. RE: Twisting your words....I don't believe I have done this...I am quite comfortable with my posts and have faith in the intellligence of those who may read both of our posts to make their own determination.

7.Re: "stinginess of my argument"....an unnecessary, unwarranted and rude comment.

Lastly, re: my "THANK YOU" for the debate..... I felt that we had reached an impasse and had begun merely to repeat ourselves and our position. Also my schedule had changed and I knew that I would not be able to be on-line much. I had appreciated the time and thought you had put into the discussion and did not want to just stop responding and appear that I was simply ignoring your posts. I was trying to be courteous but obviously the effot was wasted on you. I debated this issue with the goal of learning not thinking that this was a contest to be won/lost or that I would even change your mind. I have acheived my goal. If you feel the need to believe that you 'won' this debate...whatever...

 

[Donna Knight]

Johnny4life,
During my childbearing years I took steps not to ever face the decision of abortion.
Abortion is the worst form of birth control.
I would have given birth, even as or especially as, a consequence to my own actions rather than eliminate the result of my mistake. By the grace of God, I never faced that issue.

Now I know that abortion is an immoral action to avoid consequences. Planned parenthood can and does provide alternatives in birth control. (Abstinence apparently not being one of them).
Those who choose to follow the dark path will, nonetheless, face the Almighty on judgment day.
Viewed from this perspective -- 9 months of inconvenience, embarrassment, or the stigma and condemnation of obvious sin a life saver of at least one, possibly two souls. Accepting that evil is no small, inconsequentional parody and that it will be the ruination of God's plan, along with rebuilding moral values will end this scourge and deny Satan his desired place in the immortal world.

Faith beyond fear,
Donna

 

[Irishgal]

This is my first post on this site. I found this website by accident after reading information on "priests for life". After working in hospitals in the medical field for many, many years I can assure you "doubting, or in denial, Thomases" that the pictures shown on Priests for Life are real. Actually, they're not as real as seeing the product of abortion "up close and personal". Get your heads out of the sand for God's sake! These are tiny little human beings....miniatures of us...if we only allow them to grow. They suffer horrible deaths during their abortion, i.e., murder. It is sheer torture! Many, many times during late term abortions they whimper or actually cry. But not for long. If you care so much about "this is my body" fine...but this miniature child is NOT your body. It's a completely separate person's body your killing. Now, if you believe in abortion, which we all know is the slaughtering of the most innocent of all, just have the guts to say so. Don't ramble on about...oh, let's see, it's not human until such and such month, or, it doesn't feel anything, or those pictures aren't real, they're phonies. You're the phonies. Wake up and look at these little babies you believe have no rights to anything. If you're an atheist or a pagan or whatever the heck you decide to believe in or not believe in, if you have one iota of decency you will have to admit that the killing of these innocent children in WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. There is, quite simply, no justification in taking their life. Do whatever you please with your life or your body, but don't play around with the taking of another's life....especially one so defenseless and innocent. Just my ramblings for the day. (Oh, and I'd be willing to wager those who most promote abortion are the very ones who scream about the injustices concerning capital punishment...the humanely administered death penalty for our most sadistic, evil citizens.)

Irishgal...oh and God's Peace to all of you.