I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

windword
Are you kidding me? Honestly, I don't get how you and Charles are so confused, other than the science and facts don't fit your inner moral guidelines.

A fertilized egg isn't a baby. It doesn't deserve rights that exceed those of it's mother. It gains limited rights after viability. After it's born, it gains citizen rights. I don't see how that's confusing.

What are my inner moral guidelines? And what science and facts do you speak about (I would really like to actually see the studies you seem to be referring to)?

You are continuing to state the laws, which most of us here are aware of. It is not the laws themselves that are not understood, but the reasoning behind them which no ones seems capable of presenting. This is the core of the dissonance between different individuals on the topic.

Viability is determined by limitations in medicine, and physical birth is different on a case to case basis. Does the fetus become human (i.e. a "person") at physical birth? If so, why does a prematurely born baby receive greater rights sooner than a healthier full-term baby?

Why is the spectrum that determines when we obtain such rights so vast and wide? What is the objective reasoning behind it?

As far a science moving the goal post of viability, as scientific procedures advance, the fetal age of viability changes.

At this point, do you think that those limited rights granted at viability will change according to what stage we are at in science and medicine? If that is the case, why does the current state of medicine determine when we individually obtain our citizen rights?

windword
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

What is a "persons born?" What defines when a person is born?

Are you kidding me? Honestly, I don't get how you and Charles are so confused, other than the science and facts don't fit your inner moral guidelines.

A fertilized egg isn't a baby. It doesn't deserve rights that exceed those of it's mother. It gains limited rights after viability. After it's born, it gains citizen rights. I don't see how that's confusing.

As far a science moving the goal post of viability, as scientific procedures advance, the fetal age of viability changes.

I don't think that the citizen rights are really what this is about. It's about a right to life. Did your mother decide to abort you? No. You would not be here if that were the case. I think what this is about is understanding that legal abortion means your very existence is in jeopardy, since it could have been very easy for your mother to decide to terminate her pregnancy.

reply to post by ImagineFree




I'm afraid you're going to have to pray for me. My spiritual body is full of negative effects

and I am of no particular religious/spiritual persuasion


The medical profession describes the pineal gland as being a small endocrine gland located

near the centre of the brain that produces the serotonin derivative melatonin, a hormone that

effects the modulation of wake/sleep patterns.


I'm a realist so that definition is good enough for me ....I'll leave all the light, third eyes,

chakras, and religious/spirituality to others

reply to post by Serdgiam

What are my inner moral guidelines?

I have no idea.

And what science and facts do you speak about (I would really like to actually see the studies you seem to be referring to)?

Uh, The scientific facts that I've been discussing???? Which of those, biological realities that I've been trying to explain, do you disagree with, and why?

You are continuing to state the laws, which most of us here are aware of. It is not the laws themselves that are not understood, but the reasoning behind them which no ones seems capable of presenting.

I don't see how we can discuss the reasoning behind the laws without discussing the laws themselves.

This is the core of the dissonance between different individuals on the topic.

I think we just disagree. I think the law makes perfect sense, and you don't.

In my opinion, based on science as I understand it, the concept of "life begins at conception" is not a valid argument to determine that the transformed life form has a right to life that is above and beyond the woman's right "not to be pregnant". They are not equally yoked. The rights of the woman exceed the rights of the fertilized egg.

That's logical to me.

Viability is determined by limitations in medicine, and physical birth is different on a case to case basis.

Does the fetus become human (i.e. a "person") at physical birth? If so, why does a prematurely born baby receive greater rights sooner than a healthier full-term baby?

As soon as someone other than the carrier can take the responsibility to nurture and care for the fetus, that fetus has the limited right to life, according to the law. Limited, in that if it's existence threatens the life of the mother, and can't be delivered alive without killing the mother, the mother's rights supercede the fetus' right to life.

There have been many cases where doctors have gone in and operated on a post viable fetus, in the womb. So they do have right to care that only someone other than the mother can provide, and after viability, a mother can be compelled or even imprisoned to protect the health of that fetus, in the case of drug or physical abuse, for example.

This is the law, and it seem logical to me.

Why is the spectrum that determines when we obtain such rights so vast and wide? What is the objective reasoning behind it?

Common sense. The constitution guarantees the right to own guns. Do we allows toddlers to carry guns? The blind? Known felons? Why don't we allow 12 year olds to vote or drink alcohol? Common sense.

As far a science moving the goal post of viability, as scientific procedures advance, the fetal age of viability changes.

At this point, do you think that those limited rights granted at viability will change according to what stage we are at in science and medicine? If that is the case, why does the current state of medicine determine when we individually obtain our citizen rights?

I think I've answered that. If not, please rephrase.

reply to post by eletheia


Not to mention:

Nearly all vertebrate species possess a pineal gland. The most important exception is the hagfish, which is often thought of as the most primitive type of vertebrate.
en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously, the pineal gland isn't what sets us above animals.

windword
I have no idea.

Then why mention what disagrees or agrees with them?

Uh, The scientific facts that I've been discussing???? Which of those, biological realities that I've been trying to explain, do you disagree with, and why?

I have yet to see any studies or actual evidence, only subjective interpretations of law or religion (which are subjective) to confirm an already present bias. I may have missed something, if so, then I do apologize.

I think we just disagree. I think the law makes perfect sense, and you don't.

I am trying to find the scientific backing for these laws. The laws make sense, however, they are ambiguous at best. They change according to our understanding of everything from biology to the nature of the universe itself. It simply isnt cut and dry until we start to discuss the objective studies, data, etc that give laws a solid foundation (or lack there-of).

This is the law, and it seem logical to me.

"Seems logical to me" strictly implies subjectivity.

I think I've answered that. If not, please rephrase.

It doesnt really matter, I will take my leave. It has been shown to me that the OP was on to something. Perhaps when our species advances a bit further, we will be able to include data, and not subjective interpretation, as the core of the discussion.

All the best to you.

reply to post by eletheia


I know my theory might be far out there, but let me say that I was just trying to explain what the difference is between an unborn baby and a baby which is born. As you pointed out, one of the differences is the ability to breathe air. And in my theory another difference is having an activated 'third eye.' The pineal gland is composed of retina cells, so the theory is that when you see light the gland becomes active. I don't know enough about optics though and my theory is just a guess to find what is the difference between a baby which is born and one which is not. I think that just like with breathing, seeing light is an important step to becomming a full, completed human.

If someone can correct me if I am wrong about anything please feel free

reply to post by The Old American





Both the caterpillar and butterfly have a system (spiracles) that take in oxygen and give out
carbon dioxide.

The mature tadpole breathes air as does the frog

so they are able to live independently prior to metamorphosing

Unlike the foetus which gets oxygen via the mother's blood via the umbilical cord and so doesn't
breathe for its self till it is birthed

reply to post by Serdgiam

I have yet to see any studies or actual evidence, only subjective interpretations of law or religion (which are subjective) to confirm an already present bias. I may have missed something, if so, then I do apologize.

What kind of studies, that look into what, exactly?

"Seems logical to me" strictly implies subjectivity.

t has been shown to me that the OP was on to something. Perhaps when our species advances a bit further, we will be able to include data, and not subjective interpretation, as the core of the discussion.

I don't what else we have to work with. I can't think of any law that isn't subject to some interpretation of what is logical. The only laws that are empirical are scientific laws.

Peace out....

reply to post by windword

Ok now you have three or four BLOGS, one yale professor and a Meat Loaf vidio. Not very convincing.
Let's see what I can come up with, shall we?
I read your blogs and watched most of the Professor video (last year) and when you recently posted. I did not, however, watch the Meat Loaf video. (Not my kind of music).
I would ask that you show me the same courtesy and look through the following......

THIS IS AN AMAZING VIDEO FROM THE SCIENCE CHANNEL!!!

www.youtube.com...

Next we have physicians againt abortion....

A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.  From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).  Non-living things do not do these things.  Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human.  A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg).  When humans procreate, they don't make non-humans 

prolifephysicians.org...

This next one is a Really good read. They come the "when does life begin" debate from an entirely different angle.

This definition for the beginning of human life is relevant to the current debate on therapeutic cloning for embryonic stem cell research. Some claim that the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), formed by the implantation of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an enucleated ovum, can be treated differently from a zygote, formed by the fusion of sperm and egg. The argument is made that the product of SCNT, called a “clonote,” is different from a zygote because they are created differently and because they are intended for different purposes. Systems biology denies, however, that one can know what something is if one knows only where it comes from. It is also inaccurate to define something based upon its intended use. Scientifically, the key to knowing what something is, is to know what determined trajectory that something will actively follow. A zygote is clearly a determined embodied process with a human trajectory as known by the way it is manifest.

www.redorbit.com...

Or, the reason abortion cannot be talked about in a public setting without feelings on both sides rising to the breaking point is because we are still acting on a primal need to procreate? And we haven't stopped to think about better/free contraception, better sex ed, and not shaming women who are pregnant and not married?

Side note to that last part - I used to live in a backwoods county in North Carolina. One day, as I picking up some meds, I noticed there was a huge gap in the female hygiene product section. Once I was in the process of checking out, I asked the attendant what was up. " Oh, we had a lot of girls stealing pregnancy tests, so now they are behind the counter with the cigarettes." That is horrible ; if someone is so scared/too poor they steal a test, we have a serious issue on our hands in way of our sexuality as a species and what our bodies go through.

Until we learn to actually speak about things, instead of stealing and lying and covering up, we will have abortion. I am pro choice; you will find most, if not all, pro choice people see abortion as the last, final result of a broken system that does not fully support, educate, or involve women and men with their bodies.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I see your stance here, but there seem to be overtones in this philosophy that could leak out into the public and other policies - the overall tone that I am talking about specifically is that it is okay to kill someone because they are too weak to defend themselves, because it would be a burden to help them.

It isn't the first time society has taken an irrelevant topic and thrown it into a different part of the political arena - for example, when Einstein wrote his theory of relativity, involving the speed of objects being relative to each other, this brought on a movement based on morality being relative.

In addition, after Darwin brought home his theory (correctly so, I believe) about evolution, this became a justification for Social Darwinism, which is the idea that the Best Society is one where the strong people survive and the weak people are allowed to die -

In fact, Social Darwinism was used to justify cutting social programs for decades.

I suppose as long as a woman having the right to be irresponsible about the life of her child (tone: neutral) does not get used later to justify another Social Darwinist movement about leaving the weak in the dust due to the burden it would cause others to support them, I would be satisfied with that compromise. (Satisfied).

reply to post by Quadrivium


I have no problem with your second quote. I do have aproblem with this:

A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.

Elementary and simplistic, for sure. This is a huge semantic leap that doesn't reflect realtiy. Life doesn't begin it's transformed! We find this simplification all over. It leads up to an invalid assumption that a fertilized egg, a zygote is a something more than a blue print.

An egg cell doesn't disintegrate and upon fertilization and then a brand new shiny zygote arises, like a phoenix, from the ashes! A singled celled haploid cell, with one set of chromosomes takes on the genetic information from a second haploid. Now the single cell has 2 sets of chromosomes, and is a diploid cell called a zygote. It wasn't born, didn't pop into existence magically. It is a transformed cell!

Again, the you tube video plays on the wonder of life, but only expresses an awe inspiring opinion. The script verifies my claim in the statement: "That single celled embryo contains an elaborate instruction manual, with all the information needed to create a human being." At 1.07

A biological package containing genetic information, laying out the unfolding of a potential human to a human being, is not yet a human being. Therefore, it's right to life doesn't trump the mother's right not to be pregnant.

EDIT TO ADD:

A zygote is not an embryo.

The zygote continues to divide, creating an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a blastocyst. The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

Many of your Princeton University conference notes don't acknowledge that point and combine the zygote stage and embryonic stage as the same. This is an over simplification that leads one to believe that a embryonic stage is achieved at fertilization. It isn't achieved until after implantation.

ImagineFree
reply to post by charles1952

 

At what point do you grant or deny a fetus it's 'right to life?' Often times answers can be found using such an example as this:
Lets say a woman has had 10 babies and aborted each one of them. Is there enough evidence to send this person to trial as a possible murderer? Is there criminal intent involved? Does it matter what the intent is or does it matter that 10 babies had their life taken from them? This is just an example to highlight the underlying point i am trying to make: at what point does abortion become a crime? Does it take a rather large number of abortions to bring attention to the idea of criminal intentions, or is one abortion enough to be considered -- in a strictly technical sense -- a murderer?

Abortion is legal therefore it is not a crime. So even in the unlikely event of having ten

abortions she could not be tried...

reply to post by windword


Yes, there is a debate on when life begins, although some think it is when the baby is born, I think it is when the Pineal Gland activates around the beginning of the third trimester or so?

I happen to know that some of the same personality traits I exhibit now (unwillingness to change) were present during my mother's pregnancy, as it became obvious that I really did not want to leave.

In fact, I believe that in some cases abortions are done prior to birth due to personality traits that are considered unwanted or a disease. So neurologically, the baby would seem to be exhibiting some kind of personality and identity prior to birth.

Hey guys - check out these awesome links I found on the BBC.

BBC: Abortion Ethics Guide

BBC: Q&A Abortion Law

Moral personhood

One of the first issues that need clarifying when thinking about abortion is the idea of what we mean when we talk about 'human life.'

When people talk about 'human life' they may mean:

a member of the biological human species - having the human genetic code
But they may mean something very different:

a being that possesses certain human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code
characteristics often suggested might be the ability to think, to imagine, to communicate
but the lists of characteristics put forward may be designed to limit the definition of human in the way the speaker wants

a being that is a 'moral person', i.e. one that has rights, and probably duties too

And the time at which a foetus gets the right to life because it's achieved the relevant list of characteristics can vary from the moment of conception to the time the baby is born.

(In fact for some philosophers, very young babies don't really qualify as having earned the right to life by possessing the right characteristics. Fortunately for young children, these philosophers concede that young babies do have the right to life as a result of tradition and law instead.)

(I was about to state a lot of opinions and felt like it was better to cite a comprehensive source)

I think a good part of the miscommunication was from my side, I think we can do better.

windword
What kind of studies, that look into what, exactly?

When you say:

windwordUh, The scientific facts that I've been discussing???? Which of those, biological realities that I've been trying to explain, do you disagree with, and why?

It is unclear what scientific facts you have brought up that pertain to what I am saying. In seeing the studies and data you are using to determine what is scientific fact and biological realities, I can try to see what you see.

As it stands, it seems to me that when we individually receive limited rights, and citizens rights, changes to fit whatever stage the science of medicine currently resides. But, what are the possible endpoints? Where might our laws finally settle in around something that is static?

We are basically determining when a mass of cells receives certain rights, as well as why we set the requirements we do (which is where the science part comes in). A mass of cells with the genetics of a plant does not receive the same rights as a mass of cells with the genetics of a human. However, just having human DNA isnt considered enough, there are additional requirements that set a certain parameter. The question is, where should we set that parameter, and do we even have the understanding to appropriately do so at this level of scientific progress?

Too many possibilities remain for me, personally, to have an unwavering stance. As science and medicine progress, we may come to understand that that parameter should be set at conception because of new data and discoveries. On the other hand, we may find that parameter should be set at not a specific time reference, but when that mass of cells makes its first "choice." Meaning, at the point that the mass of cells makes its first conscious movement as a specific lifeform, it then inherits the rights of that life form. That conscious movement could be a brain wave function, or movement of the mass of cells, etc. In the end, it could even be right about where it is now, except with more specifity. In religious terms, it is essentially looking at when the spirit becomes bonded with the physical body (soul). I may be wrong on this, but I do not feel it is any more clear *exactly* when this "moment" happens in the religious arena than it is in the area of medicine.

I dont think we have the proper understanding to truly make factual assertions on what is a very important distinction.

I don't what else we have to work with. I can't think of any law that isn't subject to some interpretation of what is logical. The only laws that are empirical are scientific laws.

Exactly

BREAKTHROUGH!!
I finally figured out how to embed videos from my phone!!

reply to post by Quadrivium




Gremlins??

eletheia
reply to post by Quadrivium




Gremlins??

edit on 18-9-2013 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

Yup, little nasty suckers!

I have a lot of respect for windword. She is passionate, persistent, intelligent, and a great ally in a fight. While it's true that I have some frustration from this thread, what makes me sad is my inability to communicate with windword and others.

We don't even have the basic language to discuss this issue. If I use my terms, she doesn't understand me. If I use her terms, I don't understand me.

Further, she seems to believe the discussion is about laws and legally enforced "rights," I thought it was about philosophy, truth seeking, logic, that kind of thing.

Because I value windword and the other posters in this thread so highly, and because I think the issue is important, please allow me to try something else. And I sincerely hope that people will work with me to find understanding instead of trying to find victory for one side or the other. Make your suggestions and recommended changes, but make them in the interests of truth and clarity, and we can find our way through this. To help reduce emotion, I will refer to whatever is in the mother as "X."

-------------------------------------------------------
1) X is alive in the scientific, if not legal sense.
2) X is of the Human species.
3) X is genetically unique.
4) If left alone, X will eventually become a full, adult citizen. (barring unforeseen accidents)
5) Abortion is designed to interrupt the normal course of events and prevent X from becoming a citizen.
6) There is no reason to believe X desires, or agrees to, an abortion.
7) The inability of a citizen to give consent, means consent is not given. (See, unconscious rape victims.)
8) The only differences I know of between an X the day before delivery and the day after, is the location of it's body, and the fact that it gets oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord, rather than through the mouth and lungs. Otherwise, it's development is the same.
9) For some reason, the law allows the X at D-Day +1 rights which it doesn't at D-Day -1.

Question, is this determination of when rights begin, based on something in logic or science, or is it merely a convenient place to draw the line? If it is based in logic, please explain the significant difference which allows abortion at D-Day -1, and not at D-Day + 1. How does taking X from the mother's body change X into a citizen?

If X is born to a woman who is on a solo camping trip away from all civilization, X is just as much dependent on the mother on D-Day + 1, as it was on D-Day - 1, so the difference can't be that X is dependent on the mother. Likewise, if the camping mother dies while delivering, X isn't viable, but is still a citizen, so viability can't be the reason. It seems as though viability and delivery are more convenient milestones than a logical change in X's nature.

The only thing I see left is the location of X, inside or outside of the mother. That doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance, so allow me to explore it.

Assume X is 30 weeks along. It can become a citizen if it is taken from the mother, and the technology is present to effect that. If it is not taken from the mother, she plans on ending X's existence. Does not the protection of innocence require the removal of X from the mother? X is then outside of the mother and is a citizen.

Please show me where the thinking goes astray. Don't start another line of argument, help me find out where this one goes wrong. I want to have clear thoughts on the subject, but as has been noted, clear thoughts seem hard to come by here.