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

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.

reply to post by ScarletNyx


Fact is sex has over taken education. And as sex is primarily instinct. Its not easy to get people to understand their innate needs and balance them with practical considerations.
Sadly.

Its not a cop out. Just a fact that people really don't care ultimately in pursuit of sex,
about protection - hence the abortion.

Abortions happen up and down society. From the old to the younger. The educated and not.

reply to post by eletheia


As well these people don't consider the people like me who suffered hugely at having parents who not only hated each other but also hated me. I had a childhood of savage abuse. They didn't want me and periodically made this clear to me.

And I would rather have been " aborted" NOT adopted.

Precisely because my life has been too painful - to live through at times.

So I for this reason an not anti-abortion. I think its preventing more folk like me coming into the world and having enormous suffering which cannot be a bad thing.

reply to post by FreedomEntered

Dear FreedomEntered,

I'm afraid I may be getting off topic here (Maybe you'd like to start a thread on it?), but I agree, the desire for sex is a fairly basic drive, so is eating (or over-eating), acquisitiveness (greed), survival (possibly leading to cowardice?), and perhaps other drives which are all fine, if they are controlled.

We seem to be working hard at discouraging over-eating, but we're trying to make over-sexing desirable and as cost free as possible. I wonder what that's all about.

How are we doing at encouraging people to control themselves and their drives? Giving in to all of our drives, regardless of circumstances, might make us very similar to animals. (Or, perhaps, evil people.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Yeah I totally agree. Its the taboo since the 70s and this free love thing.

Which has actually turned into " free death".

Its only gotten worse. There are numerous incidents that do however need to be taken into consideration. For example, some women may be aborting after rape or abuse. You know the list goes on and its not being addressed.

Its not like I am a prude. I'm not anti porn.

But rather than just focusing on getting laid, there needs to be more focus on the " emotion and psychological" aspects of relationships and sex. Which is absent. Even in women's magazines its all about how to please ones partner . As opposed to how to how to look after oneself.

Its very chauvinistic and hugely dangerous.

There is a statistic in the western world that says 1 in 4 women will experience rape at some point in their life.

Its tragic.

I just had this discussion with two of my daughters aged 14 and 16 years. I asked them when life begins and one said when there is a heartbeat and the other said at conception. So, I asked them what would happen if I put a funtioning cell under a microscope and had a scientist look at it. The 14 yr old who said heartbeat said they would say it is alive.

So, I asked, what if I put a fertilized egg under a microscope that is showing it dividing, multiplying and growing, and she said, "They would say it is alive". Her eyes lit up and said, "Life begins at ferlization!"

You see, it's about justifying our selfish desires. My 14 year old's biology text book, "Biology Florida, Glencoe Science, Mcgraw-hill" states on pg 6 under Characteristics of Life:

Made of one or more cells. Have you ever had strep throat? It probably was caused by a group A Streptococcal bacteria such as the Streptococcus Pyogenes shown in figure 5.. A bacterium is unicellular - it has just one cell- yet is displays all the characteristics of life just like a skin cell on your body or a cell on a plants leaf. Humans and plants are multi cellular - they have many cells.

So, they admit a skin cell is alive. They admit a plant cell is alive. They admit these characteristics mean life:

1. Made of 1 or more cells
2. Displays organization
3. Grows and develops
4. Reproduces
5. Responds to stimuli
6.Requires energy
7.Maintains homeostasis
8. adaptations evolve over time

So, what in that list negates a fertilized human egg as not being alive until some point later? This is the cognitive dissonance I was referring to. In the very text books proponents defend as science and truth that describe what life is, these people then turn around and say the fertilized human egg is not alive.

Thus when you get an abortion you are choosing to end a life.

reply to post by charles1952





Can't disagree with much of what you said ... except this bit:-

If the mother is 30 weeks along the law does not allow clinics or Drs to perform abortions
and if she effects it herself, and it can be proved she is liable to prosecution ...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity






Yes I too was very idealistic at 14/16 years old .... then I learned real life lessons

and am now more realist than idealist

Life moves on we learn and adapt

reply to post by eletheia

Dear eletheia,

Thank you very much for offering your corrections. It's how I learn. I had completely forgotten that I had mentioned that 38 states have foetal homicide laws. I don't know how they would apply to a mother aborting the child, but I expect that in some circumstances she could be charged. It might be tough to get a conviction, but I don't know enough to say.

I did read, within the last couple of days, an article reporting on the four doctors who still performed third trimester abortions. They go about with extra protection (it's a shame they need to), but they don't seem to have been charged with anything.

Would it have been different if I had said 24 weeks? I was just looking for a time when there was "viability."

And thank you also for approaching this as a thought exercise and not as a slogan shouting contest.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I just had this discussion with two of my daughters aged 14 and 16 years. I asked them when life begins and one said when there is a heartbeat and the other said at conception. So, I asked them what would happen if I put a funtioning cell under a microscope and had a scientist look at it. The 14 yr old who said heartbeat said they would say it is alive.

Excellent! I had a talk with my daughter, who is 39 and holds a PHD in Micro-Biology, Bio-Chemsitry and Molecular Genetics. She holds a professorship at a well known university and works with DNA at a world renown lab. She says that a beginning point to life can't be defined, as live is a continuous cycle. Hmm?

So, what in that list negates a fertilized human egg as not being alive until some point later?

Who says that?

reply to post by windword


Why you did my dear:

he says that a beginning point to life can't be defined

Stick any egg that is developing in front of a scientist and ask them, is it alive or dead? They will say it is alive which for any logical person mans LIFE.

See, your cognitive lettered daughter seems to not get it despite it being right in front of her or you.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


No, I never said that the cell, zygote, embryo, fetus wasn't alive. I said that it's life didn't start at fertilization, but before, way before.

beezzer
reply to post by charles1952

 

It's a point where one persons rights supercedes anothers.

The right of the mother over-rules the rights of the unborn.

I found it ironic that gay rights supporters spoke of the rights of the individual, yet those self-same people disregarded the rights of the unborn individual.

Like slavery, the rights of the white people over-ruled the rights of the black person.

Slavery concluded that a person could determine whether or not a person lived or died.

Same as abortion.

Can I please give you ten stars for this? I am going to quote you, so hope you don't mind.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


A fertilized human egg is not a human being. It has about a 50% chance of becoming a human being, hence the term "potential". It also has a 50% chance of being flushed away as a spontaneous abortion. It's not a dead baby at that point - it's just a fertilized egg that didn't implant.

reply to post by kaylaluv


And yet it is alive and if you don't do anything to it, then it has a chance at life. The argument is usually when life begins. You choose to say it's not a human being, but I say an oak acorn that is beginning to grow is a baby oak. If I uproot it I have killed it's chances.

I am not surprised by your answer though. The issue is when life begins, and any functioning cell would be called alive unless it's a human beings fertilized egg, then it's just nothing to some.

charles1952
reply to post by eletheia

 

Dear eletheia,

Thank you very much for offering your corrections. It's how I learn. I had completely forgotten that I had mentioned that 38 states have foetal homicide laws. I don't know how they would apply to a mother aborting the child, but I expect that in some circumstances she could be charged. It might be tough to get a conviction, but I don't know enough to say.

I did read, within the last couple of days, an article reporting on the four doctors who still performed third trimester abortions. They go about with extra protection (it's a shame they need to), but they don't seem to have been charged with anything.

Would it have been different if I had said 24 weeks? I was just looking for a time when there was "viability."

And thank you also for approaching this as a thought exercise and not as a slogan shouting contest.

With respect,
Charles1952

There are always going differences between the laws of different countries and I am posting
from the UK so there maybe certain things that don't quite correlate.

But to answer your post, at 24 weeks with medical attention there is viability.

I can't be sure because there have been changes in the law here - I think the current time limit is
20 weeks

My personal opinion is that is far to late. 12 weeks, at a push 16 weeks is sufficient imo... especially
as now a days pregnancies can be confirmed by 4 weeks or less (I think I'm a bit rusty on that score)

reply to posts by windword and kaylaluv


Dear ladies,

Might I ask a large favor of you? I'd really appreciate it if you went to my post at the top of the page and comment on it.

I'm trying to find some foundation for a discussion, some way of communicating, so that we can proceed in our search for reason in this difficult subject.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks Charles, I appreciate you too. Keep posting controversial threads!

4) If left alone, X will eventually become a full, adult citizen. (barring unforeseen accidents)

The truth of this statement depends on the developmental stage of X. If it's before, or during the early stages of implantation, it's chances of survival are 50%.

6) There is no reason to believe X desires, or agrees to, an abortion.

There's no reason not to assume that X has the same desires as the mother, or no desire at all.

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.

That's not true. The older a fetus gets, the more rights it's entitled to. After viability it has state protection and the mother can be imprisoned for the safety of the protected fetus.

How does taking X from the mother's body change X into a citizen?

birthright
: a right that you have because you were born into a particular position, family, place, etc., or because it is a right of all people

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.

I don't understand what you're trying to ask here. ?? What does civilization have to do with citizenship and viability/vulnerability?

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.

I would assume that a 30 week abortion would be a sad and heart wrenching decision for someone to make, and probably has more to do with the mother's health or the health of the fetus. Most states, I don't know of any that don't, cut off elective abortion at around 20 - 22 weeks, unless there's something wrong with the fetus or the mother. I think your example is extreme, but maybe I'm missing your point.

Dear windword, and others,

Thank you windword, you're a gift. I think I see a way forward to improve my understanding.

One more favor? I just had a call from the real world, nothing traumatic, but it must be attended to. I'm not trying to get out of this conversation, but I might be gone for a couple of hours. Please be patient with me.

With respect,
Charles1952

People have a right to do with their bodies as they see fit. Regardless of what you call a pregnancy whether it's fetus, baby, unborn baby, unborn child, cells, whatever, the point is all of those are dependent on another life form's body for existence. An unborn baby cannot exist outside of the host mother's body, and I do not believe that anyone besides an individual should tell him or her what to do with their own bodies. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy because she no longer wishes to host the baby, it is her body and her choice to do so.

I'm sure one day abortions will be obsolete as scientists will have created incubation tubes to house the unborn children til they are able to live individually from another human's body. Until then, the choice remains with the woman and her doctor. It is no one else's businesses as it isn't their body.

For me, I am all for birth control being over the counter and next to condoms on the isles of every grocery store. Why you can buy alcohol and Tylenol and a million other harmful things yet women have to pay to see a doctor and have a lengthy discussion before getting a prescription is beyond me.