The Abortion Controversy & A Solution

@deepthot,

hello deepthot-
what would satisfy me is that a cutoff point for legal purposes would be chosen with enough margin for error that no 'conscious, brain functioning' child would be aborted.

i dont think people with a pro-life stance necessarily see capital punishment as the same issue, because it deals with 'punishment' and deterrent' in the case of crime. the foetus is always totally innocent. that would be a new thread...

@salima,

salima;80714 wrote:

meaning 30 weeks? and 36 (approximately) is considered full term?

Yes, salima chan, I would say that the usual neighborhood of that common 9 months is what we'd still say is full term as far as the level of prenatal infant development. As for the level of brain development that is fairly representative of what we'd think of, when we were to picture an individual, fully cognitive human being, we evidently are looking at a window (not a distinct line, but a period consisting of a number possible days) of 180 to 220 (or so) days--that 30 week zone.

Again, I do, and would think many others would, greatly appreciate your offer for compromise, deepthot. It is kind of funny, again, to me at least, that the life forms which are not, and had not been, H. sapien, are so seldom weighed factored in when considering such things. (of course on the social/legal level, I can pretty much understand since only H. sapiens are the actors/movers.)

I can see how your compromise would be great, for those who can compromise; who are of that disposition. There will be those (and I'd bet at least 90% of those would be the strong religious belief-system based) who will not even admit that a compromise would be any option at all. I would strongly urge that that obsticle should be worked on--as in chipping away at those old, rusty and no-longer up-to-date systems, so as to de-arm them.

I could also see where those of that camp might try to argue that the fetus is not a part of the woman's body, not her, therefore she has no right to do as she wishes with/to it. (which is true, actually, and is the reason there is the fetal-maternal blood barrier). While various material crosses over both ways at the placenta interlocking area/sinus the blood never exchanges, and the fetus is protected against immunological attacks from its host, the woman.

One response might be, then (if that camp were to go to such an extreme) that the woman has the right to protect her body from the parasitic-like element of that developing fetus--while being human (NOTE PLEASE that 'being human', is different from 'being a human') is it not an individual person in the social sense.

And then we could think of this scenario (adapted from Michael S. Gazzaniga's, in his monograph HUMAN--THE SCIENCE BEHIND WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE):

[indent]A man is visiting his physician-advisor, and the following conversation insues:

[indent]P/A: What?! You knew you were carrying the mutant Huntington's gene, and you didn't tell her, and now she's pregnant?!!

P (patient): Well, uh, you know, it was kind of in the heat of the moment, and we are really in love, and besides, we have plans to marry next year, so . . .

P/A: Yes, that's all fine and dandy, I wish you two the best. However, you well know that there will be a 95% chance that any child you father will develop Huntington's Disease, and will most likely die by the fourth decade, after a fair amount of suffering and medical costs, right?!

P: Doc, all I can say is, well, you know, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. [/indent][/indent]

Then some number of weeks down the road, she goes in for an amniocentesis check, and sure enough, the DNA markers give a strong positive. A number of weeks later, she decides to go for a chorionic villus sampling, to verify, and again, a strong positive. So, now, after some 10 weeks have passed since conception, they (and they are still very much in love, of course, she didn't dump him for not telling her that they'd probably never be able to have kids [my romantic touch in directing the play, here]) decided to abort. So, since abortion is legal, and fine (depending on a number of things), they go down to the hospital (which has an abortion center) and get an abortion.

They have prevented a major cause of negative and far-less-productive-in-outcome potential from happening. Their move really has to be seen as ethically the more correct one, by any means, really.

This much for now.

@salima,

salima;81000 wrote:

what would satisfy me is that a cutoff point for legal purposes would be chosen with enough margin for error that no 'conscious, brain functioning' child would be aborted.

I'd say a point in time around (meaning a number of days--say 10--afterwards being included) the end of the first trimester. We have no convolution (lisencephalic) and the forebrain structures (including the caudate nuclei and internal striatum which are heavily responsible in neuron production) are not fully formed, nor have the cerebral hemispheres attached to each other and the diencephalic surface. Therefore it is yet easy enough to determine that there is no consciousness, and acknowledgeable awareness or access.

Again, with abortion being legal, and as both deepthot and others have pointed out, with human sexuality being more open and with more accuate public education, there would very thinkably be fewer unwanted pregancies. Along with that medical people, upon the confirming pregnancy, could acknowledge that the abortion option is available (not to suggest, nor ask even, just to make all pertinate information available), and since it would not have the social stigma that it might more so have at present, there would not be the guilt or shame psychological event, therefore earlier than first-trimester-end abortions--so no problem at all...at 40 days, it doesn't even look like a human in any way, really.

@deepthot,

There is no solution without taking away someone else's rights, whether that be the babies or the mothers. The key is prevention, you should be looking at preventions.

@deepthot,

Although up to a certain stage the baby may already show signs of awareness through responses of movement and hearing, it still has not experienced enough of life to know what it could be missing. To hinder someone's pre-life may actually salvage the baby and/or mother from further complications. The process can be more accommodating than implacable.

But it is inhumane to those who perpetually have unprotected sex knowing they could have an abortion because the option is available. Unfortunately continuance of the birth within these sort of pregnancies could result in child neglect and further environmental and economical problems. On the other hand it could be a success, but it is difficult to foresee. There are just a number of situations where it is probably best to have the option. But it is not so much that I endorse, I'm more for the prevention of every having to use it.

@Serena phil,

Serena;81047 wrote:

But it is inhumane to those who perpetually have unprotected sex knowing they could have an abortion because the option is available. Unfortunately continuance of the birth within these sort of pregnancies could result in child neglect and further environmental and economical problems. On the other hand it could be a success, but it is difficult to foresee. There are just a number of situations where it is probably best to have the option. But it is not so much that I endorse, I'm more for the prevention of every having to use it.

I can't see people choose to have unprotected sex knowing abortion is available. Having an abortion is an extremely traumatic experience and I cannot see why anyone would want to go through with it when there are alternative methods of contraception. So I do not think that this is the case, that people head into unprotected sex because abortion is available and i also dont think that that is why abortion is available today!

@deepthot,

They don't purposely have unprotected sex to have an abortion, the consequences are are generally a result of laziness or irresponsibility. But should an unplanned pregnancy occur, the system does get abused a bit which is not fair to the baby. I just wish people would take more responsibility for their actions so the abortion option does not have to be available.

@Serena phil,

Quote:

Serena;81055 wrote:
They don't purposely have unprotected sex to have an abortion,

That is true.

Quote:

Serena;81055 wrote:
the consequences are are generally a result of laziness or irresponsibility.

Which is were the problem lies.

Quote:

Serena;81055 wrote:
I just wish people would take more responsibility for their actions so the abortion option does not have to be available.

Which is were the focus needs to be.
Thanks

@Serena phil,

Those who are vehemently oppose the idea of abortion at any stage are the same fundamentalists who also oppose contraception.So how do you debate on any level with that attitude.
Reasonable debate determines a sensible conclusion.Judging an individuals morals is not determining the outcome.We must be open to adjusting our views on the term by medical information.My view is at the moment its too lenient and should only be applied with more consultation.When we are deciding anothers future opportunities to life we should be treating the embryo with more respect.This does not take away the mothers rights but it should determine her reasoning.

@xris,

Quote:

xris;81058 wrote:
We must be open to adjusting our views on the term by medical information.

Could you explain in more detail please xris?.

Quote:

xris;81058 wrote:
This does not take away the mothers rights but it should determine her reasoning.

Again would you mind explaining in more detail what you mean please? Thanks

@Caroline,

We should be able to be more realistic on what is considered as independant life expectancy.If a child is capable of living without its mothers sustenance,then it should be considered too late for abortion and its life respected as if it had been born.This may cause problems but like all ethical problems we must overcome them.It then requires medical reasoning on what is considered as viable life.
On the question of the mothers rights, it should be paramount but only with her realising by investigation that she is making the correct decision.I have suffered by the act of abortion and it should never be allowed without due care and respect.

@xris,

I notice what might seem, possibly, like some level of presupposition which might prove important to look into a bit here. First of all, it might be useful to acquiesce in there not being a productive enough result to alter the common usage of the word 'baby.' We could, nevertheless, take the postnatally directed term, and apply it retroactively a bit, but only up a little (at best) before that 30 weeks point.

When we start speaking of rights, we are speaking of legal matters--things of judical concern, whatever the nature or formality of that judical arrangement. It is fairly enough correct, I would argue, that judical systems are social systems--social constructs--and that their purpose (in many cases, if not most) is for the adherence of, preservation of, and efficient maintenance of the society (as an in-group) and the principles, philosophical doctrines, and goals said group holds to.

It would be good, then, to question, so as to more fully understand, what 'a right' might entail. Also, the 'what' (but we usually historically have thought more along the lines of who up until the (especially) past handful of decades) as the object of recipient possesion of this right, should be firmly determined (regardless of that description being a bit fuzzy).

I would think that having gone thoroughly through such processes first, we will arrive at what has any given right, and what that right might be.

Should a social group propose, or how efficient and wise would it be to give a right to a sperm cell? How could we most naturally, logically, and pragmatically give a right to something which is yet to be, without demonstrating a bias in the first place?

I reason that there is no taking away of any right that is not in place already, and in that sense, we need not be concerned over, nor focus on rights, but rather the cutting point which a legalized abortion setup should stipulate.

Prevention will come, I'd argue, again, with a fuller educational program and a more open, naturalistic awareness of human sexuality. I agree with Caroline that while there will always be the fringes (as there is with just about everything), the degree of carelessness will more likely go down from what it might be at the moment. Oh the other hand, I would stand fast on the understanding that abortion should be a legally① allowed process for a number of reasons (the worst being unconsented sexual attack, others being, for example, determined mental illnesses, surgically uncorrectable brain defects, etc....and mere human being no-fault mistakes).

① And please keep in mind, as I have kind spelled it out in an earlier post on this thread, that I am talking about government (any level) approved and inspected clinical centers, with laws in place that work as a screening process for (for example) 'past the point of no-return' applications (say after that 100th day), and so on.

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;81079 wrote:

Should a social group propose, or how efficient and wise would it be to give a right to a sperm cell? How could we most naturally, logically, and pragmatically give a right to something which is yet to be, without demonstrating a bias in the first place?

As always your post was eloquently written. The above comment, If you don't mind elaborating a bit, has me a bit confused. I will be the first to admit there are a great many "sperm cells" being issued these days, no doubt; but "rights"? Such little regard we give such a tiny critter for if it weren't for it and it's only and fundamental duty, we would not be here discussing it's rights, would we? Yet to be? How do you arrive at such a statement? It is quite true "it most definitely IS!" How can we possibly state otherwise?

I will also agree, in that it has no choice in the matter, to dictate what "it's" rights are, is totally erroneous no matter what a society assumes them to be. Just because it is so very small, should we give it little significance?

Now let's get really, really small for a moment and observe what is truly happening here as we note the destiny of that tiny male offering as it explains a lot when you think about it. It, I am offering, is the true meaning of "only the strong survive" as they spend their short life racing and competing to reach and penetrate that object that attracts them so, Ha! Ring any bells? Yet we argue when "life" truly begins as it truly illustrates the ignorance of "a society's" understanding to think otherwise.

I'll let you ponder this a moment and then please respond if you still think it has a "right to be" as you assume it does "not yet" have that right? You might want to consider that which created this "human race" as it were, because you might get a little better perspective of the true wisdom of it all that might give more credence to that divine and intelligent design.

Ah, but we are animal, aren't we, and we have no choice in the matter and that explains it, right? Don't you think it is time we got past that feral mind if that is truly what it is. Though you must consider even the animal doesn't resort to those measure's us "smart animals" do as we decide who has that "right" to live. Hmm?

Thanks Kj, you really made me think and I appreciate that. I hope I can offer you the same.

William

@deepthot,

I always find it incredibly hilarious that so many Christians are so strongly against abortion yet when the child grows up and becomes adults they are more than happy to yell at them about going to hell, or that they deserve to die. You can't get any more idiotic than that.

I don't use religious dogma to make my decisions. I want to know at what point a fetus is given it's rights as a human being? At what stage must it reach before it is handed it's rights to life? Never? Do you only receive your right to life after the umbilical cord is cut? So a mother should always retain the right over the brewing cells in her body regardless if they are a fully formed baby, as long as that cord remains in tact she has the right to do with it as she chooses?

I don't think a sperm cell or an egg cell count the same as a developing zygote. Anyone who tries to make the argument that they are the same is fundamentally flawed in their reasoning. The body will process sperm cells that are over a certain "age" if you will. But that is often ignored or written off to be a natural event so it's alright but if you are systematically destroying them on your own, that this somehow is wrong. Funny. A woman's body does the same, an unfertilized egg is sloughed off but no one seems to be crying about that. (pun intended) So clearly they are not equal.

@deepthot,

I'm torn on the subject of abortion. I'm for having a defective fetus aborted (sorry can't think of a better term). But a fully heathly fetus I can't really justify.

@deepthot,

Krumple is right.

Is an egg cell the same as a developing zygote?

Is a zygote the same as a fetus?

Is a fetus the same as a child?

The answer to all these questions is: "Of course not !!"

A "zygote" is defined as "the cell produced by the union of two gametes, before it undergoes cleavage."

A "fetus" is "the young of an animal in the womb, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."

A "child" is defined as "a person between birth and full growth."

Philosophers, and philosophy students, should be careful not to use words in a confusing manner. Let's strive for clarity. Let's not lump lots of distinct concepts together. Make these distinctions.

@deepthot,

[

deepthot;87555 wrote:

Is an egg cell the same as a developing zygote? Is a zygote the same as a fetus? Is a fetus the same as a child?
The answer to all these questions is: "Of course not !!"

"....Of course................NOT?" May I ask, what course is it that you make such an exclamation? I will admit "zygote", "fetus" and "egg" do have an "inhuman" ring to them, but are they resonant? I think not as they sound all too inhuman. Ah, but "to err" is all too human as we attempt to define what it is "to be" human when we use words created by humans that are indeed "NOT" human such as egg/zygote/fetus offer. For it does make it much easier and less painful when we dispose of that fetus or unborn child as some do proclaim he/she to be.

Let's not call it an unborn child anymore, for it is much to painful in that regard. So let's regard it less and call it "inhuman names". In this "course" do we become more human or less human? That is the question! Is it good or is it bad? Hmmm? How much more clarification do we need? Will that understanding be more human or more inhuman? It can get rather confusing, can't it as evident in that language humans created in an attempt to define what it is to be human. Is it possible for us to become lost in those so very many words?

But let's not forget that very small human life form that penetrated that "egg" that began that life, for with no parent, there could be no 'human' beginning (par....the......no......genesis) such as one might consider the dinosaur which is now "EXTINCT". Hmmmm? Perhaps these are matters we should consider as we "better clarify", huh? :perplexed:

William

@deepthot,

Law and Abortion: The Legal Basis for a Prolife Position

Pro-abortion groups recognize that allowing a person to be convicted of the murder of a fetus indicates that there was a living person who was murdered. If the fetus is a human person, then it should not be allowed to be killed, even at the request of its mother. So how can these laws be applied selectively to unwanted killing of a fetus, while the complicity of the mother in the same killing is completely legal? Here is an excerpt from the California Penal Code Section 187:
[CENTER][CENTER]CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187.[/CENTER][/CENTER]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
with malice aforethought.
This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
1. The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
  (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
  106 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
  certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
  case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
  death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
  although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
  more likely than not.
3. The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
  mother of the fetus.
Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.1

What I find really bizarre about the law are the exceptions to it. If someone were to kill or have their own child murdered, complicity on the part of the mother or father would not make it legal. But this is the exact exception made in the law in regard to the fetus. Somehow, the fetus only has value as human life if it is wanted by the mother. If someone kills a fetus that the mother wants to keep, it suddenly becomes a living human being who can be murdered. If a human is only human on the basis of whether or not he is wanted, then this leaves open the option of killing "street people" and handicapped individuals simply because they are "unwanted."

In contrast to what the liberal agenda says, the Bible says that all people have equal worth, since all are created in the image of God.2 Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.3

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;99790 wrote:

Law and Abortion: The Legal Basis for a Prolife Position

Pro-abortion groups recognize that allowing a person to be convicted of the murder of a fetus indicates that there was a living person who was murdered. If the fetus is a human person, then it should not be allowed to be killed, even at the request of its mother. So how can these laws be applied selectively to unwanted killing of a fetus, while the complicity of the mother in the same killing is completely legal? Here is an excerpt from the California Penal Code Section 187:
[CENTER][CENTER]CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187.[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
with malice aforethought.

This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.

The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's
certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.

The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.

Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.1

What I find really bizarre about the law are the exceptions to it. If someone were to kill or have their own child murdered, complicity on the part of the mother or father would not make it legal. But this is the exact exception made in the law in regard to the fetus. Somehow, the fetus only has value as human life if it is wanted by the mother. If someone kills a fetus that the mother wants to keep, it suddenly becomes a living human being who can be murdered. If a human is only human on the basis of whether or not he is wanted, then this leaves open the option of killing "street people" and handicapped individuals simply because they are "unwanted."

In contrast to what the liberal agenda says, the Bible says that all people have equal worth, since all are created in the image of God.2 Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.3

Roe vs. Wade decided that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the law. It said nothing about whether the fetus is human.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;99800 wrote:

Roe vs. Wade decided that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the law. It said nothing about whether the fetus is human.

What I dont like about abortion is two fold:

1) Removal of a viable baby far into the pregnancy by pulling it out and dismembering the Baby. This is muder and I dont care what the law has to say about it

2) Aborting a fetus that is the result of consensual sex, this baby has a right to life

Trauma due to rape is something else but many people that exist due to rape weep with gratitude to the mothers that did the brave thing and allowed them to live

Philosophy Forum

The Abortion Controversy & A Solution

Quick Links

My Account

able2know