Anyone interested in a civil debate on abortion?

POLITICS
1

I’m sure I’ll lose some reputation points for this, but I’ve been tempted to do this for quite a while. I just never have, because I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I still don’t, but I figured I’d give it a shot. Is anyone interested in a civil debate about abortion? A couple of stipulations.

First, as little religion as possible. There’s a reason I didn’t bring this up in the religion forum. I understand that a little religion must be possible, if that’s what you want to call it (since no one can scientifically prove that murder is wrong or that people should be free). Like I said, call it religion, faith, opinion, conviction, whatever. If you can’t prove it, as little as possible, since if a debate is based entirely on religion, neither side will see the other’s points.

Second, be as civil as possible. No name calling, baiting, trolling. Just nice debate, not arguement. People are going to disagree with you, or try to disprove something you said, just as you are going to disagree and you are going to try to disprove. I have never seen a debate on this issue where it didn’t degenerate into a name-calling brawl.

I’m going to wait until I see if there’s any interest before I post my opinion/opening statement. So, any takers? Or is this too much to hope for?

2

Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren I’m sure I’ll lose some reputation points for this

No you won’t.

3

Short and to the point - I believe abortion is a VERY complex issue. IMO it comes down to “when is a fetus a person?”; and I don’t presume to know, but on this issue I’d at least err on the side of personal choice. First trimester I have no moral objection to, but when the abortion is occurring in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, you’re getting into some VERY objectionable territory and had best have a reason better than “I can’t raise the child”.

4

While there is the ethical question of “is a fetus a person”, I believe that sheer logistics and facts come down on the side of pro-choice. If we were to ban abortion again, women wouldn’t stop getting them. They would just have to chance it in unsanitary conditions with unskilled doctors. Quite frankly, this CANNOT be an option. To allow it is to endanger any woman.

5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maus Can we agree on a few definitions? For example, for the purposes of this discussion, what are we thinking of as “life”?

In the phone book.

6

Ok, I’m giving my opinion. I’m pro-life. I believe that murder is wrong (this is the only religion I will try to include, and I think we can all agree on this one). I believe that abortion is murder. I believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, because at this point the fetus has its own DNA. The sperm has the DNA of the father, the egg has the DNA of the mother, and the fetus has its own, separate DNA. Therefore it is a separate human life, therefore, logically to end this life would be murder. Anyone poke a hole in this? Go.

7

Well, like I said, I disregard the ethical standpoint. I’m sorry that those who see a fetus as life feel that abortion is murder but to ban abortion is to create an even more serious risk to women. It’s not helped when kids are taught abstinence-only sex education and don’t learn about contraception. They end up forgetting, not caring, or doing something stupid like using panties in place of a condom.

8

Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren Ok, I’m giving my opinion. I’m pro-life. I believe that murder is wrong (this is the only religion I will try to include, and I think we can all agree on this one). I believe that abortion is murder. I believe that life begins when the sperm meets the egg, because at this point the fetus has its own DNA. The sperm has the DNA of the father, the egg has the DNA of the mother, and the fetus has its own, separate DNA. Therefore it is a separate human life, therefore, logically to end this life would be murder. Anyone poke a hole in this? Go.

If I rub a Q-tip along the inside of your mouth, that Q-tip will be covered with living human cells. Those cells have your DNA, just like that fertilized egg from your parents. No one will give a second thought, however, to destroying those cells. Defining a single fertilized cell as human life may seem clear and obvious, but it leads to some strange and unintended corollaries. I’ll list a few of them here.

First, the case of identical twins. All of us (I think) agree that twins are two separate people. However, assuming human life begins at the single fertilized cell, they are actually one person- since all identical twins come from a single fertilized cell, that suffers an abnormality in the second or third generation. When does the life of a twin start? When the egg is fertilized, or when the abnormality occurs? This may seem laughable, but it is a serious question if you truly, honestly believe that that fertilized egg is a (one) human being.

Second, the viability question. It is possible to fertilize an egg outside of the uterus- in a test tube, for instance. This test tube egg has absolutely zero chance of developing into a baby, a 16-year-old grunge band guitarist, a 27-year-old medical student, or a politician. Unless it is frozen solid it will die within a matter of hours. Can we call something that has 0% chance of developing any organs, not to mention a personality or the ability to make conscious decisions, a human being?

You may say “But if put inside a woman’s uterus, it does have a chance of developing these things.” Yes. But we immediately begin talking about “has a chance to”. It doesn’t possess them yet. This zygote-in-a-test-tube has none of the characteristics of a human, not even the minimal expectations of a human baby. In fact, it can’t even get there on its own- it is not even capable of becoming a human child, without having the resources of a female body available, and the expensive medical procedures necessary to get the zygote into the uterus.

Third, the cloning question. Using a Q-tip I can rub the inside of my mouth and get a culture of human cells- my cells, right? But consider this. Assuming cloning is possible (and it IS theoretically possible- if you can do it with sheep, you can do it with humans)… Any one of those cells could conceivably become a human child. If I’m willing to spend enough money on the medical procedures, and if there are any women willing to bear my clone, I could turn any of those cells into a younger twin of me. Considering that, how are the cells lining the inside of my mouth any different than a zygote floating in a test tube? All it takes is the right amount of medical daring-do to turn either into a fetus, then a child, then an accountant. Since most every cell in my body carries my DNA, and since cloning provides a way to grow a fetus from any of that DNA, is every cell in my body a separate human life? Am I committing mass murder against my potential twins every time I sneeze, take a piss, spit?

That’s ridiculous. It takes the perfect conditions to turn one of my living cells into a cloned child, and the chances of success are far less than 100%. But it also takes the perfect conditions to turn a fertilized egg into a child, and the chances of success are less than 100%. If one is not a human, the other is not either. If one is a human, so is the other.

9

Here’s my 2 cents

http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70777

"Every pro-lifer should adopt a child. I’d be able to understand their viewpoint then.

I really don’t think a child needs to be born unless there is a loving family to raise it. You think every life deserves a chance? Well then stop worrying about fetuses and adopt an already living child in need of a family. Otherwise, I’m afraid it’s just moral posturing.

I’d like to hear everyone else’s views in detail. Where your coming from, what made you feel that way, etc. I’m a man, so I’m kind of looking at this from the outside in a way. I’m not at all religious. I don’t think it matters if you call it a fetus, a baby, a potential human being, a clump of cells, whatever. Abortion, termination, murder, call it whatever you want. If a mother does not want to raise the child, she shouldn’t have to."

10

Why do we have to agree on classifications and loaded terms? Why do we have to draw analogies, like ‘murder’?

Physically speaking, the fetus depends on the mother to survive until very late in the game. It is part of the mother’s body.

If abortion is ‘murder’, does a mother have to go through a police investigation and trial if she has a miscarriage, to have it proven as an ‘accidental death’?

11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese Why do we have to agree on classifications and loaded terms? Why do we have to draw analogies, like ‘murder’? Physically speaking, the fetus depends on the mother to survive until very late in the game. It is part of the mother’s body.

Oh, I agree. It’s just this idea that life MUST begin the moment the proper DNA sequence is formed that’s so strong- it’s the crux of the matter, really. I’m just trying to show a few ways that the “fertilized egg is as human as the woman it’s floating around in” idea is arbitrary and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

12

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sphinx always gets the sake If I rub a Q-tip along the inside of your mouth, that Q-tip will be covered with living human cells. Those cells have your DNA, just like that fertilized egg from your parents. No one will give a second thought, however, to destroying those cells. Defining a single fertilized cell as human life may seem clear and obvious, but it leads to some strange and unintended corollaries. I’ll list a few of them here.

Those cells still have your DNA. However, a new fetus will have its own DNA, thus separating it from the father or the mother. The clone thing is an issue I have never thought about, though. It will require some more thought, and that’s an interesting point.

13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese Why do we have to agree on classifications and loaded terms? Why do we have to draw analogies, like ‘murder’?

Call it whatever you want, I just used that as a term for ending a human life on purpose. We could call it termination if you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese Physically speaking, the fetus depends on the mother to survive until very late in the game. It is part of the mother’s body.

Yes, but a fetus can life with outside assistance long before the full nine months of pregnancy. I could see the whole issue of early on, but what about 8 months into the game. If you say that abortion is acceptable because the fetus couldn’t live without assistance, show me any 2 year old child that can do the same. The only difference is the kind of assistance needed. And if you want to go for physical assistance such as breathing treatments or incubators, what about children with medical conditions such as severe asthma or diabetes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese If abortion is ‘murder’, does a mother have to go through a police investigation and trial if she has a miscarriage, to have it proven as an ‘accidental death’?

I’m sure a woman could have an abortion and claiming it as a miscarriage. Thats another touchy issue. However, I’m talking about society accepting the termination of a life, not society punishing it.

And just so you know, I’m not trying to piss you off or offend you. These are real questions and points that I believe are valid. I’m so afraid that people are going to take what I say as offensive. It happens all the time with this subject.

14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese Here’s my 2 cents http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70777 "Every pro-lifer should adopt a child. I’d be able to understand their viewpoint then. I really don’t think a child needs to be born unless there is a loving family to raise it. You think every life deserves a chance? Well then stop worrying about fetuses and adopt an already living child in need of a family. Otherwise, I’m afraid it’s just moral posturing.

I don’t agree with this argument. Let’s suppose that in some society it was acceptable for parents to kill their babies after learning they are mentally retarded. Must one be willing to adopt one of these children to believe that such a practice should be banned?

Some may think this analogy is ridiculous, because they believe a fetus does not have the same moral worth as a child who has been born. But the pro-lifer often does not make this distinction. For them, abortion is killing – plain and simple.

15

Sphinx, you’re examples about skin cells and cloning are flawed. If you actually want to compare cloning your cells to actual human reproduction, then your example (the mass murder of “potential” clone-lives) would apply to a debate about the morality of birth control, not abortion.

16

I think this thread will go fine. It’s refrshing to discuss a topic where it can’t come to “Oh, your just biased to the left/right blablabla”.

I’m not a doctor, I haven’t studied the various changes the fetus goes through during pregnancy, so I don’t know when exactly it would be able to survive outside the mother. Anything more than a few weeks early would usually be dangerous and require some very costly medical care, correct?

My earlier statement was referring to direct biological dependence on the mother, it eats what she eats, it gets oxygen from the air she breaths. You made a point, wydren, about the level of dependence on the mother after the birth. So, to be honest, I can’t draw a line at when exactly it would be ‘morally’ acceptable to terminate the fetus/child. I have absolutely no idea.

As far as legislating it goes, I think the law should be flexible, as opposed to restricting it. The reasons and sircumstances for pregnancy are different in every case. No law dealing with this can possibly be morally or ethically right in %100 of all cases, but giving more choice to the mother would be better.

17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maus Hypotheticals are only serving to blur the issue. Maybe we should pare it back a bit and keep it simple. Using an oral swab as an analogy for human reproduction is ridiculous, as is cloning… Let’s assume that a woman who has been pregnant for three months wants to terminate that pregnancy. There are no complications and, barring unforseeable injury, there is no reason to doubt that this woman can carry the child to term. For her own, private reasons, this woman has decided to have an abortion. Is this right or wrong? Forget the reasons. All things being equal, is the act, itself, morally wrong? Why or why not?

Cloning is reproduction. What else could it possibly be? A new human is created. That’s the very essence of reproduction- one life form creating another. The fact that you reject the analogy is interesting. You (apparently) consider the method of creating the viable zygote as essential for defining reproduction- that, for some reason, a zygote created by medical technology is less viable than one created by egg meeting sperm. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I see no need to make the distinction, since the potential results are the same.

OK, considering your first-trimester question… It’s a moral blank. I cannot tell you whether it’s moral or not until I know the circumstances. Similar to asking “is it moral to shoot someone in the head?” It is an unanswerable question without knowing the circumstances.

18

Maus, would you say religious views influence your opinion here? Like ‘souls’, any of that kind of stuff? Would you mind summarizing them if they do?

19

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sphinx always gets the sake Cloning is reproduction. What else could it possibly be? A new human is created. That’s the very essence of reproduction- one life form creating another. The fact that you reject the analogy is interesting. You (apparently) consider the method of creating the viable zygote as essential for defining reproduction- that, for some reason, a zygote created by medical technology is less viable than one created by egg meeting sperm. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I see no need to make the distinction, since the potential results are the same. OK, considering your first-trimester question… It’s a moral blank. I cannot tell you whether it’s moral or not until I know the circumstances. Similar to asking “is it moral to shoot someone in the head?” It is an unanswerable question without knowing the circumstances.

If we’re going to go down this road, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. I consider anything living that thinks and feels human emotions, be they normal, clone, or mentally handicapped to be equal.

20

Let me be a little fairer concerning Maus’s first-trimester question. I said it’s a moral blank, that I need to know more about the circumstances. But I should add that there certainly ARE circumstances when I think the abortion is justifiable- that the needs and wishes of the mother overcome the needs and (apparent) wishes of the fetus. I think it’s justifiable in several ways, which I’ll explain more as the discussion progresses.