For Amicus ...

[BlackShanglan]

Please feel free to ignore this. I'm about to express an unpopular opinion and resurrect a thread involving Amicus at the same time, so I know that I won't be getting any gold stars for public service for this one.

That said, this has been bothering me for days:

I can see right now that we are never going to agree on this one. I consider these fertilized ova to be not human beings. I also consider the placental blood that has soaked into a Kotex not to be live human tissue although it was live at one time. I do not consider my fingernail clippings to be live human tissue, nor the whiskers that I shave off my face, nor the snot that I sneeze out of my nose. These are all human tissue and all were once alive, but no longer are.

I recognize that my views on this matter are not in the majority here. In fact, I will take a step I don't often take and identify my views: unless it is absolutely required to save the mother's life, I do not believe abortion to be morally right. Feel free to stop reading if, as many will, you feel that you can't accept this opinion and that reading further will only annoy you. However, I feel strongly compelled to answer Box's comparison.

There are key differences between the examples you list and a fertilized ovum. The most significant is that it's not the same person as the mother. One's hair, one's blood, one's mucus and fingernails and sloughed skin cells are all part of the same person. They have the same DNA and are part of the same organism.

A fertilized ovum (or embryo, or fetus, or baby) is not the same person. It has its own DNA and is not genetically anyone but itself. While it develops within a woman's body, it is not its mother; it is itself, distinct from her on the most basic genetic level. The nature of gestation requires it to be nourished and protected by the mother until it reaches an appropriate age and level of growth, but it is not the same person.

This is supported as well by the question of potential. My hair, skin, mucus, and blood will not eventually develop the ability to support themselves in an external environment. They do not inherently have the ability to become complete human beings, and barring quite extreme levels of technological intervention in the form of cloning, they never will. A fertilized ovum, on the other hand, is genetically a seperate human being and all of its functions in growth and development are geared toward the eventual physical seperation that this implies. It would be impossible to force it to remain part of its mother, and of course its very nature as a seperate human being is what leads to a desire to abort it. If it wasn't going at some point to come out and live its own life, it would not be nearly the problem it is.

Finally, removal of a fertilized ovum from the body does something quite different from removing blood, hair, mucus, or even limbs. It permanently destroys a genetically distinct entity. When my hair or blood or skin cells die, the genetic entity - the person - who made them continues to live. There is no death of the individual as a whole; the organism continues to exist as the same organism it was before these losses. When a fertilized egg (or embryo, or fetus, or baby) is remove from the womb and destroyed, a genetically distinct individual is permanently destroyed.

Didn't think I was likely to convince anyone. Just felt the need to offer the opposing view.

Shanglan

 

[ishtat]

Please feel free to ignore this. I'm about to express an unpopular opinion and resurrect a thread involving Amicus at the same time, so I know that I won't be getting any gold stars for public service for this one.

That said, this has been bothering me for days:



I recognize that my views on this matter are not in the majority here. In fact, I will take a step I don't often take and identify my views: unless it is absolutely required to save the mother's life, I do not believe abortion to be morally right. Feel free to stop reading if, as many will, you feel that you can't accept this opinion and that reading further will only annoy you. However, I feel strongly compelled to answer Box's comparison.

There are key differences between the examples you list and a fertilized ovum. The most significant is that it's not the same person as the mother. One's hair, one's blood, one's mucus and fingernails and sloughed skin cells are all part of the same person. They have the same DNA and are part of the same organism.

A fertilized ovum (or embryo, or fetus, or baby) is not the same person. It has its own DNA and is not genetically anyone but itself. While it develops within a woman's body, it is not its mother; it is itself, distinct from her on the most basic genetic level. The nature of gestation requires it to be nourished and protected by the mother until it reaches an appropriate age and level of growth, but it is not the same person.

This is supported as well by the question of potential. My hair, skin, mucus, and blood will not eventually develop the ability to support themselves in an external environment. They do not inherently have the ability to become complete human beings, and barring quite extreme levels of technological intervention in the form of cloning, they never will. A fertilized ovum, on the other hand, is genetically a seperate human being and all of its functions in growth and development are geared toward the eventual physical seperation that this implies. It would be impossible to force it to remain part of its mother, and of course its very nature as a seperate human being is what leads to a desire to abort it. If it wasn't going at some point to come out and live its own life, it would not be nearly the problem it is.

Finally, removal of a fertilized ovum from the body does something quite different from removing blood, hair, mucus, or even limbs. It permanently destroys a genetically distinct entity. When my hair or blood or skin cells die, the genetic entity - the person - who made them continues to live. There is no death of the individual as a whole; the organism continues to exist as the same organism it was before these losses. When a fertilized egg (or embryo, or fetus, or baby) is remove from the womb and destroyed, a genetically distinct individual is permanently destroyed.

Didn't think I was likely to convince anyone. Just felt the need to offer the opposing view.

Shanglan

I note what you say but would ask this question. Has any man who has ever lived either the experience or potential experience to either fully understand or tell a woman, any woman what to do with her body.

I am not taking a position on the issue and question the right or qualification of any male to do so .

 

[BlackShanglan]

I note what you say but would ask this question. Has any man who has ever lived either the experience or potential experience to either fully understand or tell a woman, any woman what to do with her body.

I am not taking a position on the issue and question the right or qualification of any male to do so .

Given the genderless nature of my chosen interaction in this forum, I can't answer the question of male vs. female experience in any meaningful way. I shan't be flip and make comments about horses comprehending humans. Rather, I will return to my comments above. If it was only the body of one individual that was involved, this would be a very different question. I strongly support individual choice in many areas that involve only one person. When, however, the situation involves two individuals, I feel that it is necessary to consider the rights of both.

This is also why I feel that others have a reason to comment upon the situation. It's the presence of another living person that creates that reason. Another living person has rights, and the question is therefore no longer one of personal individual choice. There are two people involved, not one. When one believes that a fetus is a human being, then suggesting that aborting it should be a matter of individual choice is something like suggesting that slavery should be a matter of individual choice - the similarity being that we resist slavery not because we wish to curtail the freedoms of the slave-owner, but because we wish to uphold the freedoms of the other person involved, the slave. Similarly, if one believes a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus, or baby to be a human being, I don't see that one has any real choice but to uphold its rights. It's true that, as with slavery, the results of granting rights to that other person may be extremely painful to others, and in this case to others for whom one has a great deal of sympathy. I don't wish to deny that. However, if one accepts that another living human being is involved, the morally and ethically correct answer cannot be to kill it unless it's in immediate danger (however unwittingly) of killing someone else.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

I don't see babies as sacred miracles. Unless there are reproductive challenges involved, anyone can have a baby or 5. That's what animals do. If I don't believe that every kitten, every caterpillar, every ant that's born is a sacred miracle, I can't apply that view to humans either. We're just animals reproducing on the earth because we're programmed that way. It's not a moral issue; it's not a miracle; it's not rare.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pro-Life people and Pr-Choice people will never be able to come to more than a limited agreement because they are debating on a different basis. Pro-Choicers say that a woman has a right to an abortion and she needs no reason except that she wants one. I am one of those, by the way. Pro-Lifers contend that a fertilized egg, from the second it becomes fertilized through all the stages of develolpment, is a person with the rights of a person. Some contend that any act that deliberately kills that person is murder, from the "morning after pill" to a partial-birth abortion. Some would grudgingly allow an abortion in very limited circumstances.

Most Pro-Choicers contend that the fertilized egg is not a person until the birth occurs, although some regard a fetus in an advanced stage of development, generally the third trimester, to be enough of a person to have certain rights.

That's why there will never be much agreement between the two sides. If a woman, who is two months pregnant by her husband or boy friend, wantsw an abortion, one side says she has every right to get rid of an unwanted fetus. The other side says "She wants to murder her baby! Stop her!"

I don't think there is anybody who would call themselves "Pro-Abortion". I think even Pro-Choice militants consider an abortion to be sometimes the least bad of several bad choices.

Having said all that, I woud like to point out that the passage of mine that Shang quoted about fertilized ova was actually about ova that had been fertilized in-vitro. That is to say, the fertilized ova had never been inside a woman although, of course, a woman had provided the eggs in the first place and a man had provided the sperm. I understand the usual procedure is to harvest several of a woman's eggs and fertilize them and nurture them all. The healthiest one is then implanted in the woman's womb and the others are frozen, with the woman and sometimes the man, owning the frozen fertilized eggs. If the procedure results in the normal birth of a healthy baby, the owners may decide to dispose of the remaining eggs and this would be done by throwing them into the garbage or flushing them down a toilet. However, a better way would be by donating the ova for stem cell research and that's what the discussion was about in the first place. I was contending that stem cell research was moral and right and Amicus was disagreeing, on the grounds that the fertilized ova were human life.

 

[rgraham666]

My understanding is that 2/3rds of fertilised human ova do not come to term under even the most 'natural' conditions. What does that say about human life?

LadyJ, life is only common, so far as we know, here on this tiny dustball. In terms of the universe at large, life is rarer than platinum and diamonds.

I'm one of the people who regards abortion as a last resort. There are so many ways to avoid having children that abortion should only be used when all else has failed. Unfortunately, people being what they are, they often don't prepare and abortion is too often all that is left.

In nature, species have a tendency to overpopulation, and then that overpopulation is curbed by methods quite horrible; disease, hunger and violence. We humans are lucky we can avoid these methods, if we wish.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm one of the people who regards abortion as a last resort. There are so many ways to avoid having children that abortion should only be used when all else has failed. Unfortunately, people being what they are, they often don't prepare and abortion is too often all that is left.

In nature, species have a tendency to overpopulation, and then that overpopulation is curbed by methods quite horrible; disease, hunger and violence. We humans are lucky we can avoid these methods, if we wish.

I am strongly pro-choice but I have to agree with you about abortion being a poor method of birth control. I don't know the guy's name, but I think it wqas one of Clinton's cabinet who said something like: "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." Sometimes, though, the pill doesn't work or a condom leaks or something else goes wrong and a girl or woman is faced with a decision to make and all of the choices are negatives. That's when she needs friends, not people cursing at her and calling her "Baby-Killer".

 

[rgraham666]

That's when she needs friends, not people cursing at her and calling her "Baby-Killer".

Indeed. And nobody should do such a thing, even to a stranger, when I'm around. I don't like cruelty and that's what you describe here, Box. Utter cruelty.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't see babies as sacred miracles. Unless there are reproductive challenges involved, anyone can have a baby or 5. That's what animals do. If I don't believe that every kitten, every caterpillar, every ant that's born is a sacred miracle, I can't apply that view to humans either. We're just animals reproducing on the earth because we're programmed that way. It's not a moral issue; it's not a miracle; it's not rare.

I don't think that there is anything miraculous about human birth - as you note, we do it all of the time. However, our laws and morals systems do grant humans certain rights, including the right to live. I don't think a human being needs to be a miracle in order to be granted the right to live.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Pro-Life people <...> Some contend that any act that deliberately kills that person is murder, from the "morning after pill" to a partial-birth abortion. Some would grudgingly allow an abortion in very limited circumstances.

Just a note to observe that the last two positions can be held together. I believe that human life begins at conception. I also believe that it's a legitimate although extremely painful choice to kill another human being if s/he is threatening your life - even unwittingly.

I agree that the most common ground of disagreement is the question of when life begins, and that that doesn't seem an area on which the opposing camps are likely to reconcile. I have, however, met at least one person who stated that fetus is a a human being, but that he didn't see any problem in killing it. I can understand the former position (fetus is not a human); that is, I understand that people do believe that, although I find the arguments in favor of that theory unconvincing, and I see how that approach fits together given that assumption. However, the latter I find rather chilling.

Having said all that, I woud like to point out that the passage of mine that Shang quoted about fertilized ova was actually about ova that had been fertilized in-vitro. That is to say, the fertilized ova had never been inside a woman although, of course, a woman had provided the eggs in the first place and a man had provided the sperm. I understand the usual procedure is to harvest several of a woman's eggs and fertilize them and nurture them all. The healthiest one is then implanted in the woman's womb and the others are frozen, with the woman and sometimes the man, owning the frozen fertilized eggs. If the procedure results in the normal birth of a healthy baby, the owners may decide to dispose of the remaining eggs and this would be done by throwing them into the garbage or flushing them down a toilet. However, a better way would be by donating the ova for stem cell research and that's what the discussion was about in the first place. I was contending that stem cell research was moral and right and Amicus was disagreeing, on the grounds that the fertilized ova were human life.

Yes, and I think you've explained well why people and groups who believe that life begins at conception also tend to oppose stem cell research, and why some also oppose in virto fertilization techniques. All rely on the frequent creation and destruction of human life.

Shanglan

 

[cloudy]

Shanglan,

I don't have any problem with your stance, in theory.

I would like to see abortion become rarer, I'll agree. Where I have a problem with the whole "no abortion unless the mother is at risk" thing begins here: who is going to take care of all these children?

I don't think it should be used as a method of birth control, of course not. But then, I don't think there's very many women who contemplate an abortion with any sort of flippant attitude, either. It's a huge step to take, and many times, the only option they have.

If all the children are born that otherwise wouldn't be, who will take care of them? The welfare system is already groaning with it's size. There are women whose entire life would change because of failed birth control. I know, I was one of them. I promise, at 15 I was in no position to raise a child. So, who would raise these children?

Just something to consider.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Cloudy -

I agree that it's a serious problem to have large numbers of unwanted children, and that many problems result from this situation. I don't deny it. However, I don't believe that human beings should be killed for pragmatic cost/benefit reasons - i.e., because it would be expensive or difficult to arrange a system to keep them alive.

I do understand that no everyone believes that life begins at conception. However, I hope you can see that to someone who believes that abortion involves killing a living human being, pragmatic concerns - expense of raising and feeding children, for example - have to be seen in quite a different light. Aborting children because they would be an expense upon the state then is no more valid than killing anyone else who might create expenses and problems for the state.

Shanglan

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy -

I agree that it's a serious problem to have large numbers of unwanted children, and that many problems result from this situation. I don't deny it. However, I don't believe that human beings should be killed for pragmatic cost/benefit reasons - i.e., because it would be expensive or difficult to arrange a system to keep them alive.

I do understand that no everyone believes that life begins at conception. However, I hope you can see that to someone who believes that abortion involves killing a living human being, pragmatic concerns - expense of raising and feeding children, for example - have to be seen in quite a different light. Aborting children because they would be an expense upon the state then is no more valid than killing anyone else who might create expenses and problems for the state.

Shanglan

I agree - treating it simply as a cost issue is way too simplistic. I do think, however, that the majority of people (not you) who are rabid right-to-lifers don't propose any solution for the results of a no abortion stance, namely, what happens to the children. It's rather like young women who fantasize about a huge wedding, but see nothing beyond the wedding day.

A huge surge in birthrates leads to numerous other issues: welfare, healthcare, fostercare, etc.

Saying "no abortions" isn't the end of the issue, not by any means.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree - treating it simply as a cost issue is way too simplistic. I do think, however, that the majority of people (not you) who are rabid right-to-lifers don't propose any solution for the results of a no abortion stance, namely, what happens to the children. It's rather like young women who fantasize about a huge wedding, but see nothing beyond the wedding day.

A huge surge in birthrates leads to numerous other issues: welfare, healthcare, fostercare, etc.

Saying "no abortions" isn't the end of the issue, not by any means.

Agreed. But then, saying "no" to Pol Pot's plan to reduce population by rather more radical measures - poisoning wells, shooting people from villages he didn't like, etc. - was not the end of the issue either. I do agree that removing abortion as an option would work best with a strong and well-planned solution for the raising of children. However, I don't think that that invalidates opposition based on the essential right of human beings to live, whether it's accompanied with a funding plan or not. This is because our constitution and our mainstream moral codes do not require a person's life to be funded in order to be preserved.

To draw a comparison, there are costs involved in denying hospitals or states the right to involuntarily euthanize children or adults deemed to be incapable of functioning independently in the workforce, whether for physical or mental reasons. However, we tend not to tally the costs and demand a plan for dealing with them before we agree not to euthanize these persons. Because they are visibly recognizable as distinct persons and because only a lunatic fringe has openly stated that they feel they should be denied existance, we accept their right to life axiomatically and we don't make that right contingent upon someone presenting a strong plan for funding their care.

I would suggest that while it's certainly necessary from a practical stance to plan for the support and care of children whose mothers cannot raise them - and the mentally ill, and the terminally ill, and the physically disadvantaged or permanently incapacitated - from a moral standpoint, these costs cannot be taken as an argument against respecting a human's right to life unless that cost itself is so immense as to immediately deprive other humans of their right to life. We all hope that we are never in the dreaded hypothetical situation where we have to choose between two dying people and only save one, and I certainly don't believe that this is the case in the United States at this time. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, and there is no reason why we cannot support children who need care and sustenance.

And one good word for my aunt. She actually worked at an agency that did just that - gave financial, logistical, and emotional support to women carrying children who placed an unusual strain on them or their resources. She had one client who was carrying to term the child of a man who had raped her. I was deeply impressed and inspired by her courage and strength.

 

[amicus]

Lady Jeane and Rgraham just don't get it..but Shanglan and Cloudy, what a wonderful and marvelous and open approach you have taken.

Homosapiens, the rational animal, is the only sentient (self aware) species in the universe, (that we know of.)

At the instant of conception, a totally new and unique human life form is created. It caries the genes and DNA and chromosomes and whatever, of the parents, the grand parents and a genetic line that goes back to homo erectus, not thousands, but millions of years ago.

Life can be cheap, as it still is in many parts of the world, even today. Life can be wasted and squandered and abused and misused, as it is, still today.

Our entire western civilizations concept of the value of the individual human life rests upon our acknowledgement that, 'life' is the basic and fundamental value that precedes all others.

Medical science gave us the means to perform a D&C, Science also gave us atomic theory and the means to destroy or create. The choice is ours.

We will, eventually, make the right choice; but as in all things, it will not be without pain.

amicus...

 

[LadyJeanne]

We will, eventually, make the right choice; but as in all things, it will not be without pain.

amicus...

It's good to have a vision. It's the reality that's the bitch.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's good to have a vision. It's the reality that's the bitch.

Agreed. But then, any moral code or set of values is relatively easy to hold to until it becomes more pragmatic to do otherwise. So long as what is right is also what is expedient, there's no real difficulty. It is when we find that discarding ethical qualms makes our path to our goals smoother and shorter that we really test the principles that guide us.