Abortion due to gender.

[RobnBobA1]

There is such a thing as not only unwanted children but also very real and different but unwanted pregnancies, where the pregnancy itself is unwanted, not necessarily the child, but the very real feelings that some women have that the gestation itself is violating on the same level as a rape would be to them. And my argument for the waiting list of adoptive parents, why not try to adopt any one of the 520,000 children in foster care alone? Granted they are older children, oft times with mental challenges and behavior challenges. I cannot remember the exact number but in 2008 about 37% of children in foster care “aged” out, meaning that they were bounced from foster homoe to foster home throughout their lives until the point of becoming an adult. Why not adopt those children instead of trying to adopt white male babies (the most wanted child in adoption cases)

 

[ac_claire]

There is such a thing as not only unwanted children but also very real and different but unwanted pregnancies, where the pregnancy itself is unwanted, not necessarily the child, but the very real feelings that some women have that the gestation itself is violating on the same level as a rape would be to them.

This *may *be true in some very rare cases. But even in those cases, how does this justify it being ok to kill the baby?

 

[mark_a]

How does that coorelate with a man having some sort of say in the legal choice? I’m confused at what you were originally asking when you meant lawful duty. Can you explain a little more what you were talking or thinking about pertaining to lawful duty when it comes to the father having a say in medical choice?

You said you thought it was a moral duty for woman to discuss a possible abortion with the father. I’m asking if you would approve of a lawful duty to consult the father.

As an example, some states require notification to the parents of a minor who seeks an abortion (if there are any states that still have this requirement).

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RobnBobA1]

You said you thought it was a moral duty for woman to discuss a possible abortion with the father. I’m asking if you would approve of a lawful duty to consult the father.

As an example, some states require notification to the parents of a minor who seeks an abortion (if there are any states that still have this requirement).

Sorry for the confusion.

There is a difference between a lawful duty to notify the father of the embryo/fetus and notifying parents of a minor child who is pregnant. The problem that I have with the parental consent is not necessarily because of abortion, but the premise behind it, that parents need to consent to a minor to get an abortion since it is a medical procedure with risks, but the reverse is not true…with pregnancy and childbirth which is also a medical procedure (or rather condition) that has real medical risks. To me it is abhorant to force ANY medical procedure on an unwilling patient, to include abortion AND forced gestation or childbirth. This present some of its own problems yes, in which parents could coerce their minor daughter to have an abortion, and I have no quite been able to figure out a solution for said issue.

There was a legislation that was brought up in ohio a year or two ago in which a woman (full grown and in charge of her own physical health and medical decision) was mandated to have written permission by the father to have an abortion, or if the father was unknown submit a list of potential fathers names for the government to track down and do DNA tests on to discover the father. If she was raped a police report and hosptial report must be submitted to prove said rape. While many prolifers above may have no problem with violating a woman’s right to choose her own medical care and treatments that affect her physical body alone (it does not effect the fathers body in the least - we are not discussing the fetal body in this situation since the fetus is not making any medical decisions that can override its host’s body) if it pertains to forcing gestation and childbirth I am many many others have a problem with that fundamental issue. Another person deciding MY medical decisions for me, without them having proper medical proxy or permission and when I am in full mental capacity to make that decision. In the case of rape, rape is vastly underreported. Most people think that rape is still mostly stranger rape…the whole dark alley situation, when the fact is most rape is acquantence rape, where it may be a co-worker, a friend, a family member, your neighbor, a boyfriend, your child’s teacher etc. Alot of rape is through coersion where no direct physical threat is present, therefor the woman does not think that anyone will really take her serious or that it wasn’t really rape, therefor will not report it, or will only report it if other physical consequences occur, such as disease or pregnancy, thus they are denied proper medical care under this law or in the position where they need the rapists permission to have an abortion. This is one main reason why I disagree wholeheartedly with the mother having a legal duty to have the fathers permission to decide her own medical decision. In realty the government cannot legislate a conversation, or a discussion where two parties can talk about each feeling.

Should even there be a way for a legal duty to discuss with the father, this can have some negative effects that the prolife side will argue…that the man may talk her into an abortion if she is childbirth minded, thus forcing her hand in some way.

 

[jilly4ski]

To me it is abhorant to force ANY medical procedure on an unwilling patient, to include abortion AND forced gestation or childbirth.

I am sorry, but I cannot view gestation or childbirth as a medical procedure. It is a natural state of being for a woman not a procedure. Pre-natal care has many medical procedures, or a c-section is a medical procedure, but natural childbirth and gestation are not medical Procedures. Women are made to carry and birth children. Medical procedures do not do this to women.

 

[Persuader]

I actually wrote a bioethics paper touching on some of these issues last semester. When it comes to the legal aspects, a viable ex utero infant is legally protected. I suggest this paper for some general observations about fetus consciousness: journals.lww.com/pedresearch/Fulltext/2009/03000/The_Emergence_of_Human_Consciousness__From_Fetal.1.aspx

In this paper, it is concluded that a newborn infant seems to have basic or minimal consciousness. You can read the fairly short paper (and access references) for clarifications of what that means.

It is certainly true that it is normal to include consciousness or the capability of consciousness in a definition of what it means to be a person (philosophically and scientifically). This is separate from the notion of legal personhood, although you could argue for legal personhood with philosophical and scientific arguments. In my own country, these questions have been discussed in relation to law proposals to change abortion limits. We have a system that is different from the US, I think (not sure what is the case in the US). Abortions after 18 weeks are only granted if you have a very good reason, and you need to apply to a group of experts to get an abortion permitted at this time. When pregnancy has reached the time where the fetus could be viable ex utero (22-23 weeks), abortion is not permitted except if the women’s life is in danger. There has been some debate to change these limits (relax them) based on discussions on consciousness and ability to experience pain, but it doesn’t look likely since people are generally satisfied.

In relation to this, there has also been some discussion on whether or not a chimp (for instance) is a person. I would think it rather obvious that a machine with strong AI can be a person. If AI is achieved, it could even be argued to be more valuable than a human being. Just consider that we see ourselves as having more value than a chimp (intellectually) because of what we view as significant differences in intelligence and consciousness. If, for instance, a computer is able to simulate a human brain, it seems inevitable that it will surpass us. There is currently a few interesting and serious projects that is attempting brain simulation: youtube.com/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU

Even if killing animals - with mental capabilities comparable to late-term fetuses - is allowed in some cases, it doesn’t necessarily mean we kill those animals frivolously. Running around killing animals without good reason is evil IMO. Killing a fetus because it is not of the preferred sex, seems like a frivolous reason. Unless you have some special problem with male children, I think any minor dislike of male children will be overridden by natural instincts and other situational factors. It isn’t like humans are very good at predicting what makes them happy anyway.

 

[Silyosha]

This is a pretty common argument, as one poster said…claiming that one’s problem is somehow “different” and therefore deserving of special attention. This woman may indeed be depressed about the situation. But I still think it is sick.

 

[mark_a]

There is a difference between a lawful duty to notify the father of the embryo/fetus and notifying parents of a minor child who is pregnant. The problem that I have with the parental consent is not necessarily because of abortion, but the premise behind it, that parents need to consent to a minor to get an abortion since it is a medical procedure with risks, but the reverse is not true…with pregnancy and childbirth which is also a medical procedure (or rather condition) that has real medical risks. To me it is abhorant to force ANY medical procedure on an unwilling patient, to include abortion AND forced gestation or childbirth. This present some of its own problems yes, in which parents could coerce their minor daughter to have an abortion, and I have no quite been able to figure out a solution for said issue.

There was a legislation that was brought up in ohio a year or two ago in which a woman (full grown and in charge of her own physical health and medical decision) was mandated to have written permission by the father to have an abortion, or if the father was unknown submit a list of potential fathers names for the government to track down and do DNA tests on to discover the father. If she was raped a police report and hosptial report must be submitted to prove said rape. While many prolifers above may have no problem with violating a woman’s right to choose her own medical care and treatments that affect her physical body alone (it does not effect the fathers body in the least - we are not discussing the fetal body in this situation since the fetus is not making any medical decisions that can override its host’s body) if it pertains to forcing gestation and childbirth I am many many others have a problem with that fundamental issue. Another person deciding MY medical decisions for me, without them having proper medical proxy or permission and when I am in full mental capacity to make that decision. In the case of rape, rape is vastly underreported. Most people think that rape is still mostly stranger rape…the whole dark alley situation, when the fact is most rape is acquantence rape, where it may be a co-worker, a friend, a family member, your neighbor, a boyfriend, your child’s teacher etc. Alot of rape is through coersion where no direct physical threat is present, therefor the woman does not think that anyone will really take her serious or that it wasn’t really rape, therefor will not report it, or will only report it if other physical consequences occur, such as disease or pregnancy, thus they are denied proper medical care under this law or in the position where they need the rapists permission to have an abortion. This is one main reason why I disagree wholeheartedly with the mother having a legal duty to have the fathers permission to decide her own medical decision. In realty the government cannot legislate a conversation, or a discussion where two parties can talk about each feeling.

Should even there be a way for a legal duty to discuss with the father, this can have some negative effects that the prolife side will argue…that the man may talk her into an abortion if she is childbirth minded, thus forcing her hand in some way.

I can tell you put a lot of thought into your reply, but I’m still fuzzy on the answer. Was it “no”?

 

[flyingfish]

I suggest this paper for some general observations about fetus consciousness: journals.lww.com/pedresearch/Fulltext/2009/03000/The_Emergence_of_Human_Consciousness__From_Fetal.1.aspx

I read that paper, as well as some additional ones online. The main problem I have with it, is that why should that kind of minimal level of consciousness be any more valuable than the basic responses of an embryo. The idea of self awareness seems to be more clear cut to me, and it makes more sense to define personhood there. I have a hard time calling anything that isn’t aware of its own existence a person, how can it be a person when it doesn’t even know it exists?

In relation to this, there has also been some discussion on whether or not a chimp (for instance) is a person. I would think it rather obvious that a machine with strong AI can be a person. If AI is achieved, it could even be argued to be more valuable than a human being.

I would agree with this.

Even if killing animals - with mental capabilities comparable to late-term fetuses - is allowed in some cases, it doesn’t necessarily mean we kill those animals frivolously. Running around killing animals without good reason is evil IMO. Killing a fetus because it is not of the preferred sex, seems like a frivolous reason. Unless you have some special problem with male children, I think any minor dislike of male children will be overridden by natural instincts and other situational factors. It isn’t like humans are very good at predicting what makes them happy anyway.

Is it a frivolous reason? I don’t know. Personally I wouldn’t want to raise a male child period. I know it sounds really bad, and I don’t like that I feel this way, but I simply can’t help it. I imagine myself having a male child, and I just can’t think of myself wanting to spend any time with him or invest resources in him. Who knows why I feel this way. Not spending 9 months incapacitated by pregnancy, and going through with the risks of pregnancy is not a frivolous reason in my opinion. If I considered this a frivolous reason, I couldn’t justify eating steak, because eating steak is not necessary at all and one could make due with a vegetarian diet.

 

[kage_ar]

You have a severe medical condition that will put you on strict bed rest for 9 months of pregnancy? If not, then, you will not be incapacitated by pregnancy.

 

[jilly4ski]

I read that paper, as well as some additional ones online. The main problem I have with it, is that why should that kind of minimal level of consciousness be any more valuable than the basic responses of an embryo. The idea of self awareness seems to be more clear cut to me, and it makes more sense to define personhood there. I have a hard time calling anything that isn’t aware of its own existence a person, how can it be a person when it doesn’t even know it exists?

I ask, how do you define “self awareness”? How do you test for it?

Science cannot determine is an unborn, newborn, 1 year old, or even a 13 year old is completely “self aware.” As I explained before, this cannot be the test for personhood, because in the real world we cannot determine when this happens, therefore it cannot be used to determine when we can morally kill a member of the human species.

 

[flyingfish]

You have a severe medical condition that will put you on strict bed rest for 9 months of pregnancy? If not, then, you will not be incapacitated by pregnancy.

You can be incapacitated without being extremely incapacitated. Throwing up and feeling sick, the depression/post partum issues, the possibility of gestational diabetes, incontinence and whatever else are incapacitating enough.

 

[kage_ar]

You can be incapacitated without being extremely incapacitated. Throwing up and feeling sick, the depression/post partum issues, the possibility of gestational diabetes, incontinence and whatever else are incapacitating enough.

The award for the most overdramatic and exaggeration in posting goes to…

 

[flyingfish]

I ask, how do you define “self awareness”? How do you test for it?

Science cannot determine is an unborn, newborn, 1 year old, or even a 13 year old is completely “self aware.” As I explained before, this cannot be the test for personhood, because in the real world we cannot determine when this happens, therefore it cannot be used to determine when we can morally kill a member of the human species.

If you want to be really skeptical you might as well say that you can’t even determine that anyone other than you has consciousness.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a neuroscientist or a psychologist so I don’t know what they use to test for self awareness. Recognition of self in a mirror is one I’ve heard of, and as far as I know babies recognize themselves in a mirror at about 18 months. You might compile data about people’s earliest memories of themselves, my own first memories are from about the age of 2. Before that it is 100% blank, and so I’d be inclined to say I didn’t exist at that time.

The reason why I’m not worried about being unable to determine the exact instant of the onset of consciousness is that it begins in slow stages, and if you miss it by a little bit you’d be missing something very basic that is only the beginnings of a person, not an individual with hopes and dreams etc.

 

[jilly4ski]

If you want to be really skeptical you might as well say that you can’t even determine that anyone other than you has consciousness.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a neuroscientist or a psychologist so I don’t know what they use to test for self awareness. Recognition of self in a mirror is one I’ve heard of, and as far as I know babies recognize themselves in a mirror at about 18 months. You might compile data about people’s earliest memories of themselves, my own first memories are from about the age of 2. Before that it is 100% blank, and so I’d be inclined to say I didn’t exist at that time.

The reason why I’m not worried about being unable to determine the exact instant of the onset of consciousness is that it begins in slow stages, and if you miss it by a little bit you’d be missing something very basic that is only the beginnings of a person, not an individual with hopes and dreams etc.

So by how much can we miss this “milestone” by? It’s ok to kill a homo sapien just before they can recognize themselves, but not after? When is this? You say 18 months, but nobody knows that for sure, babies have a limited ability to communicate, and have limited motor skill. But they know when they are hungry, tired, when they want comfort from their parents, and a number of other things. Their long term memory is still developing as well. They “supposedly” achieve object permanence around 6 months give or take. That is when they know things that disappear still exist. (they will look for things that get hidden behind something. Why not use this standard?

The problem here, is that all babies will develop into a being with self awareness. Everything needed to be a adult with “consciousness” or “self awareness” is present in babies. They just need to develop.

They are a member of the human species, as much as you, our elders, and disabled members and everyone. They are not animals, plant, fungi, or mineral. They have human DNA, are alive (meaning growing, brain function, heartbeat(aka cardio-vascular function) and at a very young gestational age, have all of the organs (including the brain) that an adult member of the species has.

So it would have been fine if your mother or father killed you before the first memory you remember? This is a ridiculous standard, because it has been studied that newborns and even babies in the womb** Remember** the sound of their parents voice. Shouldn’t this count as memories? Just because you can’t remember them now, just means that your long term memory wasn’t very good. Can we kill seniors when they can no longer remember their past, or better yet we can kill you now, because you won’t remember your past when you get old, therefore you don’t exist.

 

[mini_me640]

FlyingFish,

Ultimately what matters is not when you think a human becomes a “person” or achieves self-awareness, or whatever. What matters is God’s law. Do you honestly believe God would approve of aborting a child for any reason, particularly because of his gender? Could you really stand before the Lord and say, “Sorry I had an abortion, but I didn’t want a boy”? Is this something you think Jesus would be okay with?

To address the issue of self-awareness, as babies have limited ability to communicate, how do we know when they become self-aware? There is no way to determine this.

Lastly, the idea that animals such as chimps or dolphins are “self-aware” and therefore potentially “persons” is not in harmony with Christianity. Humans alone are made in the image and likeness of God. This is not to say that animals are not important and don’t deserve to be treated with respect, but they do not have immortal souls and cannot be equal to human beings at any stage of development.

Remember, it’s not about what we think or feel or what a random scientist has suggested. It’s what God thinks that counts.

 

[kimmielittle]

FlyingFish,

Ultimately what matters is not when you think a human becomes a “person” or achieves self-awareness, or whatever. What matters is God’s law.

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[kimmielittle]

If you want to be really skeptical you might as well say that you can’t even determine that anyone other than you has consciousness.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a neuroscientist or a psychologist so I don’t know what they use to test for self awareness. Recognition of self in a mirror is one I’ve heard of, and as far as I know babies recognize themselves in a mirror at about 18 months. You might compile data about people’s earliest memories of themselves, my own first memories are from about the age of 2. Before that it is 100% blank, and so I’d be inclined to say I didn’t exist at that time.

The reason why I’m not worried about being unable to determine the exact instant of the onset of consciousness is that it begins in slow stages, and if you miss it by a little bit you’d be missing something very basic that is only the beginnings of a person, not an individual with hopes and dreams etc.

Hiyas

With all do respect Did you study under Mr. Peter Singer? fact-index.com/p/pe/peter_singer.html

notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2008/03/peter-singer-slippery-mind.html

owenstrachan.com/2009/07/15/peter-singers-ethics-a-strange-and-telling-story/

I ask because you seem to argue his theories on value or devalue of life

 

[flyingfish]

It’s ok to kill a homo sapien just before they can recognize themselves, but not after?

To make it clear, even if a newborn can’t recognize itself and doesn’t know it exists, I don’t think it’s “okay” to kill it. I still think killing it would be a very serious crime because f the damage it does to the parents of the baby, but I personally would prefer not to call it murder, but use another word for it. In fact there is already another word for it, infanticide. If that Wiki bit is to be believed, it’s not uncommon in human history.

So it would have been fine if your mother or father killed you before the first memory you remember? This is a ridiculous standard, because it has been studied that newborns and even babies in the womb** Remember** the sound of their parents voice. Shouldn’t this count as memories? Just because you can’t remember them now, just means that your long term memory wasn’t very good. Can we kill seniors when they can no longer remember their past, or better yet we can kill you now, because you won’t remember your past when you get old, therefore you don’t exist.

I only suggested averaging people’s first memories to try to determine the onset of consciousness in humans. I’m not saying that someone who say loses their memory later on in life wasn’t a person before then. It was just my idea for a test of self awareness, which could well be a terrible one since as I said again and again, I’m no expert in the relevant fields.

Would I have been fine if my parents killed me before my first memory? If I assume that I wasn’t self aware before my first memory, then it’s a nonsensical question in the context of what I believe. My parents wouldn’t have been able to kill me then because there was no me, if they destroyed the baby before my consciousness developed I wouldn’t have yet existed to be killed. Naturally now that I’m alive I’m glad my parents had me.

For me your example is kind of like accusing people who chose not to have children of “murdering” the children they would have had. There was no me yet, so I couldn’t have been killed.

 

[flyingfish]

Hiyas

With all do respect Did you study under Mr. Peter Singer? fact-index.com/p/pe/peter_singer.html

notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2008/03/peter-singer-slippery-mind.html

owenstrachan.com/2009/07/15/peter-singers-ethics-a-strange-and-telling-story/

I ask because you seem to argue his theories on value or devalue of life

I know very little about Peter Singer, actually what I do know about him suggests he is very pro self sacrifice and taking care of others. In the interview of his I heard he was calling people to give up a lot of unnecessary but enjoyable things like Starbucks coffee and donate that money to organizations that help the poor in the third world.

His call to charity was very extreme, and franlky very like “give up yourself and follow me”. Of course it was too much for me, and I would not be willing to make such a sacrifice.