Attempt At A Mutually Respectful Abortion Discussion

[Abrosz]

Why do you hope it will be rare?

Because it is usually a traumatic procedure, and also “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.” As far as I can ascertain, no woman ever decided to get pregnant just so she can have an abortion.

Am I correct in concluding you are not Catholic?

Yes, correct.

Fyi, I was brought up atheist, Democrat, and pro-abortion.

Well our immediate family was somewhat Protestant, while the grandparents were Catholic. Actually, my father was Protestant, and my mother was Catholic. Both the “lukewarm” variety. But since she married a Protestant, she was told that she is not welcome in the church any more. I don’t know if it was a formal excommunication, but it still hurt.

We were not habitual churchgoers. Abortion was never a topic. My first problem was the nightly prayers for others. Especially for my brother. We had a good relationship, but once in a while I was angry at him, for some stupid, childish reason. Nevertheless I HAD to include him in my prayers. Being quite young I did not know the word “hypocrisy”, but I felt the concept, and even at a young are I was repulsed by it. But I still was “Sunday Christian” until I started to think for myself, and concluded that the world is in irreconcilable contradiction with the idea of a benevolent, loving deity. That is it in a nutshell.

 

[Abrosz]

I realize that this quote was taken from a different thread, but must one really submit to the idea that zygotes, blastocyst, embryo, fetus are “fundamentally” different from children for a respectful discussion to occur? It can be argued that they are not fundamentally different at all, only what Aquinas would call accidentally different while they are essentially the same, a human being.

Is it possible to have a mutually respectful discussion while having such vastly different views on the nature of human development?

I can hope. I am also willing to elaborate on the concept of “fundamentally different”, if you are interested.

 

[Abrosz]

The medical student and brain surgeon are more similar (both human, both adults, both with science background, both etc etc) than they are different (one can practice medicine, other can’t).

In which case the above definition “ fundamentally different” just means “ some difference”

How do we differentiate between superficial and fundamental difference? Of course I agree that they PROBABLY both belong to the race of homo sapiens, but not necessarily so. One can be a mutant. But that is “speciesism” and that is just a useless differentiation - quite like racial nomenclature.

The difference is enormous when it comes to their interpersonal relationship. Just consider: a medical student right before she can practice has the exact same knowledge as she will have when she receives her diploma. And yet, she is not allowed to practice and for good reason.

 

[EmmaSowl]

EmmaSowl:

Why do you hope it will be rare?

Because it is usually a traumatic procedure, and also “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.” As far as I can ascertain, no woman ever decided to get pregnant just so she can have an abortion.

What is traumatic about it as opposed to other medical procedures?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Then you are welcome to stay away. I present the argument based upon Biology 101. Science is not interested in “respect”.

Please, enlighten me as to the significant, non-arbitrary difference between the child inside and outside the uterus. Then, tell me why that line is something that is sufficient to strip a biological homo sapiens of their personhood.

 

[stpurl]

I concur; I mean really how ‘fundamentally different’ are those categories from each other and from a child just after birth? Furthermore how much is a child at birth different from a 3 year old? How much different is the 3 year old from a 16 year old? The 16 year old from a 50 year old? The 50 year old from a 90 year old?

A child’s brain grows the most between ages birth and 3.
People will mature physically by around age 20 and then start to ‘fail’.
After age 80, temporal wasting and loss of adipose is usually heavy.

Many psychotic diseases do not manifest until the patient is a teen, a young adult, even an elderly adult in some cases.

There are so many variables and differences between male and female, between those in the first world and the third world, diseases or conditions that in one could be corrected fully for pennies and in the other ensure starvation, isolation, and death.

But one thing is sure: Once a HUMAN ZYGOTE has formed in a woman’s womb, and assuming that no external or internal forces interfere with the pregnancy, the being who will be born will be a human being. Not any other kind of being.

It is only TIME which makes a difference between a zygote and a born child. And that amount of time, 9 months, is only a quarter of the time that a 3 year old would experience in his or her explosion of brain development. That amount of time between a 15 and a 16 year old is simply unnoticeable; look at the two students in any given sophomore or junior class who are separated by that time between their dates of birth!

This whole idea that we can even try to imagine a moral neutral, let alone acceptable ‘OK”, to killing children in the womb based on where they happen to be developmentally speaking in their stage of life is appalling.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Obviously you are entitled to your views. However, if you think abortion is murder (in a legal sense), why only a fine? Murder would require a term of imprisonment or even the death penalty. Are you willing to go that far?

The punishments don’t have to be proportionate.

 

[ontheway1]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as "a member of the species Homo sapiens , at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[Ender]

…(zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus) are fundamentally different from “children”.
I present the argument based upon Biology 101.

What is the fundamental biological difference?

 

[Abrosz]

What is traumatic about it as opposed to other medical procedures?

That is not for me answer. I never had one. But many women reported it, and it makes sense. However we need to define what we mean by the generic term of abortion. Does it include the morning-after pill? Or other abortifacient drugs which just force the zygote out of the uterus, just like any other menstrual cycle?

These are very different from a curettage in the fourth month.

 

[Abrosz]

Please, enlighten me as to the significant, non-arbitrary difference between the child inside and outside the uterus.

The act of birth and the severing of the umbilical cord make the fetus a biologically independent entity.
Personhood is the result of a sufficiently developed brain / mind complex.

 

[Abrosz]

What is the fundamental biological difference?

It is both quantitative and qualitative. One example is the development of the brain. There are others.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The act of birth and the severing of the umbilical cord make the fetus a biologically independent entity.

So the separate DNA, movement, organs, etc. don’t mean anything? Being attached to their mother makes them part of the same being? What about siamese twins? Are they two or one person?

Personhood is the result of a sufficiently developed brain / mind complex.

How is this not an arbitrary line? What about those who aren’t inside the womb that don’t fit your personhood standard? What happens to them? And why is mental development the deciding factor for humanity?

Again, how can someone of the homo sapiens species not be a person?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Personhood is the result of a sufficiently developed brain / mind complex.

That’s a made up requirement.

The act of birth and the severing of the umbilical cord make the fetus a biologically independent entity.

I don’t see why independency changes anything.

 

[Abrosz]

So the separate DNA, movement, organs, etc. don’t mean anything? Being attached to their mother makes them part of the same being?

No, it makes them to be in a parasitic / symbiotic relationship.

How is this not an arbitrary line? What about those who aren’t inside the womb that don’t fit your personhood standard?

Who are they?

Again, how can someone of the homo sapiens species not be a person?

Anyone who is in a persistent vegetative state. And what about the mutants,who are unable to procreate with other members of the species?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

No, it makes them to be in a parasitic / symbiotic relationship.

Hey, I’ve seen this one before!

“This group of homo sapiens is a parasite on insert preferred thing here so they’re not humans.”

Anyone who is in a persistent vegetative state. And what about the mutants,who are unable to procreate with other members of the species?

Can you be my lawyer once I go shoot the coma patients at my local hospital? I’ll get accused of murder, but obviously, those in vegetative states aren’t humans, so…

 

[Ender]

It is both quantitative and qualitative. One example is the development of the brain. There are others.

What I’m looking for is the fundamental difference that justifies labeling one entity as human, and the other as not.

 

[Abrosz]

That’s a made up requirement.

How so? To quote Forrest Gump: “a person is as a person does.”

I don’t see why independency changes anything.

A parasite or another symbiotic entity are not considered “human” beings.

 

[Abrosz]

What I’m looking for is the fundamental difference that justifies labeling one entity as human, and the other as not.

The activity of the brain, otherwise called a “mind”. A freshly deceased corpse is a “dead human”.

 

[Ender]

The activity of the brain, otherwise called a “mind”. A freshly deceased corpse is a “dead human”.

OK, that is a fundamental, biological distinction. Now, provide one that is relevant to the discussion, which allows for biologically distinguishing a child just before birth from one just after birth.