My problem with abortion

[ACCT]

Have you studied neonatal perception at all? The wiki article should suffice on this point:

“The accepted hypothesis of the means by which pain is perceived states that it requires certain physical structures and operations. These are not formed in fetuses until 30 weeks or more. The consensus of the scientific community at this time is that only fetuses of this age or older are capable of perceiving pain.”

Let’s take the properties you’ve listed and see if there are other things in nature that have them, and whether killing them would be murder.

Properties:

1. Heart beat.
2. Brain waves.

Well, that gives us a huge domain of objects. So, apparently whenever we have an animal put down, we’re committing murder. Whenever we kill a fly, or step on an ant we’re committing murder. Whenever we hunt and kill deer, elk, pheasants, or ducks, we’re committing murder. I could continue, but I think the preceding should suffice to get the point across.

“A fisherman once told me that fish have neither sense nor sensation, but how he knew this, he could not tell me (Bertrand Russell).”

The Medical Research Council in August 2001 said that pain perception in an unborn child may be as early as 20 weeks. Other studies say that pain perception could be as early as 10 weeks. The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, said that painkillers should be used on the fetus. “This applies not just to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the fetus, but possibly also to the termination of pregnancy, especially by surgical techniques involving dismemberment.”

“…the most fervent don’t do anything to actually REDUCE UNWANTED PREGNANCY.”
Have you heard of the law of unintended consequences? By trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we have actually increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. However, contraception needs to be the subject of another thread.

 

[Perplexity]

“A fisherman once told me that fish have neither sense nor sensation, but how he knew this, he could not tell me (Bertrand Russell).”

The Medical Research Council in August 2001 said that pain perception in an unborn child may be as early as 20 weeks. Other studies say that pain perception could be as early as 10 weeks. The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, said that painkillers should be used on the fetus. “This applies not just to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the fetus, but possibly also to the termination of pregnancy, especially by surgical techniques involving dismemberment.”

“…the most fervent don’t do anything to actually REDUCE UNWANTED PREGNANCY.”
Have you heard of the law of unintended consequences? By trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we have actually increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. However, contraception needs to be the subject of another thread.

You seem to be citing Fr. Pavone’s article. He didn’t cite his sources though, and they seem difficult to find. Here’s my source.

But, my remark was directed at the OP’s claims, which included the claim that abortions generally take place before 12 weeks. So, I think we can grant what the Medical Research Council allegedly said, and infer that as far as the OP’s remarks, almost no abortion would involve fetal pain. Pavone does say some studies indicate fetal pain even earlier, but that’s about as vague a reference as they get.

 

[ACCT]

You seem to be citing Fr. Pavone’s article. He didn’t cite his sources though, and they seem difficult to find. Here’s my source.

But, my remark was directed at the OP’s claims, which included the claim that abortions generally take place before 12 weeks. So, I think we can grant what the Medical Research Council allegedly said, and infer that as far as the OP’s remarks, almost no abortion would involve fetal pain. Pavone does say some studies indicate fetal pain even earlier, but that’s about as vague a reference as they get.

Personally, the most scientific and logical argument for the life present in a mother’s womb is the following:
• When an egg is fertilized by sperm, the two gametic cells become a zygote containing a genetic code completely different from that of the mother or father.
• This zygote at that moment is in every sense of the word, “alive.” It is undergoing the necessary metabolic processes needed to sustain life.
• By removing the zygote or the cells that the zygote transforms into during embryonic growth, a human life is terminated.

 

[Perplexity]

Personally, the most scientific and logical argument for the life present in a mother’s womb is the following:
• When an egg is fertilized by sperm, the two gametic cells become a zygote containing a genetic code completely different from that of the mother or father.
• This zygote at that moment is in every sense of the word, “alive.” It is undergoing the necessary metabolic processes needed to sustain life.
• By removing the zygote or the cells that the zygote transforms into during embryonic growth, a human life is terminated.

I’m not sure I would disagree with any of this. This doesn’t strike me as an argument against abortion though. If it’s intended to be, I think we’d need to do significant work on what the phrase ‘human life’ amounts to.

For instance, in attempting to use a more comprehensible notion of ‘human life’, it seems to me ‘human life’ ought to be, at least partially, defined in terms of death. This is because death is the cessation of life, so if we get a handle on the medical definition of ‘death’, we can get a pretty good idea of what exactly is thought to be ceasing. But, obviously we couldn’t include a zygote in there since even the outdated understanding of death as ‘no heart beat’ would exclude them.

 

[ACCT]

I’m not sure I would disagree with any of this. This doesn’t strike me as an argument against abortion though. If it’s intended to be, I think we’d need to do significant work on what the phrase ‘human life’ amounts to.

For instance, in attempting to use a more comprehensible notion of ‘human life’, it seems to me ‘human life’ ought to be, at least partially, defined in terms of death. This is because death is the cessation of life, so if we get a handle on the medical definition of ‘death’, we can get a pretty good idea of what exactly is thought to be ceasing. But, obviously we couldn’t include a zygote in there since even the outdated understanding of death as ‘no heart beat’ would exclude them.

I do not know about you, but I started to exist about 9 months before I was born. I was not a possibility that “COULD become a child.” I was an actual child who had a body.

“Abortion is legalized murder.” “Life should be protected.” Abortion violates the most fundamental right, the right to life. We, as a nation, have yet to recognize that right. Just because the abortionists do not recognize the unborn as a person, does not lessen our obligation to speak out on behalf of the victims

Abortion is evil. It can never be justified. No circumstances can ever make it right. There are no compromises to abortion. The right to life is non negotiable. Nobody can practice abortion. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, even by force. We have the bible and 2000 years of the teaching of the Catholic Church to back us up. “You shall not kill” applies unequivocally to the unborn, without exceptions!

From one former zygote to another, have a great weekend!

 

[timotheos]

This doesn’t strike me as an argument against abortion though. If it’s intended to be, I think we’d need to do significant work on what the phrase ‘human life’ amounts to.

For instance, in attempting to use a more comprehensible notion of ‘human life’, it seems to me ‘human life’ ought to be, at least partially, defined in terms of death. This is because death is the cessation of life, so if we get a handle on the medical definition of ‘death’, we can get a pretty good idea of what exactly is thought to be ceasing. But, obviously we couldn’t include a zygote in there since even the outdated understanding of death as ‘no heart beat’ would exclude them.

In academia and in the courts, there has been a strong move to separate “human being” from “human person”. The implication is that legal protections apply only to human persons. And, according to some, you become a human person when you are capable of relationships.

OK, no wisecracks out there about your ex-girlfriends or boyfriends out there, either.

 

[Khalid]

It sounds like Perplexity (and maybe even the USSC) is barking up Doctor Professor Singer’s Tree.

 

[Chochy]

Yes, it is an intrinsic attack on this basic human right, and if it applies to the unborn, it necessarily applies to everyone. Once the court decides not to recognize abortion as murder, it becomes arbitrary how it then chooses to limit the definition of murder — a definition subject to convenience.

If one person can decide without consequence whether another human being may continue to exist, we then do not all live under the same transcendent set of rules, and justice is not possible. The court, the laws, and indeed the nation itself, lose the foundation upon which they were created. After thousands of years, it turns out we are no better off than Abel.

Dear Ones,

I saw a sign many, many years ago, along the side of a highway. It read, “Abortion and Euthanasia.” “How safe are you?” I’ve never forgotten that sign.

Blessings - Chochy

 

[remjsmom76]

I agree with you…its murder…and the average woman finds out shes pregnant at around 7 weeks plus…which is around the time she realizes she has missed her cycle. So by then she is carrying a living being inside of her. How can our country say that it isn’t murder when a woman kills her own child, yet will charge a murderer with double homicide if he/she kills a pregnant woman?! That’s a double standard!

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let’s do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn’t that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

 

[libbybeth]

I have read these posts with interest. I can only speak from the English point of view. Unfortunately, English law has never classified the killing of an unborn baby as murder. English law states that murder is the “unlawful killing of a person in being…”; they state that “in being” means one who has been born; therefore it is never murder to kill an unborn child even if the courts believe it to be wrong.
A while ago, however, there was one case where a person who attacked a pregnant female and caused her unborn baby to die; the judges said that this would be grounds for a charge of manslaughter of the baby, although it did not apply in the particular case.
Lastly, a week or two ago, a couple of British medical “experts” recommended the killing of born babies who were defective, along the lines of the old Roman custom of exposure.
It seems to me that ordinary people will never feel that abortion is wrong so long as the law does not uphold the humanity and life of the unborn.
I believe that our efforts to change hearts and behaviour must start with an all out assault on the way our law is structured; at the same time, we need to pray and make reparation, and to take seriously the Church’s mission to evangelise. Always speak up, and give some reason for opposition to abortion and stick to it, whether or not you have a lot of knowledge. Good luck!!

 

[jschutzm]

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let’s do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn’t that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

Let me START by saying that I totally agree and am STRONGLY Pro-Life.

But let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.

As our scientific knowledge has increased and proven that babies ARE human and alive… Pro-Choice (pro-abortion) advocates have increasingly switched their arguments AWAY from the scientific and increasingly to the subjective.

MOST will not really talk about whether or not the baby is “human” because most realize NOW that it is…thanks to science.

Most will now talk about whether or not it is a “person” - because personhood is more subjective.
Is a developing baby at 42 weeks a ‘person’ or just human DNA with a heartbeat and lower brain functions? – that’s there question.

It use to be whether or not it was ‘viable’ or could live outside the mother. Now… thanks to Science that argument also is slowly being eroded.

So the last bastion of Pro-Choicers are 2 things.

1. the completely philosophical principle that they are merely advocating ‘choice’ - pure and simple… separate from any consequences, letting the individual make that determination (how could ‘freedom’ EVER be wrong…right?)
2. That although the developing babies are ‘human’ they aren’t yet “persons” and murder only applies to killing a person and equal protection under the law only applies to ‘persons’ not ‘humans’

#1 is actually the hardest to wrestle with them over…because they will continue to advocate that they, themselves aren’t advocating abortion…just a simple idea that everyone makes decisions on their own.

---

But you are right… Science is actually on the side of Pro-Lifers and medical advances continue to erode their arguments and make them look more and more like monsters.

BUT… most have convinced themselves that they are on the side of freedom.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

does a heartbeat and brain waves make something murder? we kill animals with those traits. to be fair, peta does call it murder–they get made fun of a lot.

According to the definition of murder the answer would be; yes.

 

[hazmat]

i found no mention of brain waves or heartbeats on the page you linked.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

i found no mention of brain waves or heartbeats on the page you linked.

Oh I’m sorry I thought you would have figured it out. You see the heart and brain waves are of a human being, thus making the infant a human. Now if one human kills another for any of the reasons specified then it would be considered murder. Note that it is when one human kills another human it considered murder and not when one human kills an animal.

In short Peta is wrong; which is why people are making fun of them. The OP however isn’t wrong because the infant in the womb is a human being killed (abortion) by other humans.

 

[Chochy]

I agree with you…its murder…and the average woman finds out shes pregnant at around 7 weeks plus…which is around the time she realizes she has missed her cycle. So by then she is carrying a living being inside of her. How can our country say that it isn’t murder when a woman kills her own child, yet will charge a murderer with double homicide if he/she kills a pregnant woman?! That’s a double standard!

Dear One,

It’s very sad. The child that is wanted is the only child who receives justice. Shameful. Blessings - Chochy

 

[LostChemist]

I do not know about you, but I started to exist about 9 months before I was born. I was not a possibility that “COULD become a child.” I was an actual child who had a body.

“Abortion is legalized murder.” “Life should be protected.” Abortion violates the most fundamental right, the right to life. We, as a nation, have yet to recognize that right. Just because the abortionists do not recognize the unborn as a person, does not lessen our obligation to speak out on behalf of the victims

Abortion is evil. It can never be justified. No circumstances can ever make it right. There are no compromises to abortion. The right to life is non negotiable. Nobody can practice abortion. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, even by force. We have the bible and 2000 years of the teaching of the Catholic Church to back us up. “You shall not kill” applies unequivocally to the unborn, without exceptions!

From one former zygote to another, have a great weekend!

Are you actually serious right now? So, if a woman is about to die due to a complication in pregnancy and the only way to save her life is to abort, you would say what? Tough luck? I thought you said in your post that the right to life is non negotiable? Well, how would you deal with this situation? And I don’t man to offend but you sound like a fanatic with the phrase that it’s the states duty to protect its citizens even by force. I can tell you that not many women take the notion of abortion lightly. Do you think that they go down to the clinic three times a year to avoid pregnancy? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that there are women that decide to abort because it was an unwanted pregnancy. However, I’ve known a woman that would have died if she didn’t abort. There was also a good chance that the fetus would hae died as well. So, again I ask, how does your no tolerance stance answer this one? Those that abort will have to face their day in front of our Lord and explain themselves to Him. We have NO right to judge another. We have NO right to hate another based on actions that we don’t like or agree with. I’m not trying to vale my argument under the umbrella of tolerance. I just think that those that swing too far one way or another are not taking the time to see the grey area.

 

[Tigress]

Brain waves and heart beats, yes, but actual activity that shows any kind of “human” behavior or life in our sense of personality and thought processes doesn’t occur until later on.

Something cute is that they develop fingernails at three months, though I always thought that was cute.

 

[jschutzm]

Are you actually serious right now? So, if a woman is about to die due to a complication in pregnancy and the only way to save her life is to abort, you would say what? Tough luck? I thought you said in your post that the right to life is non negotiable? Well, how would you deal with this situation? And I don’t man to offend but you sound like a fanatic with the phrase that it’s the states duty to protect its citizens even by force. I can tell you that not many women take the notion of abortion lightly. Do you think that they go down to the clinic three times a year to avoid pregnancy? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that there are women that decide to abort because it was an unwanted pregnancy. However, I’ve known a woman that would have died if she didn’t abort. There was also a good chance that the fetus would hae died as well. So, again I ask, how does your no tolerance stance answer this one? Those that abort will have to face their day in front of our Lord and explain themselves to Him. We have NO right to judge another. We have NO right to hate another based on actions that we don’t like or agree with. I’m not trying to vale my argument under the umbrella of tolerance. I just think that those that swing too far one way or another are not taking the time to see the grey area.

For me… I think your scenario looses track of the issue. It tries too hard to make Abortion about medically saving a human life. Abortion laws were and have never been about saving a life in such a ‘lose-lose’ situation. Justifying a law that makes no mention of these sort of situations to ME is either completely misunderstanding the issue or being intellectually dishonest.

It would be like me trying to justify Abortion because of Rape. Abortion is NOT a victim’s rights bill, and the laws make no mention of rape. So bring that argument up to justify the entire law is morally wrong.

It would be like justifying a law which allows police officers to kill any suspect, at their discretion, because in some situations, lethal force is necessary.

I hear these types of justifications ALL the time. The historic and practical facts are THIS… Patients and Doctors have ALWAYS been able to make a choice between terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. That is NOT the issue.
Think about it…in centuries past, before Abortion laws… child birth was often difficult and many women died as a result. It was not illegal for a Doctor or a Mother to take actions to save the mother’s life. In the U.S. specifically… I don’t know of any case where a Doctor or a Mother was put in jail because her life was in jeopardy and they chose to terminate the pregnancy.
I could be wrong, as I am not a lawyer…but I’m fairly certain pregnancies were terminated due to medical complications PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade.

Philosophically… there is even a term for this… It is called “Principle of Double Effect” It is the same principle that allows a Police officer to kill a perpetrator to save a life or a Soldier defending his country to take the life of another combatant.

We never needed Abortion Rights to allow for this and make it a right.

And again… Roe vs. Wade or any Abortion law I’ve ever heard of, makes no mention of these sorts of situations… so bringing them up is not really germane to the argument.

 

[brumano]

I learned in science class that doctors can detect heart beats around 18 days after conception. Brain waves can be detected around 40 days. Abortions are performed on average between 7 and 11 weeks. Let’s do some 1st grade math. 7 weeks = 49 days. If a heart beat, a sign of LIFE, can be heard around 18, and brain waves, the second sign of LIFE, around 40, doesn’t that make abortion murder?

This troubles me, because in a world where we lose so many souls to abortion with so little guilt ( if any at all ) for this, people still deny it as murder. What is your opinion?

There is no time from conception that the embryo is not living, it is a living being;even before a heart beat or brain wave detection can be made it is the killing of an unborn baby, whether in every case it could be viewed as a murder i don’t think so but it definetly should not be legal and there should be penalties for performing abortions, and there should be penalties for procurring them.

 

[LostChemist]

For me… I think your scenario looses track of the issue. It tries too hard to make Abortion about medically saving a human life. Abortion laws were and have never been about saving a life in such a ‘lose-lose’ situation. Justifying a law that makes no mention of these sort of situations to ME is either completely misunderstanding the issue or being intellectually dishonest.

It would be like me trying to justify Abortion because of Rape. Abortion is NOT a victim’s rights bill, and the laws make no mention of rape. So bring that argument up to justify the entire law is morally wrong.

It would be like justifying a law which allows police officers to kill any suspect, at their discretion, because in some situations, lethal force is necessary.

I hear these types of justifications ALL the time. The historic and practical facts are THIS… Patients and Doctors have ALWAYS been able to make a choice between terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. That is NOT the issue.
Think about it…in centuries past, before Abortion laws… child birth was often difficult and many women died as a result. It was not illegal for a Doctor or a Mother to take actions to save the mother’s life. In the U.S. specifically… I don’t know of any case where a Doctor or a Mother was put in jail because her life was in jeopardy and they chose to terminate the pregnancy.
I could be wrong, as I am not a lawyer…but I’m fairly certain pregnancies were terminated due to medical complications PRIOR to Roe vs. Wade.

Philosophically… there is even a term for this… It is called “Principle of Double Effect” It is the same principle that allows a Police officer to kill a perpetrator to save a life or a Soldier defending his country to take the life of another combatant.

We never needed Abortion Rights to allow for this and make it a right.

And again… Roe vs. Wade or any Abortion law I’ve ever heard of, makes no mention of these sorts of situations… so bringing them up is not really germane to the argument.

You make a fair point. However, I was addressing a few lines of the posters argument:

"Abortion is evil. It can never be justified. No circumstances can ever make it right. There are no compromises to abortion. The right to life is non negotiable. Nobody can practice abortion. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, even by force. We have the bible and 2000 years of the teaching of the Catholic Church to back us up. “You shall not kill” applies unequivocally to the unborn, without exceptions! "

The intolerance of the post is what I found offensive. I am not trying to justify the entire umbrella of abortion as excusable for a few exceptions. I was trying to point out that sometimes something referred to as “abortion” might be necessary and there exists no morality issue.