Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[hasikelee]

Hmm. Sentient:

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings> 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

For aware:

1archaic : watchful, wary 2**:** having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

So, sticking with definition 1 of sentient, yes, an embyro exhibits signs of sentience in that the embryo can and does respond to changes in its environment. Regarding definition 2, which takes us to definition 2 of aware, it would seem as if an embryo is not sentient. Then again, using that definition, neither is my cat, so I guess that means I can torture Puddy with impunity since she can’t suffer. Definition 3 of sentient also seems to rule out embyros, but also would seem to rule out (again) my cat as well possibly infants. So now we’re suddenly okay with killing infants because they can’t suffer either.

Or, perhaps, the argument that it’s okay to kill a human because that human isn’t sentient really doesn’t amount to much of an argument.

– Mark L. Chance.

Hmm, I can think of a few friends who had boyfriends that don’t meet definition 2 and 3. I guess I shouldn’t be counseling my friends to forgive and move on, but instead to kill.

 

[Swan]

First, to call me “Pro-abortion” as you do in your message content is a bit like me calling you a “forced-birther”. Both are inaccurate and misleading are they not?

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

I do not believe that a woman should be forced into having an abortion, nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will like a farm animal. Both situations are a shameful transgression of the woman’s autonomy, and are blatantly dismissive of women as moral agents.

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

It is a fact that women who seek abortions in countries where abortions are illegal put their health and lives at risk undergoing backyard abortions. It is also a fact that In countries where abortion can be performed under safe conditions the risks are reduced and are lower than the risk of childbirth.

It is also a fact that an 8 week embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions are performed) is not sentient, and cannot suffer.

I choose the route of minimal suffering, therefore I choose to campaign to keep abortion legal and safe for anyone who chooses to have one.

Emervents

Here is some supporting evidence on the subject of sentience, the above reasoning on which I agree with.

*To sum up, the scientific evidence shows that early fetuses cannot feel pain, and that no pain experience is even possible before 20 weeks gestation. The current consensus of scientists and medical groups (such as Britain’s Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) is that conscious awareness of pain - and therefore the “true” experience of pain - cannot occur in fetuses until at least 26 weeks gestation (if at all).[21]

Let’s put this into the context of the abortion debate. In the United States, 88% of all abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and over 98% are done by 20 weeks. Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and virtually all occur before the start of the third trimester at 24 weeks.[22]

Therefore, the issue of fetal pain is a political red herring, because there simply is no pain in the vast majority of abortions.

But we aren’t quite ready to conclude that even third-trimester fetuses feel pain. We must also grapple with the enigma of what pain is—because it’s subjective to a large degree. Officially, pain has been defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage.”[23] But the sensation of pain has also been described as “a very complex and individualized experience, similar in its complexity to abstract notions of pleasure, beauty, or intelligence.”[24]

The pain experience requires conscious interpretation by the brain—it is a complex interplay between thinking, emotion, and sensation. In fact, the intensity of a pain signal is not related to the intensity of its perception. Emotions like anxiety and fear can greatly increase one’s perception of pain, while a person who is relaxed and confident may not feel much pain at all in the same situation. Anthropologists have observed cultures in which women show virtually no signs of distress during childbirth. Pain can also be reduced or eliminated with a placebo, a fake drug that the recipient believes is real. A person who suffers a sudden trauma, such as a gunshot wound, may not have any immediate pain or at least may not remember it. People can be hypnotized into not feeling pain, and unconscious people are generally not aware of painful stimuli at all.[25] So if the body is producing a pain signal from tissue damage, but the person cannot consciously feel or remember the pain, is that a true experience of pain? Indeed, the degree of discomfort or trauma caused by a pain signal is directly related to the anticipation of pain, its duration, understanding of its cause and consequences, the memory of pain, and its lingering traumatic effects, as well as various personal and cultural factors.

In the quick death of a fetus being aborted, these elements of pain aren’t likely to come into play, thus presumably reducing the overall significance of any pain felt. Besides, many researchers are unsure when - or even if - a fetus achieves enough consciousness to experience pain at all. Some scientists note that because of the emotional and cognitive elements of pain, and the fact that fetal brains are far from fully developed, it can’t be known whether even near-term fetuses experience “true” pain. For example, one researcher argues that conscious awareness requires interaction with the outside world, with social development and language playing crucial roles in the development of self-consciousness. The protected environment of the womb - warm, wet, dark, and buoyant - is a vastly different world from the intense tactile stimulations of life on the outside. The fetus has nothing to gain by being alert and sensate inside the womb, since this would waste energy.[26] In fact, a recent study suggests that fetuses can’t feel anything before or during birth because the placenta and fetal brain secrete natural sedatives and anesthetics to encourage sleep and suppress higher cortical activity. Study author David Mellor concluded that suffering can only occur in the newborn when the onset of breathing oxygenates its tissues.[27]*

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

 

[rlg94086]

Here is some supporting evidence on the subject of sentience, the above reasoning on which I agree with.

To sum up, the scientific evidence shows that early fetuses cannot feel pain, and that no pain experience is even possible before 20 weeks gestation. The current consensus of scientists and medical groups (such as Britain’s Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) is that conscious awareness of pain - and therefore the “true” experience of pain - cannot occur in fetuses until at least 26 weeks gestation (if at all).[21]

Let’s put this into the context of the abortion debate. In the United States, 88% of all abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and over 98% are done by 20 weeks. Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and virtually all occur before the start of the third trimester at 24 weeks.[22]

Therefore, the issue of fetal pain is a political red herring, because there simply is no pain in the vast majority of abortions.

But we aren’t quite ready to conclude that even third-trimester fetuses feel pain. We must also grapple with the enigma of what pain is—because it’s subjective to a large degree. Officially, pain has been defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage.”[23] But the sensation of pain has also been described as “a very complex and individualized experience, similar in its complexity to abstract notions of pleasure, beauty, or intelligence.”[24]

The pain experience requires conscious interpretation by the brain—it is a complex interplay between thinking, emotion, and sensation. In fact, the intensity of a pain signal is not related to the intensity of its perception. Emotions like anxiety and fear can greatly increase one’s perception of pain, while a person who is relaxed and confident may not feel much pain at all in the same situation. Anthropologists have observed cultures in which women show virtually no signs of distress during childbirth. Pain can also be reduced or eliminated with a placebo, a fake drug that the recipient believes is real. A person who suffers a sudden trauma, such as a gunshot wound, may not have any immediate pain or at least may not remember it. People can be hypnotized into not feeling pain, and unconscious people are generally not aware of painful stimuli at all.[25] So if the body is producing a pain signal from tissue damage, but the person cannot consciously feel or remember the pain, is that a true experience of pain? Indeed, the degree of discomfort or trauma caused by a pain signal is directly related to the anticipation of pain, its duration, understanding of its cause and consequences, the memory of pain, and its lingering traumatic effects, as well as various personal and cultural factors.

In the quick death of a fetus being aborted, these elements of pain aren’t likely to come into play, thus presumably reducing the overall significance of any pain felt. Besides, many researchers are unsure when - or even if - a fetus achieves enough consciousness to experience pain at all. Some scientists note that because of the emotional and cognitive elements of pain, and the fact that fetal brains are far from fully developed, it can’t be known whether even near-term fetuses experience “true” pain. For example, one researcher argues that conscious awareness requires interaction with the outside world, with social development and language playing crucial roles in the development of self-consciousness. The protected environment of the womb - warm, wet, dark, and buoyant - is a vastly different world from the intense tactile stimulations of life on the outside. The fetus has nothing to gain by being alert and sensate inside the womb, since this would waste energy.[26] In fact, a recent study suggests that fetuses can’t feel anything before or during birth because the placenta and fetal brain secrete natural sedatives and anesthetics to encourage sleep and suppress higher cortical activity. Study author David Mellor concluded that suffering can only occur in the newborn when the onset of breathing oxygenates its tissues.[27]

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

The problem with all this “pain” discussion is that the premise is going unchallenged. Why does a lack of ability to feel pain on the part of a subject mean it is okay to kill the subject?

Perhaps utilitarians think this way, but it is clearly not a Catholic line of thought.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The problem with all this “pain” discussion is that the premise is going unchallenged. Why does a lack of ability to feel pain on the part of a subject mean it is okay to kill the subject?

Perhaps utilitarians think this way, but it is clearly not a Catholic line of thought.

If that position were true, you could beat a charge of murder by proving you anethesized the victim before killing him.

 

[rlg94086]

If that position were true, you could beat a charge of murder by proving you anethesized the victim before killing him.

“Your honor, the important distinction you are missing is that my client’s victim did not feel any pain whatsoever, so technically it wasn’t murder.”

 

[neat62]

“Your honor, the important distinction you are missing is that my client’s victim did not feel any pain whatsoever, so technically it wasn’t murder.”

:clapping:

Excellent points…thank you!

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Your honor, the important distinction you are missing is that my client’s victim did not feel any pain whatsoever, so technically it wasn’t murder.”

“Besides, it would be reeeeely, reeeeeely** inconvenient** for me if he survived.”

 

[rlg94086]

:clapping:

Excellent points…thank you!

:tiphat:

…with acknowledged help from my good friend (though we have not met)Vern. :tiphat: :tiphat:

 

[Swan]

The problem with all this “pain” discussion is that the premise is going unchallenged. Why does a lack of ability to feel pain on the part of a subject mean it is okay to kill the subject?

Perhaps utilitarians think this way, but it is clearly not a Catholic line of thought.

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not. The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. That’s murder, IMO. And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

 

[neat62]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not. The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. That’s murder, IMO. And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Do you feel the same about a baby that is born 7 weeks premature and in need of assistance from a breathing machine?

Or how about babies that are born with disabiities…perhaps a heart disorder…who are in need of assistance to survive? Should we just allow them to die cause they aren’t capable of surviving on their own?

For that matter…what about children who come down with illness? Such as my cousin, who has Rhett Syndrome and is not able to “survive” on her own without the assistance of responsible adults able to care for her and a feeding tube?

And heck…let’s go a little bit further even…if a healthy baby is birthed and then left alone…they too are incapable of surviving on their own…they can’t fetch their own bottles, they can’t magically cloth and keep themselves warn…for the most part, they can’t even move…roll over, etc.

So why not just let them die and not consider them “living” beings? Cause afterall…they aren’t capable of living “outside” on their own either…sigh…

 

[st_lucy]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

Being a mother who happened to hold three of her children who passed away before their first trimester I can vouch to the fact that they most uncertainly are human. And I feel very offended when someone whose soul purpose is to prove something they have no clue about, define my children as subhuman, non-human, a blob of cells or what ever mean hardhearted thing that may spew out of their hate filled mouths. MY CHILDREN WHERE MUST DEFENITLY HUMAN! and who do you think you are to claim other wise!? These children are beautiful, and the only time they cease to be beautiful is when they are turn apart limb by limb all in the name of choice. I pray that you will one day grow a heart and think before speak.

 

[neat62]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not. The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. **Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. ** That’s murder, IMO. And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

By the way, that is just a blantan lie as well. We do not have children in the United States dying from poverty…if they are dying from anything it is lack of care and concern from selfish parents, period. It is through neglect and irresponsible adults…NOT because they are starving to death.

Public schools offer food programs…FREE to those who are in need…there are church programs and non-profit organizations of all sorts who will provide for those in need…in addition there are government programs, WIC is just one of many, in which the government provides.

You are spreading absolute lies…if an individual can’t AFFORD to have a child, perhaps they should have THOUGHT about that BEFORE committing the act that PRODUCES ONE!

Finally, we are all called to behave responsibly and CARE for ouselves…“forced charity” via the government doesn’t consititute meeting one’s obligations to help your neighbor! And in fact, has proven to do nothing more for those in need except to enable them to continue be irresponsible!

 

[hasikelee]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed, able-to-survive outside the womb, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not. The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. That’s murder, IMO. And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

First, a fetus is a term given to a pre-born human of a certain age. The most common time to kill a human in the womb in America is between 8-12 weeks, during the embryonic stage.

Second, your claim that a pre-born human cannot feel pain is incorrect. The question is not “can a pre-born human feel pain?” The question is, “At what point can a pre-born human feel pain?” Some researchers argue as early as 6-8 weeks, some argue around 12 weeks and generally everyone has accepted that by the 2nd trimester the entire nervous system and brain stem is in place and the human can feel pain.

Third, why can your logic not be applied to other situations? You are claiming that because you believe a pre-born human can’t feel pain and isn’t aware of life (what in the world does that mean anyways ) that human can be killed. This would seem to carry straight over to already born humans. In fact, your definitions are so vague they could really apply to anyone in anyway needed so as to kill them.

Fourth, the assumptive argument for abortion is probably your weakest one. Because you figure that someone might be born into a life with a risk of crime, poverty, lack of decent housing or health coverage, therefore the human should be killed?

I always found this little quibble to be the strangest. Of course, the argument has a classic level of ambiguity. What exactly is poverty to you? Only American economic standards, or do you average it out by country? Does the house need a basement and at least 4 bedrooms, or will 2 bedrooms be enough for you? I suppose now we can kill the more than 1/3 of Americans without insurance?

I wonder what you have to say about Anita, the baby girl born at just under 22 weeks of age. By your standards, this “fetus” is not equal to human life. She legally could have been aborted in our country.

 

[st_lucy]

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not.

And you know this because?

The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. That’s murder, IMO.

So your idea is to kill them! Nice.

And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

I have so much I want to say but I wont because I cannot fathom what has happened in your life that you can have such a hard heart toward the most vulnerable in our country.

 

[SimonArizona]

The choice has already been made; to have sex which leads to children-that is its intention. A world that loves pleasure more than God perverts the holiness of the sex act. Orgasm is god. that is his name, lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh is the way to orgasm whom they serve. Self-mastery and discipline are unfavorable words for a people who are incontinent.

Children are not seen as the gift of God that revelation and experience also tell us that they are indeed. God of compassion, have mercy on us disobedient children, turn our hearts towards the love and joy and salvation of obedience to the commandments which are life. amen

 

[st_lucy]

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not.

Just to add to this really weird train of thought of yours. I have a cousin who due to a horrible car accident in which she was in she can no longer feel any pain. Do also advocate to murdering her since she can’t feel pain!?

 

[rlg94086]

I think it goes to the heart of the fetus having the equality of a fully developed,** able-to-survive outside the womb**, baby. IMO, the fetus does not equal a human, it hasn’t even formed enough to be aware of itself or life (unlike someone in a coma or PVS who has developed that ability, so PLEASE do not compare the two as I am not doing so).

Again, your premise is completely unsupportable. As the others have already stated, not all babies who are born are able to survive outside the womb on their own. And, you bring up self-awareness? That’s an interesting philosophical question. Can scientists tell us when the unborn child has “self-awareness?” I think not.

Swan:

There are a couple of other aspects as well - one is the “Silent Scream” issue which was used to suggest that aborted fetus’s feel pain when they do not. The other is the seeming lack of regard for born children living in poverty and/or otherwise suffering. Many end up dead as a result of poverty (crime, lack of preventive healtcase, decent housing, etc, etc - all the evils of poverty) yet most pro-life folks are the same ones who vote to cut funding to programs these children need to survive. That’s murder, IMO. And the argument is usually that “forced taxing” is bad - it is not the government’s place to help the poor. So, as I understand it, it is okay for the government to step in and tell me what to do, but not you. It is okay for the government to insist the children are born but wrong for them to play a role in trying to assure the kids have a decent change at life? Sorry, but to me that is pure hypocrisy. I’m more concerned about those who suffer every day than I am about those who aren’t developed enough to suffer at all.

Again, you are making an Utilitarian argument, not a Catholic argument.

Pro-Lifers are not hypocritical to support private charity and disagree on the proper economic system from a Catholic perspective. You call them murderers? Hypocrites? Please.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The lesson is, when you begin drawing artificial lines and saying, “Everyone on this side of the line is not human” you always find people who you now regard as fully human wind up on the wrong side of the line.

And ultimately, the guy drawing the line may find himself on the wrong side.

 

[sodak]

The lesson is, when you begin drawing artificial lines and saying, “Everyone on this side of the line is not human” you always find people who you now regard as fully human wind up on the wrong side of the line.

And ultimately, the guy drawing the line may find himself on the wrong side.

Perhaps we should let God draw the line - wait, he already has, through the Church!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps we should let God draw the line - wait, he already has, through the Church!

How 'bout them apples!