Abortion Debate-All

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
krev82 wrote:

In the US, from a legal standpoint, can a new mother simply forfeit all rights and responsibilities to a child upon birth or do they have to go through some systems and processes to release the baby into foster care/adoption?

Wikipedia sez: "By 2008, all 50 states had a form of safe-haven law."

If only she had a safe haven from medical bills.

There's a time where I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but I don't know, the older I get, the more I realize people--especially parents--are selfish brats and I shouldn't care about their safe havens because they sure don't care about the safe havens of others.

I don't get this comment. What does your opinion about the selfishness of others have anything to do with whether people should get a safe place to give their child up for adoption, no questions asked; or the high cost of prenatal care, even for those who plan to adopt out their child?

KaterinLHC wrote:

I don't get this comment.

Yeah, I get that a lot ; D

Nomad wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

I think you may have skimmed past Zudz's brief explanation of bodily autonomy, and what it would mean in the context you're talking about.

Additionally, a fetus is still neither a baby nor a child, and continuing to use that language is a little silly.

Again, this is entirely your belief system. Explain to me scientifically how the cells in a newborn are any different the second they emerge from the birth canal than they were the instant before.

How odd. As far as I know nobody in this thread has claimed that there should be abortions at the nine months minus five seconds threshold. (In fact, I'm not aware of anyone anywhere ever making that argument).

If you're genuinely interested in the science of the progression from zygote to embryo to fetus to baby, I'd suggest reading Eleima's posts as a good starting point, and would expect she could point you towards additional resources.

In any event, if we want to push the judiciary to treat something which has the potential to eventually, possibly, become a human as the legal equivalent of a human, then my behavior during my teenage years should earn me a conviction for genocide.

Like several folks have said already, where to draw the line is not an easy decision for anyone to make, and not one I'm convinced anyone makes lightly, but it's profoundly personal and I think the government has an important duty to err in favor of the (undisputedly human) mother's rights over the the rights of a (potentially human) fetus, in the fairly large grey area here.

Appreciate Hypatian's reminder that "woman" can be an inadvertently-exclusive word choice in this thread. I'll try to be more careful about the phrasing I use.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Like several folks have said already, where to draw the line is not an easy decision for anyone to make, and not one I'm convinced anyone makes lightly, but it's profoundly personal and I think the government has an important duty to err in favor of the (undisputedly human) mother's rights over the the rights of a (potentially human) fetus, in the fairly large grey area here.

But if nobody's quite sure when life begins, wouldn't it make sense to play it on the safe side and just say that it starts at conception? Whether it actually starts at conception or not is irrelevant; this way, you cover all your possible bases as to when life begins.

We kind of do something similar for timing pregnancies, in that we say that a pregnancy starts at the first day of your last missed period, even though you aren't ACTUALLY pregnant then. But conception-to-implantation has a hazy timeline, so it's more convenient for everyone to just use your missed period as a benchmark instead.

As for the government's duty in this whole affair, I personally prefer to have them as hands-off as possible when it comes to abortion, either in favor of the parent OR the baby. Maybe this'll sound paranoid, but I think any government's prime directive is to sustain itself, and that means it always has an incentive to come down on the side of making more taxpayers, not fewer.

KaterinLHC wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Like several folks have said already, where to draw the line is not an easy decision for anyone to make, and not one I'm convinced anyone makes lightly, but it's profoundly personal and I think the government has an important duty to err in favor of the (undisputedly human) mother's rights over the the rights of a (potentially human) fetus, in the fairly large grey area here.

But if nobody's quite sure when life begins, wouldn't it make sense to play it on the safe side and just say that it starts at conception? Whether it actually starts at conception or not is irrelevant; this way, you cover all your possible bases as to when life begins.

"Life" is a pretty useless term here. The crux of the issue is when something qualifies as human, or at least qualifies as human enough for us to extend the legal protections we would extend other humans.

Is a zygote human? That seems like an awful stretch (though from his posts, it seems likely Nomad would push for the answer to that question being "yes"). Is a nine-months-minus-five-seconds fetus something which qualifies as human? I think probably everybody in this thread would answer in the affirmative.

There's definitely a grey area, which from the science I've read, seems like it'd probably be in the 16-23 week timeline.

I think that when it comes to regulation, the government must err in favor of the actual, indisputable human. (Sounds like you may not, which is fine - but I'm not sure we'll bridge that particular gap).

In any event, I think one of the strengths of the bodily autonomy argument is that it bypasses the grey area to a large extent. It's an established legal principle (at least in the US) that citizens cannot be compelled to sustain the life of another, even if it would be at comparatively minor risk or inconvenience. Note this does not imply moral approval for cases where that support is withheld - indeed, in the judgement for McFall v. Shimp, the judge found Shimp's position "morally indefensible", even while ruling in Shimp's favor that he could not be compelled to provide that support.

[Edit: to remove a duplicate "to a large extent" in the final paragraph.]

Seth wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that, contrary to some claims, abstinence is actually one of the least effective methods of birth control. Hard numbers are tough to come by, but I've seen anywhere from 55-75% being discussed.

Do you mean abstinence education? I'd agree with the statement that abstinence education is one of the least effective forms of birth control (right up there with dumb luck).

As far as I know not introducing egg to sperm is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy.

RedJen wrote:
Seth wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that, contrary to some claims, abstinence is actually one of the least effective methods of birth control. Hard numbers are tough to come by, but I've seen anywhere from 55-75% being discussed.

Do you mean abstinence education? I'd agree with the statement that abstinence education is one of the least effective forms of birth control (right up there with dumb luck).

As far as I know not introducing egg to sperm is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy.

But then there's a much greater chance of divine intervention through abstinence, so still not really 100%.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
krev82 wrote:

In the US, from a legal standpoint, can a new mother simply forfeit all rights and responsibilities to a child upon birth or do they have to go through some systems and processes to release the baby into foster care/adoption?

Wikipedia sez: "By 2008, all 50 states had a form of safe-haven law."

If only she had a safe haven from medical bills.

There's a time where I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but I don't know, the older I get, the more I realize people--especially parents--are selfish brats and I shouldn't care about their safe havens because they sure don't care about the safe havens of others.

Did someone's kids refuse to stay off your lawn? Please explain.

The idea that the self is separate from the fully developed brain is false. The mind is what the brain does, just as digestion is what the stomach does. There is no "self" that is inserted upon conception, or "quickening"; that's an idea that's outlived it's time, based on the evidence that we have. (We can debate dualism if anyone wants to; just start another thread.) The mind develops largely after birth; the structures needed to support consciousness are probably not fully in place at six months.

Given this, it's entirely valid to look at the development of the fetus as a factor in the effects of it's demise. We need to consider whether it feels pain; whether it has any consciousness at all; whether it is capable of survival even with technological support; and whether it has a debilitating condition. We need to weigh that against the mother's situation - economic, emotional/developmental, and so forth. It's pretty clear that the earlier an abortion occurs, the less harm is done in the process, and the more we can take into account the mother's situation. Likewise, as the fetus grows, we need to weigh it's situation more and more.

For me, the 6 month point is a good one for the end of abortion by choice (if not a month or so earlier). After that, unless the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus dies or becomes non-viable, I'm fine with banning abortions.

But before six months, you don't have anything that's recognizable as human cognition or that's fully viable outside the womb without tons of support which can itself lead to permanent disability. And the further back you go, the less there is to go on. If someone handed you a set of month-old cell cultures and asked you to pick out the human ones from a mix of species, you'd not be able to do it. The younger the fetus, the harder it is to argue that you're dealing with something that has it's own independent existence.

But any argument that is based on some non-material "self" entering at conception is not supported by the evidence.

That was very well said, Robear, and I'm with you on , very solid post. Particularly hit the nail in the head regarding embryos of various species looking the same in the early stages. I defy anyone here to try to distinguish pig from cow from human at 8 weeks.

Actually, Katerin, the reason why we traditionally measure pregnancy in weeks of amenorrhea instead of weeks of actual gestation is for convenience. We learn both in med school, but we all end up using the former because your last period is the last *visible* change in your body. The start of actual fm gestation isn't all that hazy at all, because although sperm can survive 2-3 days, an ovum has a much shorter lifespan once it's release, more like 18 hours. And with ultrasounds now, you can specify exactly when the pregnancy started and adjust accordingly (at least for ultrasounds in the first trimester, that's when growth is linear and pretty much identical for all human embryos - after that, you get a host of variations depending on individual variability and some stuff that can happen). And the big reason for that is that now everyone has a first phase that lasts exactly 14 days, just as not everyone has a cycle that lasts 28 days. So we yes, as a shorthand, we'll start counting in weeks of amenorrhea, but the actual date of the last period often gets overruled after the first ultrasound.

I'm sorry, am I nitpicking? I think I might be but I can't help myself.

Robear wrote:

But any argument that is based on some non-material "self" entering at conception is not supported by the evidence.

Oh ye of little faith.

But that's why it's faith and not science. Faith doesn't require the support of evidence, or it wouldn't be faith!

But it's also yet another reason why faith mustn't define secular law, especially in countries that uphold religious freedom.

Thank you, Eleima, I had several versions of that post that I deleted before posting since Friday afternoon. It's a serious subject and it's emotional for me, as it is for most people. But I hope I found a way to put it without directly offending anyone.

Bekkilyn, not only has there ever been any mechanism proposed for something non-corporeal driving the brain, the evidence shows that not only does the brain generate our consciousness, but we live several milliseconds in the past, with our body often initiating actions *before* we consciously decide to do them.

That is, even when we *think* we are acting because of a conscious decision, often (usually?) it's something that we have already started to do, outside of our consciousness.

We are machines with a conscious overlay, not conscious "ghosts in the machine". Turn off the brain, and we literally go away. Damage the brain and our consciousness can be damaged, as well. If what makes us, us, was independent of the physical brain; was somehow ineffable and not affected by physical factors; then our self would survive the degradation of parts of the brain in ways that don't coincide with the damage.

But we don't see that. Progressive dementia is a good example of the dissolution of the self along with the brain. And my father died of Alzheimer's complications (pneumonia, the usual), so I've actually witnessed this myself.

(I figure a little contention about consciousness and souls has to be less contentious than abortion, so...)

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I think that when it comes to regulation, the government must err in favor of the actual, indisputable human. (Sounds like you may not, which is fine - but I'm not sure we'll bridge that particular gap).

I don't disagree with that, as I've been saying for six pages.

But I do have several what-ifs and how-about-thises and but-wait-a-minutes floating around in my head about the issue, too.

We all do, Katerin. That's what makes it so fraught. And then there are some with no doubt and no sympathy, and it seems like they drive the conversation at times.

Robear wrote:

(I figure a little contention about consciousness and souls has to be less contentious than abortion, so...) :-)

Oh you mean the kind of contention that starts all those pesky holy wars and whatnot?

Getting too much into that kind of argument would probably need a different thread though since it would deviate too much from the abortion topic.

There really is no contention for me though. Both faith and science exist together peacefully in my world. I cannot use science to prove or disprove matters of faith as they do not neatly fit within the scientific method and all of its evidence-based limitations, and also I cannot use faith to exert what would seem like baseless mumbo jumbo on science. And yet for me they both contain truth and nicely complement each other.

When it comes specifically to abortion though, my view is that if something is existing inside a host and feeding off of it, and that host wants it removed, then it needs to be removed immediately, regardless of whether or not it's considered a person, human, baby, fetus, alien implant, etc. The host has full choice rights to be free of it regardless of what it is.

Debates over whether or not it has consciousness and when really don't apply since it doesn't have the right to force someone else into slavery to support it any more than any other person does.

Not trying to provoke or tease you into anything. I respect what you have to say. No worries.

Robear wrote:

Not trying to provoke or tease you into anything. I respect what you have to say. No worries. :-)

It's because of Relic isn't it?

I believe in your right to choose your own books.

Robear wrote:

I believe in your right to choose your own books. :-)

Haha!

(It *is* still in the plan!)

bekkilyn wrote:

Debates over whether or not it has consciousness and when really don't apply since it doesn't have the right to force someone else into slavery to support it any more than any other person does.

Very well said.

----------------
I recognize the utility of "political fictions." These are positions we publicly support and which inform our stances toward government policy.

We may have doubts as to the ultimate truth of these positions, but for political purposes, admitting to shades of grey weakens one's political resolve.

This is why I will say that life doesn't begin until an infant exits the womb. Katerin's post showed the reality is incredibly nuanced, but I wouldn't acknowledge any opinions or facts that would open the door to chipping away at Roe v. Wade.

Others may support the political fiction that climate change is not caused by human activity. Still others may hold to the belief that guns are neutral tools and only humans are responsible for their misuse.

From such a position you can look at objective evidence or take a utilitarian stand when considering legislation.

KaterinLHC wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

I think that when it comes to regulation, the government must err in favor of the actual, indisputable human. (Sounds like you may not, which is fine - but I'm not sure we'll bridge that particular gap).

I don't disagree with that, as I've been saying for six pages.

But I do have several what-ifs and how-about-thises and but-wait-a-minutes floating around in my head about the issue, too.

Fair enough - I'm open to having misread the various what-ifs and how-about-thises and but-wait-a-minutes as something other than you'd intended.

It sounds like we're broadly in agreement, then.

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

The choice is made to create the conditions necessary for tapeworms. No fault of the worms, yet still parasites.

Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

You're still not addressing the case of when birth control fails.

Eleima wrote:
Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

You're still not addressing the case of when birth control fails.

I thought I did in all my posts on adoption.

.

Reminder that infant is also not a synonym for fetus.

Nomad wrote:
Eleima wrote:
Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

You're still not addressing the case of when birth control fails.

I thought I did in all my posts on adoption.

And adoption is a great choice to have. But people who are pregnant shouldn't be legally mandated to carry a pregnancy to term (with all the risks and costs that entails), solely so they can have a child and give it up for adoption.

For what it's worth, I thought Robear's post upthread did a good job enumerating some of the considerations we ought to weigh when considering where the legal threshold for abortion should be.

Nomad wrote:
Eleima wrote:
Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

You're still not addressing the case of when birth control fails.

I thought I did in all my posts on adoption.

The bolded bit is I believe what caused confusion.

Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

This creates serious problems for your position, Nomad. How do you deal with miscarriages, then? Do we investigate each one to determine if it could have been avoided (say, by the mother not drinking alcohol, or smoking, or working long hours, or...) and then charge them? If not, why not?

I can see you are arguing from a position that abortion is murder, but is there no manslaughter in that world? It's either murder or nothing? It seems strangely narrow to argue that only *volitional* killing of a fetus is a crime, but basing that argument on the fundamental human rights of the fetus. If the fetus has that right, then we need to criminalize even *accidental* fetal deaths, as we do with all other types of deaths involving more than one person.

That's the problem with legal precedent. We've *already seen* states try to pass laws that would criminalize "negligent" fetal deaths. If you think that goes too far, well, I agree with you, but that kicks out the full-fledged human rights for fetuses and puts us into an area where we have to adjust the formula in some way.

That's where I'm coming from with what I wrote above.

Nomad wrote:
Eleima wrote:
Nomad wrote:

This idea that the infant is a parasite somehow forcing its way into a helpless host defies all logic. The only helpless party is the infant. The choice is made to create the conditions necessary by the parents. (with the exception of rape and even then the child is not at fault)

You're still not addressing the case of when birth control fails.

I thought I did in all my posts on adoption.

You still seem to think that sanctity of life == bodily autonomy, and that cells are the same at conception as they are five seconds before and after birth, and that child, infant, and blastomere are synonymous. I'm not really sure you've addressed anything in a logical fashion. You mostly just seem frustrated. Full of sound and fury, even. I'd encourage you to reconstruct your stance using available data and applying words in line with their actual meanings. You'll probably get more traction that way.

Also, if someone tells you that you haven't addressed something and you think you have, it's worth looking at the question and answer again. You may be surprised to find that while you responded you didn't actually answer the question that was asked. It happens /all the time/. You should see the situation not as an indictment, but rather as an opportunity to provide a better, more detailed, answer.