Interesting Abortion Question

[MMMMMM]

We hear a lot of right-to-life or pro-choice arguments. However, it seems to me that there is an important aspect of this complex matter that is rarely discussed. This is the question of when does the developing embryo or fetus first develop consciousness of some sort.

I don't think most pro-lifers would argue that contraception itself is immoral, or that a woman taking a "day-after" abortion pill to remove last night's union of the sperm and egg is equivalent to committing murder. Similarly, I doubt most pro-choicers would hold that it is morally OK to kill a baby which is due to be born tomorrow.

So at what stage is it OK from a moral standpoint and at what stage is it morally wrong?

My own feeling is that this may hinge upon when the fetus is developed enough to possess a rudimentary consciousness of its own (I don't know at what stage of pregnancy this normally occurs).

Sometimes there are other considerations, such as in the case of rape, or if the mother is HIV-positive, or if the mother may not be able to safely carry through a pregnancy due to health problems. While other considerations may have some bearing, if we disregard the other considerations for the moment it may help in considering the above question.

All comments welcome.

[marbles]

"So at what stage is it OK from a moral standpoint and at what stage is it morally wrong?"
--Conception.

That said, I'm still pro-choice. It's morally wrong, but it's also none of the government's business.

[IrishHand]

-Conception

-I'm pro-choice

-I think it is the government's business, just like everything else. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[HDPM]

I kind of look at it like self defense. No person has the right to force another to do something they don't want to do or will physically hurt them. So I think abortion must be legal in the case of rape or other sexual crimes where the victim really doesn't have a choice (not statutory rape if the victim is over a certain age probably tho) or if the pregnancy poses a real risk to the physical health of the mother. I think abortion for contraception is wrong. That said, Roe v. Wade is a terrible case. Whether abortion is legal (aside from the rape exceptions etc...) is a matter for the states. It would be legal some places and illegal others. I am fine with that, and would not be a big crusader either way.

[Clarkmeister]

This will be my only post in this thread, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but oh well.......


"So I think abortion must be legal in the case of rape or other sexual crimes where the victim really doesn't have a choice "

Try telling the child of a rape that his life isn't subject to the same protections as other lives. I can see the legal case now:

"Yes, your honor, my client did stab the victim to death, but it doesn't count...see...because the victim was born because of a rape. I move that all charges be dismissed."

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this one.

[andyfox]

I think the question you pose is the $64,000 question on this issue.

If the fetus/embryo is a human life, then abortion is murder. If it is not, then it should be a woman's right to choose. I don't think one could put a date on this, that is, so many weeks from the date of conception, since determining the date of conception is often not possible. Perhaps a scientific test will one day be developed that determines "X," something that could be defined as determinative of being a human being.

Very tough, very emotional issue.

[HDPM]

No flame, you raise a valid point. But my philosophy values the life of the fetus. The life of the child of rape is valuable and deserving of protection. I think an abortion is a homicide, but in the case of rape a justified one. It is legal to choose to kill people in certain circumstances. The victim of a felony has the right to kill in many circumstances in order to protect themselves from serious injury. I view a forced pregnancy as great injury. I think then the victim has the right to terminate the pregnancy EVEN IF the fetus has a right to life in general. Yes, the fetus is innocent, but so is the mother. And forcing the mother to carry another person and assume parental responsibility (which she will have for at least a short time even if she gives the child up for adoption) takes away her right to life. And some rape victims will of course choose to carry the baby to term. That is also their right. This is no easy question though.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mark,

It is becoming commonplace for a baby to be born well before full tem, especially with advances in medical science. Given this, I believe something like the “morning after” pill is at worse slightly immoral, and terminating late pregnancies (for the simple reason the baby isn’t wanted by THAT potential mother) approaches murder. That being said, I realize most late term abortions are only performed in special cases.

Regards,

Rick

[MMMMMM]

So, Rick, what do you think about all the middle stages?

And do you agree with my feeling (and it is not an absolute conviction at this point) that a major defining development is the arising of some sort of awareness, consciousness or feeling within the fetus? It seems to me that this is one major development which differentiates it from being primarily just organic material with potential.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mark,

I don't know how we will ever find that exact line. My only point is that the later the term of the abortion, the closer it is to murder (and even in the murder of an adult, there are different degrees of murder).

I'm not sure why I got involved here. This is one of those issues you generally want to stay away from unless you have a lot of time and passion. I know I don't have one and am not sure about the other.

Regards,

Rick

[HDPM]

Consciousness is a damn hard standard because we don't know how to define it well. There has been a lot of debate on what it means. One analogy I have used in thinking about this problem is whether we would allow the plug to be pulled on somebody unconscious on life support if we thought there was a 99% chance that the person would be fully conscious in 9 months. Clearly we would say no. I don't know if this is a completely fair argument though.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not sure either, and I didn't make the initial post to try to further any views.

I agree that the longer into the term it is, the worse it is, and that maybe we can't know exactly where the line is. I'm just trying to figure out approximately where the line might be, and why.

[IrishHand]

As a practical matter, the line has to be either conception (ie. no abortions ever) or the latest time it's medically feasible (ie. abortions anytime). A line in the middle won't be defensible in the long run. Although I understand the logic behind things like rape abortions and health-related abortions, they still fall under whatever rational you use to either prohibit abortions completely (since the rationale never has anything to do with the method of conception and everything to do with the value of life) or to allow them completely (since of course then it's irrelevant).

Irish

[MMMMMM]

Well...I don't see why a line somewhere in the middle can't be defensible. Right after conception, the embyro (or pre-embryo, I really don't have much knowledge of the specific biology or terms involved) has no feelings, no consciousness, no brain whatsoever...somewhere in the middle it does...so it seems to me that there is a very real difference (not in terms of potential for a human, but in terms of what already exists). In other words destroying the union of sperm and egg right after conception is pretty much only destroying potential, compared to destroying an actual immature dependent being with a brain and the ability to feel or to be aware in some ways.

Whether this could be legislated is another question, and one I'm not particularly interested in at the moment. I'm really just rolling around the question of at what stage does the embryo or fetus become an immature person, so to speak, and whether others think this has significant implications in the moral sense.

I don't buy the argument that an abortion immediately after conception is actually or morally identical to an abortion immediately before birth--I guess you could say that's a premise I'm taking as a given for purposes of this discussion--and I know some will disagree with that. But if those two events are not actually or morally identical, then somewhere in the middle something takes place which is quite significant.

[D.J.]

The question at hand is when is it too late? I don't want to get too involved in this but let me ask you all a question. Let's say a woman has a hard time getting pregnant and has been trying for 5yrs. She finally gets pregnant but unfortunately miscarries does it really F***in' matter what stage the child was in? Are you then going to console her by saying "hey, it's okay b/c the baby didn't develop any consciousness yet"? Abortion is abortion any time and any way you look at it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it does not matter when it takes place whether it's 2 weeks of being pregnant or 8 months, it's still the same result. People just use that bullshit time excuse so they can sleep better at night.

-D.J.

[lorinda]

Something I have always been terrified to ask anyone on this issue, and this WILL get flamed, but I believe it is valid.

Is it murder to kill something that would die without being looked after.

That is, is it murder to neglect a one year old BORN baby.

I'm not saying it's morally correct, or that I believe it, but is it murder (not to be confused with is it moral) to not look after an animal/human that is not capable of looking after itself?

I know this is a very contraversial point, but some well thought out answers would be appreciated.

Lori

[bernie]

i love it when people try to split hairs on this issue.

only after x months...
only if raped...
blah blah

i came to terms with myself on this issue, long ago and have no qualms about my stance...

the FACT is, if a woman wants to do it, there is no way you can stop her. it's really not even a male issue. we have no say anyway. there is no way you can force a woman to keep it any more than to force her to abort it, unless you physically do something...

funny though, pro lifers tend to be very absent after the birth as the kid is living in a shithole somewhere, but HEY...the kids alive...even though he just ripped off that pro lifers stereo

i think more credit would be given to their 'cause' if they started adopting more, or showing more support post pregnancy. but OH NO!!! thats not THEIR issue...wimps. put down your little sign in front of the clinic and go help out the destitute mother who you guilted into having a kid when she wasnt financially ready by any means...

again, a woman will do whatever she wants, legally or illegally. and she should be able to. it's her body. and if your not willing to provide any support after the kid is there, kiss off.

and dont bring up abstinence as an excuse. its unrealistic.

in some states it's still actually illegal to get a blow job. havent we come a long way...

b

btw....pro life and pro choice really arent even opposites as far as arguments. funny the dimbulbs who think they are...and that goes for both sides

[IrishHand]

is it murder to neglect a one year old BORN baby

Yes. When a man and woman decide to have a child (or a woman decides for the both of them), they assume an affirmative obligtion to support that child. This law of nature applies with equal vigor to humanity...

[andyfox]

"is it murder to neglect a one year old BORN baby."

I believe, at least here in California, that indeed it would be murder if the neglect resulted in the child's death.

[Tommy Angelo]

I've read many fine essays on this topic, and I've written one. If goes like this:

Why I Am Pro-Choice

by Tommy Angelo

I'm a guy.

(End of essay).

As to when exactly the addition of some precise number of cells should change an expendable blob of biomass into a viable, rights-bearing citizen, I don't know.

Tommy

[John Cole]

M,

Consciousness should not be the determining criteria because the term itself is rife with difficulties. Consciousness implies "consciousness-of-something." Certainly, infants don't yet possess self-consciousness. Usually, I think, self-consciousness begins to develop around eighteen months. In a philosophical sense, at least for some philosophers, consciousness is directed at something. Does a fetus have "consciousness"? Probably not, at least given the definitions and understanding we have of consciousenss.

Perhaps we just can't frame the question at all. Is "life" a better term? Again, I think we're in murky territory. Doctors, though, in the past couple years are doing heart surgery on fetuses, so with each technological leap, definitions probably will change.

Statistics show that 70% of Americans favor a woman's right to choose, but don't advocate abortion as a form of contraception. Yet, looking at the seemingly endless debate the topic receives, and listening to the strident voices on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, you would think that the nation is polarized on the issue, when that 70% figure suggests the opposite.

John

[John Cole]

D.J.,

Let's ee how far you get with that argument when you try to buy life insurance for a fetus.

John

[MMMMMM]

I remember your essay and I think it's great. One of the finest essays I've ever read. It really says it all;-)



I'll never be able to write an essay as succint as yours--never. I just tried to summarize my thoughts on this matter and got about 5 lines.

[MMMMMM]

I meant "some sort of rudimentary consciousness, or awareness, or feeling." For instance this would be impossible before the brain starts to develop, but at some point later it is definitely present--and is present before birth. Late-stage babies can hear, can't they? And if the argument is that awareness is not yet highly developed, well that applies also to newborns.

I'm really not arguing about women's right to choose here, or laws; I'm trying to ascertain at what point things might change somewhat from a moral perspective. For instance, suppose for a moment that abortions one day before birth were possible and safe. Would abortion at that latest date be morally wrong, or at least morally different somehow? And if so, then the timeline must go back a bit further--perhaps to some defining stage of development.

I agree that perhaps we can't frame the question very well. However, if it is OK, from a purely moral perspective, to use a morning-after pill, yet it is not OK, from a purely moral persective, to abort a baby the day before birth (or the hour before, or during birth), then there must be a stage somewhere in the middle when things change. At least, this seems to make sense to me.

[brad]

well first of all, i believe partial birth abortion is done like at the 9th month or whatever. (not sure but ive heard that but lots of propaganda in abortion issue i would assume)

second of all i dont really care cause im a guy.

third of all ive had moments where i am so tremendously glad that ive never gotten a girl pregnant (heh) , but main point never gotten her pregnatnt and then abortion. i have a feeling it would be hard to live with that in my more reflective moments.

[Easy E]

.... and if there is (an acceptable state-sponsored murder), what is the cutoff? And who decides?

And if murder by abortion is unacceptable, what about executions? Or terminating suffering terminal patients? Or...

And if MBA is acceptable, what about euthenasia? Or pre- or post-birth murders for disease (terminal? others?)? Or ....

[baggins]

fetal development is a continuum. i believe that to interrupt a continuum that, if left alone, would develop into a human being is murder. so the 'morning after' pill, i would say, is murder as well.

the way i see it is that we all have plenty of options for birth control. one of which is abstinence. i know its pretty harsh to say it, but we all CHOOSE to have sex (obviously excluding rape cases) and can choose not to have sex. or to have sex with as many birth control devices as possible. but we do have an option that is 100% guaranteed not to produce a fetus - abstinence. so any choice that we make, with that as an option, seems to imply pretty strongly that you are taking responsibility for that choice. to then have an abortion afterwards because you got pregnant is murder, to me. if you can't take responsibility for a child, what makes you think you are responsible enough to have sex?

i realize that you will all be flabergasted at the notion of suggesting that people stop having sex. or so much of it. and i am not suggesting that, necessarily. but, think about this: just because frequent casual sex is commonplace in our society doesn't mean that we are no longer responsible for the consequences of our 'pretty normal' actions. i think we'd be in a better place as a whole if there were less casual and promiscuous sex going on.

anyway, thats my opinion. i realize its not shared. but it sucks that babies have to die.

[IrishHand]

Your opinion is shared by some - it's just not a popular one. You see...it's based on people assuming responsibility for their actions, which simply isn't popular in this country (and many others).

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi M's,
I believe that conception is the beginning of life. As soon as you have 46 viable chromosomes, you have a human life, true?

So any abortion is murder from that standpoint.

However, since the mother is the one that ultimately has to live with the decision to abort or not, I think it should be up to the woman. She can take whoever's advice (like the father's) she wants in making the decision.

So what I usually say is, "I'm Pro-Life for me, but Pro-Choice for the Law". As I don't believe I have the right to force my definition on anyone else.

Clearly though, by my definition, at any point after conception it is murder. You can argue definitions an morality all you want, but those things are somewhat subjective. So my stance recognizes everyone's right to determine the truth for themselves, since it's such a heavy decision to make.

Also, I don't have any recollection earlier than about age 2 or 3... by that standard... you could've aborted me up to the age of 2 and I still wouldn't have "known it"!

Sincerely,
AA

[brad]

look up 'bioethics', i forget the guys name, hes a bigshot, he says, oh yeah peter singer, that babies are like mackerel and should be allowed to be killed up to 1 year old.

by the way, these guys are wrtiting the guidelines in the hospitals for rescesitation and stuff.

[baggins]

it doesn't work like that.

do you believe that murder is wrong? or is it not up to you because that's between 2 other people? same thing.

if its not up to you whether a woman should be able to kill the life inside of her, then it is not up to you whether someone kills your mother or sister or wife... that's for them to decide if it is right or wrong.

the point is, murder is an infringement of the relationship of rights and responsibility as they pertain to our relationship with other people.

so basically, it still comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human being or not. if they aren't the most helpless human beings with the most need for protection, i don't know who is...

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Baggins,
I can understand where you are coming from. But the unfortunate truth is that might makes right. I'm infringed on every day of my life by society, by folks with guns my tax money paid for, right? There are tons of rules I'd never have voted for if it was a true Democracy and not a Republic.

My point? I agree, conception is the beginning of life, according to me. But it's a decision I don't feel the right to push on others.

It is therefore an issue that I chose to handle in the manner of "Leading by Example".

I can only hope that people wake up.

But that's wishful thinking.

You see, the real problem is that we haven't built a world optimized for human happiness. We've built a world organized around who does the work, and who gets the rewards. Around money, in short.

Women have been able to have babies in thier teens, for example, since the beginning of the species.

It's only the economics that causes an issue. "How can I support this baby when my (economic) life is a wreck?"

A woman has to really feel caught between a rock and a hard place to elect abortion in my experience.

So until we re-build the world differently, I suspect things will continue as they have. Back and forth fighting over where the grey line of issues are.

So let's hear how you plan to overthrow the powers that be and make a utopia for everyone. I'm all ears.

In any event, I agree, the fetus is the victim. Unfortunately, I'm just a working class bum, not a world leader.

Sincerely,
AA