Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: dan4reason I think that we have cleared that a fetus is a human life and no human should be murdered unless it threatens society. Where is there debate to that?

A fetus is alive but whether it is human is another question. At what point during evolving does it become a distinct life of it's own?
If your going to make one exception then why not more? Should a life be taken where it threatens the individual? As in a woman who does not wish to be pregnant?

[minorwork]

So maybe we can speak of a healthy fetus only. This is another can of worms. Open to any's interpretation as to what constitutes a human. The beginning at conception is gone. At least conception was pretty much agreed to as the start of human life. But now?

Swordfishtrombone Quote: But I can give you far more examples of human embryos that will never develop into a live-born human being. Say you have an embryo with TNF-alpha deficiency, or with hemoglobin Barts, just two examples of genetic diseases that will produce a non-viable fetus. Most miscarriages are the result of genetic errors in the fetus. And frankly in 2007 there is NO way of knowing in advance which fetus is "healthy" versus which ones have a lethal genetic error that is incompatible with survival even until full term gestation. And then you have diseases like anencephaly -- a disease in which there is a live-born infant, but the infant doesn't have a brain -- there's a brainstem and a little bit of midbrain, but that's it. Those children will only survive on life support, and they die within a couple years, never able to even breathe off a ventilator -- and they never get a brain. Or children with genetic diseases like trisomy 13 or trisomy 18, or Tay-Sachs disease, or spinal muscular atrophy, (and there are many others), who will all die in childhood. And then you have diseases that are not 100% fatal in childhood, but have high mortality rates and the children who survive suffer greatly -- like sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and common variable immunodeficiency. Or ones that don't have a known genetic cause, like tetralogy of Fallot and hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which are major anatomical errors that are lethal in infancy without major surgery. And then you have diseases that aren't lethal, but result in a very impaired and often shortened life span, like Down syndrome, or Turner syndrome, or Fragile X syndrome, or DiGeorge syndrome.

And so present law, and I think rightly so, increases the value of the fetus as it matures. The parent can image and by use of genetic sampling determine somewhat the health of the fetus. The informed parent if informed of, say, a condition of Cystic Fibrosis, has a choice. I would hope any Church representative would support the use of such tests and the parents decision whether to terminate or not. It is only natural that the parents grieve for their creation of imperfection. More so if they are burdened with knowing they are the genetic carriers of disease. If the Church can help these parents deal with their self doubts by a doctrine or ritual, then I see the good in the Church and I am behind it. My beef is that being brought up by Catholic teachings, the guilt is more.

Systems using karmic and reincarnation concepts are also of use in these areas.

Finding that your pregnant wife is carrying an infant with cystic fibrosis, that can legally be terminated, would you bring into this world a child destined to be in such misery? Damn the Church's position against abortion. We both know you will be forgiven. And we know that CF victims can and do live productive lives. Would you do it knowing the misery of the condition? How about anencephalics? Little to no brain that can survive for a coupla' years on a ventilator? These and more are the challenges, that as our instruments improve, (especially when the fetus' entire genome can be fully sequenced, takes years to do now) beg for a maturing of personal responsibility in this realm of ethics. Freedom of choice is vital.

[minorwork]

Why should abortions be the alternative to prison sentence? I do not see the pro-life movement suggesting changes in law addressing such. To clarify then.

The 20 year old woman conceives by an underage male carries to delivery and is arrested, sent to prison, and branded a child molester for life. A very difficult issue. The woman feels no choice in the decision but to terminate and avoid prison. Even sadder is a second occurrence. And only when the male becomes of age does the threat of statutory rape charges vanish, and a child allowed birth.

This is a legal problem. I weep at the misfortunes of young adults. I do not know of any legal exceptions to this blaspheme of justice. Is there any recourse to this terrible situation? Does any know of efforts to rectify this? How would it be rectified? Tuff stuff, indeed.

It is human nature to procreate when the body is ready. How old was the mother of Jesus? I've heard 14-15. Under age by our laws.

That law defines the age of a conception's consensual partners, results in the abomination of law forced on the female and male by courts that would claim authority over life itself.

[dan4reason]

I say the child should be saved when there is a good chance of it serving a happy and productive life. It is an act of mercy to abort a diseased baby.

[isaone]

I also must admit to a lack of numbers of years left to read all the posts so if I am being redundant someone please inform me.

Very simply a fetus becomes a 'person' when brain activity of the sort we recognize as human begins. I am no expert in this so I cannot be more specific but I am certain that there is no brain activity for a while (since there is no brain). As I understand it, death is defined as the death of the brain and detected through devices which record brain activity. Having already defined the end of life it is obvious that the beginning of life utilize the same 'rules' .

[Jinei]

Quote by: isaone I also must admit to a lack of numbers of years left to read all the posts so if I am being redundant someone please inform me. Very simply a fetus becomes a 'person' when brain activity of the sort we recognize as human begins. I am no expert in this so I cannot be more specific but I am certain that there is no brain activity for a while (since there is no brain). As I understand it, death is defined as the death of the brain and detected through devices which record brain activity. Having already defined the end of life it is obvious that the beginning of life utilize the same 'rules' .

I agree. An EEG scan of a fetus would be advisable before abortion in the mid to late second trimester.

[Calam]

A married woman gets pregnant. She is thrilled to know she is going to have a child. She and her husband throw parties, have baby showers, and rejoice in the nine months of their child's growth. The big day comes, and she gives birth.

This baby is an independant human.

They are appalled to discover that, when their child is born, he is deformed. His arms and legs are shrivelled and he has Down Syndrome. This baby is viable, and no in any danger of dying now that it is born-- and with a little medical attention, he will survive. But the couple simply decides that they don't want a deformed child.

So they ask the doctor to kill him.

The doctor agrees. Before the baby even leaves the birthing room, the doctor takes a pair of scissors and cuts the baby's throat. The baby quickly dies after only a few minutes outside the womb, AFTER he's already been born, AFTER the mother has seen the baby.

IS THIS INFANTICIDE?


A woman finds out she is pregnant. She is not married and does not want a baby, but she is uncertain that she wants an abortion. She doesn't decide to actually get one until her third trimester. When her labor is induced and the baby is forced out, the doctor and nurses expect to deliver a dead baby-- except that it isn't dead, it's still alive.

This baby is an independant human.

This baby is premature, but with a little medical attention, he will survive. However, the mother's decision has been made; she does not want the baby. So the doctor takes a pair of scissors and snips the child's throat.

The baby, which was alive when it was born, kicking and screaming, quickly dies outside the womb.

IS THIS INFANTICIDE?


A woman finds out she is pregnant. She chooses a late-term abortion. The baby is healthy and, if no abortion is chosen, it will live. Labor is induced, and before the baby leaves the womb, the doctor cuts the baby's spine.

The child is dead before it leaves the mother's body.

The child would have survived outside the mother's body, but did not because it was aborted.

IS THIS INFANTICIDE?


Any parent that chooses to kill their child after it is born is considered, both by law and by common morality, a murderer.
But if the baby is alive when it is born, is killing it not still murder?
And if the baby is only considered alive once it leaves the womb, why is it not considered alive 2 seconds before it exits the birth canal? Is the life of a human measured by the number of inches between the womb and the open air?

The argument here is not where life begins. The argument is what exactly abortion actually is. It is not the choice to decide whether or not your baby is alive-- it is the choice to kill it whether it is born or not.

So I ask you; if you answered "yes" to the first question, how can you possibly say "no" to the second and third question?

[Clementine]

Your scenarios are ludicrous and just plain ridiculous. You can't legally have an abortion that late in the U.S. anyway. No doctor would say yes to murdering a new born baby.

[Calam]

Calling an argument "ridiculous" isn't a valid rebuttal.

The fact is, babies DO survive abortions. And they are often killed anyway.
This is one example.

Statistics show that 10-20% of babies survive certain types of abortions, particularly those involving induced labor. Saline abortions are also survivable. And the ones that live grow up to be fully-functional people, if a bit handicapped. How do you think those people feel about the fact that a doctor tried to abort them?

Also, if you've been watching the news, you'll find that a RN actually testified repeatedly against a hopsital that did exactly that: killed a live baby after a failed abortion. They left it in a soiled laundry closet.

That's murder by neglect.

[dan4reason]

If you can show me that true human life starts later than conception, I will change my views.

[SoylentGreen]

CalamSo I ask you; if you answered "yes" to the first question, how can you possibly say "no" to the second and third question?

third trimester abortions, as far as I can tell , are not done because the mother decides on a whim. They need a good reason.

After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications.

Aren't third trimester abortions rare?

[Calam]

Yes, you are correct that third trimester abortions are rare. I also agree that most mothers-to-be don't just decide on abortions at whim. But they are still abortions.

The scenarios I presented are not meant to be interpreted literally. They are moral quandries. And whether or not the woman was raped (as horrible a situation as that is) doesn't affect the outcome of the child being aborted. And if the child survives, and is killed anyway, the mother's situation doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the child is dead.

So take late term abortions out of the equation. What if it's an early abortion? It's assumed that a child with a half-developed brain isn't alive.

But this raises a bigger question: what is 'alive'? And how do you measure it? Furthermore, how can you prove (or disprove, for that matter) that a child does or does not want to live, or knows it wants to live? Why is it acceptable to assume it doesn't want to so we can kill it?

If (and this is not that big of an 'if') every aborted child, at any and all stages of life, WANTED to live, regardless of self-awareness, then every abortion is a murder.

And since the will to live in a fetus cannot be proven one way or another, why take the risk of murder and kill it anyway? There is no moral basis for this.

[SoylentGreen]

CalamYes, you are correct that third trimester abortions are rare. I also agree that most mothers-to-be don't just decide on abortions at whim. But they are still abortions

Are you saying all abortions are unnecessary or if given good enough reason should still not be carried out. If the state insists it does then the state should take full financial responsibility.

The above scenarios are not meant to be interpreted literally. They are moral quandries.

Written specifically to effect the emotions of the reader. They are not an accurate description on which to base decision.

What if it's an early abortion?

How early? The use of condoms?

that a child does or does not want to live

Want as in it formulated it's own decision by the power of its own intellect?
Show me that a bunch of cells have the ability to want.

There is no moral basis for this.

Why should there be?

[Jack]

There's nothing unique in this thread to cause it not to be included in the already-existing thread on this topic.

[Calam]

Are you saying all abortions are unnecessary or if given good enough reason should still not be carried out. If the state insists it does then the state should take full financial responsibility.

And if all abortions are unecessary, then yes, the state should take financial responsibility; because if I'm right, then it's a moral obligation to prevent crime. We have a police department for this very reason.

Written specifically to effect the emotions of the reader. They are not an accurate description on which to base decision.

They were intended to stimulate discussion. Nobody should base decisions on a few hypothetical scenarios, and if you are suggesting that that was my intention, then you misunderstood the purpose of them entirely.

How early? The use of condoms?

There is a difference between abortion and prevention, and I'm sure you know that.

Want as in it formulated it's own decision by the power of its own intellect? Show me that a bunch of cells have the ability to want.

"Intellect" has nothing to do with it. Do you remember "deciding" through rational thought that living is preferrable to dying? If this is so, then lizards are intellects. We want to live long before we know why. The will to live isn't a rational decision, nor should it be.

Mods: I couldn't readily find the original topic, and seeing that it is not on any of the main forum pages, I didn't want to go hunt it down since reviving an old topic is often considered bad forum etiquette. I apologize if I broke a rule.

[Clementine]

Quote by: Calam Calling an argument "ridiculous" isn't a valid rebuttal. The fact is, babies DO survive abortions. And they are often killed anyway. This is one example. Statistics show that 10-20% of babies survive certain types of abortions, particularly those involving induced labor. Saline abortions are also survivable. And the ones that live grow up to be fully-functional people, if a bit handicapped. How do you think those people feel about the fact that a doctor tried to abort them? Also, if you've been watching the news, you'll find that a RN actually testified repeatedly against a hopsital that did exactly that: killed a live baby after a failed abortion. They left it in a soiled laundry closet. That's murder by neglect.

Calling a debate that is based upon scenarios that are against the law in the U.S. and wouldn't happen, is ridiculous. The site you linked to is completely biased and is not even a U.S. site. According to statistics, 59.9% of abortions occur at under 8 weeks gestational age only 1.4% of all abortions performed in the U.S. occur after 20 weeks gestational age. You are using scare tactics to insight a debate that isn't really relevant. You can see this link for current stats.

[ShadowFox]

Here's a few questions for Calam.

One, if abortion was illegal, what would you have the punishment be for those who still have abortions. Also, should any activity that could bring any sort of harm to the fetus be allowed in your opinion?

[Calam]

Clementine: when did I mention the U.S. in any of this? You're failing to grasp that I'm raising moral questions, not legal ones.

The link you provided is, again, statistics for the U.S. Legality was never a point in any of my scenarios, and the fact that you failed to pick that up implies that you had reached a conclusion before you understood the meaning.

One, if abortion was illegal, what would you have the punishment be for those who still have abortions.

That's not for me to decide.

Also, should any activity that could bring any sort of harm to the fetus be allowed in your opinion?

Making something illegal doesn't solve the problem. Pregnant women who smoke are harming the fetus whether they know it or not. A poor diet can damage a fetus. Taking the wrong kinds of medication can cause all kinds of problems. There is an endless list of both knowns and unknowns that could potentially cause damage to an unborn baby. Should we make every one of them illegal?

Women have a right to smoke while pregnant. Nobody can legally stop them from doing that. But everyone knows it's bad for the baby. So if she's harming her baby, is that something that should be tolerated morally?

There are lots of things in the world that are illegal and shouldn't be, and there are lots of things that aren't illegal and should be. But it's not the government's job to right every wrong, or prevent every wrong. We have a moral responsibility and obligation unto ourselves.

A woman who smokes is harming her baby. That's proven. So it is her responsibility to take better care of herself and her unborn child. But who are we to force her to do that?

In a sense, doing something that harms a fetus would be child endangerment. But again, it's not my place to decide what the punishment would be for such an act, if any.

[Clementine]

Because what you stated isn't relevant. We have already decided morally as a society that the scenarios you described are not ok and are therefore illegal. Your point is?

[Calam]

Quote by: Clementine Because what you stated isn't relevant. We have already decided morally as a society that the scenarios you described are not ok and are therefore illegal. Your point is?

My point is why have we decided that it's not ok to kill a healthy baby in the third trimester, but it's ok in the second? What is the basis for when it is alive and when it is not, and how can it be proven?