Author
|
Topic: CoV members perspective re abortion (Read 1770 times) |
|
Scorn
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 18
Reputation: 5.00
Rate Scorn
|
 |
CoV members perspective re abortion
« on: 2004-06-08 04:14:17 » |
 |
Just curious as to what some members perspectives are regarding abortion. This continues to be a very hot topic and here in Canada and seems to be rising once again as a political issue preceeding our upcoming election. There is an interesting Church/State, argument/model I am currently formulating as a framework for me but I am still searching for answers to many unknown questions. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.38
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
     
 
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #1 on: 2004-06-08 09:48:45 » |
|
Most people are caught up in conventional thinking when it comes to matters of biology and personhood. But notice that even in conventional thinking we don't have two classes of things in the world, the non-persons such as rocks and trees given no rights, and the full persons such as human adults given full rights. We have always restricted the freedom of juveniles, yet freedom is a fundamental human right. So there already exists an intermediate level on a scale of human rights, as uncomfortable as it may be to point this out to a pro-lifer. I wish it were simple enough to suffice to say that a body always belongs to the individual in it. That's a completely true statement, but doesn't help us so much with a two-headed woman. To whom do the shared parts of conjoined twins belong? Perhaps we'd have an easier time with such a case than we do with abortion, because each personality inhabiting the body could argue for his or her ownership. But ultimately I think it's that very fact that would force them to come up with a settlement that they could both live with.
My views on abortion, like on so many things, infuriate activists on both sides. I think I'm cursed with a destiny to argue with everybody. On the one hand, the pro-lifers are disgusted with me because I favor RU-486 and limitless medical experimentation on human embryos. On the other hand, the pro-choicers despise me because I'd like to see abortion rights limited, to be previous to the third trimester except in cases of danger to the mother. As far as I can tell, the activists see it as an all-or-nothing issue because they honor one or the other out of a set of valid competing values, life and choice.
On the one hand, science has indeed verified that in an advanced fetus, possessing distinct tissues, organs, limbs and other features, the lights are on and somebody's home. On the other hand, previous to attachment to the womb wall, we're talking about a mindless single cell here, with none of those features. Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics' Society, had an interesting perspective in his article The Secular Sphinx.
Quote:Obviously neither egg nor sperm is a human individual, nor is the zygote, since it might split to become twins, or develop into less than one individual and naturally abort. Not after two weeks, since twinning can still occur. Nor by eight weeks-while there are recognizable human features such as the face, hands, and feet, neuronal synaptic connections are still being made. Only after eight weeks do embryos begin to show primitive response movements. Between eight and 24 weeks, however, the organism could not exist on its own (Pleasure, et al., 1984; Milner and Beard, 1984; Koops, et al., 1982).
There is provisional assent amongst most physicians and scientists-i.e., it is a "fact"-that fetus viability is 24 weeks of gestation. That is six months. It appears that it cannot be earlier because critical organs-lungs and kidneys-do not mature before that time. For example, air sac development sufficient for gas exchange does not occur until at least 23 weeks after gestation, and often later (Beddis, et al., 1979).
Additionally, not until after 28 weeks of gestation does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately 30 weeks. In other words, the capacity for human thought cannot exist until 28 to 30 weeks of gestation (Flower, 1989; Purpura, 1975; Molliver, et al., 1973). Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be "human," the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important. |
One may as well call a human corpse or human sperm a person, as call a human embryo a person. There's a long way to go before it becomes a human fetus, much less a human baby. Every human sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which has the potential to become a fetus, but it'll just sit there and become nothing if it doesn't implant in the womb wall. They can be kept in a petri dish for a while, or frozen alive, as can sperm and eggs. The morning-after pill, RU-286, merely prevents implantation of this speck.
Why do people argue when life begins? There is no beginning to human life. I am the tail end of one long living continuum from my parents, who weren't the beginning of it either. At no point was this process dead when I sprung "to life" out of it. If a human sperm and human egg are previous to the beginning of life, then what are they, dead? If they're pre-human then what are they? They have human DNA. I believe that sperm and eggs are both human and alive... there's nothing else for them to be. And note carefully or you'll miss the whole point: I do not regard them as people. I've been using the words "human" and "person" with great care. What species they are isn't the deciding factor for me. The important thing is the set of experiences which have not begun. Take for instance the sperm or the egg that were going to later become me, and let's say they had died, or combined and aborted as an embryo. My set of experiences would never have begun and I would never have existed. We say about a dead person, "the shell is here but the nut is gone." The nut, the mind, would never have been there, so I would not have been killed by destroying the shell. I would have been prevented from ever existing and not even known the difference.
So what do we mean when we say, "the story of someone's life," or, "get a life," or "life is good right now"? We aren't talking about the opposite of biological death in these phrases. I'll tell you what I mean by it. My life is my series of experiences. That's why the important difference to me, is whether the lights are on and somebody's home. Somebody in a coma is merely "on pause," whereas a corpse is permanently post-experiences. A fetus in the third trimester has started having measurable experiences. Science shows that at a point, before birth, they can perceive, they can learn, there are brainwaves. Their series of experiences has begun in a tiny way. As far as I'm concerned, that carries a certain degree of rights. They have embarked on the lowest end of the sliding scale.
But just as a corpse is post-experiences, an embryo is without question pre-experiences. When I talk about ending a person's life, I mean interrupting an ongoing series of experiences in progress. When it starts, there's a person in that body. Before and after, it's just tissue.
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Scorn
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 18
Reputation: 5.00
Rate Scorn
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #2 on: 2004-06-09 01:22:01 » |
|
I suppose I fall largely into the same catagory of thought as you. I don't suppose I could have expressed it nearly as eloquently. I feel a certain duality in my beliefs. I find myself balanced in the right to life (expressed simply as "what would I do?") vs. the right to choose (expressed of course as my right to do what I will) and I debate both sides within myself. Your quote from "The Secular Sphinx" was enlightening. I suppose I should search and read more. Given the facts as expressed by Michael Shermer in his article one thing dawned on me. It seems to me that pro-life activists are largely arguing the "right to potential" which is something else entirely and certainly opens up a whole new thread of debate. Hmmmmmm.
Still thinking.....
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Arnold
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 92
Reputation: 6.38
Rate Matt Arnold
The Electric Monk
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #3 on: 2004-06-10 08:22:05 » |
|
Imagine if each biography began with "one day a sperm met an egg." I've often heard those who believe in personhood at conception use "potential" as an argument. But when someone does not yet exist, that is a fictional character. I don't believe in fictional characters and I don't support rights for the non-existent. Developing from non-existence into existence is never a right. Imagine a future in which a civil-rights activist group is formed to fight for the rights of fictional characters. "The Non-Existant People's Front."
|
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
|
|
|
Durazac15
Initiate
Posts: 49
Reputation: 5.44
Rate Durazac15
Take me with water and a grain of salt
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #4 on: 2004-08-23 18:13:44 » |
|
It seems simple enough to me...
Is a fetus a human? Sure it is. Even if it can split, spontaneously abort, or what have you. It's just as human as a blob as it as at 8.5 months. Just less developed and subject to greater uncertainty. Sure it's a potential human. But why use the word potential. A human blob-o-cells is still human. Life certainly begins at conception. Dehumanizing early human life is just moving the fine line about til you are happy with it. It's only a matter of time, perhaps a lot of time, but still the time will come when we have developed an artifical womb. If you can transplant an embryo, then there really is no time when the unborn can not be said to be "potentially independent" of the mother.
That said, the question is where do my values lie? Does life reign supreme?
Nahhh.... I love and respect life, but life is NOT the most valuable of things. I say this because there are things that I would give my life for - like freedom. Put a gun to my head and ask me "Your life, or your countryman's freedom?" my answer is "You better shoot me twice". Sure, I am selfish to a point. We all are. But for the free world our soldiers find death in defending our freedoms, not our lives.
So the question of Freedom comes before the question of life, and not just freedom, but advancement as well, for it is a critical part of freedom. A person must be free to choose to carry a child or not. There is no point, IMO, where one person's life (a gestating human in this case) overrides the freedom of it's mother.
Hence I suspect that abortion is the chosen killing of human, before it is born, by it's mother. It's not murder. I support a womans right to choose in all cases, and the full battery of science involving embryos of any species.
I should note however, that because I think a woman has the right to choose, I dispise women who use abortion as birth control, especially those who choose late term abortions over the inconvenience of giving birth or public emberrasment. RU-486 is about the best way I can think of for retroactive birth control.
|
Smiling through it all
Durazac 15
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #5 on: 2004-08-24 10:41:53 » |
|
Quote from: Durazac15 on 2004-08-23 18:13:44 | Nahhh.... I love and respect life, but life is NOT the most valuable of things. I say this because there are things that I would give my life for - like freedom. Put a gun to my head and ask me "Your life, or your countryman's freedom?" my answer is "You better shoot me twice". Sure, I am selfish to a point. We all are. But for the free world our soldiers find death in defending our freedoms, not our lives. |
Can you explain why your countryman's freedom is more valuable to you than your own life? Is it also more valuable to you than your family's and love one's lives?
|
|
|
|
|
Durazac15
Initiate
Posts: 49
Reputation: 5.44
Rate Durazac15
Take me with water and a grain of salt
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #6 on: 2004-08-25 15:36:08 » |
|
One thing to remember, this is in reference to the particular freedom of abortion.
"countryman" was an example of the furthest ring of "empathic circle" I am consciously aware of, though if I think about it, it would include the people of any free country. I would have no trouble for instance risking my life in another country if the goal were freedom for it's people and that is what they wanted. My family is even closer and I choose it over my countrymen. I have a fairly common set of emotional priorities - my children, the rest of the family, then my countrymen and friends, myself...
So yes, my families freedom is more important than my countrymans.
But for example, from my previous statement, you know that I would think of my unborn child as a person, as my offspring, but if the mother of my child were to chose abortion, I would respect her choice. Her freedom is more important than my unborn childs life... Where lies the difference between her choice of termination of a pregnancy and killing my son or daughter or the gun to that childs head? It lies only in being born or not for the outcome is surely the same.
And yes, I have children, and other direct experiences that have tested these thoughts...
What about you? Does your empathy extent in different ways to your family, countrymen, perceived enemies etc?
|
Smiling through it all
Durazac 15
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #7 on: 2004-08-25 16:32:08 » |
|
Quote from: Durazac15 on 2004-08-25 15:36:08
So yes, my families freedom is more important than my countrymans.
|
But that wasn't the question. I was asking if you would sacrifice your family's lives for your countrymen's freedom.
Quote:
What about you? Does your empathy extent in different ways to your family, countrymen, perceived enemies etc?
|
Yes, the level of my empathy is not the same for all living beings, I value some more than others. It depends on how "close" they are in many dimensions: genetic, memetic and social, but physical location (country) has absolutely no influence on it.
|
|
|
|
|
romanov
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 112
Reputation: 7.88
Rate romanov
Doctor of Philosophy? What disease is that?
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #8 on: 2004-09-03 15:28:42 » |
|
Hmmm... one of those wedge issues.
Its one of recent history's little ironies that the rise of atomic individualism that has been the main characteristic of liberal economics (and more recently, neo-liberal) has made natural allies out of certain economists and fundamentalist christians, two groups you would mot expect to be sitting down to lunch together. Certainly the modern co-operation between the religiously fascist and the economically self-serving has been a profound source of misery throughout both the west and particularly the developing world.
The idea that individual human life is essentially priceless is a nice idea, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a thread of hypocrisy to the argument, as it seems to cause such a massive degree of suffering in the world at large. And of course it is backed by rich and exceeding powerful groups whose members will never have to make the typically heart-breaking decision, to put the interests of existing human beings against the interests of potential human beings.
To answer your question correctly, do I like the idea of aborting fetuses? No. Who is going to say yes? But do I like the idea of restricting the ability of women to control their own fertility? No. I've learnt what happens when a society does that.
If you need examples of disease ridden countries, ridden with moral hypocrisy and the oppression of women, I can provide them if you would like.
romanov
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficientor
Adept
Posts: 22
Reputation: 7.46
Rate Beneficientor
Fidei Defensor
|
|
Re:CoV members perspective re abortion
« Reply #9 on: 2004-10-01 00:21:06 » |
|
My views on this issue have already been fluently expounded by Matt, so there is little left for me to say.
A sperm is mindless. It has no brain, no thoughts, no subjective experience and no memories. The same can be said of an egg.
A person, properly defined, is a sentient creature capable of experience.
An unconscious person in a dreamless sleep is still a person- they have had experience and at any given moment they can resume experiencing.
Pre-embryotic humans are in fact no more human than a bacterium- they're simply chemical collections of self-replicating cells. The brain is still under construction, has never had any experience at any given time frame and will never have any experience- it simply isn't equipped. If it is destroyed, no experiences have been lost, and the capacity for experience hasn't been lost either (seeing as at the moment of destruction no capacity existed- just as in a corpse).
Abortion should be illegal at the moment at which a fetus has a brain capable of functioning, as it is at that point that a being with a unique perspective comes into existence. In an emergency situation arising past that moment in which the lives of both the mother and the child are equally and independently at risk, then it should be up to the doctors to save whichever person has the best chance of survival.
However a complication arises if you consider, for example, a person with such extensive brain damage that, in its current state, could never have any further experiences, but, given the right medical attention, could be repaired.
Now under this circumstance, I think most would agree that every possible effort should be made to save the person. However, the person, by the above definition, is no longer a person at all. No capacity for experience exists in the person in the present moment, and left in its current state that capacity will never return and no experiences will ever be felt. The person, for all intents and purposes, is in the same condition as the fertilised egg, and yet we feel driven to preserve this person (because we can). In fact, it would be far easier to preserve the egg's life than it would the heavily injured person's. To retrieve the injured person's capacity for experience, extensive treatment would be required. To give the capacity for experience to the egg, nothing need be done other than to leave it alone and ensure it has sufficient nutrients to develop.
I find this a difficult problem to contemplate. My solution to it is this.
Neither the egg nor the heavily injured person are people any more. There is nothing morally objectionable in destroying the tissue of either. Neither possess the capacity for experience, and therefore neither are sentient creatures.
Whilst most people, including myself, would like to do everything possible for both with the intention of giving them the capacity for experience, that is only because they're already very close. The egg is only a few months away from the capacity to experience. The injured person is similarly only a few months of treatment away from having his or her capacity for experience restored.
However, no moral requirement need exist in either case. It is wrong to terminate any given entity capable of experience, but there is no obligation to ensure anything and everything- every random collection of atoms- has a capacity for experience installed in it.
At the point the injured person was so severely damaged, the person became a lump of tissue with no capacity for experience. The egg, too, is a (much smaller) lump of tissue with no extant capacity for experience. If we were obliged to install the capacity to experience in everything not currently so equipped, then we would have to reorganise every atom in the universe into a sentient structure.
Most of us enjoy having this capacity of sensation, and so when an egg, or any other lump of tissue, gets so close to possessing the ability itself, we usually want to make sure it gets all the way there and can join us. However, we have no duty to ensure every dead piece of matter has the capacity to share our experiences.
One could argue that the severely injured person must be saved because he or she could thank the doctors afterwards and resume experience. However, if we could build sentient creatures out of sand, they'd probably thank their creators as well.
This wouldn't, however, mean we would be obliged to incorporate every last grain of sand in the cosmos into a sandman.
So, my rule on abortion is this:- If the fetus has a nervous system and/or brain capable of generating an experience, it is alive in the sense of being a sentient human, and should be preserved like any other. If it is incapable of experience and has no structures that would allow it to feel, it is a senseless parasite and can be removed and destroyed.
Despite this, most of us, under normal circumstances, would want to see any senseless lump of tissue on the royal road to consciousness reach its goal.
The bigger problem underlying all of this of course, as has probably been noticed, is how to know when an experience is being had, and indeed what an experience even is/how to define one.
For the time being, the best measure I can think of is the existence of a brain. Where there's a functioning brain, there's a person, and that person should be imbued with whatever rights any other sense-capable entity has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
