an obese pregnant woman puts their baby at various kinds of risk. — Thorongil

Specific case, not universal.

It drives up the cost of health care — Thorongil

Hmmm no. That's already taken into account - either the person pays out of their own wallet, or their insurance company pays for them - rest assured that if they are obese the insurance company will take this into account in their risk profile, and hence the amount of money they pay for insurance.

Sure, why not? — Thorongil

Because it's absurd. For one, it cannot be enforced (too expensive). And the costs to third-parties are basically non-existent.

For one, it cannot be enforced (too expensive). — Agustino

I agree, but I am arguing on principled grounds here, not practical ones. The fact that it would be difficult to enforce doesn't say anything about whether it ought to be illegal in principle.

Fertilization may be a necessary condition for personhood, but it is not a sufficient condition. It's is potential, but not actual. An important, and necessary distinction. Your claim is essentially that a gamete, or a collection of cells, is isomorphic to a conscious, thinking, feeling, and viable being is ludicrous. Otherwise, there is little difference between a collection of cells that potentially form a human life, and a collection of cells that potentially form the life of, say, another mammal. — Maw

I think an Aristotelian natural law objection to this would be that as soon as an egg is fertilized, or perhaps even before then (such as when the sperm is travelling through the woman's vaginal tunnel), the person exists in the same way an apple tree exists in the form of a seed. Unless the telos of the apple tree seed is frustrated, the seed will nurture into a fully developed tree. The same with a fertilized egg, or a pre-CNS fetus. An abortion, then, prevents the fetus from developing into a mature human and fulfilling its telos.

With the marginalization of teleology in modern metaphysics, what we define to be a person ends up being, from a natural law perspective, a qualitative distinction rather than a substantial distinction. But from a modern perspective, I'd say the natural law theory ends up being an arbitrary distinction between intentional and accidental action - does the human come into being when the sperm penetrates the egg, or when the man ejaculates, or when one or both partners decide to have a baby? And from a modern sensibility - what does it truly matter if a telos is frustrated? Really, what's the big deal?

What's your point?
Christians are not Jews — charleton

It is difficult to peaceably agree with some people around here.

I was merely explicating how there were conflicts between Roman Law and local law -- Christian, Jewish, or what have you. There were no Christians when Jesus was alive. Jesus was Jewish and was preaching to Jews.

I have no doubt that women regularly aborted unwanted fetuses in the ancient world. It is, however, difficult to build a case on what Jesus didn't say. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, either -- who knows, maybe Jesus was gay. There was, for instance, the belovéd disciple.

I am strictly pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood.

So, stop snarling.

There were no Christians when Jesus was alive. Jesus was Jewish and was preaching to Jews. — Bitter Crank

Well DUH.

..to build a case on what Jesus didn't say.. — Bitter Crank

You wonder why people take issue with you? Christianity is not built on "what he said", It is built on what he is reported to have said. FFS. I think you need to tone down the patronising pedanticism, wake up and realise that people are smarter than you think; even smarter than you.

Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality — Bitter Crank

So the point I was making; that you can be Christian AND be pro-abortion goes for supporting gay rights too.

Well, Buxtebudd, how common do you think abortions are? It would appear that they are at a 45 year low. This from the Guttmacher Institute: — Bitter Crank

It's still too common, in my opinion.

That is why the pill, IUDs, diaphragms, and condoms are called contraception. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I realize that, but contraceptives are still termed as birth control, even though that's not really what they are. In other words, mental illness suggests an illness of the mind, even though what really is sick is the brain. Yet, we still use mental illness as the terminology. I'm okay with that, but my point was to expose what really is going on beneath the labeling.

Abortion ends the pregnancy, disrupts the tissue, ends the fetus. A fetus is live tissue, but at say 18 weeks, it isn't anywhere close to being "alive". — Bitter Crank

A living thing isn't "alive"? Dafuq? I'm sure you mean to suggest that being "alive" means being conscious, but biologically speaking, that's not what constitutes being alive. I am a living thing just as a tree is. Do we possess different qualities of being alive? Sure, but differing qualities doesn't make a tree more or less alive than I am.

I suppose you are opposed to "the morning after pill"--like Plan B, which buzz-bombs the egg with birth-control hormones like levonorgestrel. levonorgestrel may prevent the ovary from releasing the egg, may prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg, or prevent the egg from digging in for the duration, some, or all of the above. The morning after pill actually works for a couple of mornings after, but not much longer than that. — Bitter Crank

No. Have you not carefully read what I have written here in this thread? Morning after pills control conception. Abortion controls birth.

24 weeks is the earliest that enough of the nervous system is present for a fetus to actually register pain. — Bitter Crank

I've not really stated my moral position on abortion, but for what it's worth, I don't consider pain the most important determining factor in the morality or immorality of an action.

A living thing isn't "alive"? Dafuq? I'm sure you mean to suggest that being "alive" means being conscious, but biologically speaking, that's not what constitutes being alive. — Buxtebuddha

By "alive" I meant "an independently living being". At 4 or 5 months, the fetus isn't an independently living being. A 100 pound person is 100 pounds of living tissue; any single pound of their tissue, removed from the body, ceases to live because it can't live on it's own, cut off from the rest of the body. At 4 or 5 months, the fetus is in the same situation, not able to live on its own (to breathe, for instance, or swallow).

I agree, consciousness isn't a requirement for "aliveness".

I've not really stated my moral position on abortion, but for what it's worth, I don't consider pain the most important determining factor in the morality or immorality of an action. — Buxtebuddha

Some anti-abortion groups suggest that the process of abortion (before 24 weeks) would be painful for the fetus. That's why I brought up pain.

Whether pain in any situation would be a determining factor in the morality of an action would, for me, depend on the severity and duration of the pain. Causing severe long-lasting pain might make an act immoral. If injuring someone to some degree in the act of defending property was moral, causing long-lasting and severe pain in the defense of property wouldn't be.

Of course, severity of pain is somewhat subjective, but I suspect that many injuries that one person finds extremely painful, most other people will also find extremely painful.

By "alive" I meant "an independently living being". At 4 or 5 months, the fetus isn't an independently living being. A 100 pound person is 100 pounds of living tissue; any single pound of their tissue, removed from the body, ceases to live because it can't live on it's own, cut off from the rest of the body. At 4 or 5 months, the fetus is in the same situation, not able to live on its own (to breathe, for instance, or swallow, excrete, etc).

I agree, consciousness isn't a requirement for "aliveness". — Bitter Crank

I'm not so sure. Perhaps we're talking past each other, but a fetus and you/me both need the same things in order to live. We're both dependent upon food, oxygen, water, etc. The difference, however, is how the requirements of life are taken in. For the fetus, it's through the mother. For you and me, it's through the greater world. The principle that roots both cases, though, is that both of us aren't absolutely self-sufficient. So, the fetus depends on the same things that you and I do, even though the means of that dependence are manifested in different ways.

Some anti-abortion groups suggest that the process of abortion (before 24 weeks) would be painful for the fetus. That's why I brought up pain. — Bitter Crank

And some "pro-choice" people assert that the human fetus isn't human. *shrug* You're gonna get at best questionable opinions if you dig deep enough.

Whether pain in any situation would be a determining factor in the morality of an action would, for me, depend on the severity and duration of the pain. — Bitter Crank

I'd agree I think, but I still take issue with the killing of a life. I don't care if it's an ant or a human fetus. Killing something ought to give someone great pause. Abortion, I have found, has become such a routine and thoughtless action that I think we've lost sight of what is actually going on. Anecdotally, for some of my childhood I grew up in South Florida and I used to be appalled and distraught when a kid would kick an ant hill and scatter the ants and destroy their home. Why the fuck would they do that? Even now, I try not to kill little living things unless they're fucking with me. I ran over a bird once when driving and I was pissed off the rest of the day. Aborting a human fetus is as repulsive to me as the examples I just mentioned, and I think it's wrong, whether necessary or not, to kill any living thing.

Also, I've heard the argument that abortion is actually self-defense - that the "mother" is defending herself against the intruding fetus. What do you think of that madness? I dunno, the lengths people go to justify themselves when I think they know they've fucked up and did wrong...

I've heard the argument that abortion is actually self-defense - that the "mother" is defending herself against the intruding fetus. — Buxtebuddha

I think it's nonsense.

Aborting a human fetus is as repulsive to me as the examples I just mentioned — Buxtebuddha

And finding abortions repulsive strikes me as a perfectly normal reaction. It's an invasive bloody procedure. However, lots of medical procedures are at least repulsive, some are ghastly. Some are perfectly horrible by any stretch of the meaning of repulsive, ghastly, and horrible.

I find the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions on abortion about equally convincing. To take a position is to decide whether the fetus takes priority over the mother's wishes and needs. Before that decision one has to decide what the existential reality of a fetus is. When does it become a viable life, a person? Does a non-viable fetus have an existential condition yet? Maybe one has to decide whether the existential condition of a woman changes when she becomes pregnant. Does pregnancy require the woman to exist as a vessel for the developing fetus?

Those who oppose abortion in all circumstances clearly decided that a woman is a vessel in service to the fetus and has a subordinate position. If a woman can be forced to be pregnant (by rape or consensual marital sex) then the woman is also subordinate to the man -- any man, really. The woman has never seen the rapist before, he rapes her, she becomes pregnant, and then is required to bear the child he fathered.

The opposite extreme position is that a woman has zero responsibility to the father or to the fetus. If she feels like it, she may abort without mentioning it to the father. If she prefers to drink heavily during pregnancy, that's the fetus's problem. Smoke crack, shoot up heroin, do the latest pain killer to hit the streets, fine. "Hey it's my life, my body; I'll do what I want with it."

Bothe the extremophile pro-life and the extremophile pro-choice positions are kind of repulsive to me. Are there too many abortions? 700,000 abortions is 700,000 couples who couldn't be bothered to manage relatively simple contraception. One pill a day too complicated? Put the condom on first too complex? Get a vasectomy if you don't want to father children too difficult? Get an implant if you can't manage one pill every day too difficult? Get your tubes tied if you don't like taking medication?

Apparently.

When does it become a viable life, a person? — Bitter Crank

I acknowledge that a fertilized egg is different from separated sperm and egg cells, but as I've said previously, to me, eight cells is not a human being. So, where do we draw the line. I was thinking that one possible milestone is when the fetus can be differentiated from the fetus of other animals without doing a DNA test. Visually. I've tried to find that out on the web without success. Does anyone know? I'm not saying this would give a definitive answer, but it would be interesting to know.

Of course there are questions about how this criteria would be applied. Who decides - an embryologist, a comparative zoologist, an untrained person? What animal would it be compared to? Any animal? Any mammal? Any primate? The animal closest to human? I think that's a chimpanzee.

So, I think you will find the approach of differentiating human fetuses from pig fetuses to be not too helpful.

The developing mammalian fetus seems to recapitulate some aspects of mammalian evolution. For instance, mammalian fetuses form gill slits at one point. Why do they do this? See Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It's a good book. Mammals evolved from fish. The fish body plan is pretty much the standard vertebrate model, and it goes beyond bones. The cranial nerves coming out of a shark brain are organized pretty much the way our own cranial nerves are organized. Our inner ear bones were once parts of the fish jaw.

Mammalian fetuses also follow the same course of development from fertilized egg to the first breath of air whether they are whales, walruses or Windsors. At some point a Windsor fetus is distinct from a whale fetus. The Windsor blow hole is in the front of its face, rather than on top of its head, for instance. You can see this feature clearly on Queen Elizabeth II's face.



see below

For a good time, see the Multi Dimensional Human Embryo Site



Chicken, Fish, Human, Dolphin, Alien, and Cat

[Delete] @Baden

Yeah, but i think humans have killed more than God has. Some might say humans have even killed God, but that's another story. — René Descartes

Don't be absurd. As god is the designer, every death is his responsibility.

[Delete] @Baden

Based on the poll that just went up, it caused me to wonder if post-birth "abortions" would be considered a legitimate view point. Does the difference of a few minutes, the duration of the delivery, really change the argument made by some people here? The born child is just as helpless as it was when within the womb, but now its easier to discard of if the goal is late-stage abortion; you don't need to pull the fetus out piece by piece this way. Would the argument be emphasized if the umbilical cord was still attached?

Tearing into this a bit more, 28 weeks of pregnancy seems like more than enough time to make a choice on whether to keep a child or not. Not aborting by around this time is sort of an acceptance of responsibility, and failing in responsibilities come consequences. Arguably having sex seems like a choice and responsibility on its own already, so I suspect that argument won't hold up.

Either way, with the introduction of late stage information of the fetus being determined to have serious health issues, I could see how late stage abortions would be acceptable. But based on that logic, if you learn of these birth defects only at time of birth, would it then be acceptable to kill the child immediately after birth? I suppose not, given that adoption would be an option, but adoption is an option for late-stage pregnant mothers as well, is it not?

Overall, I have no strong opinion either way, as people do what they can get away with and I hold beliefs that nothing ultimately really matters.

If you believe in determinism, than what you are saying is fine. But if you believe in free will like I do, God has no control over what we do and therefore we are responsible for the evil we commit. — René Descartes

You have achieved a great feat in this post..
At once you make a non sequitur, and a contradiction in the same moment. You assert that humans have free will but deny it to god!
If god has no control of his actions then no one is responsible.
If god is all powerful then only he is responsible.
If God is not all powerful then why call him god?
The only safe conclusion is that there is no god.

I think that we're trying to get at the same thing, here. The way I read you at least.

The OP argues against various positions, but never argues for theirs.

Based on the poll that just went up, it caused me to wonder if post-birth "abortions" would be considered a legitimate view point. Does the difference of a few minutes, the duration of the delivery, really change the argument made by some people here? — Sydasis

Not in the least.

There simply is no point-like time which you'll find in the continuum of development where some life will be significantly different before, and after.

But we desire such a time -- we often desire to be able to say that this is right, and that is wrong.

But the facts don't fit our desires. And as such any point chosen will be a line in the sand based upon vague notions of rightness and wrongness -- in discussions like these, from the abstract, and in the moment of decision, the various factors of concern.

[Delete] @Baden

I think we should be allowed to abort our child up to the age of 18 — René Descartes

Seems like a lot of wasted tax dollars, as those first 18 years of child care services aren't cheap. Do adopted parents get to make that choice, or only the biological parents? Mom or father?

I think we should be allowed to abort our child up to the age of 18 — René Descartes

Obviously the vote with the caveat is the only reasonable one. Whilst it is definitively impossible to do a post-birth abortion, since abortion actually implies an aborted 'birth'; without ANY caveat we could abort at 8 months, 3 weeks and 6 days!!

The developing mammalian fetus seems to recapitulate some aspects of mammalian evolution — Bitter Crank

There was a whole branch of biology devoted to this fallacy, now fully discredited.

[Delete] @Baden

Is there any reason it is 18? I would of suspected any age would still be valid.

What if the teenager had a child before turning 18; would that child then still be in reach of the grandparents? And which grandparent gets to make the decision? One or all?

Would be great if you could respond to my reply on page 11. :up:

Fertilization may be a necessary condition for personhood, but it is not a sufficient condition. It's is potential, but not actual. — Maw

No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult

So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18.

No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult

So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18. — LostThomist

But now you've shifted the goalposts from "personhood" to "adulthood".

No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult

So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18. — LostThomist

Fallacy of false analogy.

Again your argument here is against some perceived fault in another choice. (and I agree with @darthbarracuda as well)

But what motivates the point you've chosen? How is it not arbitrary?

FWIW, I'm comfortable with abortion being legal up to the point of birth. But I don't pretend that my comfort level is somehow superior based upon either biological facts or metaphysical argument. It, too, is a line in the sand arrived at by weighing the various arguments and positions.