Abortion

[baldgye]

Nah. I am not on that wave length. I think after 30 weeks when brain activity really starts in full swing, that's the hard cut off for me ethically for elective abortions.

But what sort of brain activity would you need?

 

[Imari]

Nah. I am not on that wave length. I think after 30 weeks when brain activity really started in full swing, that's the hard cut off for me ethically for elective abortions. I don't subscribe to the "let someone else use your body without your consent" "ideology." Everyone knows there is a probability of getting pregnant when they have sex. And very rarely does someone go that far to term without knowing they are pregnant. That is generally figured out within the first 60 days. By week 30, I think at that point consent is established enough by not actively pursuing an abortion.

I could maybe agree if we lived in a world where abortion is freely and easily available to anyone before 30 weeks without question. Unfortunately, I think it's perfectly possible in a lot of places for someone to be denied abortion for that long. 30 weeks seems a bit arbitrary, but any number that isn't "always" or "never" is going to be at least a bit arbitrary.

With regards to the "ideology" of consent, as you put it, is this only with regards to abortions or does this also extend to other areas of life? If you get as far as being naked in bed with someone, does that mean consent is established far enough that it cannot be withdrawn? By working for someone for a year does that mean that you no longer have a right to choose whether you want to allow them to use your labour?

Those examples are obviously mildly facetious, but I think the general idea remains: Are there any points in other areas of life at which your consent for the use of your body (or even for just doing something in general) cannot be withdrawn before the act is over? Or is this something that would be unique to pregnancy?

I get that the idea of intentionally killing someone is difficult, and a child even more so, but even the tough philosophical questions should have answers that are consistent. When you're pregnant, you're using your body to support and grow this being, which you will then be responsible for looking after for the next ~20 years. The other option is to kill it, and while we can talk about at what point a fetus becomes a person it's pretty difficult and is likely never to be particularly well defined due to the variable nature of humans. You're destroying something that would otherwise have probably become a person, and that feels close enough to killing to most people that I don't see the point in beating around the bush.

We have good, consistent, morally defensible rules about killing humans that are able to survive on their own. The rules change when talking about humans that can't survive on their own; switching off life support at the request of the family or appropriate guardian is generally not considered murder, it's simply letting the person live or die on their own. I think there are some parallels here, if you're willing to look for them.

There's even interesting stuff with regards to donors. Most countries still respect a person's wishes about the use (or non-use) of their body after their death, even if it would save another person's life. I think that's fascinating; a person who unquestionably has no further use for their body can deny parts of it to another live and functioning human, potentially resulting in their death also.

 

[Rallywagon]

Cerebral brain activity which kicks off going into the third trimester. That's where I believe the hard line should be drawn. To have a hard set "this amount if brain activity" is a fool's errand to establish. It would require every single person looking for an abortion to go through extensive, costly and probably dangerous testing to establish. Every person and thus every fetus develop at different rates. But we do know that in the third trimester is when the cerebral cortex begins to develop and fire off. REM sleep begins, reactions the external stimulation begins. Consciences is achieved at this point. The end of the second trimester is honestly the last point that ethical elective abortions can be carried out, IMO.

 

[mirial]

You're a time-traveler from the 1950s. That's the only possible explanation. If you were from the 1960s or any time later, you wouldn't sound like this. For the record the 1960s are 60 years ago. And that's not far enough back for this post.

Ok, so let's check the completely unsubstantiated premises shall we?
- Tattoos make you undesirable (maybe they do to you, and that's your prerogative, but you present this as universal)
- Promiscuity makes you undesirable (maybe it does to you, and that's your prerogative, but you present this as universal)
- Politics makes you promiscuous (you may be confusing causality with correlation here again)
- Politics makes you get tattoos (you may be confusing causality with correlation here again)
- Misogynistic men prefer promiscuity (this one is hilarious coming from you)
- Misogynistic men prefer tattoos
- Promiscuity makes you untrustworthy
- Tattoos make you untrustworthy


I think that's the round-up. That's a lot to pack into 4 sentences.

Just a summary of your opinion, I summarise generally as to whether you have an R or K selection mating strategy in life, even though we live in easy times.

My parents grew up in the war years, and they felt no reason to rebel against a society or their own parents that had been good to them which then rubbed off on to me (loyalty, and possibly genetic as well, but this is another subject). I also went to a variety of schools, and the strict ones were the best by far.

 

[Rallywagon]

I could maybe agree if we lived in a world where abortion is freely and easily available to anyone before 30 weeks without question. Unfortunately, I think it's perfectly possible in a lot of places for someone to be denied abortion for that long. 30 weeks seems a bit arbitrary, but any number that isn't "always" or "never" is going to be at least a bit arbitrary.

I find it less than arbitrary on the grounds that fetal brain development has lots of really solid research that establishes some pretty good timelines. The important factor here being the development of the part of the brain responsible for memory and consciousness.

With regards to the "ideology" of consent, as you put it, is this only with regards to abortions or does this also extend to other areas of life? If you get as far as being naked in bed with someone, does that mean consent is established far enough that it cannot be withdrawn? By working for someone for a year does that mean that you no longer have a right to choose whether you want to allow them to use your labour?

I already said I didn't like your examples due to the drastic difference in the nature of what pregnancy is. We aren't talking about relationships between two people in a work place. This is the creation of another human.
To that point, and another failing of your examples is that you are talking about ending a life, which I do believe to be that case if the abortion is after the second trimester, based on cerebral development. In your examples, say the one about being naked in bed. I think the argument being the outcome to something like "two people are naked in bed, having gotten this far the woman decides she doesnt want to go any further, so she kills the man." You see why these aren't really equitable in the discussion?

Those examples are obviously mildly facetious, but I think the general idea remains: Are there any points in other areas of life at which your consent for the use of your body (or even for just doing something in general) cannot be withdrawn before the act is over? Or is this something that would be unique to pregnancy

being how unique the act of pregnancy is, I think the latter surely so. I cant think of any other moment in life, except in severe threat to a person's life and/or limb could we argue killing someone is ethical.

I get that the idea of intentionally killing someone is difficult, and a child even more so, but even the tough philosophical questions should have answers that are consistent. When you're pregnant, you're using your body to support and grow this being, which you will then be responsible for looking after for the next ~20 years. The other option is to kill it, and while we can talk about at what point a fetus becomes a person it's pretty difficult and is likely never to be particularly well defined due to the variable nature of humans. You're destroying something that would otherwise have probably become a person, and that feels close enough to killing to most people that I don't see the point in beating around the bush.

agreed, and that I think includes using inequitable examples to try and establish and set of moral means or bounds. However, I would also point out that the context of this paragraph "dont kill" seems to contradict your earlier stance of "abortion should be allowed right up until birth."

We have good, consistent, morally defensible rules about killing humans that are able to survive on their own. The rules change when talking about humans that can't survive on their own; switching off life support at the request of the family or appropriate guardian is generally not considered murder, it's simply letting the person live or die on their own. I think there are some parallels here, if you're willing to look for them.

I think in most cases, a DNR is required by the patient in order to be cut from life support. I could be wrong. However, the difference I think is that the family generally knows if they want a DNR or not, and that person had the agency to make that choice before being put on life support.

There's even interesting stuff with regards to donors. Most countries still respect a person's wishes about the use (or non-use) of their body after their death, even if it would save another person's life. I think that's fascinating; a person who unquestionably has no further use for their body can deny parts of it to another live and functioning human, potentially resulting in their death also.

Why shouldn't people maintain agency over their bodies beyond life?

Edit, edited to fix all the fun with the quote commands.

 

[Danoff]

But what sort of brain activity would you need?

Rally,

Baldgye has you here, you blew right past this post, but it completely undercuts your message.

Cerebral brain activity which kicks off going into the third trimester. That's where I believe the hard line should be drawn.

Lots of things have brains, and brain activity. That's not enough to consider them as having a right to life.

 

[Rallywagon]

Rally,

Baldgye has you here, you blew right past this post, but it completely undercuts your message.

I'm not sure that I did. The quote of mine you used is my direct answer to Baldgye.

Lots of things have brains, and brain activity. That's not enough to consider them as having a right to life.

Sure. While it's a bit of a juxtaposition to hold, as I eat animals, I do believe that anything living has a "right to life." But, we aren't talking about lots of other things. We are speaking of only one species specifically.

 

[Danoff]

Sure. While it's a bit of a juxtaposition to hold, as I eat animals, I do believe that anything living has a "right to life." But, we aren't talking about lots of other things. We are speaking of only one species specifically.

And even within the Human species we deny all kinds of rights (including right to life) depending on how fully-functioning the brain is.

 

[Rallywagon]

And even within the Human species we deny all kinds of rights (including right to life) depending on how fully-functioning the brain is.

Sure, but that's exception.

 

[Danoff]

Sure, but that's exception.

It's principled. We offer rights to well-functioning human brains and deny them to not-so-well functioning human brains. So is a fetus a well-functioning brain, or not so much? Kids don't even get all of their rights by age 18.

 

[Rallywagon]

It's principled. We offer rights to well-functioning human brains and deny them to not-so-well functioning human brains. So is a fetus a well-functioning brain, or not so much? Kids don't even get all of their rights by age 18.

Im sorry, has there been a cull on mentally disabled fetuses?
For that matter, brain development doesnt fully complete until 24, should a mother have the right then to "abort" her child up until that point? Of course not. Children do maintain at least some amount of human rights. And fornthebsame reason they may be denied other basic rights, for those same reasons they are also granted extra rights. So is the argument then that life doesnt begin until birth? Or just human rights?

 

[Danoff]

Im sorry, has there been a cull on mentally disabled fetuses?

Not just fetuses.

https://healthcare.findlaw.com/pati...ative-state-what-is-the-legal-difference.html

We condition rights on brain function. Not even a little brain function, a lot of brain function.

For that matter, brain development doesnt fully complete until 24, should a mother have the right then to "abort" her child up until that point? Of course not.

The degree of brain development nets a degree of rights. This is consistent all the way from pre-birth to age 21 (in the US). So at age 18, your brain hasn't developed well enough to net you the ability to buy alcohol in the US. And at birth your brain can get you a right to life. In between, other rights are gotten at different ages.

Children do maintain at least some amount of human rights.

Changes with brain development.

So is the argument then that life doesnt begin until birth? Or just human rights?

Human children don't have the cognitive abilities of a lot of animals at birth. Animals that don't have a right to life. We do (and should) extend them a right to life at birth because it is convenient, not because we absolutely have to to be consistent with the nature of rights themselves. Any earlier than birth and you start infringing on someone who does have rights (the mother) for someone who doesn't (the unborn).

 

[Rallywagon]

Human children don't have the cognitive abilities of a lot of animals at birth. Animals that don't have a right to life. We do (and should) extend them a right to life at birth because it is convenient, not because we absolutely have to to be consistent with the nature of rights themselves. Any earlier than birth and you start infringing on someone who does have rights (the mother) for someone who doesn't (the unborn).

And so the debate goes round and round and round as we have literally argued a circle. We return again to my post to Imari.

Everyone knows there is a probability of getting pregnant when they have sex. And very rarely does someone go that far to term without knowing they are pregnant. That is generally figured out within the first 60 days. By week 30, I think at that point consent is established enough by not practicing safe sex and not actively pursuing an abortion

At the end of the day, as son many other topics. It comes down to individual opinion. My opinion, as expressed, is that elective abortion at the third trimester is unethical.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not pushing for anything. You asked for a cutoff, I suggested an upper limit of birth with lower limits in specific cases where medically appropriate. That's based on simple semantics, if you do it after birth it's generally considered murder rather than abortion.

If someone has an argument for why the limit should be lower I'd be keen to hear it. But until then I rather think that being pregnant is a bit like having sex; you can say no and stop any time you like, even halfway through, even right before the end. As a human, I don't think you should be required to let someone else use your body without your consent.

I'd say the age of viability.

The thought that the difference between someone ending up in a NICU cot rather than a medical waste bin resting entirely on a mother's choice at that one specific moment doesn't sound quite right to me.

 

[Danoff]

At the end of the day, as son many other topics. It comes down to individual opinion. My opinion, as expressed, is that elective abortion at the third trimester is unethical.

Yes but I have an actual basis for my opinion.

I'd say the age of viability.

The thought that the difference between someone ending up in a NICU cot rather than a medical waste bin resting entirely on a mother's choice at that one specific moment doesn't sound quite right to me.

It's a developing organism that is not fully developed. Viability depends entirely on the current state of medical science. What happens when modern medicine can skip a uterus altogether? You realize this is an eventuality right? There's not even a question of whether it will happen, just a question of when.

So when a sperm and egg are "viable", are you required to put them together and grow them into a person simply because they are viable? Which ones are you required to put together?

Right now the record for incubation of an embryo is 2 weeks. The earliest premature baby is 21 weeks. That's a gap of 19 weeks. Current law prevents going past 14 days (at least in some countries), and I think I read somewhere else that that limit is the reason that the 2 weeks is where it sits right now. In other words, we don't actually know how much farther than 2 weeks we can go at the moment.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes but I have an actual basis for my opinion.

That's good for you, and so do I. You dont seem to agree with it is all.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes but I have an actual basis for my opinion.



It's a developing organism that is not fully developed. Viability depends entirely on the current state of medical science. What happens when modern medicine can skip a uterus altogether? You realize this is an eventuality right? There's not even a question of whether it will happen, just a question of when.

So when a sperm and egg are "viable", are you required to put them together and grow them into a person simply because they are viable? Which ones are you required to put together?

Right now the record for incubation of an embryo is 2 weeks. The earliest premature baby is 21 weeks. That's a gap of 19 weeks. Current law prevents going past 14 days (at least in some countries), and I think I read somewhere else that that limit is the reason that the 2 weeks is where it sits right now. In other words, we don't actually know how much farther than 2 weeks we can go at the moment.

I'd limit it to viability without needing an artificial womb.

It's arbitrary, but the other options are too extreme to me (i.e. no limit or no abortion option at all)

 

[Danoff]

That's good for you, and so do I. You dont seem to agree with it is all.

Uh... what's yours?

I'd limit it to viability without needing an artificial womb.

It's arbitrary, but the other options are too extreme to me (i.e. no limit or no abortion option at all)

So what does that mean? Is a NICU incubator an artificial womb?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So what does that mean? Is a NICU incubator an artificial womb?

No, the baby is supported in the same way as an adult would be in an ITU bed. I predict that the limit for this type of support would hit around the 20/21 week stage. Anything earlier would need an artificial womb environment, and be radically different to techniques used in NICU.

 

[Danoff]

No, the baby is supported in the same way as an adult would be in an ITU bed. I predict that the limit for this type of support would hit around the 20/21 week stage. Anything earlier would need an artificial womb environment, and be radically different to techniques used in NICU.

I don't understand why this is meaningful to you.

 

[Rallywagon]

Uh... what's yours?



So what does that mean? Is a NICU incubator an artificial womb?

As I've mentioned. The beginning of the third trimester is my cut off. It's the point that the frontal lobe develops and cognition is achieved. The point that the bundle of replicating cells gains awareness.

 

[Danoff]

As I've mentioned. The beginning of the third trimester is my cut off. It's the point that the frontal lobe develops and cognition is achieved. The point that the bundle of replicating cells gains awareness.

The cognition and "awareness" of a third trimester fetus is not exactly unique in the world of animals. What makes this an important milestone?

 

[Rallywagon]

The cognition and "awareness" of a third trimester fetus is not exactly unique in the world of animals. What makes this an important milestone?

Good for the rest of the animals. I am speaking of human fetuses.
But, since you brought it up. At what point does any other animal start abortions? Personally, I would put a cap on the equivalent on all of the animal kingdom, but as of yes, I have not seen any bear or kangaroo abortion clinics, soooo, false equivalency?
Also, isnt this a whatabout? We are speaking of humans, not animals, what's the point of bringing up animals other than to try and obfuscate the topic.

 

[Danoff]

Good for the rest of the animals. I am speaking of human fetuses.

....and what makes this meaningful?

But, since you brought it up. At what point does any other animal start abortions? Personally, I would put a cap on the equivalent on all of the animal kingdom, but as of yes, I have not seen any bear or kangaroo abortion clinics, soooo, false equivalency?

At no point, including after birth, are we prevented from killing just about every animal. So since we can eat bear... no false equivalency.

Also, isnt this a whatabout? We are speaking of humans, not animals, what's the point of bringing up animals other than to try and obfuscate the topic.

I'm trying to understand what makes this distinction meaningful.

Edit:

In order for you to properly call whatabout on this, you have to change your argument from where it currently sits (based on my understanding of it). You'd have to be arguing that we can never kill any animal that has reached this mental state. Then your response would be something along the lines of "doing something horrible to them does not make it ok to do something horrible to human fetuses". But I don't think this is your argument. You seem to think there is something special about human fetuses, and you're using things that aren't special about them to try to make that point.

 

[Rallywagon]

You'd have to be arguing that we can never kill any animal that has reached this mental state.

Sure. While it's a bit of a juxtaposition to hold, as I eat animals, I do believe that anything living has a "right to life." But, we aren't talking about lots of other things. We are speaking of only one species specifically.

Even more to the point, I wont personally kill or eat an animal that appears/is under a certain age. I dont eat veal, I dont eat lamb. In fact, a lot of my meat eating habits revolve around ethical animal treatment. We dont drink milk, we know the farms we get our meat from and know the conditions they are kept. I've also been a part of rescuing abused and neglected animals for most of my life.
I think all of that is quite besides the point. The topic is human abortion, not the circle of life. If we want to speak of the animal kingdom. No animal that I am aware of practices abortions. As such if we take your lead on this conversation, maybe instead of abortion, we should be talking about whether its appropriate for a mother to eat their child instead, since that's about as close to abortion as you get in animals.

 

[Danoff]

Even more to the point, I wont personally kill or eat an animal that appears/is under a certain age. I dont eat veal, I dont eat lamb. In fact, a lot of my meat eating habits revolve around ethical animal treatment. We dont drink milk, we know the farms we get our meat from and know the conditions they are kept. I've also been a part of rescuing abused and neglected animals for most of my life.
I think all of that is quite besides the point. The topic is human abortion, not the circle of life. If we want to speak of the animal kingdom. No animal that I am aware of practices abortions. As such if we take your lead on this conversation, maybe instead of abortion, we should be talking about whether its appropriate for a mother to eat their child instead, since that's about as close to abortion as you get in animals.

Uh.... no.

The reason people think abortion is immoral is because it is killing the innocent. Killing, in other words, what you eat in this context matters, unless you only eat meat that was previously dead. You're a huge hypocrite if you think all animals have a right to life, and yet you kill them to eat them.

If you want to limit the discussion to humans, you need to explain what makes humans special. If you want to limit the discussion to abortion (as opposed to other types of killing), you need to explain what makes abortion special. The onus is entirely on you here, since you want to avoid talking about these other philosophically parallel scenarios.

 

[Rallywagon]

Uh.... no.

The reason people think abortion is immoral is because it is killing the innocent. Killing, in other words, what you eat in this context matters, unless you only eat meat that was previously dead. You're a huge hypocrite if you think all animals have a right to life, and yet you kill them to eat them.

If you want to limit the discussion to humans, you need to explain what makes humans special. If you want to limit the discussion to abortion (as opposed to other types of killing), you need to explain what makes abortion special. The onus is entirely on you here, since you want to avoid talking about these other philosophically parallel scenarios.

I dont think it being a huge hypocrite at all. Rather, I dont see humans as separate from the animal kingdom. We are apex predators that also happen to be omnivores. That doesnt mean we shouldn't have ethics to go along with it.

 

[Danoff]

I dont think it being a huge hypocrite at all. Rather, I dont see humans as separate from the animal kingdom.

We're not. We're actually animals.

 

[Rallywagon]

We're not. We're actually animals.

A point we agree on then. Theres that at least.

 

[Liquid]

Quote Of The Day regarding restrictive abortion laws:

Alabama is so terrible that it literally has to force people to be born there.