This is another in my series of position statements. I post mostly for the purpose of the mental exercise but hope to provoke conversation on the topics. In this posting, I try to describe my position about abortion and how I came to it. It seems that all through my youth and young adulthood, the issue of abortion was a bother to me. My first confrontation with the issue was in contemplation of possible consequences of my romantic behaviors. Later in life, I needed to make judgements when people near me made decisions about child bearing. Still later, I understood the meaning of a series of events during my childhood that probably meant that my mother had chosen abortion rather than its alternative when our family of four was barely getting by. Given that I value life over all other concepts, I am torn about the questions of abortion. The gist of my position is that I do not support it past the first trimester except where the mothers life or health is at risk or in the case of clear evidence of non-viability of the fetus. This position is not influenced by faith only knowledge. I make this disclosure early so that you can save yourself a long read if you have closed yourself to any thinking not influenced by faith. Thanks for reading this far. For those of you that might find some validity in though not influenced by faith, I try to make my points clearly but not briefly. As always, I encourage discussion. No one I know or care to know wants to kill babies. To gather support "Pro-lifers" use that terminology. It is very effective in eliciting an emotion-based response. I try to explain my position on the topic. I do not do so to convince anyone to change their positions. I know that is nearly impossible. I do it merely to make clear what the controversy is about. In short, it is about the attempt to insert a religiously based concept into law. Some claim that Human DNA in a cell makes it a Human Being worthy of all the protections due a Human Being. If that single human cell is a human being, it probably does deserve all the constitutional rights we bestow on Human Beings. I do not know for sure when humanness begins but I do not think it is at conception. I suspect that it begins about the time of self-awareness. I agree that every zygote or fetus represents the potential of humanity but we have not nailed down just when humanness begins. We probably all share the belief that if Americans knew for certain that abortion ended human lives, they would not allow it to occur and they would be justified in stopping it. Of course we would not accept the murder of humans on any scale. However, there is no basis in fact for knowing that a fetus is a human life. Without doubt it is a life. However, we do not revere all life. We revere and protect only human life. We have no moral issues about killing non-human animals either for our own survival, as for food, or even for sport (though this is on less solid moral ground). When we choose to do so, we commonly excise unwanted human cells from our bodies. That is done sometimes for health reasons and sometimes just for vanity. While some might question the intelligence of doing cosmetic surgery, its morality is not questioned. Each one of the thousands of cells discarded in a facelift, has that same DNA which distinguishes it as a human cell. Today it is estimated that there are about 400,000 human embryos in storage at fertility centers and other frozen storage facilities in the USA. One local clinic, with which I have some first-hand knowledge, has over 9000. These embryos are either left over from successful attempts of parents to have children or they are waiting for an attempt to become babies. When most religious dogma, were developed, the idea that conception could be aided and occur in a glass container was not a consideration. Now it is commonplace in the developed world as well as in developing countries. I suspect that Pro-lifers believe that these embryos are babies and became babies at the moment the embryologist inserted the sperm into the egg. It follows that they would choose to include them under all the laws protecting or dealing with people. We have some evidence of that with GWB's first executive order which banned the use of Federal funds for stem cell research using fetal stem cells. This action, still in effect, sacrificed the lives of some inarguably human beings in favor of some questionably human groups of cells. (Yes, I know that they have human DNA and are human cells but the real issue is humanness). In my opinion GWB's order was wrong on several levels but it was based on faith not knowledge. If these 400,000 frozen embryos are people, what must happen to them and who decides? When is an embryo a human? When is a embryo or fetus a human being? We can start at the point where we all agree that there is no doubt and go on from that point. I suspect that we can all agree that at the point of viability outside the womb all human fetuses are human beings. Humanness may occur earlier and the challenge is to find that point. If that point cannot be defined with absolute precision, we need to err on the side of safety. Near the time of viability, self-awareness probably begins and some would say that is inarguably the beginning of humanness. But there is no universal agreement about humanness before viability or self-awareness. The issue for me is that I do not know when a fetus becomes a human being. Again, my thinking is not informed by any religious influence. Other than the DNA, the early embryo at this level of development is indistinguishable from the embryos of the other mammals and non-mammals as well. Please refer to the attached photo. Perhaps we can use viability as the key. As medical science has improved, that has been getting earlier and earlier. Today it is at about 22 weeks but it will probably reach 20 weeks soon and who knows how low it can go. There is some lower boundary but we do not know what it will be. For safety, I assume that the boundary cannot drop below 12 weeks. If it does drop to lower than 12 weeks, we will need to adjust our positions. If self-awareness is the determinant, it may occur sometime after the brain is fully functional. That occurs between weeks 13 and 16 of gestation. On the other hand many mammals have been found to have self-awareness so this is probably not the best criterion for humanness. I cannot posit another definition of Humanness if it is not viability outside the womb and not self-awareness. In the interest of providing a buffer of safety to assure that we do not kill an embryo or fetus that someday might be defined as having objectively determinable Humanness, I favor prohibiting abortion after week 12. Until that point, a government's interference with the mother's rights is based only upon faith. We know that the First Amendment clearly prohibits that as a basis for laws. A corollary issue is that pro-life supporters do not address the moral requirements for supporting and caring for the resulting millions of incremental babies if the mothers' rights are abridged. As an aside, I mystified about the moral dilemma not considered by so many pro-lifers who also support carpet bombing jihadist locations without consideration for innocent casualties. That is a totally different issue but nonetheless bothersome to me. The determination that until past twelve weeks gestation, a mother has the sole authority to determine whether to continue a pregnancy is totally based on the fact that at early stages of gestation, a fetus is (except at the DNA level) indistinguishable from those of animals that do not have any of the moral or legal protection granted to human beings. Since we do not know when humanness begins, and know that at those early stages humanness is absent. We can relegate the issue to the decision of the parents. After the point where humanness may exist, we limit termination of pregnancy unless there is evidence that the fetus is not viable or where the health or life of the mother is at risk. The life of a fetus that resulted from a rape or incest should be subject to the same protections as any other fetus
Seems like a reasonable position. Of course, there are some women who do not realize they are pregnant until much later into their pregnancies: How could she not know she was pregnant ?!? I just want to point out that all these so-called "embryos" that are being cryogenically stored are barely past the blastocyst stage. To my knowledge, no "embryo" has successfully survived cryogenic storage that had more than 200-250 cells. These things are definitely not human-shaped in any way.
A human fetus is always human. Humaness begins immediately, it is in a human. It becomes A human ( A person ) at birth (viability) which is a bout 23 to 24 weeks and most abortions are done long before this. Morals don't enter into this as morals vary from person to person. For instance I see nothing immoral about having an abortion. Laws and rights do enter into it as woman have the same rights as everyone else and a fetus has no rights and certainly not Super Rights to us another's body to sustain it's own life. A fetus caused by rape is protected under the same laws as any other fetus....but if you think restricting a rape victim to a 12 week limit is a decent humane thing to do you are wrong.
The viability cut-off is a sham! There have been babies who survived at 22 weeks. Ability to survive on one's own without outside assistance shouldn't be a criteria for humanness.
A well thought out and presented set of arguments and discussion points, there are a few things I would like to focus on. This is in fact full of truth, pro-lifers have to use the "murder of babies" as their bumper sticker simply because they have little else, it is nothing more than an an appeal to emotion fallacy. Unless we develop some sort of artificial womb the viability threshold will never drop below the current 22 weeks (or 21 weeks and 5 days to be precise), even now with all our advances in natal care the percentage of premature babies surviving has not changed very much, not at all at the very early period ie 21 weeks to 23 weeks, a foetuses chances of survival increases 3-4% for every day longer they are in the womb. When one looks at the complications associated with an extreme premature birth it is plain to see that they are many and common, 68% of survivors, born between 22 weeks and 26 weeks, have lung immaturity complications and still needed to be on oxygen at 36 weeks, 13% have serious brain abnormalities on ultrasound, and 16% were treated for retinopathy of prematurity. Sorry this is completely wrong, the brain is not fully functional even after birth .. however, if you mean sustained brain wave function then this occurs around week 22 with bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. (Source - Dr. K. Anand - The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Anand is the doctor whose research into fetal pain pro-lifers use to support banning abortion, even though it was not the purpose of his research and neither does he support the pro-life agenda ), A newborn is not self-aware BTW. I disagree, the 24 week limit is the buffer zone based on known science dealing with brain development, pain awareness and prognosis of survival. You touched on the Constitution earlier, however you have not taken into account other parts of the Constitution, namely the 2nd amendment right to self-defence and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, were it ever to become law that a foetus (regardless of the gestation period) were to be recognised as a de facto person under the protection of the Constitution, then it also must abide by the restrictions of that status, therefore it must gain consent to impose upon the woman, if no consent is given then under the self-defence findings the female has every right to do what ever is required to stop the fetus injuring her, including deadly force, if the state attempts to stop her doing this then the state is in direct violation of the equal protection clause .. in fact the state has a duty to help her in her defence, just as it would any other born person who is suffering non-consented injuries. The state cannot offer a protection to a group without offering the same protection to all other groups.
I agree, viability is not a good cut-off point, there should be no cut off point, the viability threshold used in Roe is a violation of the equal protection clause. There is a huge difference between being biologically dependent and socially dependent, though I agree neither should be used as a criteria for humanness.
If you are male, your opinion matters if: 1. You have a partner that's pregnant who cares about your opinion, or, 2. Your about to push a baby out of your penis If you are female, your opinion matters if: 1. It applies to the fetus inside your own body, or, 2. You have a friend or relative that's pregnant and who cares about your opinion. Otherwise, your opinion is totally and absolutely irrelevant and any one else's right to a private medical decision is none of your business.
I feel the same way but I remove morals from the equation because morals are subjective I base my argument on science. when is the unborn human there for deserving basic human rights as any other individual alive human science uses DNA so to determine individuals of a species and what species it is. so you take the DNA of a human unborn and the results will be that DNA came from an individual human so science says the unborn are a individual human then I use what science uses to determine when a human is alive they use heartbeat and measurable brain activity. heartbeat happens around the six week and measurable brain activity happens between 12 and 16 weeks now I agree with allowing abortions after 12 to 16 weeks for rape because the women didn't give consent for what caused her pregnancy there for didn't give consent for the pregnancy and I believe in allowing abortions if the pregnancy will end the life of the mother because then you will be losing in many cases two lives not just one it is an unbeatable argument because you will be denying science if you argue against it as opposing using morals or the lack of s justification for abortion after the 12 to 16 week and doesn't the secular left hate when morals are used for justification of a law
Thanks for the thoughtful response. My 12 week limit is in the intetest of erring on the side of safety. When the consequeses of error are high or dire, I choose a buffer that may be more conservative.
It has been defeated numerous times, you are just to set into your bias to accept it. For one science does not over rule the rights of the person, for another the classification of a species is done under taxonomy (the branch of science concerned with classification, especially of organisms; systematics), thirdly consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, fourthly IF a fetus is a person it has to abide by the restrictions of that status, fifthly the state cannot protect a set of people over and above the protection it offers to all other people.
Your brain activity quote is way off. Try 24 to 27 weeks. According to the EKG a fetus is essentially brain dead prior to that
When does a fetus have brain activity? Generally speaking, the first measurable brain waves can be captured on an electroencephalogram (EEG) around the 12th week of pregnancy. http://www.answers.com/Q/When_does_a_fetus_have_brain_activity
And those first brain waves are reflex activity. They are consistent with the EEG you would see on a brain dead individual. A brain dead individual does not have a flat EEG. It still maintains reflex activity. And we terminate them all the time. A fetus is brain dead until around week 24
go ahead deny the science or use science to counter it. I dont want a moral argument I don't want a philosophical argument argue it on the merits of science don't you lefties love science and science should be used before molars and philosophy
still brain waves and in medical science it is what is required to designate a life something being alive and no it isn't the same EKG as some one dead because that brain activity is linked to movement voluntary or not it is the brain causing movement now do you want to claim someone in a coma isn't really alive
You are simply factually incorrect. The AMA has very clear guidelines on brain death. Brain waves do NOT indicate life. Regular consistent and reliable brain waves indicate life. An EEG on a fetus is very easy to do. It matches the eeg on a brain dead patient until at least week 24. Those are simply the facts. Bein in a coma is not brain death. It is unconsciousness.
what science? deny it being an individual human using science deny it being an alive individual human using science. go ahead
The body can still move after brain death, so no it is not always the brain causing movement. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000113080008.htm
there is no voluntary movement when someone is in a coma same condition as a 12 week old unborn there is just enough brain activity for the involuntary requirements to stay alive like keeping the heart beating same as in a 12 week old unborn
