French Study: Abortion puts future births at risk of death or a disability

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The difference between you and I is that I see nothing unethical with an early abortion. A later aboriton, when the embryo has more markings of a baby, I dislike (which is why I advocate a right to abortion on demand until the third month - after that, the only allowable abortion is medically motivated)

When the embryo is a tiny lump of flesh without even a nervous system, I see it as something that sees no more problem of being removed than an appendix. This is why I see it as something that should be taken out as soon as possible.

Yeah, sorry, I got a little worked up there. I understand the basic logic you guys use to arrive at your conclusions and everything, I just thought you were about to launch into the "how dare you pick on the unfortunate you self-righteous penis-having demon from hell" shpiel, which always irritates me. I still need to watch my temper and stop preempting others though.

Anyway, the reason I reject that line of reasoning is that it A. assumes we have the right to judge another's humanity/worth and B. is based on the disturbing belief that our rights are in some way derived from our abilities. A tadpole looks nothing like a frog, but if one were to kill the tadpole of an endangered species of frog, at any stage of development, it would still be considered a violation of law. I don't see why that kind of consideration is given to beasts but not humans.

Also, note your last line about "something that should be taken out as soon as possible." Doesn't that whole image strike you as just a little silly? That a woman has to kill it, quick, before it becomes a person? I guess that also applies to the whole argument distinguishing a fetus from an infant that's been born. The chance of the child being born is great enough that people feel inclined to take positive action to prevent that outcome, yet not so great that they feel at all bad about disposing of it; it's just a "potential person." How does that work, logically? It sounds a lot like the oft-invoked distinction between omission of a beneficial action and committing a positive harmful action. Killing an infant and aborting a fetus have the same result, the same intention or goal, and essentially the same victim.

I suppose that line of logic might also be applied to birth control though, which I agree is ludicrous. However, for the sake of law the genetic distinction between a gamete and a zygote (halved chromosome count) might be invoked. That's why I have no problem with birth control. There's a very good reason to assume that a sperm cell isn't human, a reason based on a difference in its genetic makeup. Even Catholics don't think a sperm is human, they just believe it's wrong to prevent it from fusing with an egg and becoming one. On the other hand, the argument for first-trimester abortion is based, typically, on value judgments of what it means to be human, which aside from not being commonly agreed on sets a bad legal precedent.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
Anyway, the reason I reject that line of reasoning is that it A. assumes we have the right to judge another's humanity/worth and B. is based on the disturbing belief that our rights are in some way derived from our abilities.

We do it all the time when a person is dead, and I think it's a good thing. Why should it be different with an unborn person?

A tadpole looks nothing like a frog, but if one were to kill the tadpole of an endangered species of frog, at any stage of development, it would still be considered a violation of law. I don't see why that kind of consideration is given to beasts but not humans.

For pragmatic reasons: if we want the endangered species to be viable (which is fashionable in today's day and age), the population shouldn't be culled by any means. This has nothing to do with the "sanctity of life" of the tadpole. If it wasn't an endangered tadpole, we wouldn't care one bit about it.

Also, note your last line about "something that should be taken out as soon as possible." Doesn't that whole image strike you as just a little silly? That a woman has to kill it, quick, before it becomes a person? I guess that also applies to the whole argument distinguishing a fetus from an infant that's been born. The chance of the child being born is great enough that people feel inclined to take positive action to prevent that outcome, yet not so great that they feel at all bad about disposing of it; it's just a "potential person."

The two are not incompatible. An embryo is a lump of flesh that is nothing like a person yet. However, with modern medicine, it is nearly bound to become one, rather than dying in a miscarriage (modern medicine is good news). If, for various reasons, you can't sustain a person, it's much better to get rid of it before it becomes a person. It doesn't strike me as rocket science.

How does that work, logically? It sounds a lot like the oft-invoked distinction between omission of a beneficial action and committing a positive harmful action. Killing an infant and aborting a fetus have [1] the same result, [2] the same intention or goal, and [3] essentially the same victim.

[1] Yes, which is why infanticide was fairly commonplace before the time of abortion.
[2] Pretty much, but not entirely. Infanticide doesn't let you hide the shame of being pregnant, which you seem to associate so much with the motives of abortion.
[3] Not at all. An infant is a breathing person, that has feelings and feels pain on its own (markings that can also be found in late fetuses). An embryo doesn't have nerves, which completely prevents such a thing.

On the other hand, the argument for first-trimester abortion is based, typically, on value judgments of what it means to be human, which aside from not being commonly agreed on sets a bad legal precedent.

This is an age-old debate. Even you, with your anti-abortion arguments, are using a definition of "human" that doesn't make unanimity. There were societies where infants weren't considered humans until they were given a name. There are societies (like yours) where offspring doesn't have any righton its own until they're out of the womb. There are societies (like European ones) where fetuses are regarded earlier. You advocate to consider an offspring as a human being as soon as the first cell is formed (you should have yelled at me for having killed two babies, btw, since we used day-after pills twice).

I frankly consider your definition to be utter bollocks. A nerve-less organism doesn't attribute any value to itself, it doesn't even have a survival instinct. Unless we have solid practical reasons to do so (like keeping an endangered species viable), why would we care for the survival of an organism that doesn't care for its own?
To me, your line of thinking (you're not the only one) is exactly like the one of tree-huggers who say that trees have rights on their own.

[Elok]

We don't use that line of reasoning with the dead. We use the line of reasoning that they are DEAD. The embryo/fetus/zygote is still alive. You can't kill a dead man. Very basic difference. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The tadpole analogy is based on the premise that, as an endangered species, the beast has been judged worthy of protection under law, similar to humans. We don't care if the tadpole can at that point think or feel pain, you're not even allowed to crush their eggs. This is because we have decided the species has sufficient innate worth due to its rarity that it ought to be protected no matter what it looks like or how it acts. If we judge humans to be worth protecting, their abilities ought not to matter. We know damn well that fetus, embryo and infant are all the same thing at different forms of development. Genetically, they are identical, and unlike, say, a tumor or an appendix, their genetic profile is completely distinct from that of their host.

I'm trying to get around the sizable mental block you seem to have put up to exclude common sense here. The embryo can't feel pain, but that's a plainly temporary condition due to its lack of maturity. Give it a couple of weeks and it will be "human." If I shoot you full of painkillers and soporifics, you are not judged to have lost your personhood. You're still a member of your own species, the same as you were before but with fewer abilities. You will come out of it and come into your own, given time. It's simply how your biological system works. To pretend otherwise--"he's not human RIGHT NOW!"--would be asinine.

Your last paragraph seems to be a troll of some sort. Very well, let's countertroll. Kill the homosexuals; they have no desire to reproduce, and therefore are from a Darwinian perspective already dead, just wasting resources at no benefit to their species! Why should we defend an organism that has no urge to perpetuate its line of DNA?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Did the study control for age of the women since complications become more common with age? What about for women who had abortions due to medical issues which might be reoccuring? Did it break down between earlier or late term abortions?

Nope, it didn't do any of that so this study is much good.

Clearly, you didnt read the paper. Yet here you are denouncing it!

I've read it (since I have access). While its not directly in my area of scientific expertise, from my perspective as a scientist with some interest in mechanisms of spontaneous abortions I have no disagreements with respect to its basic 'worth' as a medical article, the reputation of the journal, or the authors conclusions based upon their results.

Had I reviewed it, however, I would have asked some rather pointed questions about mechanisms.

[JohnT]

The difference between you and I is that I see nothing unethical with an early abortion. A later aboriton, when the embryo has more markings of a baby, I dislike (which is why I advocate a right to abortion on demand until the third month - after that, the only allowable abortion is medically motivated)

When the embryo is a tiny lump of flesh without even a nervous system, I see it as something that sees no more problem of being removed than an appendix. This is why I see it as something that should be taken out as soon as possible.

C'mon, Spiff. Surely you recognize that this is a definition borne of personal convenience and not fact? "It's OK to kill it, but not once past a certain level of development, then it magically becomes 'human'." Puh-leeze.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm trying to get around the sizable mental block you seem to have put up to exclude common sense here. The embryo can't feel pain, but that's a plainly temporary condition due to its lack of maturity. Give it a couple of weeks and it will be "human."

Yes, and this is precisely why an unwanted pregnancy must be end before that time.

If I shoot you full of painkillers and soporifics, you are not judged to have lost your personhood.

That's because I had it in the first place.

Your last paragraph seems to be a troll of some sort. Very well, let's countertroll. Kill the homosexuals; they have no desire to reproduce, and therefore are from a Darwinian perspective already dead, just wasting resources at no benefit to their species! Why should we defend an organism that has no urge to perpetuate its line of DNA?

As far as I know, homosexuals have a survival instinct.
My last paragraph was trollish in its tone, but it is about a valid argument. An embryo is completely unable to give value to its own life, even in the most basic form, which is survival instinct. An embryo doesn't care to die, simply because it cannot care to die. When the embryo develops into a fetus with a nervous system, the survival instinct begins (a basic sense of self-worth).

The only worth the embryo has is the one you attribute to it (because of your religious beliefs or because of your personal ethics).

The sense of self-worth is not very common on the planet, if you look at the very big picture: only born animals (including humans) have it. Plants don't have it. Rocks don't have it. Water doesn't have it. Dead animals don't have it. Yet, there are people who believe that these things have an inherent value, that they have inherent rights. Today, these people look like raving lunatic ecologists (as opposed to environmentalists who want to protect nature because what humans derive from it, not for nature's own sake). But they can very well be mainstream in a future society, like they were mainstream in many pagan societies of the past.

To me, your attitude is similar to these people's. You attribute value (inherent rights, sanctity of life, or whatever) to something that cannot attribute value to itself, and that never did. Unlike a dead person, or a comatose or a sleeping one, the embryo never expressed any wish, it never expressed any feeling, it never expressed any personality, simply because it doesn't have the ability to have one. Just like a tree or a rock.

And just like a tree or a rock, there are people who speak in the embryo's name.

[Spiffor]

As to the jibe of common sense, here's how I see common sense:

I have an unwanted pregnancy. I expect the pregnancy and the child to have dire consequences on my life, or I expect that I am unable to raise the child properly (immature / too poor).
I am confronted with the choice of aborting while the embryo isn't capable of feeling anything, OR I can let it grow and destroy my life / let it grow into a kid who'll have a terrible childhood, which are likely to result in a ****ty life all around (if theformer happens, chances are the latter happens too).

To me, the first choice is the common sense one. Prevent the embryo from coming to a ****ty life, just like any woman who takes the pill prevents her eggs from coming to a ****ty life.

[JohnT]

You attribute value (inherent rights, sanctity of life, or whatever) to something that cannot attribute value to itself, and that never did.

To bring up a subject in a recent thread, it's now OK for people destroy ancient relics because the relics can't attribute value to themselves?

[JohnT]

Btw, on the issue of abortion, I'm pretty much in the "necessary evil" camp.

Which allows me to play both sides, depending upon my whims.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
C'mon, Spiff. Surely you recognize that this is a definition borne of personal convenience and not fact? "It's OK to kill it, but not once past a certain level of development, then it magically becomes 'human'." Puh-leeze.

If your conception of rights is based on sentience, then it's a perfectly valid argument if you assume that the fetus achieves sentience at a certain point in development.

[JohnT]

"Assume."

Not exactly something you should be basing life or death decisions on, eh Kuci?

Should we assume that the comatose baby isn't sentient?

[Kuciwalker]

Everything is based on assumptions. However, there's reasonable evidence (IMO) that the fetus does become sentient at around the end of the second trimester.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
C'mon, Spiff. Surely you recognize that this is a definition borne of personal convenience and not fact? "It's OK to kill it, but not once past a certain level of development, then it magically becomes 'human'." Puh-leeze.

1. It's not my line of reasoning.
My line of reasoning is that I don't like to create undue pain (which is why I attempted to avoid an abortion in the first place, because even the earliest of abortions are often a terrible experience for the woman). If the fetus can feel pain, can be afraid of dying, can resist being killed, I find it very untasteful to kill it for convenience reasons. If the embryo doesn't have such an ability, no matter what his genes look like, I have no problem killing it. Except in regard to the mother: it's not like anybody but the mother suffers from the abortion at that point.

2. There has always been a debate about when a child becomes "human", in the meaning of the rights it obtains. The anti-abortion people were happy to use modern science (the use of genetics, to show that the first cell was already a separate being, genetically speaking), but it only fueled their age-old opinion: that life begins at conception. This opinion is far from universal: some even quote the Bible to say that a baby comes to life only when it breathes for the first time.
On the other extreme, some people consider it as sin to waste your precious seed on masturbation. To them, when you jack off, you basically kill a baby. This opinion can seem insane today, but it wasn't uncommon a few decades ago.

The "life begins at creation" people use genetics to say that a zygote is a different person worthy of the right to live. They define a human as a specific genome, that is different from either parent's. That's a definition as good as any, but it's a rationalization of a position that they held before. A hypothetical definition could see a human as a being that has a separate personality from the parents, which is something you reach at least a few months after birth. Others (which sadly aren't hypothetical) would define a human as a non-cripple, or as a non-Jew.

None of these criteria (genetics, personality, stigma) are objectives, and neither are mine (nervous system). The anti-abortion crowd can lead you to think that their definition is the objective one, but it isn't.

For example, an anti-masturbation person would be horrified of the anti-abortionist's frequent position in favour of contraception: Remember that a spermatozoid is yearning to become a kid! How dare you support the genocide of billions of spermatozoids who could have grown into children?! It's not because spermatozoids don't have a separate genetic code that they don't have rights too!

OK, this was trollish
Let's use the same reasoning with the other "life begins at point X" arguments (bolded for clarity - I hope ):

For example, an anti-abortionist person would be horrified of the pro-early-abortion frequent position in favour of early abortion: Remember that an embryo is yearning to become a kid! How dare you support the genocide of millions of embrioes who could have grown into children?! It's not because embrioes don't have a nervous system that they don't have rights too!

For example, a pro-early-abortion person would be horrified of the pro-late-abortion frequent position in favour of late abortion: Remember that a fetus is yearning to become a kid! How dare you support the genocide of millions of fetuses who could have grown into children?! It's not because fetuses are still in the womb that they don't have rights too!

For example, a pro-late-abortion person would be horrified of the pro-infanticide frequent position in favour of infanticide: Remember that an infant is yearning to become a kid! How dare you support the genocide of millions of babies who could have grown into full-fledged human beings?! It's not because infants don't have a name/personality/whatever the infanticidists fancy that they don't have rights too!

[JohnT]

It's not my line of reasoning.

Yeah, well, let me highlight your post to which I was responding:

The difference between you and I is that I see nothing unethical with an early abortion. A later aboriton, when the embryo has more markings of a baby, I dislike (which is why I advocate a right to abortion on demand until the third month - after that, the only allowable abortion is medically motivated)

When the embryo is a tiny lump of flesh without even a nervous system, I see it as something that sees no more problem of being removed than an appendix. This is why I see it as something that should be taken out as soon as possible.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT

Why the

I never pretended to have objective criteria as to when offspring begins to have a right to live. What I pretend is that there aren't objective criteria. This is incidentally the reason why I avoid most abortion threads, because they're often a pissing contest between value systems.

I have exposed what my criteria are: offspring doesn't have an inherent right to live before it has a nervous system, and an ability to feel pain. For some people, offspring doesn't have an inherent right to live until it becomes a separate genetic entity. For some others, offspring doesn't have an inherent right to live until it becomes separated from the mother's body.

My criteria correspond the best to my worldview, as I think they combine the necessary fight against unwanted pregnancy, as well as my overall philosophical view that undue pain should be avoided. Unlike many people interested in the issue, however (and this mostly means the religionists, but also the moral absolutists on the other side), I don't pretend that my words are absolute truth