South Dakota Bans Abortion

[Whaleboy]

In a sense I'm actually with BK here. What is the aim here? To decide what should and should not be legal? That implies a very complex moral argument, in which I'm in favour of legal abortions. Human happiness is something else entirely that should exist within those rules, and that is why I believe that abortion should be kept legal, but depending on the circumstances, it should be discouraged more. We should also start looking at the reasons why young women get themselves pregnant and sleep around so much, when in reality, they're no happier.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure where you agree with me Whaleboy.

I'm quite in favour of a law banning abortion because I believe the unborn child to be a person worthy of the same respect as anyone else.

[Whaleboy]

Well 6 months ago I thought that abortions were something to do on a rainy day :P.

I don't consider the unborn foetus to be a person for reasons we're debated many times before, but I do think that the happiness and welfare of the woman is a point that should be considered; considering the mental anguish that many go through post abortion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, first of all, if you believe that it is morally objectionable to have an abortion other then for rape and incest, my question would be why do you believe that it is morally objectionable.

The second question would be whether you feel that it should be illegal. This should follow from the moral objection because the unborn child is a person.

If the unborn child is a person, then we are not justified in killing that person, and we have an obligation to protect them from being killed by restraining those who would kill them. This is the fundamental difference between abortion, and say, recreational drug use.

But in the earlier stages of development, I do not see the fetus as a fully-formed person with a clear conscience.

Secondly, I admit that I am not 100 percent consistent on my position in regards to abortion. I'm torn between the right of a woman over her own body and the preservation of a fetus' life.

[Seeker]

Well Ben, I'd have to go with the 'Degrees of Potentiality' arguement here.

Can we agree that a person under general anaesthetic has a vastly and morally significant potential for sentience than a person who has been in a coma for 20 years? (let's save euthanasia debate for another time)

Or a person who has 'blacked out', been struck on the head, etc vs the Human Zygote?

I'm sorry but my opinion is that the pre-dreaming fetus* is has a much lesser 'degree of potentiality' than the end of the first trimester fetus. And that 'degree of potentiality' should and does affect rights.

"Pro-choice" people take note that I'm not entirely in your camp, since I don't believe that the fetus' circumstances (in the woman's body) should be any kind of basis for according rights or not, it should be purely a matter of sentience.

*let alone the human zygote by Odin's Hoary Beard!

Of some relevance to this question is a rare medical condition whose name escapes me, the so-called 'virgin birth' condition whereby a woman's egg can begin development without being fertilized by a sperm cell....thus all female eggs have a very small but non-zero chance of developing into human beings...but surely you'd agree that they have much less potentiality for sentience than a human fetus?

Potential sentience is a ladder, and organisms that are not and have never been sentient are much farther down that ladder than the unconscious, etc. I would argue that they are far enough down that ladder that we shouldn't accord them the rights we do to the unconscious, etc.

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Seeker:
Of some relevance to this question is a rare medical condition whose name escapes me, the so-called 'virgin birth' condition whereby a woman's egg can begin development without being fertilized by a sperm cell....

It's called parthenogenesis and it can happen when anomalies in the meiosis process leave an ovum with a full set of chromosomes. If such an ovum is "activated" (by chemical signals, I think), a woman can give birth to a clone of herself.

There was a Lancet article some years back which documented ~20 cases of human parthenogenesis in the UK.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Abortion IS an emotional issue, in case you haven't noticed -- for both sides.

Not necessarily. Bringing emotions in just muddles up the issue without helping anybody.

I have noticed only the antiabortion crowd have playing this card, using terms such as "legislate murder" and "unborn child."

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not sure why you need to use such a grossly denigerating term as "lump of flesh."

I am not sure why you are insisting on relying on fallacies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
brainwaves plus human DNA = human being

Brainwaves != sentience

Brainwaves just indicate activities in the brain. Such activities are not limited to higher brain functions.

[Whaleboy]

Not necessarily. Bringing emotions in just muddles up the issue without helping anybody.

I disagree. Emotive arguments such as "unborn child" and "murdering children" are useless, yes, but the emotional consequences on the woman who's foetus has been aborted (as well as the emo. consequences of the pregnancy being taken to term), must also be considered.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well Ben, I'd have to go with the 'Degrees of Potentiality' arguement here.

Can we agree that a person under general anaesthetic has a vastly and morally significant potential for sentience than a person who has been in a coma for 20 years? (let's save euthanasia debate for another time)

No, I don't. If the coma patient wakes up, she could have just as much function as someone revived from general anaesthetic.

Consider this, a man is less likely to live as long as a woman. Does that mean the men have less value the then women, because their potential for sentience is not as great?

Secondly, children born in Africa have less chance of surviving to adulthood. Does that mean that African children have less value then say Americans?

Or a person who has 'blacked out', been struck on the head, etc vs the Human Zygote?

Everyone was a zygote at one point, and if you look at any particular zygote, all of them have their entire life ahead of them. So I could just as easily argue that their potential is much greater then anyone else.

I'm sorry but my opinion is that the pre-dreaming fetus* is has a much lesser 'degree of potentiality' than the end of the first trimester fetus. And that 'degree of potentiality' should and does affect rights.

So you sincerely believe that someone who is in a coma has less rights then someone who is under anaesthesia. I don't see how one can evade the euthanasia argument, euthanasia is all about the determination of whether someone has sufficient quality of life to warrant keeping them alive.

Of some relevance to this question is a rare medical condition whose name escapes me, the so-called 'virgin birth' condition whereby a woman's egg can begin development without being fertilized by a sperm cell....thus all female eggs have a very small but non-zero chance of developing into human beings...but surely you'd agree that they have much less potentiality for sentience than a human fetus?

Ask yourself this. If you have a child that has less potential, say she is disabled. Does that mean she has less value then say someone who has all the potential one would expect? Or say your child has cystic fibrosis, and is unlikely to live to see 30. Does this reduce her potential value beyond other children?

Potential sentience is a ladder, and organisms that are not and have never been sentient are much farther down that ladder than the unconscious, etc. I would argue that they are far enough down that ladder that we shouldn't accord them the rights we do to the unconscious, etc.

What about will be sentient? I don't see how this argument applies to the developing unborn child. Surely you can see that a human embryo ought to be treated differently from say a horse embryo or a dog embryo.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have noticed only the antiabortion crowd have playing this card, using terms such as "legislate murder" and "unborn child."

And 'lump of flesh' is not an appeal to emotions?

Unborn child is simply the proper term for the child in the womb. Certain stages, such as zygote, embryo and fetus are not proper to use for other stages of development. It doesn't make sense to call an infant an adolescent, then it is to call an embryo a 'fetus'.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure why you are insisting on relying on fallacies.

Using an inaccurate epithet such as "lump of flesh" to grossly distort and depreciate the importance of both sides of the issue is a serious fallacy in which you seem to have no shame to partake in.

As BK has pointed out -- you yourself are appealing to emotions with such an attack.




BK and I are on the same side in this regard.

[Whaleboy]

And 'lump of flesh' is not an appeal to emotions?

In terms of its implication, no. However I will accept that it possibly carries some connotations, in which case you could use "foetus" neutrally, or "mass of cells" (et al) to carry my point.

The difficulty is that we are using terms that imply concepts inherently supporting our argument, for example, "unborn child" assumes that the foetus is equable to a child, whereas I would not necessarily agree with that, and so wouldn't use that term.

Also, AFAIK, foetus is a proper term up until birth, but I may be wrong there so feel free to correct me.

[Gatekeeper]

Fascinating arguments regarding brainwaves, sentience, et al.

That said, why should the government and various interest groups decide what's best for the woman? Presumably she will have the same access to the information and arguments — and then some — made in this thread. Armed with such information, why isn't she (and presumably her loved ones and doctor) the best one to decide what to do? Hmm?

The government, of course, can set safe medical standards and whatnot; after all, abortions generally are performed in medical facilities. But the actual decision should rest with the individual and those she trusts. Not legislators. Not interest groups. Period.

The "controlling" types should have faith in the individual to do what's right.

Gatekeeper

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, AFAIK, foetus is a proper term up until birth, but I may be wrong there so feel free to correct me.

After week 12, the general consensus is to use the term 'fetus'. Before week 12, it is embryo, and when you have just the one cell, you have a zygote.