Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Just some pictures of "uterine contents"

RZ: "Jeffrey, is it your concern that some of us believe life begins at conception? Or is your concern about those who would deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy if she believes she is justified?

BTW, you are correct about the Catholic Church's shift in its view of the beginning of life. But I think it is more recent than you have said -- occuring in the 1920's, not the 1800's, as I understand it."

My primary concern is the social legislation that would take people's rights away, because of a sectarian religious position. I don't really care if someone believes a religion that teaches that abortion is wrong (late Catholicism), or that we were created by alien space beings (the Raelians) or that polygamy is ok (early Mormonism, some variants of Islam). In fact, I would defend the religious rights of Mormons to marry several wives, and don't think the goverment should have forced them to change their voluntary religious practices.

But I would object if the Mormons forced me to marry several wives, and I object if Catholics and others force others not to have abortions.

I thought the Church changed its mind on abortion in the late 1800's after it lost state power, and as the Church got more strident on its reactionary social agenda in compensation. I stand corrected. Can you please give me the citations?

ivory: "Lastly, the fertilized egg has its own power of animation -- the very meaning of "life" -- had Augustine or Aquinas understood this they would have certainly concurred that it is a unique being of a human nature -- therefore what in common parlance is called a "human being"."

Wow, every egg is a human being. Let's try to work out, philosophically now, the implications of this one. Charges of murder should go flying about real quick here. What is that Monty Python song: "Every sperm is sacred ..." I forget the rest.


"whereas virtually all human embryos continue to mature into born babies unless tampered with."

This is medically false. Less than one in 5 blastocytes actually attach sucessfully to the uterine wall. Most spontaneously abort and we never even know about it. Therefore on your view that there is a soul at conception, there are about 5 times as many "souls" of embryos that were "alive" for a few days, before failing to attach to the uterine wall. What is the Catholic position on these "souls" - I believe it is Purgatory, but surely you can enlighten me on this. Think about it - 5 times the number of actually living humans are now in Purgatory because a few bits of genetic material never quite made it to the uterine wall for a few days. The implications are staggering (and amusing).

I am sure, ivory, that you think this is a deep philosophical issue with many fraught ramifications and subtle and important philosophical points to be made about the dignity of human life. However, it is rather difficult for me to take such absurdities seriously with a straight face.

My view is a sliding scale one. A fetus is only a potential person, but this potentiality obviously becomes more significant as the fetus approaches birth. Early on, abortion is not a very serious matter, and any goal or value or even mere preference of the mother whatsovever seems to me more important than the "rights" of a small clump of cells, billions of which spontaneously abort anyway.

Later in pregnancy the potentiality is more likely and imminant, and the reasons for abortion, in my view, should be more serious (e.g. medical or deep social tragedy). This is in fact what generally happens - the vast majority of abortions occur in the first 4 months, the later ones are either medical emergencies, or truly sad social tragedies (raped teens unable to get medical help for abortion earlier, etc.) There might even be some theoretical examples of very late term abortions that I would not think morally correct or admirable. But in general, I would rather have the woman actually involved make these difficult choices, rather than a bunch of judges, and politicians, and sectarian theologians.

Abortion should be legal until birth, and free for those under 18.

You're correct, thumps. I was speaking of the timing of abortion, not abortion itself.

I agree about the legislation.

However, given what we know about DNA, the separateness of the fetus from the mother, the development of the fetus and the early initiation of brainwaves, the activitation of the heart and other physical attributes of the fetus, I do not think we can categorically state that the fetus is not a separate human being.

Nor do I think that the argument that the fetus is not viable outside of the womb is legitimate because there are too many circumstances when a human being's life is not viable without life support, but will be in the future. No one would argue that a person needing life support is not human.

I think if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should have the right to. I also believe the society has an obligation to make sure it is a safe procedure. However, from her own personal standpoint, I think she needs to have a moral reason justifying the termination of life other than just that she has a right to do so. At the same time, I do not want legislation defining what that moral position must be. The decision is a personal one and can only be decided by her personal morality.

I also believe that this society (which includes more than the government), if we truly place a premium on human life and seek to reduce the number of abortions, must establish policies and programs that minimize the possibility of unwanted pregnancies and maximize a woman's willingness to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

The role of those of us who seek to minimize abortion must be a pursuasive and supportive one, not a legislative or regulatory one.

Jeffrey - I think the point of our belief is that life itself is sacred and precious. If people want to define the parameters of life to suit their convenience, so be it. What good is arguing the particulars, especially when you intentionally (or maybe by accident) leave out key words?

The freedoms of one infringe the freedoms of another, particularly on the abortion issue, but many many issues that liberals embrace. There are repercussions to being the type of person who will grab all they can for themselves...

Sorry to be so 70s- but I think it is good to live with good karma.

Yes, but to restate Jefferey's point, the definition that a human life exists at conception is a religious one, not a scientific one. Therefore banning abortion on these grounds is forcing a very particular religious belief on everyone.

RZ made some good points.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Third time's the charm...

Scott Peterson has been convicted of the murder of his son, by a jury of his peers, presided over by a California judge.

This is legal precedent, anyway you cut it.

By the lights of many of our august members, Scott was erroneously convicted of his son's murder.

Or was he?

How many months pregnant was she?

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

I do not accept a legal determination as a moral one. The courts can do what they want; but their decisions do not define morality.

Perhaps, but morality is an individual, personal, and at times religious issue. The courts determine the law of the country. So although what the courts may state may not reflect YOUR morality they do reflect the laws that will be applied. This ties in to my questions in Jolly's post in BIG SIN/little sin.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands

One of the reasons I enjoy arguing with you Jeffboy, is that you continue to say silly things.
Yes, the egg is alive and ITS own being qua egg. It is NOT part of the mother, only produced by her. Yes, every spermatazoa is alive and ITS own being qua spermatazoa. No -- and here's where you are just arguing stupidly for someone who claims to have advanced degrees in philosophy-- no egg is a human being and no sperm is a human being -- they are simply (and wonderfully for those with a true philosophical or scientific sense of wonder) eggs and sperm. The philosophy and logic and reasoning are really not that difficult Jeffboy.

Again, Jeffboy, another fatuous argument from a famous philosopher. In embryology the (blastocyte??? I assume you mean blastocyst) is not considered an embryo (only after it had implanted in the uterine wall). After the single cell is formed from the fertilization of the egg (the zygote stage), the cell begins to divide. Once 32 cells exist it is called the morula. As the cells continue to divide and the shell forms from the morula the conceptus is considered a blastocyst. If the blastocyst implants it is considered an embryo. There is no moral problem if the blastocyst dies without implantation. This virtually always happens without human intervention (except in the case of RU 486).

By week 3 -- before most women even know they are pregnant -- the brain, heart, spinal cord and intestinal tract have already begun to develop.
Yes, these blastocysts are alive and they are human beings and they die without further development. So, what's your point? Your erroneous and red herring nonsense about purgatory? I can understand your ignorance about Catholic teaching, but please show me any Catholic document that states that the miscarried conceptus is in "purgatory".

Your language is so imprecise at times and so precise at other times, I wonder if you do so deliberately to set up false statements.

I can concur that the foetus is a person in potentia -- but is an actual human being. "Person" is a philosophical (and now legal) term. Do you deny that the foetus is anything but a unique and separate being of a human nature? This in common parlance is what is a "human being". I'd be happy to discuss the arguments that the foetus is or is not a "person", whether from philosophy or jurisprudence. It was the Nazis and the Slave Holders who argued that certain human beings were not "persons" in order to deprive them of rights.

I have not argued this from a religious point of view, only medically and philosophically. So your Platonic philosopher king and the scientist ought not speak into the issue?

RZ: I tend to agree with much of what you write -- about pro-life being more than just fetal and euthanasia issues, etc. The pro-lifers who I know do have a wide scope and expansive understanding of this -- many of them also work in Project Rachel to help the healing of women who've aborted; many others work to help in adoption and to provide alternatives for pregnant women so they are not economically forced to abort; many do a lot of other very good public service works.

I cannot agree that abortion is a "right" -- after all, the foetus is a human being and killing a human being especially at its most vulnerable is just wrong.

It is interesting that Aquinas points out that not every vice ought be outlawed and not every virtue ought be promoted in public policy -- such leads to draconian laws. Throughout history women have found ways of ridding themselves of unwanted pregnancies -- such as with Black Cohash and Pennyroyal -- rarely prosecuted.

It would be one thing if the abortionists simply stood up and said "'yes' this is a human being and 'yes' we are killing it". The we could talk honestly about public policy . But instead we are subjected to all sorts of fabrications, disinformation, prevarications, and stupid allegations that if you are prolife you simply want to punish women.

Best,

Steve

Let's see if asking direct questions will get stright answers from those of you who are anti-choice (a better term than pro-life as we all are pro-life) as no one seems to want to address these points:

1)Do you believe that if abortion is made illegal no more abortions will occur in this country?

2) If you recognize that women will continue to have abortions, how can you morally condone the deterioration of the conditions in which these are carried out?

3)If you believe that women will continue to have abortions in secret, illegally, is it morally right to make this a class issue with the rich having the right to safe abortion from their private doctor or from abroad whenever they want and the poor being forced into desperate unhygenic abortions or to carrying unwanted children, possibly from rape or incest? Is this morally correct?

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Sorry, Elena. Is this the post?

I understand your position on this, and agree that there are great injustices at work here. Also, I believe that these issues are very close to the heart of women and ought be considered with great empathy and compassion, and should not be subject to draconian laws. Especially in our vastly wealthy western society, where we have great resources to assist pregnant women find other options. I do not think the "back alley abortion" (or "rusty coat hanger") rhetoric is particularly useful in finding accord. As I wrote above to RZ, women from time immemorial have found ways of ending unwanted pregnancies, most often without legal prosecution. Society often turns a blind eye to many issues, and perhaps rightly so, yet society ought not IMO actively promote such things.

I also can not agree with your statement that .

The foetus is not in anyway "part" of the mother's body. Even the egg is not part of the mother's body strictly speaking (though the ovaries that produce the eggs are). The foetus is medically a separate being (separate DNA, its own source of animation, etc.) It is an individual human being.

Whether society accords each individual human being specific rights is a jurisprudential question. Certainly, children have fewer rights than adults. The mentally handicapped have fewer rights as well. I cannot go to the point that any innocent human being categorically does not have the right to life.

As for "viability" and the woman's rights over the child's? The woman never has a "right" to neglect her children. The papers are full of accounts of child abuse and child neglect cases. In a Swiftian "modest proposal" -- should these children simply be destroyed because the mother does not want to care for them? Because the children are inconvenient? Because the children limit her financial opportunities and adversely affect her socio-economic status? I don't think that makes good public policy any more than abortion does.

Elena -- I tried to address your concerns in the above post. I am sorry that we cross posted.

I do not think that "anti choice" rhetoric is helpful. I've found in business that "Dear Jerk" letters do not pave the way for good dialogue. If you want to say "Yes, it is human being and Yes I choose to kill that human being", then we can talk about public policy.
No. Abortions will continue just as all human frailties, bad choices, crimes, vices, and effects of human weakness will continue.

Yes, if killing happens in modern society, it should be most safe and efficient. There are a number of mid 20th century regimes that we can look to for models of efficiency prompted by concerns for "social hygiene". But the "rusty coat hanger" rhetoric is not particularly helpful.

[quote]3)If you believe that women will continue to have abortions in secret, illegally, is it morally right to make this a class issue with the rich having the right to safe abortion from their private doctor or from abroad whenever they want and the poor being forced into desperate unhygienic abortions or to carrying unwanted children, possibly from rape or incest? Is this morally correct?[quote]

No one is advocating making this a class issue. People with money always have more advantage. No one is suggesting that any of this morally correct. This is a question for public policy, but does not lead one inexorably to conclude that abortion must be made available to all women.

Gotta go now, perhaps more later.

Regards,

Steve

The thing is, in America the government pays to abort many more black children then white, in spite of the fact that blacks are a much smaller percentage of the population.

What are you implying, that the government has a conspiracy to reduce the population of African Americans?

Frankly, it is racist to divide statistics along racial lines. We need to stop aggressively pointing out the differences and trying to divide people. Yes, people are different colors, please stop trying to draw so much attention to it. If nobody commented on it maybe we could have a colorblind society.
Thank you for this. This is the only relavant thing (to me) that has been said in this thread and is the point I was trying to make with my posts: just because someone is an inconvenience, shall we rid ourselves of them? Both "yes" and "no" would be very legitimate responses, I just find it amazing that people for abortion don't just come out and answer "yes" to this question.

I think you worded that incorrectly, Manzana. You probably mean that black women abort more frequently than whites do using government funds. The government does not selectively choose who receives abortions. Although I'm sure this is true I would like to see a source for this information.

I don't want to discuss whether the government should PAY for abortions or not, this is a separate issue and not necessarily related to allowing them to be legal or not, things can be legal without the government paying for them. I'm not sure how I feel about the government paying for them myself.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

I think this is one of the misconceptions many have.

I know of few people who are "for abortion." Most I know who are pro choice, either understand why a woman might have an abortion or feel she has a right to make that decision on her own. Few, though, can be defined as broadly in favor of abortion.

This may be true, apple (and Elena's point about who need government funds versus who does not is applicable).

The question I have for you is, if the government is not going to pay for these abortions and the person cannot afford it on her own, how do we as a society ensure that her safety is protected?

No, we should not rid ourselves of an inconvenience, but women have and do. Making it legal is not promoting it, it is merely making sure that it is safe for the mother.

And I think the other sticking point is when people believe the "child" in fact is a "child". Religious groups view a child from conception, or at least from the implanting into the uterus. Non-religious people view it as when the fetus is viable and its organs and systems are developed enough that they will continue to develop without the aid of the mother. So should the law impose a religious view on every citizen or allow each person to choose according to his or her beliefs?

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com