Abortion and the Old Testament (Happy Row v Wade Day!)

[BlueEyedSon]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

Genesis 38:24 Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was responsible for Tamar's pregnancy.)

And many many more....

[Bill McBlueState]

1. I love OCRT!

I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance! Thanks for reminding me of these guys; they do great research.

[Bandit]

2. This is the stuff that the anti-abortion crowd believes should be law.

She is pregnant and no know father so kill her. Oh by the way I'm pro-life. Also when he learned he did the deed himself he changed his mind. Sounds like a republican to me.

[skjpm]

3. Somewhere in Numbers there is a text

which gives a prescription for abortion. An early form of RU-186?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. it's probably not consistent either way

Why would you expect the Bible to contain a completely consistent message about anything? It's a collection of books written over 1000 years by a bunch of different people.

Certain themes are there, sure, but don't expect total consistency.

[Az]

8. The common theme within the bible

is the same common theme within any religion or philosophy. An attempt to understand the human condition and create guidelines in which to live. Thus there are going to be moments of consensus and clarity and there are going to be others of disharmony and confusion. One need not cast out the bible (or any other philosophical work). Instead it can be studied to try to understand what wisdom it has managed to gleen over the centuries and collect the few gems found there-in.

[Bill McBlueState]

10. nice post

that's a balanced approach to the Bible. :)

I don't think there would be as many wars if people took this attitude.

[Bridget Burke]

7. The bible is SO pro-life!

1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

7 Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Of course, you've seen this adorable Teddy Bear, offered by the Landover Baptist Church:

[papau]

11. Whoa - John the B was older than Jesus - "leaped in the womb"?

Formed in the womb - but not yet life- ok

Jesus went to meet/work with John as I recall.

There is even a passage that tells you causing an unwanted abortion before the quickening (4th or 5th month)is a CIVIL crime as there is no loss of life - but after the quickening it is to be treated as a loss of life.

[Comadreja]

51. "Unwanted abortion"?

Abortion, not even mentioned in the Bible, is by definition willful. The text you are referring to is about causing a miscarriage, which can be unwanted.

[Az]

5. Not so prolife

Here we see that if a man strikes a woman and she loses a child she wants to keep a fine is set by the judges.

Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

Here we see god is actually into forced abortions on occaisions.

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

[papau]

12. Thanks - that is the passage I was thinking of.

:-)

[Comadreja]

52. Let's not forget

god killed or ordered killed untold thousands of fetuses at the flood, the conquest of Canaan, the plagues on Egypt and Israel, etc.

[Cleita]

9. Here's a post on the Church's position before the Rennaissance.

I put this up last year on Roe vs. Wade. Some of the links may not be current, but I think you can see how the religious ban on abortion evolved into a rigid doctrine where there wasn't one prior to the Late Middle Ages.

Considering the pro-life demonstration in Washington today that seemed to be made up largely of religious factions and particularly Catholic school children, I thought people would be interested in the historical context of the Catholic Church’s stand on birth control and abortion and how it has evolved in modern times.

Now before you flame me, please believe that I am not trying to trash anyone’s religious beliefs. I just think a few facts are needed before one has to confront one of these pro-lifers in the future, or if you are a pro-lifer, you may want to know this before you flame a pro-choicer.

Here are some excerpts and web links for you to peruse.
The Fact Monster
<snip>“Abortion induced by herbs or manipulation was used as a form of birth control in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome and probably earlier. In the Middle Ages in Western Europe it was generally accepted in the early months of pregnancy. However, in the 19th cent. opinion about abortion changed. In 1869 the Roman Catholic Church prohibited abortion under any circumstances. In England and in the United States in the 19th cent. stringent antiabortion laws were passed.”<snip>

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A085c6467.html

Courses On The Web
<snip>
III. THE RISE OF MEDICAL TRAINING
By the twelfth century, medical training had moved from apprenticeships to the universities. By the fourteenth century in most of the towns and cities of Europe, guilds required that one be a university graduate in order to practice medicine. The curriculum moved more toward theory and less toward practice. Increasingly, drugs passed from the physicians and into the domain of the pharmacists' guilds.
Although women had studied medicine at some universities in the early Middle Ages, men gradually came to dominate the profession. At the same time, gynecology became more and more the province of midwives who had learned the uses of herbs in the fields. They knew how to identify the necessary plants, how and when to harvest their appropriate parts, how to make extracts and administer them, in what dose, and perhaps most important, when to administer them in relation to the last coitus or missed menstruation. However, such complex knowledge may have slowly faded from common usage simply because, perhaps, it became increasingly difficult to transmit this information orally. Indeed, by the fifteenth and sixteen centuries, physicians were being summoned to women's bedsides only when their medical problems called for drastic or non routine action.
Few physicians knew about birth-control agents since they were not part of their training, nor were there an easy way to learn about them. The chain of learning broke, and the folk knowledge chain was greatly restricted. The ancients learned about herbal agents from people who knew what and how much to take. Physicians of the Renaissance, however, distrusted folk medicine and had no occupational or professional means to acquire this knowledge. In time, Christian church doctrine, canon law, and eventually the laws of states came to restrict women's claims that they should regulate their own reproduction.
In any case, we can now be reasonably certain that many women in antiquity knew what only a few women know today. Many twentieth-century historians still assume that those women relied solely on magic, superstition, and ineffectual folklore to limit their reproductive capacities. That was certainly not the case. Women in antiquity had significant control over their reproductive lives. The evidence is there in the documents where it has been all along.
.....
IV. THE INTRUSION OF RELIGION
How did religion or the state get involved in reproductive issues? In 1869 Pope Pius IX outlawed abortion among Catholics, declaring that the human soul was born at conception. The decree reflected a very old debate. These issues will be reviewed here.<snip>

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20Birth%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm

Nobody’s Body But Mine by Beth Grimes
<snip>
Most people assume that the Catholic Church has always opposed abortion -- under all circumstances and without exception. Is this true? Well, yes, sort of. But the notion that the embryo is a human person from the moment of conception on is relatively new. As is the conclusion -- that "abortion is murder" -- which follows from the moment-of-conception theory.
A reading of the history of the church's thinking on abortion reveals much variation in the opinions of Catholic theologians over time about the status of the fetus and the permissibility of abortion. Although abortion was condemned as sinful in earlier times, other offenses were regarded as more serious -- sex outside of marriage for example.
For the first 600 years, the two big abortion issues were (1) was it used to conceal the sins of fornication or adultery? Theologians agreed that abortion was wrong if used to conceal sexual sins. According to Rosemary Stasek of California Catholics for Free Choicein a speech given in 1991, when penance was given, it was sexuality that was being punished more than the sin of abortion.
(2) Did the fetus have a soul from the moment of conception or did the soul enter its body at some later time? Before about 600 A.D., Christian scholars couldn't decide that one. Between 600 and 1500 A.D., the debate about whether abortion was homicide continued. There was no prevailing view that it was. In fact, penances given for abortion were often lighter than for bribery or theft. Therapeutic abortions were allowed to save the life of the mother as most theologians held that "ensoulment" was delayed and took place forty days after conception for males and eighty days for females.
In the Middle Ages, little was known about the biology of reproduction. Scholars thought that women's ovaries were without any real function. They believed the male sperm contained fully formed babies which simply required the mother's womb as a place for them to grow.
The modern era (about 1700 A.D. on) saw the expanding influence of the Pope on the church's moral teaching and power increasingly centralized in the Vatican. By now, the church had come to the conclusion that all abortion was homicide. The adoption of the doctrine of infallibility in the late 19th century reinforced the belief in the minds of Catholics that the church's stand on abortion was infallible.<snip>

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/body/religion_and_abortion_3.html

Women vs. the Practioner, Gynecological Concerns in the Late Middle Agnes by Dr. Susan K. Hagan
<snip>
For reasons different than today, abortion was a complicated issue in the Late Middle Ages, involving the woman, her social class, and the Church. While the medieval Church was against both sexual activity outside of marriage, and non-procreative sexual activity within marriage, some clerics moderated their views on contraception and abortion when the woman's economic conditions were poor. In so doing, these cleric-practitioners in their writings were acknowledging the occurrence of illicit sexuality and its consequences within the different social classes.

Looking at two examples in more detail, the writings of Albertus Magnus and Peter of Spain embody the paradox of sexual law in the Middle Ages. Albertus Magnus, "a philosopher, natural scientist, theologian, and teacher (Thomas Aquinas was his pupil)" (Riddle Contraception 139) condemned birth control in his theological writings, even as he related "practical birth control information" (139) in his natural science treatises. Similarly, Peter of Spain, later Pope John XXI, wrote a medical text that Historian John Riddle calls, "The greatest single source of information about the practical means of birth control that exists from the Middle Ages" (Eve's Herbs 33). First, at least in the case of Peter of Spain's Treasure of the Poor, these writings were sympathetic to harsh realities of the human condition. Second, the abortion these theologians were condoning with reservations was early-term abortion. According to medieval Church belief, abortion within the first 40-90 days (doctrine varied) expelled a soul-less fetus (Riddle Eve's Herbs 29). If no soul is liberated in the abortion, no homicide has occurred. <snip>

http://panther.bsc.edu/~shagen/STUDENT/Joy&Chris/practitioners.html

Here is the Powerhouse Museum site on contraception and women’s reproductive rights.

http://www.phm.gov.au/exhibits/archive/taking/powerful_herbs.htm

[yellowcanine]

16. Do priests baptise/give last rites to aborted fetuses?

While this might seem like a disgusting tangent, I think it is a serious question. It the answer is no, why not, if the fetus has a soul? Is a priest summoned when a Catholic woman miscarriages to minister to the soul of the fetus? Also, is a funeral mass conducted for the fetus?

[Az]

20. This question has caused schisms

Due to the xian belief of original sin there is quite a bit of trouble historically about the nature of dead babies. A baby is incapable of intellectually attaining the criteria established by the various sects to receive salvation. Thus according to the letter of the religion it would seem that dead babies are on a one way trip to damnation. This does not sit well with most parents and thus does not make for an effective enducement to remain within the belief system. Thus a workaround for this problem had to be developed within each sect.

They differ wildly. Some maintain that babies are exempt from original sin. Others created a special location that they would wait in till such a time as they were allowed into heaven. Still others gloss over the issue and avoid addressing it. It is a messy question that opens far too many other questions.

[yellowcanine]

43. But Catholics baptise babies

So they aren't concerned at that point whether the baby is intellectually capable of understanding - it obviously isn't. In fact, this was the cause of the radical reformers, known as the Anabaptists (for "baptised again" - because they baptised adults who had already been baptised as babies). Quite a few of them were burnt at the stake, drowned, or had their bodies torn apart on the "rack" for their efforts in the 1500's. To be fair to the Catholics, many of the atrocities were carried out by the Calvinist Reformed Church (ironic, isn't it?).
But to get back to the point, Catholics not only baptise babies, they also use intercessary prayer on behalf of the soul of the departed. So do they pray for the souls of aborted fetuses - do they have a funeral mass for them? And if not, why not? I am trying to determine the consistency of the message here.

[Az]

49. Making my point

Simply put the issue of dead babies does not fit the core doctrine of the xian belief. Namely that Jesus had to sacrifice himself to save everyone from original sin. Thus each Church develops a way around this logical hole. But their methods have causes schisms within the churches that did indeed lead to great conflicts. Not pointing a finger at any particular sect on this issue. They each deal with it in their own way.

Consider this (morbid so stop now if you do not wish to be disturbed). Assuming you belong to a sect that believes dead babies are saved. Since the goal of existance seems to be obtaining eternal salvation then the simplest way to gain this would be to slaughter babies on birth. Why risk allowing the baby to grow to adulthood only to risk their immortal soul? This is the very reason the churchs had to find a way around this conundrum within the concept of original sin. If they discarded Original Sin they lose the context of the nessecity of salvation and that is the very basis of their structure.

[SharonAnn]

74. No, the woman is told that she does not need to baptize the

result of the miscarriage. So, if the fertilized embryo has a soul, why wouldn't the Church require baptism?

Just another of their logical flaws. There are lots of them but that's not my big concern. I just don't think men should be making rules about women, just like whites shouldn't be making rules about blacks.

And, BTW, I was raised Catholic and have a Catholic education all the way through Jesuit universities.

[greekspeak]

13. I have always found it amusing that Roe V Wade

came down 8 months and 26 days before I was born. I was a still-undiscovered glob of cells that day.

[outinforce]

15. "You" Did Not Exist Back Then

"I was a still-undiscovered glob of cells that day."

I am having a bit of difficulty here.

It seems to me that "you" did not exist 8 months and 26 days before you were born, if I understand pro-choice logic.

If you say (as you do) that "I was a still-undiscovered.....", then aren't you really saying that you actually existed 8 months and 26 days befroe you were born?

And, if that is the case, then what would have been killed if your mother had decided to have an abortion? Would you have been killed?

Doesn't the logic of being pro-choice sort of compel a person to say this: "There was an undiscovered glob of cells in my mother's womb -- a glob of cells that later became me -- that day".?

[K-W]

17. Silly simantics argument.

That little glob of cells is in some sense the same entity that is now posting on this forum, in many ways it is not. In the same sense I could refer to my eventual corpse as me. That does not mean that someone stabbing my corpse should be convicted of assualt.

No one is arguing that in some sense fetuses arent human beings. The question is whether they are in the sense that thier life should protected, and in what cases it should be.

There is no clear answer for this in society, medical science, common logic, or the bible. That is the point of this thread really. The Bible is neither pro-choice or pro-life. It is just as mixed on the issue as any record of societal opinions on the matter.

Since there is no clear answer to the question of when that glob of cells gains the human rights of a person, our government should be pro-choice. It should let each citizen apply thier philosophical/moral criteria to the situation.

Meanwhile all the pro-life protestors should read their bible more carefully. The aspects about the rights of fetuses are vague and not terribly important. Meanwhile the people they vote for are violating much clearer and more important tenants of christianity.

[outinforce]

24. Silly? Semantics?

Thanks so much, K-W, for your comments regarding my post. Since yoo took the time to share your thoughts concerning my post, then I'm sure you will not mind if I share my thoughts regarding your post.

"That little glob of cells is in some sense the same entity that is now posting on this forum, in many ways it is not."

But how can that possibly be? From what I understand of the position of a great many pro-choice folks, the most that could be said about that little glob of cells is that it is "potentially" you. That is, something must happen to that little glob of cells in order for "it" to become "you". If I am mis-stating your own position here, please feel free to correct me and to explain your own position.

"No one is arguing that in some sense fetuses arent human beings"

With all due respect, K-W, might I suggest that you check out a few of the abortion threads here on DU. In them, you will find post from some folks who refuse even to acknowledge that fetuses are a form of "life". Some folks will even tell you that it is -- I think the word they often like to use is "silly" -- to believe that life begins at conception. And, if life does not begin at conception, then certainly a fetus is in no way a human being. You may wish to argue that a human fetus is a human being "in some sense", but I can assure you that there are several people who post regularly to abortion threds here on DU who would most strenuously disagree with you.

"Since there is no clear answer to the question of when that glob of cells gains the human rights of a person, our government should be pro-choice."

This statement reflects, I think, your own value system or system of morality. There is, as you probably know, a different point of view which says that it is precisely because there is a possibility that a fetus is "in some sense" a human being that we, as a society, should do all we can to protect the most vulnerable, the most defenseless form of human life there is. This point of view would suggest that it is rather barbaric to suggest that we should permit the killing of innocent human life.

[K-W]

30. I'll try to clear things up for you.

1. Why dont you just go read one of the many books that will explain human development to you. The little glob of cells is genetically a human being. This is not debateable, this is fact. The cells that developed into me were genetically identical to me and were the precursers to what would eventually become what I know recognize as myself. Calling them me does not mean that I am saying they were a person. It simply means I am recognizing that they share some aspects of what makes me, me. You are purposely using the fact that these terms are vague and multi-faceted to argue a simantic point that is invalid on its face, and I dont think anyone appreciates it. It should be clear to any reasonable person that there is no contradiction. I apologize if you simply dont get it, but my guess is that you are choosing not to get it since you are too concerned with trying to prove your point.

2. With all due respects, you dont understand the arguments you are citing. I never said that fetuses were a form of life, so im not sure what you are talking about. You are making the assumption that a fundemental aspect of a human being is life. That is your assumption, not mine. My dead corpse could be defined in many ways as a human being, it is not alive. A fetus can in some ways be defined as a human being, almost exclusively genetically. That does not make it an independent life or a person. The fact that it can be described as me in a genetic sense, does not mean that it is me in the sense that it is a person as I am now. You are simply using language with multiple meanings to try and confuse things. It is an exercise in simantics.

3. Actually no, that statement reflection of fact. There is no clear answer to the question. You have your answer, it is not a clear answer. If it were a clear answer, you could show some logical or evidential argument. You cant. You are the one using a system of morality. You have concluded for yourself what life is, and now you wish to force that conclusion on everyone else because you are so positive that you are right. That, my friend, is barbaric.

Medical science cannott define life or a person, society has nothing near a consensus, the bible has no clear answer, history has no clear answer. These are the possible places on could turn to to find a clear answer and none of them has one. So the fact that you have an opinion on the subject does not mean that there is an answer for everyone. The governement has no place forcing your opinion on me.

--------

It must be nice to live in a world of moral absolutes where you are privy to the secrets of the universe. Unfortunately, in the world I live in, I dont have access to list of universal rights and wrongs. Where I live we have to actually think about things and look at the facts. So you can continue to live in magical moral absolute land, but I would appreciate it if you would keep your delusions away from a governement that effects me. I dont want to live by your personal morals anymore than you want to live by mine.

[outinforce]

33. Thanks For Your Advice.

Thanks for your advice. I can assure you that I have read many of the books explaining human development. I can also assure you that there are several points within your posts on which you and I do not appear to disagree.

Here is one: "The little glob of cells is genetically a human being. This is not debateable, this is fact. The cells that developed into me were genetically identical to me and were the precursers to what would eventually become what I know recognize as myself."

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. And yet, I often see in abortion threads here on DU statements that suggest that male mnasturbation -- which destroys sperm cells -- is equivalent to abortion. I can't begin to tell you how difficult it is to explain the difference. There are many, many ardantly pro-choice people who simply refust to accept the (as you so correctly call it) fact that the little glob of cells is geneticfally a human being.

"Calling them me does not mean that I am saying they were a person. It simply means I am recognizing that they share some aspects of what makes me, me. You are purposely using the fact that these terms are vague and multi-faceted to argue a simantic point that is invalid on its face, and I dont think anyone appreciates it."

I do not think, K-W, that I have ever suggested that that little glob of cells was a person. Since you have suggested that I am trying to make a point here, perhaps you could state exactly what point it is that you think I am trying to make.

"You are making the assumption that a fundemental aspect of a human being is life."

True.

"That is your assumption, not mine. My dead corpse could be defined in many ways as a human being, it is not alive."

Help me out here. In what ways could your corpsd be considered a human "being"? Are we being just as a society to deny human corpses the rights (such as voting) that we accord human beings? Is there a point at which your corpse ceases to be a human being?

"Actually no, that statement reflection of fact. There is no clear answer to the question."

I think "that statement" to which you refer is this: "Since there is no clear answer to the question of when that glob of cells gains the human rights of a person, our government should be pro-choice."

While it is true that there is no clear answer to the question of when that glob of cells gains the human rights of a person, I do take issue with you stating as fact the remainder of your statement. That is, I take issue with your statement that because the first part of your statement is true, "our government should be pro-choice.

And I also take exception to your statement that I am the only one here who is using a system of morality. The fact that you use a "should" statement implies (to me, at least) that you are using a system of values or of morality. You are reflecting your own moral system.

[sangh0]

Actually, there is a clear answer

as to "when that glob of cells gains the human rights of a person"

It becomes a "person" the moment it is born. Case law has made this clear. The problem is that the supposedly pro-life crowd has tried to portray the moral uncertainty (concerning when that glob of cells becomes a person) as a legal uncertainty.

[Jane Roe]

102. Looks like somebody needs to brush up on their law . . .

Excerpt from Roe v. Wade:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

[Kathy in Cambridge]

34. Good Post, K-W

It is usually these anti-choice moralists who would relegate women to the status of chattel, but defend their right to own guns, rally around the death penalty, and send our soldiers off to war. While there are no moral absolutes, there are philosophical disconnects, which I see all the time on this board.

Personally, I'm opposed to abortion, but I recognize a woman's right to have one. People that argue against choice see a fetus as a higher life form than a woman. It is thinly-veiled misogyny.

[outinforce]

36. Excuse Me, RationalRose

Excuse me, RationalRose, but are you referring to me when you speak about "these anti-choice moralists who would relegate women to the status of chattel, but defend their right to own guns, rally around the death penalty, and send our soldiers off to war."???

If so, I take strong exception to being so characterized.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. No, I'm not referring to you

but there is a disturbing pattern on DU. Often the same folks who are against a woman's right to choose are anti-woman in general. Not surprisingly, they are often the ones who once the baby is born, they are not willing to fund programs and education that support the child.

It is a disturbing trend. No offense intended.

[Az]

18. I am

I am that which recognises myself. I am a collective result of a large group of cells working in an organized fashion. Without this organization I do not exist. This organization can survive some loss (quite substantial actually) and I will continue to exist. Damage certain areas and an entity will continue to exist but it may no longer be a contiguous entity that I recognise as myself.

I am dependent on the illusion of contiguous existance. That is as long as my memory and current perceptions continue to mesh with one another I will enjoy the perception of continued existance. Break the memory chain or the current perception and I cease to exist within my perception of self.

Thus a collection of cells incapable of perception of having already experienced perception of self does not constitute self. Once an incident of perception is initiated the possibility of continuance of that existance establishes that which we defend as a human identity.

So for clarity a collection of cells that has not yet developed a brain system coherant enough to percieve existance or self cannot be said to be in a state we would consider to be a human being (emphasis on being). They have potential to be a human being but so to does nearly anything. Potential does not equal achievement of the condition.

An individual that has met the criteria for self but had that process interupted is extended the theoretical condition of existance in the hopes that their self may restablish itself through medical or biological intervention. That is a person in a coma does not in truth exist during that time but do not write them off because they have already established their identity and it may return if their condition improves.

[outinforce]

26. I'm Not Sure I Understand

I'm not sure I understand all of your words and phrases here.

But perhaps you could help me out here.

Is it possible, given your philospohical notion of the "self" or of what constitutes "you", that a "self" could exist prior to birth? If so, what condition or conditions would need to exist in order for that to occur?

If not, then is birth the point at which all human beings obtain their "self-hood"?

And, if the point at which human beings acquire self-hood is not birth, then at what age does it occur, and what physical conditions would need to be present?

[Jane Roe]

28. It would be in the best interests of mothers and fathers . . .

if self-hood started a year after birth.

Maybe that is how we should answer your question.

[Az]

29. Result of a process

As the I that I am is the result of a process involving an organized collection of cells then the notion of existing before the cells were oganized is moot. All the energy and matter that comprise who and what I am at the moment have existed throughout the entire span of the universe (unless you include the concept of quantum flux but that is a very far flung tangent). It is the particular arraingment and organization of matter that came about due to the biological process we call life that I arose as a sentient individual. Thus though all the energy and matter are present in a match before striking it the flame does not exist until it is actually struck.

Life is a process. Sentience can arise from that process. Sentience does not seem to arise independent of this process. If by some chance an example of sentience arising independent of matter and energy were to make itself known we would of course include this information in our understanding of the mind. But to date the mind seems to arise only from a particular organization of matter and energy. Disrupt or destroy that organization and you destroy the sentience associated with it.

[outinforce]

31. Are You Suggesting......???

I still seem to be having a rather difficult time understanding the thoughts that your words are conveying.

But it seems to me as though you are saying that we shold be concerned about protecting sentience -- and not life.

It seems to me that one possible outcome of what you are suggesting is a viewpoint that would suggest that "We Believe that all men and women are created equal -- that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights -- that among these are sentience, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Permit me also to pose this situation to you. Suppose a child is born and, at some point, acquires the "sentience" you deem necessary to become a human being. Then suppose that six months after acquiring sentience, this human being falls victim to a disease that irrevocably destroys that portion of its brain that gives the child the ability to be sentient, but leaves all the motor functions completely in tact. Does that child thereby become something other than a human being?

[Az]

37. Once sentience is established

We extend the hopes that any interuption of this process may be resolved. Thus a disease or injury resulting in the loss of sentience is hoped to be only temporary. Over time and with experience we can come to know whether this hope is warranted or futile. This issue is faced all the time. People have to decide whether to maintain life saving measures in the face of loss of brain activities all the time. It is a horrible position to find oneself in. But the issue of whether it is the body or the mind that we consider to be the person that eventually resolves the matter.

For the record even in a body we consider to be dead there is life. Organic processes occurr continuously. It is the particular processes and organization that we consider to be alive in the human context. But all manner of organic functions continue in a so called dead body. Decay is an organic process. It is not one we like but it is still life.

Consider the other extremes. A baby was born in Florida some time ago with literally no upper brain. It had a part of a brain stem. Enough for emergency medical measures to keep the body functioning. But in no sense was this organic collection of cells a being. There was no person there. Yet a number of individuals fought tooth and nail to keep the medical devices connected when the parents decided enough was enough. This body never had and never would have a mind associated with it. It was broken in regards of developing a mind.

Part of the problem comes from how we emotionally relate to others. We identify them through visual cues such as face and body. Thus when we see a thing with a face and body we automatically begin to project concepts of identity upon them. This is our means of learning the identity of those around us. Since we cannot subjectively experience the existance of others we project what we know if existance on that which we see about us. Thus a fetus which has not yet developed a brain is marketted by the antichoice groups as a baby becaue there is enough physical resemblance to what we see as human for our minds to begin to project identity upon it. This despite the lack of a functioning nervous system within the fetus.

Our perceptions of anothers condition are tainted by both expectations and emotions. A comatose body is not functioning as a sentient being. As such there is no person there. Our learned response to a human body is that there is a person associated with it. Furthermore if the person is known to us (or even if not) our emotional hope is that they are ok. Thus our entire mental structure attempts to either inform us or delude us that what we percieve is a person.

All the genetic coding you have is contained withint he root of a hair follicle. Yet you do not grieve the loss of a single hair (unless hair loss is a personal issue of course). A human cell is not a human being. The loss of an arm or a leg though traumatic is not the loss of a person. There are a great many organs that can be replaced with no loss of the individual.

The brain though is the single repostry of our mind and identity. It can survive some amount of damage or manipulation without losing coherance. But it can be damaged enough (and survive) that indentity is lost. The loss of identity does not mean the body ceases to be an individual. If the brain survives such a transition it begins to establish an new continuity of identity. With the loss of memories however the identity cannot necissarily be considered the same individual it was before.

[outinforce]

42. I'm Still Not Sure I Understand.

The situation I posed to you earlier involved a sentience child who acquired a disease that left her -- permanently and irrevocably -- with htose portions of her brain that gave her her "sentience" destroyed.

I'm still not sure whether you would say that she is or is not a human being.

I'm also not sure about something else you said: "A comatose body is not functioning as a sentient being. As such there is no person there."

As far as I know, a comatose person often is able to hear what is being said around him or her. People who visit comatose people are often strongly cautioned about what they say in the presence of a comatose person. Why do you suggest that a body which is comatose is not functioning as a sentient being? Is something beyond hearing required in order to be sentient?

[Az]

48. Emotions vs Reality

Emotionally no parent will ever be able to look at the body of their child and seperate the identity they have developed. This does not mean that identity still resides within the body of the child. Life does not equal Being. Due to this emotional entanglement we socially resist declaring a brain dead body a nonperson. Despite this being the case.

A body without a brain is not a person. However we do not experience another's subjective existance therefore we project upon them. Thus a body of someone we know in our mind has their identity still associated with them and this carries all its emotional weight with it.

[smirkymonkey]

113. [i]"A body without a brain is not a person."[/i]

Does that mean that republicans aren't people?? Therefore, not entitled to vote? Just asking...}(

[FlaGranny]

32. Actually, many studies have shown that even babies

up to the age of 1-1/2 (that's a guess as I've forgotten the exact age) have no awareness of self as a separate being.

[outinforce]

35. If I understand Az's Point of View Correctly, then......

If I understand Az's point of view about self-hood, sentience, and all the rest correctly, then, and if it is accurate that some or all babies have no awareness of themselves as separate beings, it would be OK if the USA were to enable parents to choose to abort, post-birth, their unsentient post-birth fetuses.

[Az]

41. Not at all

While a new born is not entirely aware of self the process has begun. My criteria would be from the moment a fully functioning brain begins to operate the process of waking identity has begun.

Furthermore the socio/emotional impact of killing off new borns that did not meet a certain criteria would be staggering. There is no way to sustain such a concept.

[outinforce]

44. Why?

I thought I was beginning to understand your point of view, Az.

But this really rather threw me: "While a new born is not entirely aware of self the process has begun. My criteria would be from the moment a fully functioning brain begins to operate the process of waking identity has begun."

I thought you had earlier suggested that there was a point at which self-hood was obtained, and that that point was the point at which sentience was acquired.

Now I think you are saying that self-hood is acquired when a process begins.

This has left me a bit unsatisfied. For if self-hood can be acquired at the beginning of a process -- and not when actual sentience is achieved -- then by what criteria is it OK for you to select the beginning of that process, and to assert that the process begins when "a fully functioning brain begins to operate"?

Why, in other words, is the beginning of that process any more or any less valid than any other process, including the process that begins with the moment of conception?

Furthermore, you now seem to be rather concerned with the social aspects of the implications of using actual sentience as the beginning of self-hood. That is, you say, in response to FlaGranny's observation that babies do not become sentient until long after they are born, and my statement of what that could mean regarding the rights of parents to choose to abort unsentient post-birth fetuses, that "socio/emotional impact of killing off new borns that did not meet a certain criteria would be staggering. There is no way to sustain such a concept."

This sounds very much like the way people used to talk pre-Roe v. Wade. They could not imagine a society in which thousands of unborn children were killed every day in the USA.

[Az]

47. It is grey

The moment that a mind arises from a functioning brain is not easily established. It is not just a question of a fully functioning brain yet that is the minimum nessecity.

Sometime between the completion of the brain and the ability to communcate that sentience has been achieved the brain has aquired enough information to establish sentience.

The brain approaches completion some time in the 3rd trimester(exact timing differs for different fetuses). From the moment of completion the brain sets about collecting information and establishing pathways within its wiring. It is this stucture that gives rise to individuality.

Thus prior to the 3rd trimester the termination of the fetus is little more than a medical process involving one individual (the mother). Beyond the 3rd trimester we enter into more philosophically dangerous territory. In this case we are now pitting the rights of individuals (which is why the prochoice proponents rarely try to make the argument that abortion does not kill a person).

The issue of who and what can be destroyed is not easily boiled down to a simple matter of biology. Social aspects play a vital roll in such considerations. Ignore this at your own peril. We can distill the nature of the world around us down to forumlas but this does not mean we experience then as formulas. Reason and logic guide our experience of life but they do not rule it. We experience things on an emotional level. To override such powerfully emotionally charged issues as life and death we have to have a tremendous amount of clarity riding behind our rational conclusions of a matter.

Thus while it may be arguable that consciousness has not arisen in a baby at a given point we will have too difficult a time making the case strong enough to override the emotional and subjective opinions to carry the argument. Thus from the moment a functioning brain is present in a system it becomes increasinly difficult to establish the idea that a person is not being killed by terminating it.

There is a limit that our knowledge has at any given time. Though this limit is constantly moving with our exploration of the world and universe around us it is wildly diverse within the society. Thus even though at some point we may be able to pin down the exact moment that a brain posesses a functioning sense of self, until such a time as this notion spreads throughout society the established norm will lag behind the leading edge.

[outinforce]

50. Granted. However......

I think I am beginning to understand you better, Az.

Permit me a few more questions.

"The brain approaches completion some time in the 3rd trimester(exact timing differs for different fetuses). From the moment of completion the brain sets about collecting information and establishing pathways within its wiring. It is this stucture that gives rise to individuality."

Why have you selected "this structure" as giving rise to individuality? What is so special about that structure? Could one just as easily say that individuality begins when a unique set of DNA is formed? And isn't that at the moment of conception? What is more important, from your point of view: the existence of sentience? Individuality? the "potential" for eventual sentience? What is the difference (if any) between being sentient and being an individual?

"Thus while it may be arguable that consciousness has not arisen in a baby at a given point we will have too difficult a time making the case strong enough to override the emotional and subjective opinions to carry the argument. Thus from the moment a functioning brain is present in a system it becomes increasinly difficult to establish the idea that a person is not being killed by terminating it."

I'm having difficulty understanding this point. If we define personhood as somehow being tied to individuality, and if we also agree that actual sentience is not achieved until long after birth, then what gives us the right to prohibit a parent from exercising her or his right to choose to do whatever s/he wants to with regard to a non-sentient (and therfore non-human being) product of conception?

Surely you will agree with me that the choice of actual human beings should always be given more legal force than any concern we might have over the destruction of mere "things" that are not even human beings, no matter how cute or how human-like they may appear. And, while it may be difficult for some parents to exercise their choice to kill their pre-sentient, post-born fetuses, surely that does not, in an of itself serve as sufficient justification for denying the right of reproductive choice to parents who wish to have the government stay out of their right to abort pre-sentient, post-birth fetuses.

[Az]

57. Convergence of values

While it is arguable that a strand of DNA is unique this does not equate it to currently having the properties to be considered a being. Thus a hair follicle has a full set of human DNA but it is not a human being. The development of a fully functional brain creates a situation where in you have the bare minimum requirements for a mind to arise within. At this point you cannot as easily discard the notion that it may not be an individual posessing a sense of self. Granted at the earliest stages the chances are nearly nonexistant but they begin to slide exponentially towards existance quite rapidly. Thus the first clearly recognisable biological evidence of the potential for a collection of cells to be a sentient being is a functioning brain.

So from a completely moral aspect if your concern is not to disrupt the continuity of anothers sentient existance it would become increasingly problematic to do so after the development of the brain. This is a seperate issue from a legal question.

No person has the right to subjigate the body of another. If you woke one day to find someone had plugged an IV into you and was using your blood supply to keep themself alive you would have every right to unplug yourself and walk away.

Our legal systems is faced with the problem that our biology was not designed to make legal issues easy to resolve. Add to this the fact that morality and legality are not always the same thing. It is a chaotically entwined construct which is only exasterbated by our ever increasing knowledge of medicine and biology. Thus a legal system that tries to peg its definition of life and death to what the medical community or the society deems it to be will always be in flux. The 3 systems of values(legal, social, and scientific) constantly vie with each other and move the balance around.

Thus it is a balance of these issues that establishes what is right and wrong. So while I would state that the termination of a 5 month fetus was of no moral consequence (though perhaps of emotional inpact to the mother) others may take issue with it dependent on where their current understanding of the matter is. Our opinions would vie with each other within the society and lead to an pressure on the legal system. The legal system would attempt to balance the social input with the current scientific understanding of the matter and attempt to establish a line in the sand concerning medical practice.

A person exists on many levels. There is their own subjective existance. One can only ever know ones own subjective experience. Then there is the perception of those around us. The legal system attempts to extend us rights as individuals based on our continuity of existance. Due to the machinations of the legal process they have to establish rigid methods or determining whether something has rights or not. Since it is difficult to determine when exactly an individual arises from a biological process the system must place the determining line at some point where there is a substantially certain point that no one will potentially be harmed while preserving the rights of others. Thus the first two trimesters are considered safe but the third trimester becomes a bit more problematic and once the baby is actually delevered it becomes an individual under the law(whether it actually experiences a subjective sense of identity or not).

[outinforce]

111. I Still Do Not Understand

"No person has the right to subjigate the body of another. If you woke one day to find someone had plugged an IV into you and was using your blood supply to keep themself alive you would have every right to unplug yourself and walk away."

Does this right (the right to subjugate the body of another) also extend to parents after a child is born? Does a child have the right to demand that its parents work to earn money in order to provide clothes, food, and adequate housing for a child?

Does the right not to have one's body be made suject to another person (which surely you would argue, I think, applies to pregnant women) also extend to women after the baby is born? Could a mother, having given birth, simply "unplug" the baby from herself, and walk away?

If the mother has the right to "unplug" herself from her unborn child with no moral or legal consequences after 5 months gestation, then wouldn't the same "right" that permits her to do so also give her the right to walk away from a just-born child? Or from a born child that was completely dependant upon her for its continued survival?

Please help me understand the point you are making concerning the right you mention.

[Jane Roe]

27. Good technique -- way to think!

Your technique of thinking about how strongly you emotionally identify with yourself as a z/e/f, at various stages of development, is a good one. I think your technique can provide good insight into what legal status z/e/f's of various stages should have.

[damnraddem]

14. How disgusting.

The book this story came from sure doesn't seem to be a very-good source for moral precepts, does it?

[Jane Roe]

19. Roe v. Wade discussing abortion in ancient times:

Preliminary note: I find it a bit curious that the Court did not mention the Bible in the following discussion. Now on to the excerpt (footnotes omitted), FYI:

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.

1. Ancient attitudes. These are not capable of precise determination. We are told that at the time of the Persian Empire abortifacients were known and that criminal abortions were severely punished. 8 We are also told, however, that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era, 9 and that "it was resorted to without scruple." 10 The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to have been generally opposed to Rome's prevailing free-abortion practices. He found it necessary to think first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to abortion when, upon this standard, he felt the procedure advisable. 11 Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion. 12

2. The Hippocratic Oath. What then of the famous Oath that has stood so long as the ethical guide of the medical profession and that bears the name of the great Greek (460(?)-377(?) B. C.), who has been described as the Father of Medicine, the "wisest and the greatest practitioner of his art," and the "most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity," who dominated the medical schools of his time, and who typified the sum of the medical knowledge of the past? 13 The Oath varies somewhat according to the particular translation, but in any translation the content is clear: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion," 14 or "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." 15

Although the Oath is not mentioned in any of the principal briefs in this case or in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, it represents the apex of the development of strict ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day. Why did not the authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein provides us with a theory: 16 The Oath was not uncontested even in Hippocrates' day; only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon the related act of suicide. Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma. For them the embryo was animate from the moment of conception, and abortion meant destruction of a living being. The abortion clause of the Oath, therefore, "echoes Pythagorean doctrines," and "in no other stratum of Greek opinion were such views held or proposed in the same spirit of uncompromising austerity." 17

Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians. He points out that medical writings down to Galen (A. D. 130-200) "give evidence of the violation of almost every one of its injunctions." 18 But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath "became the nucleus of all medical ethics" and "was applauded as the embodiment of truth." Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct." 19

This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath's apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics.

[loudsue]

21. I've read the Bible cover to cover 3 times.....

I've STILL NEVER found a passage that supports the anti-choice argument.

On the contrary....there seem to be more passages that would argue a fetus isn't an issue...but the mother IS the issue.

:kick:

[Az]

22. You will not find the reason in the bible

The real reason for the antichoice movement comes from the Catholic Humanae Vitae decree. Combine that with the Papal Infallibility issue and the impetus for the antichoice crusade is revealed.

Timeline
1870: The vatican adopts a policy of infallibility of the pope in matters of official derees.

1968: Pope Paul VI issues the Humanae Vitae in which it is decreed that birth control and abortion are officially banned by the church.

1975: In response to Roe V Wade the American Catholic Bishops issue the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities. A battle plan to undermine the prochoice position of the American Government.

1970's: Catholic activist Paul Weyrich recruits Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson into the antichoice movement. Showing them the recruitment potential that such an emotionally charged venue contains they quickly make it their own issue.

[Jane Roe]

23. I don't know, the Bible can pretty hard to interpret . . .

it is not as simple as a law code and it is not always clear what conduct of the characters is seen as good or bad.

It would be nice if there was some kind of institution that hired a team of scholars to help us interpret this difficult document through centuries of concerted study.

[Az]

25. It would be nicer

If people would learn that the truth is not written in a book. The truth is that which you discover for yourself. If you try to declare the words of somoene else to be the absolute truth then you run into the problem of interpretation. Everyone is going to have their own way of seeing the words and no two will be the same.

That Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. - Lao Tzu

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

[prolesunited]

38. So, what's your plan?

Have a team of scholars divine the mind of God so we can create a theocracy governed by the Bible?

I agree with Az on this one.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

40. Separation of Church and State-a forgotten concept

we are moving closer to a theocracy in this country. It scares the shit out of me.

[Jane Roe]

54. I know.

I left the country largely for that exact reason.

[Jane Roe]

53. I don't think the Bible has any direct relevance to abortion law

I think abortion law can and must be decided by the government and I am a champion of secular, democratic governments.

There may be an indirect link between abortion law and the Bible. This is because some voters in a democracy will predictably try to get their moral and ethical beliefs out of this popular holy book.

I was merely pointing out that, for those who do seek wisdom from the Bible, it is a book that is difficult to interpret. I think too difficult for any single person to do.

It would be hypocritical of me to say what I personally think the Bible says about abortion, but here goes my Martin Luther impression:

I don't think the Bible addresses the question of when life starts in the sense of tolling political rights for the emergent person involved.

Side note: AZ claims that people can never truly understand each other, at least not through the mere exchange of words. That has to do with some mumbo jumbo about Tao or something. If you take AZ's philosophy seriously, then you can never know whether you agree with AZ or not.

[Az]

60. Never?

When discussing philosophical matters certainty begins to recede. I think you will find this notion supported by a number of thinkers. In fact your own posistion seems to support this (the bible is difficult to interpret). So finding a person that proclaims themself to be the barer of truth does not mean they can in fact convey that truth to you exactly how they see it. You are going to interpret their truth differently.

People do not need to understand each other absolutely to be able to communcate with each other or exchange ideas. In fact the more we discuss things the closer we can come together. But if you are hoping for absolute understanding then you are likely to be disappointed in the end.

[Jane Roe]

62. I understand much better now.

I think we are in substantial agreement on the nature and elusiveness of philosophical certainty.

[TahitiNut]

45. Doesn't the Bible inform choice?

I puzzles me that this isn't fundamentally obvious. It puzzles me that it's not almost universally obvious that all 'holy' books inform choice (i.e. free will) for, without such choice, what possible basic purpose would such writings have? Why would any sane and moral being, having their own free choice so informed, attempt to deprive another of the same freedom to choose? Without choice, can there be any virtue?

I would no more attempt to empower my government to impose its will upon the soveriegn affairs of a woman's womb than I would attempt to empower it to impose its will upon the sovereign affairs of Switzerland or India. My government is supposed to be subordinate to the personal sovereignty of all its citizens, without which it is morally illegitimate.

[outinforce]

46. Of Course

It is, as you correctly point out, "fundamentally" obvious. (Although I am sure it is just as obvious to those who are not fundamentalists).

But within a construct of free will and choice, there are always those choices which are deemed good and choices which are deemed bad.

You say that you would no more attempt to empower your government to impose its will upon the sovereign affairs of a woman's womb than you would attempt to empower it to impose its will upon the sovereign affairs of Switzerland.

But do you support the notion of speed limits, in which the government endeavors to impose its will upon the sovereign affairs of people who have freely chosen to drive their vehicles?

Do you support the notion of taxation in which the government makes itself superior to the personal soveriengty of its citizens? Is a government which takes, under threat of imprisonment and seizure of property, money from its citizens, morally legitimate?

[Jane Roe]

58. Three things:

1. Great post: I try to make this point with my mother all the time, but she never understands. Maybe saying the rosary too much numbs the mind.

2. Are you saying that moral choice is an absolute imperative, to be expanded as far as possible? If so, then I think you go too far. The Bible presupposes that people will have some areas in their life where they personally make moral choices. However, I don't think the Bible says that *all* moral choices must be left to individuals -- the individual only must be left enough moral choices so that God knows where to put the person's soul after the person dies. God may be able to accomplish this important work even if the individual is not totally free of gov't control.

3. One place that choice commonly gives way to gov't control is when the actions of one person injure another person (without sufficient cause). Antichoicers believe that that is exactly what is happening when a late term pregnancy termination procedure occurs.

[TahitiNut]

101. Every 'holy' book I've read ...

... appeals to the heart (and soul) of the reader/listener as the final arbiter of 'right.' When one reads carefully, after the paradigms, models, and parables, it is the reader's/listener's choice to "accept" (into one's heart) that is at the base of all such teachings.

Once upon a time I heard that the defining characteristic of a "free society" was the "freedom to do wrong" -- the absence of prior restraint. Once upon a time, it was my impression that the words 'penalty,' 'penalize,' and 'penance' had the same root -- that a 'penitentiary' was a place for 'penance' (and rehabilitation). The notion of 'vengeance' is ... well, you know.

[Jane Roe]

105. I think the Bible says . . .

that some things are "Caesar's."

Although I am no biblical scholar, I venture to believe is an at least an acquiscience, probably a condonement or perhaps even an endorsement of the existence of some government power. Just because most books presuppose areas of individual choice does not mean that these books presuppose that *everything* is an appropriate area for individual choice.

As far as how much power the government should have, I am a small el libertarian. I think the goverment should have less money and power than does the president or any of the Democrats seeking his job. However, I do think that it is appropriate for the government to establish laws forbidding us to choose to do violence to each other.

[outinforce]

Freedom and Prior Restraint

If I understand you correctly, here, TahitiNut, then a society which has laws that proscribe certain behaviors, but which place no prior constraint upon "wrong" behavior is a "free society".

If I understand what you are saying here, a society that, for instance, has speed limits (laws which say that operating a motor vehicle over a certain speed is "wrong"), but which allows for the possibility of motorists who wish to speed to do so, is a "free society". A society in which the government removed all mechanisms which permitted vehicles to be operated over a certain speed limit would not, if I understand your thesis, be a "free society".

And so, I suppose one could imagine a society in which certain behavior by doctors (like performing abortions on perfectly healthy women in order to end the lives of perfectly healthy fetuses that pose no risk to the mother's health or life), but which allowed for the possibility that doctors could find a way to do so would be, in oyur terms, a "free society".

[outinforce]

108. Freedom and Prior Restraint

If I understand you correctly, here, TahitiNut, then a society which has laws that proscribe certain behaviors, but which place no prior constraint upon "wrong" behavior is a "free society".

If I understand what you are saying here, a society that, for instance, has speed limits (laws which say that operating a motor vehicle over a certain speed is "wrong"), but which allows for the possibility of motorists who wish to speed to do so, is a "free society". A society in which the government removed all mechanisms which permitted vehicles to be operated over a certain speed limit would not, if I understand your thesis, be a "free society".

And so, I suppose one could imagine a society in which certain behavior by doctors (like performing abortions on perfectly healthy women in order to end the lives of perfectly healthy fetuses that pose no risk to the mother's health or life), but which allowed for the possibility that doctors could find a way to do so would be, in your terms, a "free society".

[BlueEyedSon]

88. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance

of the bible thumping anti-choicers, specifically about their own "sacred" text.

[drdigi420]

55. Abortion should be legal until the fetus is 16 years old

We'd have much more polite children then.

Seriously tho:

IF YOU DONT LIKE ABORTION.....

DONT HAVE ONE!

Its that simple.

[outinforce]

56. Ah, Oh, So Simple

Yes, indeed, it is simple. Quite simple.

Your word -- not mine.

[drdigi420]

59. ok, im sorry, it is simple

for intelligent folks.

my bad

[outinforce]

61. I Guess You Must Be Right

Your observation that the entire answer to the abortion debate can be simply stated as "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one" is simply breath-taking. I mean, really simply breath-taking.

It must take a simply intelligent person to understand it.

[Az]

64. Unfortunately

The matter does not get decided by one individual. The laws of our land come about throuhg legislative processes and they take input from social and scientific sources. So while some may look at the matter as a simple issue it may be more complex of others or far simpler (no choice).

Since we cannot impose our values on others effectively we have to find ways of educating others or finding a balance between opposing positions. There are those who do not believe our bodies are our own. They exist within our society and they have input to our laws. They must be contended with.

[outinforce]

107. The Unfortunate Things People Believe

"There are those who do not believe our bodies are our own. They exist within our society and they have input to our laws. They must be contended with."

How unfortunate. How unfortunate it is that there exists, within our society, people who have input into our laws. How unfortunate it is that there are people with such strange ideas. How unfortunate it is that "they" must be contended with. How unfortunate it is that not everyone thinks the same way.

Did you know, for instance, that there are actually some people who really think that a fetus' body is not its own? There are actually some people who think that a fetus is nothing more than one more body part of a woman -- "part of her body" -- in much the same way as one of her teeth, or her appendix.

Now, isn't that unfortunate?

[hrd2imagin]

63. Who wouldn't have an abortion?

There are many pro-choicers out there that say that they are pro-choice, but they, themselves, wouldn't have an abortion.

I'm just curious to know how many people share this view. Or does anyone know of any reliable statistics on it?

[Jane Roe]

66. Question on your terminology

If one believes that some abortions should be legal and other abortions not legal -- does that make one "prochoice" within the meaning of your question?

[hrd2imagin]

67. The Choice is Relative

I'm using a broad definition, however the person views it themselves. I'm curious to know if a person was in a position where they had to decide whether or not to have an abortion, of any kind or means, how many would not do it?

[Jane Roe]

68. Yeah, I guess I was asking you for help in labelling my position.

I am having a problem with that.

[smirkymonkey]

112. LOL!!

B-)

[Lars39]

65. I wonder if the tone of the thread turned out the way the author expected?

Interesting thread, but it was a *drive-by*.

[hrd2imagin]

69. Does a fetus have life at conception?

What are some thoughts?

[Jane Roe]

70. No

My reasoning goes thusly:

no brain means no thinking.

to me, no capacity for thinking means no life (in the sense of being entitled to political rights).

also: not sure that "fetus" is correct word at time of conception.

[hrd2imagin]

72. Excuse me for being simplistic...

but many different species of plant life have political rights, and they don't have brains.

I'm sure I'd be put in jail if I purposely burned down a forest.

[Jane Roe]

73. good point

I should have said "the political rights of a human being" rather than merely political rights.

Clarification: while I do believe that capacity for thinking should be considered a necessary condition for being entitled to the rights of a human being, I am less sure as to whether it should be considered a sufficient condition.

[hrd2imagin]

80. When do babies start thinking?

So, the question is more this: When does the fetus deserve the civil rights defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? And should that be contingent on the fetus' ability to think? I see.

As far as I've seen, babies just drool and go to the bathroom the first few months. Who's to know that they are thinking then and not acting merely on instinct?

[Jane Roe]

82. I don't think anyone knows the answer with much precision

However, I do believe that infants "think" in the sense I am talking about and that this thinking probably starts before birth.

The kind of thinking I am talking about is the kind of thinking Descartes meant when he said "I think, therefore I am."

[Az]

84. Knowledge accumulates

Thus over time our ability to pinpoint this moment will increase. Till such a time as when such knowledge permeates the society a broad enough delineation must be established to encompass the least risk. Thus the development of a fully functioning brain makes the best case argument for the moral argument.

It is important to note though that the legal argument is based on a woman's right to control her own body. It becomes morally tangled the more likely another individuals life is on the line but it is not their right to enslave the woman's body.

[Jane Roe]

90. If we could be sure that fetuses think and were human beings,

I think that abortion should sometimes be acceptable and sometimes illegal.

Assuming that late term fetuses are fully human beings (in the political sense), the interests of the pregnant woman and the late term fetus should be balanced based on relevant circumstances in the process of drafting abortion law. Under this balancing, the right to abort a late term fetus would depend on the circumstances.

This is the approach that Roe v. Wade takes in instructing states about how to craft their third trimester abortion laws.

I don't generally agree with your statement that pregnancy equals enslavement. If I had to make the choice, I would rather undergo an average pregnancy than be an average slave.

[hrd2imagin]

91. A woman has other choices

When a woman makes a choice about her own body, there are so many other options. Condoms, birth control, don't have sex.

It is my belief that abortion is the cumulative sum of the irresponsibiltiy of human beings. Drugs, alcohol, and just plain stupidity cause couples to engage in sex without taking the proper precautions. And instead of being responsible, the result is abortion, the most divisive theological and scientific arguments of the modern era.

And instead of a couple taking responsibility for their actions, the man leaves and the woman is all alone. What to do? Raise the child alone, or abort it? And why did the man split? Is it because he's a jerk? Probably. Is it because the pro-choice movement claims that women have such great control over their own body that the man feels that it really isn't his problem? Probably that too.

If convenience abortions were made illegal in this country, I'm sure you'd have a happy pro-life movement, and the end to such theological debates like "When does a fetus become a human" that will NEVER be proven because the pro-choice movement doesn't want it to because it will place a solid limit to the legislation they are promoting.

[Az]

94. Laws vs Ethics

In my thinking the woman that is not responsible enough to avoid getting pregnant(reliability of contraception taken into account) is a questionable candidate to create a person. Making a person is not justifiable punishment for lax judgement. In my opinion it is a greater crime in fact. Responsibility can also be deciding that it is wrong to create a person you cannot care for properly.

The legal debate revolves around the fact that you cannot impose the will of one upon another. If you woke tomorrow to find someone connected to you by means of an IV to keep themself alive you would be entirely in your rights to unplug and walk away. They do not have the right to use your body without your consent.

[Jane Roe]

95. What if a toddler runs in front of your car?

There is not generally a duty to rescue under American law (and this lack of a duty is a controversial issue in itself).

However, there are times when the law controls what you do with your body in order to fairly account for the rights and interests of others.

Besides my toddler hypothetical, a more relevant example is when a young man or lady is drafted into military service.

[Az]

100. Agreed

Which is why the law is not clearly established closer to the 3rd trimester. Room is allowed for circumstances but you will be hard pressed to find a doctor that will perform an unneccisary abortion passed the 3rd trimester.

The rights over your body do become entangled as the impact on anothers rights become involved. This is why it is necissary to understand the nature of what we legislate as best we can. Again our biology was not designed for ease of governance. Laws are attempts on our part to place a template over society of how we are supposed to behave towards each other. Morality and ethics that do not inpinge on another individuals rights our up to individuals to define. Where we start to harm another individual is where the law steps in.

[hrd2imagin]

But sex is a gamble...

Everyone knows the risks, STDs and pregnancy primarily. When you have sex, you take the risk.

If I went to a craps table and someone told me that whatever I roll, I have a great orgasm, I'd say COOL! But if I roll a 7, I'll have Terri Schiavo connected to me via IV for the rest of my life. I think I'd think twice about playing the game.

Therefore, when rolling the dice, the outcome is MY RESPONSIBILITY!

[Az]

99. That is different than my example

And actually easier to resolve. There is a lower moral component as Terri is arguably no longer alive (within the context of being a human being). Thus even if you foolishly agreed to allow her to be attached there is no legal entity (depending on prognosis) being harmed by walking away.

The example I gave is far more morally difficult. It is a fully conscious and aware individual. Even if you foolishly made it known that you had to right blood type or such this does not entitle them to your body. No amount of idiocy on your part gives away your right to your body.

Again I would suggest that a person that is so foolish that they pay no heed to the consequences may not be the best person to have wandering around creating people. By raising the hoops they must jump through to obtain an abortion you only weed out the truly incapable from obtaining one and there by create more suffering by foisting an unwanted child upon an uncaring parent who does not have the means to raise it.

[hrd2imagin]

103. Wow you must be fun at parties!

I'm just kiddin. I gotta run, it was fun butting heads with you.

But overall, I just feel that if people were responsible with this controversial topic, this wouldn't even be an issue, scientifically or ethically. But when you have over 1 million abortions a year, most for convenience sake, that looks poorly on our society's intelligence.

[hrd2imagin]

85. So pull the plug on Terri Schiavo?

I don't see her making any profound statements such as "I think therefore I am," so I guess she doesn't have any human rights.

[Jane Roe]

86. Capacity for thinking is one of the main issues in that case . . .

we don't know whether she is thinking or not.

Based on the video tapes, I believe she is or was.

Did they ever terminate her? -- I lost track of that story.

[Az]

92. We do not live in a vacuum

An individual once having estblished an identity may experience lapses due to injury or illness. Due to our medical and biological abilities to overcome such occurences we extend these individuals consideration in the hope that they do recover. However realistically at the moment they do not exist in any real conscious manner. Legally we preserve their rights for a period of time until hope disappates.

It is emotionally jarring to discuss the nonexistance of someone we care about. But effectively there is no Terri Schiavo existing at the moment. She comes about when the process occurring within her functioning brain continues again with her memory intact and awareness restored.

[Jane Roe]

106. How do you know she is not thinking thoughts?

[Az]

71. Life

It is most certainly life. A fertilized egg is a cell. However it is not a human being. It has no identity other than what we may project onto it. But believing it to be a person does not mean it has thoughts, concerns, or identity.

A fertilized egg is as alive as a hair follicle. Both treated right could one day become a human being. But at the moment they are not.

PS Life is a label we sentient lifeforms give to the process certain structures adopt around us. There is nothing magical (though it certainly is wonderful) about life. It is simply matter undergoing a process. We over time have developed value for certain structures and processes. But this is our socially applied value to them. They have no inherant value to the universe. Thus we determine what it means to us.

[hrd2imagin]

75. Wow, you sure generalize...

"A fertilized egg is as alive as a hair follicle. Both treated right could one day become a human being. But at the moment they are not."

Are you serious? Haha, c'mon now. A fertilized egg resides in the womb of a woman, specifically designed to reproduce, and is the beginning of the creation of a new human life.

With genetics, I guess you can take the DNA from a hair folicle and create a life. But you're head wasn't intended to be the breeding area of the body.

If I had bread dough, it'll turn into bread in the oven, not sitting on top of the refridgerator.

[Az]

78. Being as specific as possible

A fetilized egg can exist anywhere it is fertilized. If it is in a petri dish at the time does that change its definition? A fertilized egg in the womb of a woman intent on terminating it has a very low chance of becoming a person. Our current limitation of technology may mean that we cannot create a person from a hair follicle at the moment but this does mean we may not one day have the ability to do it.

The reason I phrased the matter the way I did is because many of the antichoice crowds arguments are based on the notion of potential humans. They wish to equate the chance that something can become a human with having the rights of a human being. Thus we have to see that many things have the potential to be a human to dismantle this argument.

[hrd2imagin]

83. Then is it alien?

If a "potential human" is not human, what is it and where did it come from? Is it canine or feline? It's sure not a giraffe.

A fetus is the product of a human male's sperm fertilizing a human woman's egg, therefore the fetus is a human and is entitled to the rights of a human being. The only way to disprove this is to show me one study where two humans conceived and a bunny rabbit came out.

The "potential human" argument you just proposed is rediculous, and if that's the core of the pro-choice movement, then that's just plain sad.

[Az]

87. Different arguments

The core of the prochoice argument is the right of a woman to control her own body. The disucssion concerning morality of the matter is far more difficult and fraut with pitfalls.

The potential human is the core of the antichoice argument. They claim that because it is a potential human it must be extended the rights of a human. For this reason the argument must be addressed and thus the nessicity of explaining that a potential human is not the same as a human being at the moment. No matter what you put in a petri dish at the moment it is not a human.



Not a human ^

[hrd2imagin]

93. Of course it's human!

The egg is human, the sperm is human, the fertilized egg is human whether it's in a petri dish or womb.

I can construct the eiffel tower out of chicken legs, but it's still chicken.

[Az]

96. Human cells vs Human beings

We may be running afoul of some semantic issues. Let us try to clear them up.

Human: a broad generalization including everything from a zygote to an elderly musician.

Human Being: An entity of the human species that is sentient and aware. Actively being. Comprised of numerous human cells.

Human Cells: Biological structures that contain genetic material refered to as human DNA. In sufficient quantity, differentiation, and organization can form a Human Being.

A cluster of human cells in a petri dish or a womb are not at the moment Human Beings. Their quantity, differentiation, and organization do not meet the standard yet. They are alive but they are not a sentient being. Over time they may become a Human Being but if the process is halted (whether by natural or other means) they will not become a Human Being.

[hrd2imagin]

97. Ok, good point...

Then in your opinion, when does a cluster of Human Cells become a Human Being??

[Az]

104. That is the trick

Specifically this transition occurrs when some measure of sentience begins to arise within a functioning brain. Unfortunately we do not know the exact moment. Since the question at hand is one of terminating a process while avoiding killing a human being the question becomes one of determining the minimum requirements for sentience to exist.

Thus a functioning brain works as our current medical determination of life and death (with the caveat of interuptions due to injury or illness). So in my opinion an abortion moves from being a simple medical procedure to a moral question some time in the 3rd trimester. Though it is unlikely a mind has arisen as yet at that stage it meets the minimum physical requirements for one to develop. Thus at that point I would shift the impetus for the justification for an abortion from want to need (as in medical conditions).

[outinforce]

109. Why?

"Human Being: An entity of the human species that is sentient and aware. Actively being. Comprised of numerous human cells."

Why do you choose to give this particular definition to "human being"?

Aren't other definitions of "human being" possible?

Why do you select this particular one?

[sangh0]

98. It's human, but it's not *A* human

An egg is human, but an egg is not A human.

A (human) sperm is human, but human sperm is not A human.

Ad if you construct an Eiffel Tower out of human sperm, it will still not be *A* human.

[outinforce]

110. OK, But then

What, exactly, is A human?

[Iris]

76. check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=675606

[Lars39]

77. *snerk*

:)

[Az]

79. Must .... meet.... expectations!

Post more!

[Iris]

81. I think they'll be a 3:15 extension!

[BlueEyedSon]

89. Actually, in Judaism you may abort the fetus

up until the time it graduates medical school.

[loudnclear]

114. Judah, tha old rascal!

What about natural abortions...is God guilty of murder?

One other question: Can a fetus be charged with murder? Since a woman can be charged with murder for her abortion, can a fetus that causes sepsis of the mother causing her death be charged with anything?

[Jane Roe]

115. Disagree

God is no more guilty of murdering fetuses than she is guilty of murdering infants through crib death or first degree homicide in the case of adults with SARS. When God terminates a life or a potential life, it is not considered to be a murder. Rather, we call these events, respectively, "death by natural causes" and "miscarriage."

Even under the ancient and 19th century abortion laws, discussed in Roe v. Wade, abortion was not considered as murder. It was a separately defined crime with separately defined punishment. I understand that there are careless antichoicers who believe there is some kind of simple identity between abortion and murder. However, those simpleminded folk were not the ones writing the anti-abortion laws back when societies really had them.

Related question for Muslim scholars: Is abortion generally a crime in Muslim theocracies? Is abortion considered to be directly covered by anti-murder laws, or is it a separate crime? Is abortion punishable by death for the pregnancy termination professional?

[outinforce]

116. Interesting Questions......

"Since a woman can be charged with murder for her abortion, can a fetus that causes sepsis of the mother causing her death be charged with anything?"

Where do you live? Where is it, exactly, where a "woman can be charged with murder for her abortion"?

I'm not sure whether you are advocating any policy here, but let's think this through.

If you are suggesting that fetuses that cause sepsis of the mother should be charged with murder, then what would that really mean?

Would the fetus (assuming the fetus were still able to "live" -- if that is the correct term to use, since some have suggested that a fetus has no "life") be accorded full due process of law in a trial? And would that trial include a jury of the fetus' peers? And just who would those peers be?

And, if the fetus caused sepsis in a state like Virginia, where capital punishment is used, could the fetus be put to death for its crime?

Would the state, in order to obtain a conviction against the fetus, have to demonstrate that the fetus intended to cause sepsis of the mother? Or would the mere act of causing sepsis -- irrespective of any intention to do so -- be sufficient for the state to obtain a conviction?