Abortion

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The genetic identity exists before there is ever a fertilized egg -- it consists in the mathematical product of all of the genetic possibilities of the father's gamete times all the genetic possibilities of the mother's gamete (this is not accounting for recombination events between maternal and paternal DNA). Which combination happens to constitute the zygote is a statistical happenstance, not some event of cosmically moral significance.

Furthermore, there is no way one can argue that even genetically a male has equal claim to the resultant fetus. Why?

1) The male does not contribute any mitochondrial DNA, but the mother does
2) All of the cellular components of the zygote are derived from the mother
3) Polarity already exists in the unfertilized egg (i.e. dorsal/ventral, lateral, and cranial/caudal gradients), and this is wholly determined by preconceptual trafficking of mRNA into the oocyte by maternal cells (this establishes polarity gradients, so that the head / tail / front / back / sides of the organism are already determined in the unfertilized egg -- and this is true in ALL animals). This is a maternal physiologic process -- it doesn't depend at all on the genetic activity of the oocyte (the unfertilized egg). If this did not occur, then tissue differentiation would NEVER happen after fertilization -- the zygote would just divide and divide into a big undifferentiated ball.

To consider the assignment of proportional ratios of genetic material as a process for claiming ownership of a fetus is completely unapproachable by any standard of rational consideration. The requirement based on the sum of the ENTIRE parts of a fertilized egg produces the moral dilemma(abortion), which is an INHERENT constraint (fertilized egg) of reproduction for Human Beings, and to pose the quantity of some genetic (the egg) material (the unfertilized egg if view in isolation produces absolutely nothing other then a menstrual cycle),as a deciding factor equates into simply putting the cart in front of the horse (no sperm-no dilemma) in which every describable event becomes a non-issue based on the careless sequence of arrangement.

The more practical implication of assigning proportional ratios for determining the ownership or latitude rights of a resultant fetus would be the consideration of the measurement of time. The average length of pregnancy is approximately 9 months( sometimes only 6 months) in which the mother must decidedly endure, and which the fetus is wholly dependent. The average lifespan in this country (U.S.- men and women combined) is 852 months. Based on these parameters, how can enduring a pregnancy which represents less then 2% of the potential time interval of a Human Being be the bases for the complete latitude in deciding the access to the substantially larger interval of time that is offered to the average Human Being after birth? The math clearly indicates the wonderful value of reproduction, but sadly for some individuals the concept of understanding the value of life will continue to elude them.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I would like to point out that I feel cognitive ability to be a very important factor in determining whether abortion (or infanticide for that matter) should be allowed.

Ironically, Ruthless Logic has used the words "cognitive" or "cognition" fourteen times in this thread, and every single one were used to call into question the intelligence of someone who holds a differing opinion.

Not a one was on topic.

The interjection of the term "cognitive" was completely and unequivocally on topic during the conveyance of information, as well as observation.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

To consider the assignment of proportional ratios of genetic material as a process for claiming ownership of a fetus is completely unapproachable by any standard of rational consideration. The requirement based on the sum of the ENTIRE parts of a fertilized egg produces the moral dilemma

I completely agree. I was only contradicting the genetic argument that equal ownership derives from equal genetic contribution. The contributions are not quantitatively or qualitatively equal in any respect except for the requirement of two parents.

Based on these parameters, how can enduring a pregnancy which represents less then 2% of the potential time interval of a Human Being be the bases for the complete latitude in deciding the access to the substantially larger interval of time that is offered to the average Human Being after birth?

Because 1) the physical effects and potential complications of pregnancy last much longer than the pregnancy itself, and 2) women choose to have abortions to avoid parenthood, not just pregnancy. The morally easier examples are with the medically complex fetus, i.e. say the fetus is known to have hypoplastic left heart syndrome, which a terrible heart defect that requires major surgical procedures from infancy, sometimes transplantation, and has an extremely high mortality. The pregnancy here is the easy part -- it's the prospect of allowing a child with a bad disease to be born and to suffer for the entirety of his life that motivates the abortion.



Turn the situation around: a woman gets pregnant, she wants to bear the child, the father wants her to have an abortion. Does he get to overrule her in this scenario?

[Zetetic11235]

I don't think anyone has even brought up in any sincere mode, such an absurd position. The father cannot have reign over the mother's body.

I have to say, I do find Ruthless Logic's view rather appealing. It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception. Now of course it is absurd to argue against contraceptive measures, as any material disposed of at that stage would only find itself in a toilet anyway.

Once the trajectory towards birth has begun, I am affraid that I cannot agree that the mother should have a say in the death of her child. She can give it up for adoption should she so choose, but beyond this, I see no justification to stop the process. Certain moral/social diffculties arise when one of the subjects is underage, when the female has been raped, ect. I would say that I would rather a child be born of rape than killed for it, and that a girl underage should not terminate either, but rather allow it to be by the judgement of the parents, upon the birth of the infant, whether it should be given up for adoption.

The argument for potentiality has strong footing at the instance of conception. Before conception, the uncombined reproductive cells are not necessarily potentially children, they are both potential children and potentially toxic bodily waste, but upon concpetion the potential is clear.

One last point directed to Aedes, is the position that a diesase would make one's life unpleasent not akin to eugenics? To disallow a baby with disease/complication X a shot at life assuming it would prefer death is quite a leap of faith in one's own judgement. I cannot subscribe to abortion due to birth defect/disease as it is too similar to eugenics. Could one not argue that then those alive with defects are better off dead? I would disallow a woman to abort simply because the baby will have complications.

[boagie]

"I don't think anyone has even brought up in any sincere mode, such an absurd position. The father cannot have reign over the mother's body."quote

Zetetic,

How is it such an absurd position, the father is expected to shoulder at least half the responsibility for this new life, that is great work if you can get it, the father gets to share half the responsibility but is to have nothing to say in the matter---------sounds like a pretty poor deal to me.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I have to say, I do find Ruthless Logic's view rather appealing. It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception. Now of course it is absurd to argue against contraceptive measures, as any material disposed of at that stage would only find itself in a toilet anyway.

Don't be silly. This is a matter of the rights of the unborn and it makes no sense to say that the fetus gains rights at conception. Certainly conception is a distinguishable line (the only line easier to distinguish would be birth, which I find to be a much better choice), and it is very difficult to pick out a point in the development of a child that grants it rights, but the point of conception isn't even in the hazy cloud in which we are unsure.

Once the trajectory towards birth has begun, I am affraid that I cannot agree that the mother should have a say in the death of her child. She can give it up for adoption should she so choose, but beyond this, I see no justification to stop the process.

How about a woman's sovereign control over her body? How do we justify allowing a woman to have a tumor or a cyst removed? What makes a fetus different?

The argument for potentiality has strong footing at the instance of conception. Before conception, the uncombined reproductive cells are not necessarily potentially children, they are both potential children and potentially toxic bodily waste, but upon concpetion the potential is clear.

To say that "the uncombined reproductive cells are not necessarily potentially children" and that combined cells are necessarily potential children makes two errors:

1. It assumes that potential children (while they are still potential) are morally distinguishable from children that will never exist.

2. It begs the question of abortion, as the combined cells are only necessarily potential children if abortion is wrong or should not be done. From my point of view, a pregnancy that the mother doesn't want to bring to fruition is not a potential child.

[Didymos Thomas]

I have to say, I do find Ruthless Logic's view rather appealing. It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception.

The easiest way is not always best.

Drawing this "line" at conception is easy, but that's it. Hasn't Aedes already articulated many of the difficulties in drawing such a line at conception?

Once the trajectory towards birth has begun, I am affraid that I cannot agree that the mother should have a say in the death of her child.

Did you read the Thompson article I posted on the first page? She makes a tough argument.

but upon concpetion the potential is clear.

From what I understand, at conception, there is potential for the mass of cells to develop into something other than a child.

[iconoclast]

Abortion - great issue for men to play moral politics with - when we can't truly understand the situation; and better yet, american and european men - wringing our hands over decisions we can't understand while elsewhere in the world thousands of children die from preventable diseases every day.

I'm pro-choice by default, in that I don't consider myself qualified to express any other opinion. I imagine it can't be an easy decision to make - and if it is, it's probably better that person not breed. But for the vast majority of women, I imagine it's a deep and traumatic question that shouldn't be made more difficult with layman's opinions.

One way or the other, the woman will have to live with her decision for the rest of her life, and thus I think it important the woman be free to make that decision without the emotional blackmail of religious and political agendas - pushed by people who don't know and couldn't care less about the welfare of either mother or child, but are simply playing politics.

I recognize there are interesting philosophical questions here about where life begins, conflicts of rights and so on, but it infuriates me that these questions get worked up into political issues - and there is nothing more bizzare in all the world than a Catholic priest - a man, and a celibate man at that, telling women that abortion is wrong.

iconoclast.

[Didymos Thomas]

That's exactly how I feel about the issue, Iconoclast. I have no place telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. It's ungentlemanly.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I don't think anyone has even brought up in any sincere mode, such an absurd position. The father cannot have reign over the mother's body.

Right. So by the same token the father should not be able to prevent an abortion either. It's the same issue -- discordance between the two parents.

It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception.

You avoid complications by picking clearly defined biological points and stay away from impossible to measure things like "viability" or "neurologic maturity" as your criterion.

But that leaves us with either conception or birth as the only two defined points, and they're both extremely problematic. With conception, the problem is that you never know exactly when it has happened, so by that measure you could either never allow or never prohibit abortion -- nothing in between would be logical.

One last point directed to Aedes, is the position that a diesase would make one's life unpleasent not akin to eugenics?

It has nothing at all to do with eugenics. First of all, most diseases that prompt abortion are either congenital or acquired, not genetic -- so you're not altering the population, you're only preventing the birth of a very diseased baby.

Secondly, most severe genetic diseases are not transmissible because the affected children do not survive to reproduction. Children with Tay-Sachs do not survive to reproduce, for instance -- so aborting a fetus with Tay-Sachs does nothing to the population. And in fact for recessive diseases like Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis, abortion would actually be the OPPOSITE of eugenics -- you can increase the frequency of disease carriage in the population. It's only carriers of Tay-Sachs that transmit it to a subsequent generation. If you take two carriers, they have a 50% chance of any live birth being a carrier. If you identify and abort all homozygous recessives, i.e. all with the disease, you have a 67% chance of any live birth being a carrier.

I cannot subscribe to abortion due to birth defect/disease as it is too similar to eugenics.

Except that you're wrong about that.

Could one not argue that then those alive with defects are better off dead?

Spend some time where I work and see what their lives are like, including their families. You would not believe what some of these kids have to go through. Speaking personally, and my wife and I were in complete agreement about this when she was pregnant, we would NEVER carry out a pregnancy in which the baby were identified with a major congenital defect or disease. We've seen what it's like.