Abortion Ban in SD

[Midtowner]

Well, you say life occurs at conception. I'm arguing it occurs when the fetus becomes viable without the use of the mother-host (or even available medical technology). There is a standard here which you are simply assuming exists. I pose to you that it doesn't.

Now, you are free to have your opinion as to what the truth is here but at least acknowledge that your opinion is an opinion. Facts are things which are inherently self-evident and not open to explanation. There are some questions which have no factual answers possible. I belive this is one of them.

As soon as you recognize the ambiguity, you can understand the standpoint of the other side of the debate (although, I tend to find myself in the middle or even out in a distant third-place minority view rather than on 'either side').

Someone else can speak on this, but in my researching the D&E procedure (the procedure done to end the most advanced sorts of pregancies) I came accross information that seems to indicate that it is not available after the 24th week. It would appear that medicine in general recognizes the 24th week as the point that a fetus has at least a 40% chance of survival, and thus, a fair point to say that a fetus has a good chance of being viable. It's assuming a lot, but it appears that they follow the same logic that I do.

[Midtowner]

I understand that science doesn't rule on points of philosophy. And I understand that a portion of the abortion debate comes to philosophy.

However, for the purposes of finding some common ground, I'm going to step away from the abortion debate momentarily. I'm going to try to use only science to make a point.

You may find that our opinions of what science actually is and does differ greatly But I look forward to your reply.

(If we're going to split hairs then technically the only philosophy I am assuming is really a meta-philosophy which we all tend to hold to anyways - namely, that science is a valid and intellectual standard for studying our physical world.)

True, it is a valid standard. However, it cannot explain all things. Science only tells you what something is made up of. We can take a fetus at any point in its development and tell you exactly how much it weighs, what kinds of capabilities it would have, etc.. Science, however, (unless the concept is concrete) cannot describe a state of being. For example, science can not tell me whether I am happy or sad. It can look at my brain chemistry and say that it's probable, or that I have chemicals which tend to cause a certain effect, it can point out parts of my brain that are stimulated versus parts that are not, however, if you want to know whether I'm happy or sad, you'll have to ask me. The life versus pre-life question is even more difficult since you don't have something which has the capacity to tell you whether it's alive or not -- the mind is simply not there yet. Will it be? Yes, unless something goes wrong. The potential for life is not the same as life, therefore, it comes down to a judgment call and an arbitrary standard dictated mostly by your philosophical approach to the question. My belief is that you have a sack of cells that has grown to a point and may continue to grow and become more human, the sack of cells will eventually become alive, however, until it reaches the point where it is no longer dependent on some outside source, it is not alive -- it is simply a vegetable still on the vine.

That said, animals reproduce after their own kind (If I'm not mistaken, this is called the Law of Biogenetics). I am appealing to this scientific principle when I simply ask: what is the entity that is within a woman after conception? Science has an answer. It is a Homo Sapiens.

You can just say human; I don't think that there is much propability that we're discussing neandrathilc man, homo habilus, homo erectus, etc. As far as what we have there, I think it is athing which has the potential to become a human, yet it is in the process of development. The fact that it has DNA and cellular reproduction is simply a part of that development -- a step.

And it seems from the past few posts that you are having a hard time acknowledging this scientific fact. Now, regardless of the abortion debate or philosophy, I find it hard to believe that anyone (unless they disregard science) would disagree.

Except that its not science

[MadMonk]

Well, you say life occurs at conception. I'm arguing it occurs when the fetus becomes viable without the use of the mother-host (or even available medical technology). There is a standard here which you are simply assuming exists. I pose to you that it doesn't.

I considered the definition of life (a living organism) to be self-evident. As I understand you by your previous posts the question was whether or not it was a human being at the time of conception, not whether or not the entity was alive. I've never heard it argued that a fetus wasn't alive prior to a certain point in the gestation period.

Now, you are free to have your opinion as to what the truth is here but at least acknowledge that your opinion is an opinion. Facts are things which are inherently self-evident and not open to explanation. There are some questions which have no factual answers possible. I belive this is one of them.

Fair enough, but please also acknowlege that I did exactly that in a previous post. (From post #33: "As you know, this is just opinion,")

As soon as you recognize the ambiguity, you can understand the standpoint of the other side of the debate (although, I tend to find myself in the middle or even out in a distant third-place minority view rather than on 'either side').

I believe I do understand the other side of the debate (at least as far as I can being a male), but when this difficult decision has to be made it is my opinion that any benefit of the doubt should fall to the little life in the womb.

[Midtowner]

That's the point Mad -- it's all just an opinion. Whether you are in your shoes or my shoes, we are discussing opinion. When we start trying to pass off our opinions as irrefutable facts, we render ourselves incapable of coming to terms with the truth that there are in fact many truths.

And no, the definition of life is not self-evident. Medical ethics have struggled with this -- is it brain function? Is it a heartbeat? How about the fact that there can be deprivation of oxygen to the brain for some time before it suffers irreparable harm? We're not sure at exactly what point life ends until we pick a standard.

The beginning of life is not so different -- is it at conception? Is it at viability? Is it at birth? Is it at some arbitrary point in between? There are many different answers, each perfectly plausible to the very same question. The correct answer simply depends upon the standard which you choose to employ.

And for what it's worth, I respect your opinion and applaud you for having at least thought it through. Most don't -- that you've bothered to analyze anything puts you well ahead of the curve.

[Luke]

I want to point out that well-spoken, yet hollow responses to questions are attempts to muddy the waters. I am asking a simple straightforward question. If the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being (which is a logical assumption based on the Law of Biogenetics) then the burden of proof is on others to show evidence for what that "thing" is. Scientific questions require scientific answers, not philosophical ones. Midtowner has very articulately side-stepped my direct question appealing to science. He's twisted my argument into philosophical opinion. He's colorfully assessed my "qualitative analysis" and recommended I use "quantitative" instead (or was it the other way around?) He's called a human embryo a "growth" and a "sack of cells" but never said what that growth or sack of cells actually is. It seems to me that all this dancing hasn't lead to a clear answer on his part.

Leaving the abortion debate on the sideline, if anyone can simply show me that the product of two human beings is NOT a human being, I will concede my point. However, science shows (not to mention everyone who has seen a dog have puppies or a horse give birth or a woman have a baby) that animals reproduce after their own kind. Rabbits always beget rabbits, frogs beget frogs, turtles beget turtles and humans beget humans. Assuming we use the philosophical device of reason, rationale and logic to arrive at facts and truths rooted in scientific evidence (as well as witnessing births for ourselves), nobody has ever rationally claimed that the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being.

[Midtowner]

Luke, your logic employs the assumption that mere potential for something to become a thing means that it is in fact that thing. The potential to become human is not disputed. What is disputed is the arbitrary point at which something becomes human or alive.

There was no side step at all Luke, I was simply pointing out that lines you are attempting to draw are illusory.

[Luke]

A potential X is an actual Y. My question remains. If it is "not yet" a human (but has the potential to be), then what is it actually?

[Midtowner]

Then it is a "not yet" with potential.

This invites inquiry into the ethical dilemna behind terminating something with "potential" to be human. Of course, this happens every time we allow the women around us to ovulate, yet not become pregnant. That egg has a potential to become human. The only difference between it and a fetus is potential.

So again, we're faced with an arbitrary point at which we say something has enough 'potential' to become human. You choose conception, I choose viability. Therein lies the disagreement.

[Bobby H]

Is masturbation murder? Just thought I would inject a little humor into the discussion.

One could actually argue a case for it. Afterall, those millions of little sperms are actively swimming in search of an egg to fertilize. Items like spermicidal jelly kill the organisms -which implies all those things are alive. So wouldn't that mean the act of conception results in the start of one life and a virtual apocalypse of millions of other lives? Hehe.

This discussion is interesting in that it is doing more to concentrate on the scientific "when does life begin" question, rather than collapse in the very tired and judgmental tone that often results elsewhere.

My personal belief is the choice should be up to the woman. I don't like abortion, but I don't think it is an easy act for a woman to commit. Some belive women use abortion as a method of birth control, which I find ridiculous. The procedure has a high emotional and financial cost. If it were easy I know my town would not have such a huge number of unwed mothers (many of them teens still in high school). There wouldn't be so many children living in poverty either.

I don't know what's going to happen with the Roe V Wade thing. But if the extremely perverse, immoral costs of health care keep skyrocketing, I'm going to get a vasectomy and give up on ever becoming a father. If the cost gets much higher I'll know of one thing that will begin at conception: my calls to a bankruptcy attorney.

[Luke]

Then it is a "not yet" with potential.

A "growth," a "sack of cells," and a "not yet..." Vague. All "potential somethings" are currently an actual something. What is it?

This invites inquiry into the ethical dilemna behind terminating something with "potential" to be human. Of course, this happens every time we allow the women around us to ovulate, yet not become pregnant. That egg has a potential to become human. The only difference between it and a fetus is potential.

Again, science says that an egg left to itself remains only that. An egg. A sperm left to itself remains that, a sperm. A liver, kidney, lung or anything else with human DNA never has the potential to be a human being. Only when an egg and a sperm come together does the inherent capacity of it change.

[Midtowner]

A "growth," a "sack of cells," and a "not yet..." Vague. All "potential somethings" are currently an actual something. What is it?

I believe the applicable words are blastula, zygote, and fetus. There may be more applicable words, but those are the monikers that "it" goes by. There are also designations such as "first trimester" which also tell us what it is. I prefer for the sake of a logical argument the notion that it is a X with a potential to be Y.

Again, science says that an egg left to itself remains only that. An egg. A sperm left to itself remains that, a sperm. A liver, kidney, lung or anything else with human DNA never has the potential to be a human being. Only when an egg and a sperm come together does the inherent capacity of it change.

Yes Luke, but we're talking about degrees of potential. So that sperm and those eggs all have the potential to become living beings albeit a small one. Ad argumentum, the liver, kidney, etc. are very close to being able to be made into human life via human cloning.

The point is to recognize that there is a great deal of ambiguity as to when the zygote, fetus, blastula, etc. actually is recognized to be alive. You say conception, I say viability. Considering abortions are not given after the 24th week, for what it's worth, it seems medical "science" (placed in quotes due to previous discussions as to the applicability of science to a question such as this) has deemed viability as the point at which life begins.

[OkieBear]

Abortions are performed after 24 weeks. Sometimes up to 26 weeks or more, and on healthy babies (yes, I said babies).

This article is from testimony in the US House of Representatives during debate over the partial birth abortion ban, which was passed by congress in I believe 1996, but vetoed by President Clinton. It was passed again and signed into law by President Bush in 2003, but was struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/shafer.htm

[Midtowner]

I'm against abortions following the point of viability. I think that's pretty clear from my above posts. I don't like D&E procedures at all. I do understand that they make up a very small percentage of all abortions performed. With the D&X procedure, you're actually talking about a very small percentage of the abortions performed.

As to the 26 week story above, this is certainly the exception and not the rule. There are very few doctors who would perform this procedure past the 24th week.

[GrandMaMa]

I want to point out that well-spoken, yet hollow responses to questions are attempts to muddy the waters. I am asking a simple straightforward question. If the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being (which is a logical assumption based on the Law of Biogenetics) then the burden of proof is on others to show evidence for what that "thing" is. Scientific questions require scientific answers, not philosophical ones. Midtowner has very articulately side-stepped my direct question appealing to science. He's twisted my argument into philosophical opinion. He's colorfully assessed my "qualitative analysis" and recommended I use "quantitative" instead (or was it the other way around?) He's called a human embryo a "growth" and a "sack of cells" but never said what that growth or sack of cells actually is. It seems to me that all this dancing hasn't lead to a clear answer on his part.

Leaving the abortion debate on the sideline, if anyone can simply show me that the product of two human beings is NOT a human being, I will concede my point. However, science shows (not to mention everyone who has seen a dog have puppies or a horse give birth or a woman have a baby) that animals reproduce after their own kind. Rabbits always beget rabbits, frogs beget frogs, turtles beget turtles and humans beget humans. Assuming we use the philosophical device of reason, rationale and logic to arrive at facts and truths rooted in scientific evidence (as well as witnessing births for ourselves), nobody has ever rationally claimed that the "thing" inside a woman is NOT a human being.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but don't frogs and turtles beget eggs? At what point does what is inside of that egg become a frog or turtle? You can tear open a freshly laid turtle egg and there will be nothing but egg stuff. Frogs drop their eggs on the bottom of the pond and the daddy frog comes along and adds his two cents worth...the question remains the same, WHEN can you call those things or sack of cells frogs or turtles?

[OkieBear]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but don't frogs and turtles beget eggs? At what point does what is inside of that egg become a frog or turtle? You can tear open a freshly laid turtle egg and there will be nothing but egg stuff. Frogs drop their eggs on the bottom of the pond and the daddy frog comes along and adds his two cents worth...the question remains the same, WHEN can you call those things or sack of cells frogs or turtles?

Frogs and turtles beget frogs and turtles. But in these cases the egg is either fertilized inside the mother's body then laid after fertilization or laid, and then fertilized. Once it is fertilized (the sperm and egg come together) it has a distinct genetic code different from either parent.

[Jack]

Once the sperm and the egg join, the process is set in motion to create a human. Before that it would never develop into a human. For example, I jack off, and my sperm go down the toilet.

[Jack]

I've noticed a lot of the time that most anti-abortionists are men. Men often do not realize what it means to be pregnant, especially if the pregnancy is unwanted, be it because the birth control failed or because the woman was raped. How dare anyone tell me I have to carry a child to term even though the child was fathered by a rapist!

So you'd rather kill the baby? Wow, that's class. Murdering babies and all.

[Jack]

I'd like to know you people's opinion...is this a baby? Yes or no.

[GrandMaMa]

Frogs and turtles beget frogs and turtles. But in these cases the egg is either fertilized inside the mother's body then laid after fertilization or laid, and then fertilized. Once it is fertilized (the sperm and egg come together) it has a distinct genetic code different from either parent.

RIGHT ON, SO WHY WOULD ANYONE ARGUE DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO ANY OTHER CREATURE THAT REPRODUCES ITSELF?

[OkieBear]

I'd like to know you people's opinion...is this a baby? Yes or no.

YES! Absolutely!

[Jack]

I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

[GrandMaMa]

YES! Absolutely!

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

[Patrick]

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

I'd guess about the same....probably a 20 week fetus.

[OkieBear]

Regarding the photo, I would say about 16 to 20 wk fetus.

So are you saying that it isn't a baby, isn't human or isn't alive? It's just a fetus?

[Midtowner]

At 20 weeks, no.