Being pro life just based on the fact that a fetus is technically a human life seems pretty inline with other non-logical views those people have.

I think abortion is incredible. To be able to prevent a lifetime of suffering is great

Can anyone predict with certainty a lifetime of suffering?

Hi Doc,

I've never understood this position and maybe you can explain it? Clearly, that definition is an affectation of political convenience and not biology. The pro abortion definition of life begins at some nebulous point of their choosing .

I mean the even most ardent pro abortionist would likely be appalled if we took a one minute old infant and sucked its brains out with a vacuum device of some sort or sliced and diced it vego-matic style. Now , Multiply that by some 42,000,000 times. That would be a holocaust of unimaginable immorality.

But, of course.... that is precisely what has already taken place. That one minute old infant is no more viable in the long term than a first trimester fetus, without outside help. It cannot provide its own nutrition and if left alone will expire in a number of hours. It will last a few hours longer til its heart stops and is officially dead than the fetus, but it will be just as dead 100% of the time. It is merely farther along developmentally than the fetus by a time factor of 6 months. Why does the one minute old infant deserve any more status than a developing human at an earlier state of development?

The fetus is clearly a developing human no matter what the abortionists want to call it.. It has the characteristic 23 chromosome pairs in its somatic tissue. It will always develop into a human or a member of **** sapien if one prefers that term. It will never become a salamander or an echinoderm or a walrus. It is clearly a human being in an earlier stage of development. That is the fact of biology, whether we call it a fetus, embryo or zygote.

So, I really don't understand how it is hunky-dorry to veg-o-matic a developing human.

Disclaimer: I have adopted two children from the same pregnant woman and one of them survived an attempted abortion, so I am not particularly objective on this subject, but I have seen what happens when you don't successfully abort developing humans.... and the result is pretty fascinating.

In all seriousness, can you tell me precisely when it was that you did become a person? When you cleared the birth canal? At 18 months when you could walk and talk? At 12 when you could likely fend for yourself?

The problem is that there is no biological definition of life, so finding the moment that life begins by this missing definition is impossible to get correct. We can all agree that once born, the baby is an individual human life, and so EVERYONE picks a more-or-less arbitrary cut-off before that (sure, we all justify our choices so they seem non-arbitrary, but it's not obvious that any one is better than another).

I've never quite gotten the appeal of this argument. To me, the nature of the dependence of the fetus and born baby are very different. The baby has what I view as mechanical needs -- you simply need to bring the food to the baby's mouth. Changing diapers and keeping away from danger are other sort of mechanical things. The fetus, on the other hand, doesn't breath or take in any nutrients or fight off infections. It is physically housed within the mother, just like all her organs are. This dependence has a more physiological nature, imo. Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that we can't use viability as a cutoff just because a neonate isn't viable if put into a dumpster.

As to development, you can compare a 30-week premature baby to a 39 week old fetus. I don't think anyone (here at least) is using development past 20 weeks or so a criteria.

Of course it is a human. Your fingers are human. Your spleen is also human. Sperm and egg cells are human, too -- why do you not fight to protect them before they get together?

Everyone, pro-lifer as well as pro-choicer, has some definition of when life begins in the background of their beliefs on abortion. What you are doing here is treating the pro-life definition of when life begins (at conception) as the natural definition--the one without political ideology involved. But obviously, just assuming that isn't enough, you have to give us some reason to accept it as a better definition than the pro-choice definition(s).

No one is trying to defend infanticide here, so mostly your remark seems irrelevant. Primarily its function appears to be to elicit an emotional response rather than rational thought. Also, remember that in the U.S. 99% of abortions are performed before the 20th week of pregnancy, which is before the fetal brain has developed the capacity to generate consciousness.

So? Has anyone defended in this thread defended the view you are arguing against here?

Sure, we can acknowledge that the zygote or fetus is biologically human, but so what? What is so special about the "characteristic 23 chromosome pairs in its somatic tissue"? Why is it okay to kill animals, plants, and other living organisms, but not organisms with this particular DNA?

Again, you are trying to prevent a rational discussion from taking place by using as inflammatory language as possible. However, if you don't understand the pro-choice viewpoint and are sincere in your desire to learn, then I would recommend actually examining some of the actual arguments for the pro-choice view. Here is a brief overview of some of the main positions.

That is very admirable (I'm not being sarcastic).

She probably can't, but it's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.

My pro abortion definition of life includes the view that it's not something which has a beginning. A just fertilized egg isn't a living creature, a baby is. There isn't a moment when it "becomes alive".
Because it has the capacity to suffer. My objection to infanticide isn't based on "potential viability" it's based on the fact that the victim is capable of experiencing pain.
Because being a developing human isn't anything special - it's just a bunch of organic chemicals arranged in a particular way. It's our cognitive abilities and the fact we have a subjective view which makes us morally valuable, in my view. It's got nothing to do with what we might become later.

Fair enough. I actually think the definition of humanity or being a member of the human species would be a better question.



Doc, I disagree with you as far as this is concerned. If we use "viability" as the date (assuming we could come up with an exact gestational age for this, say 5.5 months or whatever) how can you logically say the fetus @ 5.5 months has 100% value and the fetus at 5.5 months minus one day has zero value as a human. It doesn't flow logically to me.



Because if a cell from my colon and a cell from my wife's colon meet up in the septic tank, they aren't going to start dividing to create a 4n individual

When 2, 2n somatic cells get together , they don't spontaneously start to create a new distinct life. When 2, n sperm get together, they don't spontaneously start to create a new life, but when an n sperm and an n egg of the human species get together, they often begin to create an new human.

IMO, that clump of cells, is worthy of protection.

But , of course, it is only my opinion. I look at this issue much as if it was the issue of slavery. I believe in their hearts, even the most ardent pro abortion person has to believe there is something skeevy, unnatural, inhumane, whatever you want to call it about the act of aborting a developing human.

Just as I am sure Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew in their hearts , blacks were just as human as they were only sans the educational opportunities. After tapping Sally Hemming , I'm quite positive Jefferson knew she was a human, deserving of the same rights he had. He, and those of his ilk just didn't have the political will to replace the free labor.

With the ban on "partial birth abortions" in 2003 and upheld by the supremes in 2007, the law is moving in this direction. But the elimination of this practice will need the collective conscious of the population to continue to evolve, not draconian legislation.

But you're also creating a specific instant in time in which the value goes from 0 to 100% (which moment is it, by the way? when the sperm meets the egg, when the sperm enters the egg, when all the DNA meets up, when the fertilized egg begins implanting, when it's fully implanted and ready to go?). I don't see any other way of operating here, and you don't seem to either. This isn't a 'point' for either side.

I asked why you don't want to protect the sperm and egg cells before fertilization. Just as in the above, why aren't the cells worthy of protection just seconds before the moment you happen to choose?

Also, the process that happens after fertilization isn't entirely spontaneous. You put that in a petri dish and you won't get all that far. It's a process that involves a lot of input from the mother's body. Like when they do IVF, they then put a number of fertilized eggs into the mother, and only 1 or 2 or 8 of them end up as babies.

I'm sorry to disappoint you. I view it as I view all other medical procedures.

I'd be against aborting humans. In my heart of hearts though, I'm no more concerned about an abortion of a non-suffering group of cells in a womb than I am about a haircut.

It's easy to win a debate by framing your opponents arguments within your own set of axioms - nine times out of ten, their position will then be inconsistent. It's not actually helpful though.

Says you, doc

IMO... the value goes from 0 to 100% when 46 chromosomes from 2 distinctly different organisms mix in a singular bag of cytoplasm. I haven't taken Embryology since 1972, but that seems as good a point for a distinct individual beginning as I can come up with. At that point, I don't believe it is correct to do anything intentionally negative to that cell/cells.



For the same reason I don't sit shiva every time my spleen yanks a few rbcs out of circulation. The hundreds of eggs mature and don't get successfully fertilized in the average woman's lifetime. The same goes for billions of sperm. To paraphrase Auden the sperm and eggs go on living their gametey lives and the torturer's horse scratches his innocent behind on a tree. Life goes on.

However; when the genetic material of the sperm and egg unite, this is the factual starting point of a new growing human. Whether that mix of 46 unique chromosomes with the innate ability to be the first step in this particular human's development moves completely through the 9 odd month process is anyone's guess, but in my opinion, no one should interfere with that process in a negative manner.

Yeah.... and sometimes you get an Octomom or multiple births. There are about 6.7 billion pieces of evidence walking around on earth today that eloquently argue that the process works fairly well spontaneously.



As someone who has 5 doctors in my immediate family (father, father-in-law, 2 uncles and a brother in law) I realize there are diverse opinions on this matter. I also understand that garnering my approval is likely fairly far down on your list of important things.

And , of course it is a legal medical procedure today and as a licensed practitioner, you are certainly free to follow your bliss in this matter. Just keep in mind "partial birth abortions" were perfectly legal medical procedures 4 years ago and are now illegal in all but the most unusual circumstances.

To more important matters, when is another Medical Mystery going to appear on SMP?

Paint with a broad brush often?

There actually thinking people that believe the universe is something like 13.7 billion years old and still believe a fetus is precisely you, just at an earlier stage of development and therefore worthy of consideration.

Well... we aren't discussing aborting antelope here

Kind of a crass and not particularly good analogy here. First when you get your hair cut, they are cutting very dead tissue. That tissue also isn't currently in the early stage of developing into a distinct human.

But other than that... good show , mate!

I'm not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure it is a first cousin to calling a developing human @ 3 months gestational age something like, oh.... you know.... a clump of cells?

Just be glad old dear Mum wasn't quite so flippant when you were in your first trimester.

OP, to me, humanity begins at the beginning and that makes "conception" a more valid position. If one argues that humanity begins at birth , then the 9 month minus one minute gestational age fetus has no value by your definition . It is not human at that point. As a matter of fact, til 2007 one could have a 9 month minus one minute human terminated.

As I argued before any point you can pick other than the beginning is arbitrary whether it be the point of the first breath of air or the moment of statistical viability or any other metric you want to use, it makes the developing human valueless one second before that point. That seems utterly illogical and politically motivated to me. You might as well argue what is the point of maximal convenience.



My point was simple and clear and not intended to "poison the well". It was to make the hypocrisy of the pro abortion crowd clear. While almost everyone would argue true infanticide is an abomination, infanticide performed one minute pre birth is hunky dorry with most pro abortionists. And that one minute old live birth is perfectly incapable of surviving on its own anymore than a 20 week old fetus. They are the same other than the fact the new born is more developed.



I'm quite sure many would argue the ban on Partial birth abortions is an abomination, though. I see very little difference between a live birth and a 9 month gestational aged fetus.



I am not going to devolve this discussion into a peta thread whether a human has more value than a dog or a cockroach. IMO a human does have more value. Feel free to hold other beliefs.



Nonsense. Not going to let you get away with that. I used infanticide as an example of how there is very little difference between infanticide and termination fetuses (feti?) merely at earlier stages of human development.



Thanks, but it wasn't done for altruistic reasons. A year after our first child, my wife got cancer and couldn't have more kids as a result. The first one was such a joy, we figured why not adopt. Purely selfish motivation.

I'm just going to postulate to you fellas that your positions might change over the years. Mine certainly did. I was born in 1952 so I grew up right smack dab in the middle of the sexual revolution. If you walked into a bar or a party and had any decent way of presenting yourself, you had a better chance of getting laid than if you walked into a women's prison with a fist full of pardons. I thought abortion was a great thing at the time.

Then a couple of things happened in my 30's. First I knew a few gals in their 30's that had abortions in their 20's and they all regretted the decision for multiple reasons. Then , I adopted 2 indigent kids at a few days of age and saw up close what can happen when you don't have abortions. Totally changed my POV. The very arguments you make today are the same ones I would have made 35 years ago. Today, they seem to me like arguments of convenience.

Its an imperfect world filled with imperfect people and your view of right and wrong and morality may very well change as you garner more life experience. And , then again, they may not.

This ignores my point. You say, "to me, humanity begins at the beginning." Why? Why is that view of humanity less arbitrary than, say, having the claim that humanity begins when we gain the capacity for consciousness?

More substantively, I think the capacity for consciousness is a much less arbitrary distinction than the one you draw. You say that organisms with human DNA are morally valuable and so shouldn't be killed. However, this seems completely arbitrary. Why should human DNA be more valuable rabbit DNA?

On the other hand, viewing consciousness as the feature of humans that is morally valuable seems less arbitrary. After all, we can see this reflected in our treatment of non-human life (the more conscious an organism is, the more we treat it as morally valuable ranging from not at all (e.g. corn or mold) to almost as much as humans (large apes). Furthermore, we see this in our intuitive response to science fictions books and shows. We think that aliens (i.e. organisms that don't have human DNA) are morally valuable if they are conscious beings.

Well, whatever your intentions, your actions did so. A few examples, you continue to refer to those you are arguing with as the "pro-abortion" crowd. However, no one here has claimed to be "pro-abortion." Instead, we have claimed to be "pro-choice." Also, your describing the motives of those who have abortions as just being a matter of "convenience" shows a lack of concern or empathy for plight of women and girls with unwanted unpregnancies and the impact that raising a child in such situations can have on a person's life.

I don't see why you are focusing on one particular rare procedure. Is this relevant to the argument in some way?

The point is that (almost) everyone does think that humans are more valuable than dogs or cockroaches. Why?

Answer that question and you've started to give an actual defense of your views.

Okay, I'll agree that developmentally there isn't a large difference between a late-stage fetus and an infant. However, since 99% of abortions happen in the first three months, and you also think those are wrong, while don't you defend the moral equivalence of the infant and the embryo or very early fetus.

Thanks for imparting this true statement to us. Indeed, our views of right and wrong might change or they might not change.

But a fetus isn't precisely me. I've cleared all the hurdles of development to become a functioning and contributing human being. A fetus is just a parasite with the potential to be me.

I'm not even saying i'm pro-abortion. I just think that it's a lot more complex than just saying fetus = human = killing is bad. And one of the things that needs to be considered is that a fetus doesn't have the same value as a fully developed human. But some people won't even admit that.

I'm not talking about aborting humans either. I think we should restrict the practice to fetuses.

It's a fine analogy if you bother thinking about it. The point is that neither can experience suffering, so there's not an ethical problem. I'm as concerned about abortion as I am about breaking sticks.

You keep mentioning "developing into a human" and other such issues, ignoring the fact that you haven't provided any argument as to why that matters. I don't think it does - the moral value of some entity comes from it's ability to experience suffering, in my view. From that perspective, the analogy makes the point just fine.
FWIW, I didn't mention developing, human, 3 months nor any other gestational age.

What it means is that you continually analyze the opposing view as if "a fetus is a developing human, worthy of moral consideration" is a universally accepted fact. In reality, of course, that's the point of disagreement. Far better to discuss the merits or otherwise of your axioms rather than pointing out that those in favor of legalized abortions are not acting consistently with them. Clear?

I have 2 points here:
1) And what about 1 second before that? Why is that a valid argument when you use it?

2) So what happens in the case of identical twins? You have one person at the moment of conception, but you have 2 people at birth. Did that one person disappear and then 2 new ones were created, or did one person bud off the other? And what if we start cloning people? Where would your cutoff point be then?

Except that over 1/3 of the time, the process fails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Epidemiology ).

Are you ok with condoms? Without them, the sperm and egg have a decent shot at meeting up 'spontaneously' and creating a fetus. And again, just moments before the sperm enters the egg, they have nearly the same odds of resulting in a live birth as moments later, but you are against killing one and not the other. I don't see how you can get away with calling this the 'factual starting point' when this is the entire point up for debate.

So? What does that have to do with anything? I said I had no problems whatsoever with abortions, and you mention that partial birth abortions used to be legal. Are you suggesting that I would have supported partial birth abortions when they were legal just because they were legal? Still, how would that affect my feelings towards first trimester abortions?

I might be out of cases. As soon as I hit graduation, I'm pretty sure I forgot everything. But no worries, starting July 1st I'll be back in the hospital, seeing many patients per day.

Come on now, it's more like mowing the grass.

I think the moral issue is the same whether the organic matter being destroyed is alive or dead. There's nothing special about living tissue - what we should value are those entities with the property of consciousness - those who have subjective experiences. Ascribing rights to a couple of cells seems ludicrous to me - especially when the only argument advanced so far is "human life has to begin somewhere and conception makes the most sense to me". I don't accept that being alive is a property with a definite starting point, so I reject any claim that we are forced to identify one.

Capacity for consciousness? What kind of a term is this? Talk about being arbitrary.

First of all, the zygote has "the capacity for consciousness" if you just leave it alone for a period of time where a sperm or an egg singularly do not under normal circumstances. Every stage of development by definition has the "capacity for consciousness.

Now, if you want to use consciousness as a marker, that is a horse of a different color. A 7 week old fetus has discernible brain activity (from your iep link... yes... i did take the time to read it). So does an unconscious adult in a deep coma who still has discernible brain activity. Am I allowed to suction all his innards out while he is unconscious but still has appropriate brain activity? Probably not, ehhh.


I'm sorry... this so much reminds me of the conversation John Lithgow has with Dr Chandra the 2001 sequel, 2010. Dr Chandra goes off on some schpiel about whether intelligence is based on carbon or silicon makes no matter.

Lithgow then says (referring to HAL and the Discovery space craft), " Well..... its either him or us. I vote for us! All opposed?...... The ayes have it!"

I'm not going to devolve this discussion into the relative merits of humans and the Easter Bunny.

Seems less arbitrary to you. It would probably seem quite arbitrary to that unconscious coma patient or my wife when she is sleeping.

You know what it seems to me.... it seems you are willing to go through any semantic gymnastics necessary to find an argument that supports your desire to keep vacuuming developing humans as inconvenient as they may be.



Yes.... I'm sure those 42,000,000 odd fetuses sucked bit by bit from their mother's wombs since Roe are much better off not being born.

Pro choice is just a euphemism. A choice is when I go in the grocery store and chose strawberries over cherries. Boxers or briefs is a choice. Abortion is a little more than that. If we exclude the obvious cases of rape, incest and serious risk of death of the mother, women do have a choice (as do men), and absolutely free choice. They can choose to get pregnant or not.

And if they choose to engage in an activity that may result in getting pregnant, it is certainly within the capability of the woman and her partner to reduce the probability of getting pregnant by a factor of >99% per year. It is something called contraception and personal responsibility.

The notion of abortion as birth control makes me viscerally ill. In America, others are free to have a different opinion. Others yet with the correct license are free to make a small fortune doing these "procedures". I've tried to make my argument and I don't think I have much else to add.

I get that you believe your position is correct and we're all wrong, and I'm ok with that. But this attitutde of feeling like you are obviously correct and can't possibly be wrong, and suggesting that we know that but try to ignore it so we can continue our evil quest to get rid of those we don't like -- this I don't get.

You don't have to come out of this thread agreeing with us, but I at least expect you to develop an understanding of our position.