Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[Calm]

I believe that all third trimester abortions should be illegal for all reasons unless the fetus is already dead. If the life of the mother is in peril, she can have a C section. I believe that third trimester abortions are murder and show a crass and blatant disregard for human life. I don't believe that a first trimester abortion even begins to approach the seriousness of a late abortion, and I think they should be legal and available (although I am personally opposed to all abortions.) I'm not sure how I feel about second trimester abortions. I think this is something that is "like unto" murder, but not exactly the same. Something that I have a very, very hard time grasping is why there are any unwanted pregnancies at all in the United States. Various forms of birth control are widely available and very easy to access and if that fails, there is the morning after pill. We are just pathetic I guess.

Birth control can be expensive for lower income individuals and is not paid by insurance in most cases (unless things have changed recently)...should be imo, but likely abortions are cheaper in the long run for them.

[Calm]

I think that around age 3, children are "capable of sentiency or cognition", in that they really begin to exercise their own will.

Maybe even as early as age 2.

If exercising one's own will is the measuring standard, then I'm not sure if there is any lower limit because I've seen plenty of kids struggle when quite young when not allowed to move like they want or not given the food that they want.

[ELF1024]

What could be more innocent that a babe in the womb?

It is my opinion that life on this planet begins at conception.

It is also my opinion that a innocent child did not choose to be concieved in any particular fashion. Thus, it would be absurd to punish the child with death for a crime he or she did not commit.

I personally am against abortion in any form for any reason. As a father I would do everything I could to convince a family member to give birth. I also object to my tax dollars going top provide abortion for anyone in any country and under any circumstances.

Adoption is always preferable than death.

I am just glad that I am not responsible for making that choice for everyone on the planet.

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

Even if it meant the death of your daughter and her child?

[Nathair/|\]

Were I a woman, the only time I could have an abortion is if otherwise both of us would die.

I'm not comfortable criminalizing it in case of rape, etc, hence my answer in the pole. I think in those cases it is less than morally ideal. Of course I believe you should do some serious thinking before taking any life and then offer due reverence.

[Minos]

actually, you are calling me on it. I only give as good as I get. When people fling insults or make uncharitable insinuations, I tend to make them right back. I'm not the one to start the nastiness, but I'm not one to let others dish it out and not return it to them in kind until warned by a moderator.

Consider this your warning.

[USU78]

It doesn't ignore the science at all. It simply disputes the non-scientific decision to consider a non-sentient, non-thinking human fetus a person with constitutionally protected rights.

Your particular brand of libertarianism posits that the river starts at sentience, yet sentience is not the sine qua non of humanness, as mfb has pointed out again and again in this thread. Humanness is in our genes. And the moment a genetically distinct human organism comes into existence, it is a human organism genetically. Harry Blackmun drew a stupid, indefensible line at 6 months in Roe. Science proved him to be a terrible scientist, a miserable prognosticator, and a waste of human flesh as a drawer of workable and defensible lines. Who is to say that the next 50 years don't bring us even better techniques at saving prematurely born children such that the baby can be born at conception plus 2 months, throwing your line, which is no more interesting than Blackmun's and no more defensible, onto history's slagheap.

I agree with your general sentiment when it applies to the terminating of pregnancies past the first trimester for any reason other than self-preservation. Where we clearly disagree is during the first trimester and possibly the exceptions that might be made during the 2nd trimester based on the circumstances of conception. I'm not sure whether you stand with the Church with respect to murdering the unborn child during the 2nd trimester for the sin of its father.

And your linedrawing, like Blackmun's, is of no greater substance than his, as I pointed out, above.

I agree, but would add that true libertarianism holds that the individual may also utilize force in response to force, the individual is simply not permitted to initiate force against another.

You'll get no argument from me. I believe in "fighting words" as well as "defense of others" among the free, sovereign individual's G-d-given rights.

But that's the whole crux of the matter. As a Mormon you identify personness with a spirit, and the spirit is hypothetically present from conception (although there is no doctrine declaring this to be the case). With such a belief, the arguments against abortion are understandable (except those which allow for abortion in the cases rape or incest). My point is that such a belief about spirits being present from conception is an individual religious belief, not a verifiable fact, and as such should not be used as the basis for making secular law that affects belie er and non-believer alike.

You misunderstand. My argument is that it doesn't matter a d@mn when the spirit enters the body. It's unknowable anyway, short of G-d giving us a peek, which He probably won't ever do. I don't and I don't believe Mormon doctrine requires the Spirit to be present during an abortion to suffer from the body's murder at the hands of those who owe her a duty of love and care. I feel profoundly when some punk trashes my car . . . and my car is nothing, ultimately. The body intended for inhabitation by its intended spirit is something profound and personal and irreplaceable: there's only one in the universe and, with it sucked out and flushed like so much mucous, we cannot measure how dreadful the effects upon the spirit. I have a claim in law against him who trashes my car, but that's only money. If someone trashes my unique and irreplaceable real estate, I have special rights because of real estate's uniqueness. These, however, are only a shadow of the preciousness of the spirit's intended vessel. It's one thing to see it lost to mischance or disease. That's part of the human condition in this here chancy world. It's quite another to see deliberate damage, especially by Mom of all the people in the world, nay callous destruction of the vessel.

That's a different argument for a different audience, and making it is not imposing it. Fundamentally, however, it's the same argument: The genetically distinct human organism, whether it's developed enough to think or never does, has an expectation of life . . . and it's no less interesting an expectation than yours or mine.

It has been my experience that certain religious types of people are inclined to impose their religious beliefs and values upon the whole of society through force of law. I am strongly opposed to such behavior and seek to quell it wherever I find it. Your right to live your life according to your religious beliefs ends where it begins to infringe upon my rights to live my life according to my own philosophical and spiritual beliefs and vice versa.

You missed the point.

[ELF1024]

ELF1024:

Even if it meant the death of your daughter and her child?

That would require a lot of discussion, prayer, and conversation with both my Bishop and Stake President. It would not be a decision made lightly or in haste.

Between medical science and God, I would hope that both could be saved, but in the end the decision would have to be guided by the Lord.

[AmorLibertas]

So you ASSUME that "sentiency or cognition" of a being MUST have "changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain". This is something you DO NOT KNOW but ONLY ASSUME.

Since we're arguing epistemology now, you don't know anything except that you exist. Everything else is pure conjecture. What you rely upon for determining spiritual truth--some ineffable feeling and/or thoughts you attribute to divine revelation you do not know to be divine in origin but only assume to be so ultimately based on what others have told you about their source which could just as likely if not more likely be your own subconscious. So don't bother trying to convince me that your religious world-view allows you to see things m/ore clearly or accuartely than my own when you have no epistemological leg to stand on.

You would do well to recognize the limits of your own assumptions. Or maybe, for you, ignorance is bliss.

Take a look in the mirror when you suggest that.

[Deborah]

That would require a lot of discussion, prayer, and conversation with both my Bishop and Stake President. It would not be a decision made lightly or in haste.

When my sister was pregnant with her last child she was told by the doctor she should have an abortion as she was likely not to survive due to a heart problem. She and her husband of course prayed and decided to have the baby, who is now grown, married in the temple and has two beautiful grandchildren for her mother.

I've had two friends who were told they had downs syndrome babies and it was suggested they abort. They both refused and had perfectly healthy children.

Science doesn't know everything.

[ELF1024]

When my sister was pregnant with her last child she was told by the doctor she should have an abortion as she was likely not to survive due to a heart problem. She and her husband of course prayed and decided to have the baby, who is now grown, married in the temple and has two beautiful grandchildren for her mother.

I've had two friends who were told they had downs syndrome babies and it was suggested they abort. They both refused and had perfectly healthy children.

Science doesn't know everything.

True enough, you have to allow room for a "miracle" in order for one to happen.

[blueadept]

When my sister was pregnant with her last child she was told by the doctor she should have an abortion as she was likely not to survive due to a heart problem. She and her husband of course prayed and decided to have the baby, who is now grown, married in the temple and has two beautiful grandchildren for her mother.

I've had two friends who were told they had downs syndrome babies and it was suggested they abort. They both refused and had perfectly healthy children.

Science doesn't know everything.

Our fellow poster, PaPa, had a similiar story last year and then he wondered if he went overboard in stressing out about it all. I agree that science doesn't know everything.

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

I have no problem with consulting with God. I do have a problem with someone else saying their God told them to force me to do something.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I highlighted a couple of the stats that jumped out for me. I've read somewhere of the undertones of Planned Parenthood in regards to racism and have tried to dismiss the whole thing as simply being ludicrous. While the connection may be ludicrous, there is obviously an issue to address on why black women are 4X more likely to have an abortion than whites. In today's US society, the discrepancy shouldn't be so drastic.

The fact that 60% of all abortions are by women have already given birth is an astounding fact to me. That's not the image I had of the majority of women who uses abortion services. Wow...

A lot of these things are made up by those who oppose abortion. I once saw a pamphlet that suggested that the average Russian woman has 8 abortions in her lifetime. The "pamphlet" was suggesting it was the lack of belief in God that fueled this...everyone has an agenda when writing statistics.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Our fellow poster, PaPa, had a similiar story last year and then he wondered if he went overboard in stressing out about it all. I agree that science doesn't know everything.

Thank God for great miracles, that baby is now in her terrible twos, and cut Nanny's tour of the Temple short on Tuesday. I was helping with parking so they came out and visited with me.

[blueadept]

A lot of these things are made up by those who oppose abortion. I once saw a pamphlet that suggested that the average Russian woman has 8 abortions in her lifetime. The "pamphlet" was suggesting it was the lack of belief in God that fueled this...everyone has an agenda when writing statistics.

...and which statistic sounds like it's far-fetched? I agree that everyone has an agenda. After camping out at a couple of clinics on days they were performing abortions, I'm not too surprised by the numbers listed.

[ELF1024]

ELF1024:

I have no problem with consulting with God. I do have a problem with someone else saying their God told them to force me to do something.

Luckily I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

[AmorLibertas]

You know, I would not have even commented if you had not made that "ignorance" slam. Why do you do that? Man, could I zing you right now, but I won't.

Did you consider zinging Vance for suggesting I hadn't a clue (any idea when a person develops the capacity of thought)? That is the ignorance I was speaking to.

So a comatose person with "sustained changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain" is "Thinking"? Electrical activity in the brain is "thinking"? Electrical activity defines "sentience"?

Depending on the region of the brain and the type of changes in potential is indicative of thinking, just like the sustained changes in specific regions of the electronics of a computer system is indicative of computation. Non-organized electrical activity itself is not thinking, just as non-organized electrical changes in electronics is not computation, however, organized electrical activity is the mechanism by which computations are performed in a computer and it is very likely that the same is true when it comes to our brains and thinking.

He is "thinking"? What, pray tell, is he thinking about? I mean if you can read minds you should know that, shouldn't you?

I never claimed such an ability. Maybe you should ask those with the alleged szuper-natural power of discernment about that.

Let me stop you before you come back with something about "thinking is electrical activity"- THAT is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing is that ANY electrical activity in the brain defines "sentience" or "Thinking", or that you can prove anything about a phenomenological state from electrical activity.

That is unknowable in principle. Period.

I was not claiming that ANY electrical activity in the brain defines anything. I only claimed that according to the most advanced medical science we have today, the presence of sustained, organized electrical activity indicates thinking, and the absence of such indicates the absence of thinking. You can disregard the scientific evidence if you want, but if you do then the discussion on the matter is over since I can't argue with irrationality.

As to proving anything about a phenomenological state from electricity, I find it infinitely more reliable and verifiable than ineffable feelings or thoughts alleged to come from God.

[AmorLibertas]

Dup

[mfbukowski]

Since we're arguing epistemology now, you don't know anything except that you exist. Everything else is pure conjecture. What you rely upon for determining spiritual truth--some ineffable feeling and/or thoughts you attribute to divine revelation you do not know to be divine in origin but only assume to be so ultimately based on what others have told you about their source which could just as likely if not more likely be your own subconscious. So don't bother trying to convince me that your religious world-view allows you to see things m/ore clearly or accuartely than my own when you have no epistemological leg to stand on.

Take a look in the mirror when you suggest that.

Lol

Well of course that cuts both ways doesn't it?

Here, let me fix it for you, and underline the changes:

Since we're arguing epistemology now, you don't know anything except that you exist. Everything else is pure conjecture. What you rely upon for determining scientific truth--some ineffable feeling and/or thoughts you attribute to science you do not know to be scientific in origin but only assume to be so ultimately based on what others have told you about their source which could just as likely if not more likely be your own subconscious. So don't bother trying to convince me that your scientific world-view allows you to see things m/ore clearly or accuartely than my own when you have no epistemological leg to stand on.

Take a look in the mirror when you suggest that.

There you go! You want to talk epistemology, be my guest- you are on my turf now. By the way, read the article in my siggy- or just start with the siggy itself.

Oh incidentally regarding science and the "subconscious"- good luck with that one.

The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a definition-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be avoided in academic and scientific settings.

[mfbukowski]

When my sister was pregnant with her last child she was told by the doctor she should have an abortion as she was likely not to survive due to a heart problem. She and her husband of course prayed and decided to have the baby, who is now grown, married in the temple and has two beautiful grandchildren for her mother.

I've had two friends who were told they had downs syndrome babies and it was suggested they abort. They both refused and had perfectly healthy children.

Science doesn't know everything.

The perfect quote to follow up my post above

[mfbukowski]

Depending on the region of the brain and the type of changes in potential is indicative of thinking, just like the sustained changes in specific regions of the electronics of a computer system is indicative of computation. Non-organized electrical activity itself is not thinking, just as non-organized electrical changes in electronics is not computation, however, organized electrical activity is the mechanism by which computations are performed in a computer and it is very likely that the same is true when it comes to our brains and thinking.

"Very likely"????

Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you because of "very likely"? We are not computers and science is not able to demonstrate any of what you are saying without a doubt. We are talking about human life here. Do you want decisions based on "very likely"? Not that it has even been proven "very likely"!

I was not claiming that ANY electrical activity in the brain defines anything.

Unbelievable. - what did you just do above??

I only claimed that according to the most advanced medical science we have today, the presence of sustained, organized electrical activity indicates thinking, and the absence of such indicates the absence of thinking. You can disregard the scientific evidence if you want, but if you do then the discussion on the matter is over since I can't argue with irrationality.

Unbelievable squared! You just said that electrical activity in the brain does not define anything, THEN you say it "indicates thinking"- on what basis- ??- and then you accuse me of "disregarding the scientific evidence" WHICH YOU SAY "doesn't define anything" (electrical activity) AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO SAY I AM "IRRATIONAL"????

I have to see my cardiologist soon........ I can't take this much longer. Self contradiction after self contradiction.

As to proving anything about a phenomenological state from electricity, I find it infinitely more reliable and verifiable than ineffable feelings or thoughts alleged to come from God.

GOSH!!!

You have proven precisely NOTHING from electricity, much less a phenomenological state, and have ADMITTED that:

I was not claiming that ANY electrical activity in the brain defines anything

What precisely is it that you find

infinitely more reliable and verifiable than ineffable feelings or thoughts alleged to come from God.

???????

You find self contradiction more reliable than feelings from God? Good luck on that one.

I'm about done. I can do my best to deal with irrationality when it is nicely presented- you just figure the poor guy is confused- but irrationality presented with nastiness and snide cracks just takes me beyond where I want to go.

I'm done with you.

[AmorLibertas]

Well of course that cuts both ways doesn't it?

Of course it cuts both ways. Of course I hope your attempt at demonstrating such was merely an attempt at humor, since it was hardly demonstrative of the point that it cuts both ways.

There you go! You want to talk epistemology, be my guest- you are on my turf now. By the way, read the article in my siggy- or just start with the siggy itself.

Your turf huh? Go ahead and open a new thread on the subject then. As for my use of the term "subconscious", perhaps a better term might have been "imagination" or "delusion".

[AmorLibertas]

Your particular brand of libertarianism posits that the river starts at sentience, yet sentience is not the sine qua non of humanness, as mfb has pointed out again and again in this thread. Humanness is in our genes. And the moment a genetically distinct human organism comes into existence, it is a human organism genetically.

That is not being disputed. What I am maintaining is that sentience and cognition are a few essential qualities which distinguish an individual whose constitutional rights should be protected, and a mass of tissues without such constitutional rights.

Harry Blackmun drew a stupid, indefensible line at 6 months in Roe. Science proved him to be a terrible scientist, a miserable prognosticator, and a waste of human flesh as a drawer of workable and defensible lines.

I gather you're referring to the line of viability. I happen to agree with you on that matter in part; however, a careful reading of the decision does not put the line at 6 months; it puts the line at viability (outside the womb).

Who is to say that the next 50 years don't bring us even better techniques at saving prematurely born children such that the baby can be born at conception plus 2 months, throwing your line, which is no more interesting than Blackmun's and no more defensible, onto history's slagheap.

Again, I suspect much more than that. I suspect within 50 years we will see techniques developed which may make a specific human womb for all intents and purposes redundant. I suspect within 50 years we may see the first human being gestated from conception to term completely outside of a woman; most likely in an artifically created womb. As to your editorial comment that you find the line which I would draw no more interesting or defensible; I believe my arguments demonstrate your editorial comment to be nothing more than rhetorical sour grapes over your inability to successfully assail it.

And your linedrawing, like Blackmun's, is of no greater substance than his, as I pointed out, above.

Pointed out to your own self-satisfaction and the satisfaction many if not all of those who share your opinion, but none else.

You misunderstand. My argument is that it doesn't matter a d@mn when the spirit enters the body. It's unknowable anyway, short of G-d giving us a peek, which He probably won't ever do. I don't and I don't believe Mormon doctrine requires the Spirit to be present during an abortion to suffer from the body's murder at the hands of those who owe her a duty of love and care. I feel profoundly when some punk trashes my car . . . and my car is nothing, ultimately.

So God's precognition could not predict which fetus would be aborted and which would not, thus sparing the emotional trauma to the hopeful spirit? Or is it that God chose to allow this spirit to get its hopes up, only to be dashed so tragically for some other reason? Were I God, I wouldn't put any of my spirit children in such an apparently devastating emotional position as that. Yet you imagine a God who would. How sad for you.

The body intended for inhabitation by its intended spirit is something profound and personal and irreplaceable: there's only one in the universe and, with it sucked out and flushed like so much mucous, we cannot measure how dreadful the effects upon the spirit.

Wow... irreplacable now. Leave it to you to limit God. I suppose a resurrection is out of the question and the spirit is now eternally without a body. Really, even Mormon doctrine is more consistent than that, even if God is so mean as to assign a spirit to a body He knows they will never inhabit.

Fundamentally, however, it's the same argument: The genetically distinct human organism, whether it's developed enough to think or never does, has an expectation of life . . . and it's no less interesting an expectation than yours or mine.

No. The genetically distinct human organism which never develops enough to think never has any expectations of life whatsoever. Expectation denotes consciousness coupled with an ability to imagine something happening in the future. A non-cognating entity, whether comprised of human DNA or, or merely a piece of sand on the sea, has no expectations of any kind whatsoever.

[Jeff K.]

The genetically distinct human organism which never develops enough to think never has any expectations of life whatsoever. Expectation denotes consciousness coupled with an ability to imagine something happening in the future. A non-cognating entity, whether comprised of human DNA or, or merely a piece of sand on the sea, has no expectations of any kind whatsoever.

The point is irrelevant since certain inalienable rights exist, including that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The expectation of such a life is irrelevant to the right it(the child) has. The right exists outside the organism and is not controlled by the organism through presumed consciousness.