Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[Deborah]

If it is not a human life growing from the time of conception, what sort of alien life is it?

That is an excellent point.

I find irony in the fact that the U.N. wants to give the earth the same rights as human beings but won't give the unborn the same rights.

[saemo]

A developing fetus is not capable of human emotions yet, as it does not yet have the nervous system required. It has no language, and feels no pain. In this sense, I do not think we have to grant full human rights to a fetus based on appealing to personhood. Furthermore, newborn babies, and those with severe mental illness, are also not required to have all the full fledged rights of a person. When the child has autonomy, goals, wishes, desires, language, and the ability to relate to me: at that point it is a person. This doesn't mean murder of a child is okay if you no longer want to take care of them. It means that it is not okay for reasons other than personhood (it feels pain, adoption at that point is easy etc.)

I recommend checking out the experiences of Dr. Bernard Nathanson and/or Abby Johnson.

[Jeff K.]

Hughes:

Abortion no matter how repugnant you view them are not murder.

Murder is the illegal taking of another humans life. Abortion is by definition not murder.

That is true. But is it killing a helpless individual? If you define murder that way, then it may very well be.

[AmorLibertas]

I think abortions past the first trimester should be severely punishable, and abortions during the first trimester should only allowable in cases of incest, rape, and where the life of the mother would be put in jeopardy, after much fasting, prayer and a decision confirmed by the Holy Ghost for both the woman and her spiritual adviser that such is the best course of action.

What of those who do not fast, pray, or have a spiritual adviser? Shall we compel them to such a specific religious belief and observance? I have no issue with religious organizations putting additional sanctions on the behaviors of its members; but I most certainly would take exception to a religious organization or belief system being imposed on a non-believer. Furthermore, why the allowance in the instances of rape or incest? Is the product of rape or incest any less deserving of life than one that is the product of carelessness, foolishness, or immaturity? Either you think such is the case, or it's not about sparing the life of the baby at all, it's about making certain that the woman pays for her sin by carrying the child to term and then either raising the unwanted child, or giving it up for adoption to a more worthy, preferably LDS couple.

Perhaps a legal hearing first? Has anyone proposed that? Abortion only legal during the first trimester after a judge says it fits legally restricted parameters?

Why must there be a hearing to decide whether the situation fits certain legal parameters, and what might those parameters be? The ones you suggest above which might be appropriate for someone who shares your particular religious affiliation, but not for those who don't share your religious views?

[AmorLibertas]

Dr. Peter Kreeft points out that every argument made for abortion can also be made for infanticide.

So is it morally correct to kill an infant because the mother's life is in danger?

Is the infant about to cause the death of its mother? Is the infant's life worth more than the mother's such that the mother's life should be sacrificed against her wishes?

Or because the mother was raped? Or because it is going to be difficult to raise the child?

I agree that these are not valid reasons to abort a sentient fetus or kill a child.

If not, what makes it OK to kill the unborn?

If it is not a human life growing from the time of conception, what sort of alien life is it?

If you don't have a Master's degree in molecular biology and a doctorate in philosophy, what kind of illiterate imbecile are you? In other words, I am not insulting you as I have neither a masters in molecular biology nor a doctorate in philosophy; but neither am I an illiterate imbecile. You offer a false dichotomy in an attempt to win the argument by defining terms that are in dispute. The human life growing from the time of conception is not anymore sentient from the time of conception than a malignant tumor is from the time it begins to grow. In some cases, a developing fetus is grossly malformed. In most instances, it eventually stops growing and the woman's body spontaneously aborts the pregnancy. Extremely rarely, a malformed mass may continue to grow even until full term and although it has human DNA contributed from both a sperm and an egg and may even have many or even all the human organs and tissues commonly found in humans in various stages of development, such a malformed mass of tissues is far from what anyone might term a human baby. It lacks sentience, and it is non-viable once detached from its host.

Usually, however, there is a point where the normal developing fetus reaches a point of physiological development believed to be capable of cognition or thought. This is generally considered to be sometime around the 12th week of gestation or the end of the 1st trimester. After this point in time, I believe the fetus should be given due consideration and Constitutional protection equal to that of its host, but no more than that. What justification would there then be to kill the unborn child? The same justification that every individual has--self-preservation. The only difference is, the woman is capable of acting to preserve her life where as the baby is not. The law cannot give preferential treatment to one above the other, and so the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy for reasons of self-preservation even if it means the likely or certain death of the as yet unborn child she is carrying.

[mfbukowski]

What of those who do not fast, pray, or have a spiritual adviser? Shall we compel them to such a specific religious belief and observance? I have no issue with religious organizations putting additional sanctions on the behaviors of its members; but I most certainly would take exception to a religious organization or belief system being imposed on a non-believer. Furthermore, why the allowance in the instances of rape or incest? Is the product of rape or incest any less deserving of life than one that is the product of carelessness, foolishness, or immaturity? Either you think such is the case, or it's not about sparing the life of the baby at all, it's about making certain that the woman pays for her sin by carrying the child to term and then either raising the unwanted child, or giving it up for adoption to a more worthy, preferably LDS couple.

Why must there be a hearing to decide whether the situation fits certain legal parameters, and what might those parameters be? The ones you suggest above which might be appropriate for someone who shares your particular religious affiliation, but not for those who don't share your religious views?

You have totally misconstrued what I am saying. Of course we should not impose religious observances on others- I was speaking of LDS members who of course live in a larger society.

I chose rape incest and the life of the mother as exceptions, because those are the exceptions we LDS wish to keep open as opposed to legislating the total illegality of abortion.

The suggestion for the judicial hearing to obtain an abortion was just an idea to keep social values in line with what I think are God given commandments, which are beneficial for society.

I tend toward being a Libertarian, but feel that abortion should only be permitted under those conditions for moral reasons.

[AmorLibertas]

You have totally misconstrued what I am saying. Of course we should not impose religious observances on others- I was speaking of LDS members who of course live in a larger society.

I was not attempting to misconstrue what you were saying. Merely seeking clarification from you while simultaneously pointing out objections I might have if you were indeed suggesting moving to a more religious and less secularized form of government.

I chose rape incest and the life of the mother as exceptions, because those are the exceptions we LDS wish to keep open as opposed to legislating the total illegality of abortion.

I suspected as much and would like to hear your views on my objections and the implications they suggest to me and others about the reason for allowing abortions for those reasons and not others.

The suggestion for the judicial hearing to obtain an abortion was just an idea to keep social values in line with what I think are God given commandments, which are beneficial for society.

I tend toward being a Libertarian, but feel that abortion should only be permitted under those conditions for moral reasons.

As a libertarian, I take special exception to the notion that society benefits from the mingling of any predominant religous belief system and our legal system. I maintain as I believe Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and other Founding Fathers believed that religion is an individual matter which should be encouraged and protected by society, but never legislated or co-mingled with government in a manner which gives either preferential or detrimental treatment to one religious organization, belief system, or set of morals, or the lack there of, above or below another. Social values are best kept in the hearts and minds of the individuals by choice and persuasion, not by coercion or force of law. Whether or not a particular set of social values are beneficial or detrimental to society is to some degree a matter of opinion. Not so long ago, the separation of the races was a "social value" deemed "beneficial for society". Society's values have since changed in that regard, to my mind for the better, as I am in a mixed-race relationship. That for a time the law was involved in perpetuating that previous "social value" is something I find appalling, just as I find the attempts to continue the legal perpetuation of other religiously based "social values" which I find objectionable appalling.

If you wish for society to retain the values which it has, or to return to values it once had, or to attain new values you believe it ought to have, the proper tactic, in my mind, is not the courts, nor the legislature, nor ballots or petitions; the proper course is to use your first amendment rights and evangelize your position. Speak it, write about it, broadcast it on the airwaves, publish it on the internet, hold meetings and gatherings, share the ideas with your neighbors, your friends, your acquaintances, and anyone else. But don't seek to impose your values upon me or anyone else by coercion or force of law. It's not nice, and it's not Christian either... as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you." Live and let live; it's the libertarian way.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Not necessarily innocent. The fetus is biologically speaking a parasite. Although we do tend to put a high value on our parasites.

Sure we could define murder in such a way as to make all abortions legally murder, but that just forces women to the back alleys and coat hangers AGAIN. That really isn't an appealing idea to me, and it goes against Church doctrine. I believe the Church has the solution for the truly disastrous pregnancies. In that abortion under some rare circumstances is permissible.

OTOH not all people are or want to be LDS, and as I believe in near total religious liberty. One of my favorite saying is "I'll allow you to believe any silly thing you want. As long as you allow me to believe any silly thing I want". We'll just have to tolerate abortion for people who don't believe as we do.

[Jeff K.]

Until we achieve independence we are indeed parasites. Does that mean our life or rather our ability to live remains open for question until we are independent?

Murder, or rather the lack of defining murder is a convenient sidestepping of the key issues. It is an argument that was used in other trials for genocide. It cannot be murder if it is legal to take a life. So I think your position on that point loses its strength in morality.

The distinction between a parasite and a life that has been created is not a good one since both are lives, one is merely more dependent than the life that is not a parasite. It makes it easier to kill the life when we call it a parasite, it becomes something "less loveable" when we do so.

Instead I would say that we have chosen as a society that the life created can be killed. That as a society such a life, for whatever reason (some more legitimate than others), can be killed. That death can be called upon to remove the inconvenience of the life we created, at least until it is outside the womb. Will it feel pain as we kill it? We tell us ourselves that such is not the case, it helps us feel better as we kill it.

I am not sure when the life becomes sentient, in the sense that there is an awareness of his or her environment outside of his or herself. I believe that time is when we cross over from removing something that does not feel to removing something that is in every essence us.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Only in a limited sense of the word. For nearly all legal purposes we define human life as one who is breathing. The exception comes to abortion. That becomes murky, as we really don't have a good legal definition on when life begins, and the few ideas we do have are all tied up in ones own religious beliefs.

There are good Christians, that do not believe that human life begins at conception. I would include the LDS generally in that area, as we believe that under some rare circumstances abortion is permissible. I know of no Revelations by the Church that say one way or the other of when a person receives their spirit.

I don't see it as a black and white issue. Genocide OTOH refers to actual breathing people.

That is the definition of a parasite. For all practical purposes none of us is ever totally independent of other people. But that does mean I'm for killing anyone. I've administered enough death and destruction in my life, and have no desire for any more. I only pray that God is as merciful as I believe he is, and that he washes clean my bloody garments.

We do it all the time. We do make out exceptions of when it is permissible to kill. Our own beliefs say that killing is not always murder, and that abortion is sometimes permissible.

I know of no good studies that indicate when a fetus can feel pain. Though I personally doubt that an undifferentiated clump of cells can. Beyond that I just don't know for fact.

There may be a few that feel that way, but for the women(and men) that I know. It is a very serious thing to even consider. Abortion is merely to tragic end to an otherwise tragic pregnancy.

Sentience is beyond my ability to determine. A new born is largely unaware of it surroundings, and will be for several weeks. Self awareness in any practical sense of the word probably take a few years. To me there is no hard and fast line of demarcation, and it is more like a gradient line. I think that breathing would play a big part, but not necessarily the whole part. For me, if all I can do is breath, and be a carrot for the rest of my life. Pull the plug and let me go. But that is my personal choice, others may feel differently.

[Jeff K.]

I don't see it as a black and white issue. Genocide OTOH refers to actual breathing people.

I think once a level of sentience is established, it does indeed become black and white. The idea of genocide is valid, when you legally remove the term murder, even genocide ceases to be "murder". But the question is where society wishes to place the point of murder. Simply saying "its not murder" is merely to call the taking of a life legal, it does not in any sense make it "more right".

That is the definition of a parasite. For all practical purposes none of us is ever totally independent of other people. But that does mean I'm for killing anyone. I've administered enough death and destruction in my life, and have no desire for any more. I only pray that God is as merciful as I believe he is, and that he washes clean my bloody garments.

I wanted to point out that calling an organism a parasite makes it psychologically easier to remove its life. Even a baby not yet born. But the truth is that if we use that term, then our own lives which are often dependent upon others then also have a limited right to life. So to change the definition from unborn child to fetus and parasite in effect is merely a psychological ploy, but with ramifications (if we truly believed it) upon our own lives.

We do it all the time. We do make out exceptions of when it is permissible to kill. Our own beliefs say that killing is not always murder, and that abortion is sometimes permissible.

And that I understand completely. But when we kill, ie issue a death warrant by the state for an execution. We don't feel the need to call the individual a fetus or parasite (ok we might call them parasites on society, but then that goes to the same issue). And yes abortion is sometimes permissible. But should it be "as" permissible as it is. That is the question, and to me it ties to the issue of sentience and erring on the side of caution.

There may be a few that feel that way, but for the women(and men) that I know. It is a very serious thing to even consider. Abortion is merely to tragic end to an otherwise tragic pregnancy.

It is good you know such a claiber of people who view it as serious. I worked in a hospital once that carried out abortions, state paid for it. One woman came in every four or five months to get an abortion under the Medi-Cal plan. Seems her husband wanted a boy as his first child. Given the large number of abortions, one is forced to ask if everyone, or most, really are giving it the deep thought you like to think they should.

I know of no good studies that indicate when a fetus can feel pain. Though I personally doubt that an undifferentiated clump of cells can. Beyond that I just don't know for fact.

In your mind when does the undifferentiated lump become a human?

Which one of these deserves the right to life and which one doesn't? I think that is the main question in the whole debate.

[saemo]

Is the infant about to cause the death of its mother? Is the infant's life worth more than the mother's such that the mother's life should be sacrificed against her wishes?

Both lives are equal in worth. Is your argument that an unborn life is of less value?

I agree that these are not valid reasons to abort a sentient fetus or kill a child.

How "sentient" is a newborn? These sort of statements or definitions only exist to dehumanize.

If you don't have a Master's degree in molecular biology and a doctorate in philosophy, what kind of illiterate imbecile are you?

The sort that believes all human life has equal value.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

We do know for a fully grown human what sentience is. But it is far from clear for children less than about 2 years old. I don't believe that anyone could successfully argue that a baby is any less human however.

Got to go to Church be back later.

[Calm]

Both lives are equal in worth. Is your argument that an unborn life is of less value?

In and of themselves I would agree. But a child has many years before they begin to contribute to the well being of others and it may not just be the life of the mother we are talking about. So for me it is not about less value, but in which case will there be less harm done if one has to choose between the two. If it is relatively certain that attempting to save both will result in at least one death (and possibly two) then I think it is wise to examine the mother's life and make a decision on what emotional and physical and mental harm would be done to others she might leave behind.

And no one has been saved if a woman when told she is not allowed to have an abortion, goes out and kills herself and her unborn. We have to be wiling to step in and deal with the aftermath if we begin to make laws that affect someone in such a fundamentally lifealtering way. In general, I don't see society in general as doing enough to help women with unwanted pregnancies...which I see as a sin for what's that worth.

In order to create women who are strong enough to bear the burden of carrying an unwanted pregnancy especially if the anticipation is to give up the child at birth, there must be education and support given not only after she becomes pregnant, but before. I applaud blueadept's approach, having his daughters consider now when they are not emotionally overwhelmed the various options one has and the consequences of those options, not only to themselves but others, is the best way imo to ensure that the decision is made not out of fear or selfishness, but with spiritual guidance and hope. Unfortunately at least in cases of incest, it is unlikely the woman/child has been given the type of education and support needed to protect her psyche from potentially being damaged by carrying the child. This does not mean imo that one should automatically abort any fetus a victim of incest carries, but rather huge amounts of additional support and education should be given that individual in hopes that she will be able to endure the additional pain and suffering and turn it to hope and joy. However, in these cases if the support is not there and not available to the woman/child, then I see it as a failure more of her family first and the society second than the victim herself if abortion appears to her to be the only solution she feels she can live with. I also see basically the same thing with rape victims, they are dealing with such an emotional roller coaster that if they have not already established a deep tie with the Lord that their emotions may get in the way of doing so now especially if someone is not stepping in and helping them deal with the daily grind of life as well as the aftermath of rape so that they may concentrate on healing and getting grounded enough to make a choice not based on fear and disgust, but knowledge and strength. And again, if society hasn't stepped in to help the rape victim, I cannot find it in my heart to condemn them for making a decision when they feel so alone and helpless as they are to not assume responsibility for another helpless being.

[USU78]

But a child has many years before they begin to contribute to the well being of others and it may not just be the life of the mother we are talking about.

This is basically the argument for euthanization of the aged, infirm, and handicapped. They don't contribute, are a drain on valuable resources, and must, therefore, be removed from the "consumer" pool.

I'm wondering if you really meant that.

[Calm]

This is basically the argument for euthanization of the aged, infirm, and handicapped. They don't contribute, are a drain on valuable resources, and must, therefore, be removed from the "consumer" pool.

I'm wondering if you really meant that.

I never stated that having little present value is a reason to terminate. I am talking solely about when the choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus and being prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice and I am not talking about using the argument about which is contributing more, but which would cause less harm by removing their contribution (think of the difference between the death of the fetus and the sorrow, but little overall change in people's lives and the death of a single good mother of six children under the age of 15 where the children may be forced to be separated and place in foster care, etc. as one possible scenario...I am not even saying that one should automatically assume in this case that it is right to abort, but just that such must be taken into consideration.)

I would never suggest that any generic guideline be made for measuring of harm either. Each case will be different and should only be decided through prayer and seeking inspiration from the Lord. I also understand the position that the Lord has already given his revelation regarding this and that to ask him is a form of doubt, but I disagree with that though not quite as much as I disagree with the belief that there is no need to seek God's guidance because there is no God.

[USU78]

I don't see society in general as doing enough to help women with unwanted pregnancies...which I see as a sin for what's that worth.

I don't believe in "corporate" sins. Each is responsible for his own actions. I don't believe, moreover, that attempting to take away the personal responsibility of women and girls for the consequences of their volitional acts is the way you deal with the problem of "unwanted pregnancies." Let me reiterate: The LDS Church makes, in its policies on the subject, exception for those situations where pregnancy is truly unwanted. If pregnancy occurs as a result of any other series of events, however, then the pregnancy is not truly "unwanted," but is, rather, simply "inconvenient." You choose the consequences of your voluntary acts. If those consequences include the possibility of conception of another genetically distinct human organism, then one must make allowances for that created life form's right not to be predated.

And "society," whatever that is, has no moral duty one way or the other to intervene in the voluntary acts of its constituent parts and their possible, probable, or likely consequences.

[Deborah]

Not necessarily innocent. The fetus is biologically speaking a parasite.

The problem with that assessment is then we can categorize others outside the womb as parasites as well. The old, the infirm, the otherwise handicapped. Where does one draw the line?

[Calm]

that attempting to take away the personal responsibility of women and girls for the consequences of their volitional acts is the way you deal with the problem of "unwanted pregnancies."

You are making incorrect assumptions about my position.

And "society," whatever that is, has no moral duty one way or the other to intervene in the voluntary acts of its constituent parts and their possible, probable, or likely consequences.

If a society makes a law that its members must conform to a certain standard, then I do believe it has the moral duty to set things up so that those members are capable of conforming...thus giving the members a choice of whether or not to conform. I think there is something morally wrong if a society makes it illegal for a person to defend him or herself, insists that it be left in the hands of authorized law enforcers but then refuses to provide enough law enforcers to keep its people safe...and still punishes those that step in to protect themselves and others in the absence of the authorized protectors.

And when is rape voluntary?

If abortion is made illegal, then I see the society that made the law as having a duty to those whose pregnancies are not due to any fault of their own (I'm talking about rape, not just failed birth control). I have seen plenty of parents complain that their kids are rotten at spending money or cleaning up but think it's a waste of their time to actually teach them, give them hands on practice before making them responsible. There is no benefit to anyone if society makes a habit of throwing its people into the deep end of the swimming pool before giving them the opportunity to have lessons or at least a life jacket.

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure when the life becomes sentient, in the sense that there is an awareness of his or her environment outside of his or herself.

For that matter, I am not sure that all of us have achieved that yet.

[USU78]

And when is rape voluntary?

I don't believe I said it was. I believe I said that there is a difference between a truly unwanted pregnancy, i.e., ones not the result of volitional acts (and this includes but is not limited to rape in all its manifestations), and those pregnancies which are not truly "unwanted," i.e. those which are the results of volitional acts.

I'm not sure our positions are that far different. I just dislike the arguments being made.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

We do know for a fully grown human what sentience is. But it is far from clear for children less than about 2 years old. I don't believe that anyone could successfully argue that a baby is any less human however.

Got to go to Church be back later.

I agree, we don't know, we aren't sure. I think we should be trying hard to find out before we delineate specific rights.

[Calm]

I don't believe I said it was. I believe I said that there is a difference between a truly unwanted pregnancy, i.e., ones not the result of volitional acts (and this includes but is not limited to rape in all its manifestations), and those pregnancies which are not truly "unwanted," i.e. those which are the results of volitional acts.

I'm not sure our positions are that far different. I just dislike the arguments being made.

I agree. I avoided posting much before because I only see a need for examining the few, very borderline cases, not the majority of cases where abortion is for convenience or to avoid potential discomfort or even certain levels of harm (not certain significant, lifealtering for multiple people harm). I should have kept quiet because like happened here, it really does not usually add much to the conversation to discuss such limited cases as it's difficult to remember to add in all the restrictions and conditions that might (and I use "might" here to indicate that even in cases where all the 'conditions' are met, it still may not be appropriate...thus the need for spiritual guidance) allow for morally terminating a life.

[Lareliw]

Restricted - life of the mother, possibly. Any other reason I do not agree with abortion. I'm conflicted about whether or not it should be legally restricted. It is scary to give government control of our bodies in any way, but those little precious lives need to be protected as well.

[AmorLibertas]

Both lives are equal in worth. Is your argument that an unborn life is of less value?

No. My position is that during the early stages of physiological development, the zygote, embryo, and fetus are no more or less human than the placenta or a dermoid tumor. The determining factor for whether or not a growing human life-form should be regarded as having inalienable rights protected under the Constitution is when that human life-form reaches a point of physiological development that it becomes capable of sentiency or cognition.

How "sentient" is a newborn? These sort of statements or definitions only exist to dehumanize.

A normal, healthy, newborn feels pain and pleasure. It responds to human touch, taste, smell, light and darkness. It even responds with a sense of familiarity to certain sounds and smells.

The sort that believes all human life has equal value.

So you value a dermoid tumor as being equally valuable as a toddler?