Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[kazoolaw]

Let me try again at an answer here.

First, yes, we *can* have a civil discussion. Whether we will or not will be seen.

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.

1) The moral argument about the "child": Yes, an embryo or a fetus is being terminated in an abortion, and the degree to which you consider this a "sacred life" will likely determine the degree to which one considers abortion a moral wrong. Since not all religions see this "sacred life" equally, nor have they done so over their histories, I see no strong moral imperative concerning the "sanctity" of an embryo or fetus before viability.
***

TS-
As the responses demonstrate, some of us can have a civil discussion, some of us can't have a civil discussion, and some of us can have a civil discussion sometimes . I appreciate your post. It's too long for me to respond to all of it now, so I'll comment on your first point and hope to come back to address the other points later.

You include "moral" and "sacred" in your comment. Tell me if I'm wrong: I take putting "sacred life" in quotes is to ascribe that view as a religious belief, as you then go on to discuss religions. Atheists and agnostics might bristle at the notion that morality is solely a religious construct. It is possible to discuss abortion from a moral perspective without incorporating religious doctrine, don't you think?

I think we agree (and I know you'll correct if I'm wrong) that at some point we both oppose abortion. I also think that we'd agree, as a matter of biology, that the embryo/fetus/baby left to develop and grow will result in the birth of a human. Where we disagree is at what stage that person-in-development is entitled to legal protection, and whether the decision to abort pre-viability is devoid of moral considerations.

See you around.

[Chuck Naill]

Sacred means “set apart”. Is human life different? I think it is for non religious meanings.

[TSherbs]

Let me try again at an answer here.

First, yes, we *can* have a civil discussion. Whether we will or not will be seen.

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.

1) The moral argument about the "child": Yes, an embryo or a fetus is being terminated in an abortion, and the degree to which you consider this a "sacred life" will likely determine the degree to which one considers abortion a moral wrong. Since not all religions see this "sacred life" equally, nor have they done so over their histories, I see no strong moral imperative concerning the "sanctity" of an embryo or fetus before viability.
***

TS-
As the responses demonstrate, some of us can have a civil discussion, some of us can't have a civil discussion, and some of us can have a civil discussion sometimes . I appreciate your post. It's too long for me to respond to all of it now, so I'll comment on your first point and hope to come back to address the other points later.

You include "moral" and "sacred" in your comment. Tell me if I'm wrong: I take putting "sacred life" in quotes is to ascribe that view as a religious belief, as you then go on to discuss religions. Atheists and agnostics might bristle at the notion that morality is solely a religious construct. It is possible to discuss abortion from a moral perspective without incorporating religious doctrine, don't you think?

I think we agree (and I know you'll correct if I'm wrong) that at some point we both oppose abortion. I also think that we'd agree, as a matter of biology, that the embryo/fetus/baby left to develop and grow will result in the birth of a human. Where we disagree is at what stage that person-in-development is entitled to legal protection, and whether the decision to abort pre-viability is devoid of moral considerations.

See you around.

Yes, I agree with all these points of yours. And yes, morality can be discussed without religion.

And the quotes around "sacred" mean that it is a word that others use (but I would not) for what one considers the moral or spiritual status of a human fetus.

I am willing to discuss this further any time you come back to this.

[kazoolaw]

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.


2) Yes, a separate embryonic individual defined by its separate DNA from its mother (and father) is begun at conception. But a full set of individualized DNA is not how we define a "person," it is only how we identify a carrier of that DNA. Our DNA does not defineus as individual persons; it is only a unique marker. Our spit, for example, carries our DNA, but when we spit, we do not actually bud off another individual (it would be a twin, in this case). A full set of human DNA is not sufficient in defining when we have a actual complete human individual present.

Again, there is much we agree on. The presence of unique DNA is not the same as saying the presence alone makes a person. As you've noted, if that were true any time our DNA was present [think clipped finger nails, hair clippings, spit, etc] a new me would pop up. The presence of unique DNA is more significant because it distinguishes the embryo/fetus/baby from the unique DNA of the mother's body. And the father's body for that matter. If we were able to clone a person from the mother's DNA and a person from the baby's DNA they would be different people.

I'm not sure, but what you describe as a "carrier of DNA" I would call the baby. [I'm not dogmatic: if you prefer embryo/fetus that's fine.] We come back to the biology: left to develop that "carrier" becomes a full-blown human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much difference in our positions to this point. Those differences will appear as we discuss points 3-5, and where in the process of development the carrier becomes a person.

See you next time.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember Scott Peterson being charged with murder for his 38 week unborn child. California has a Unborn Victims Violence Act that some are critical for giving "personhood" status to an unborn child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act

[TSherbs]

To the topic:

There are several subtopics to this discussion; I will try to address the ones that I can think of as I sit here at the moment.


2) Yes, a separate embryonic individual defined by its separate DNA from its mother (and father) is begun at conception. But a full set of individualized DNA is not how we define a "person," it is only how we identify a carrier of that DNA. Our DNA does not defineus as individual persons; it is only a unique marker. Our spit, for example, carries our DNA, but when we spit, we do not actually bud off another individual (it would be a twin, in this case). A full set of human DNA is not sufficient in defining when we have a actual complete human individual present.

Again, there is much we agree on. The presence of unique DNA is not the same as saying the presence alone makes a person. As you've noted, if that were true any time our DNA was present [think clipped finger nails, hair clippings, spit, etc] a new me would pop up. The presence of unique DNA is more significant because it distinguishes the embryo/fetus/baby from the unique DNA of the mother's body. And the father's body for that matter. If we were able to clone a person from the mother's DNA and a person from the baby's DNA they would be different people.

I'm not sure, but what you describe as a "carrier of DNA" I would call the baby. [I'm not dogmatic: if you prefer embryo/fetus that's fine.] We come back to the biology: left to develop that "carrier" becomes a full-blown human. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much difference in our positions to this point. Those differences will appear as we discuss points 3-5, and where in the process of development the carrier becomes a person.

See you next time.

yes, to all your points

[TSherbs]

I remember Scott Peterson being charged with murder for his 38 week unborn child. California has a Unborn Victims Violence Act that some are critical for giving "personhood" status to an unborn child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act

yes, giving full legal "personhood" status to a fetus is a challenging and very complicated move in the law

[Chuck Naill]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

[TSherbs]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

Calling it "duplicitous" is poisoning the well. I am not out to persuade or argue about this (as I have said before). Don't expect any engagement on this topic from me if you expect to argue or debate. That you can do with someone else (if they want to). I've started my position on abortion clearly already. And I will not challenge anyone else's.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember the exchange between the female attorney and Justice Potter in 1973 where the law hinged on the unborn not being considered a person. Yet, when Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, he was convicted of two murders. We talk out of both sides of our mouths, so to speak. While we might agree to disagree, we should be able to agree of the duplicity.

There is also the discussion of when the embryo becomes a fetus (unborn child). Viabilty has changed with the advances in first porcine surfactant and later synthetic. When our twins were born at 27 weeks, what alloweed them to survive was surfactant that allowed their aveoli to expand.

Calling it "duplicitous" is poisoning the well. I am not out to persuade or argue about this (as I have said before). Don't expect any engagement on this topic from me if you expect to argue or debate. That you can do with someone else (if they want to). I've started my position on abortion clearly already. And I will not challenge anyone else's.

I am not trying to change your opinion either. I do think the laws are interesting that we can charge a person with the murder of an unborn child.

[kazoolaw]

To the topic:

5) I support the legal permissibility of abortion/pregnancy termination for any reason before the medically-accepted age of "viability" as our best middle ground between all the competing interests and needs.

Yes, I've jumped past 3 and 4 to discuss your final numbered point. I'd like to reverse the statement to read: "I support the legal banning of abortion/pregnancy termination for any reason after the medically-accepted age of "viability" as our best middle ground between all the competing interests and needs."

Putting aside for another day the issues of rape and incest, is this an accurate statement of your view on abortion after "viability?" What "interests and needs" would you say come into play at that point?

[TSherbs]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

[kazoolaw]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

What restrictions would you support on abortions after viability?

[TSherbs]

I don't tend to support laws with absolute prohibitions like "no matter what the reason." So, no, your reversal of language is not one that I support.

What restrictions would you support on abortions after viability?

Some, but not all. I don't know because I don't feel that I can anticipate every scenario. I'll give just one as an example: the mother's life becomes threatened by the existence of the fetus after viability has been reached. I would support termination of the pregnancy in that case. I would not support any language that would require the mother under threat of criminal action to carry to full term a late-term pre-natal child that would likely kill her, especially not one that was likely to be deceased itself at birth or very shortly after. Absolutist language precludes unanticipated critical circumstances.

I am not looking to regulate or limit abortion. That is not my inclination. But I would not strenuously object to some limitations after viability. But I don't know, at this point, which precise limitations. I have not thought about it in detail. My point was that I understand that our present practice of law in may states around this is a compromise of competing interests around the ethics and the rights, health, and safety of both the mother and the unborn "child."

[Chuck Naill]

Laws can have a determental effect on both mother and child. There was a law penalizing a woman who gave birth with a baby with opioid dependancy. I cannot remember what the penality was, but this woman gave birth to a child at the hospital where I volunteered and left the hospital without even naming the child. I was there when the foster parent came to take the baby. Very sad.

That showed me that while well intentioned, laws are not the answer. Making insurance companies pay for birth control and free birth control for poor and indigent women would/could do more good.

[kazoolaw]

That showed me that while well intentioned, laws are not the answer. Making insurance companies pay for birth control and free birth control for poor and indigent women would/could do more good.

I understand that you can't stay on-topic, but....
You must mean the laws you would use to make insurance companies pay are the answer.
Where do insurance companies get the money to pay benefits?

[Chuck Naill]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.

[kazoolaw]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.

Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

[kazoolaw]

I am not looking to regulate or limit abortion. That is not my inclination. But I would not strenuously object to some limitations after viability. But I don't know, at this point, which precise limitations. I have not thought about it in detail. My point was that I understand that our present practice of law in may states around this is a compromise of competing interests around the ethics and the rights, health, and safety of both the mother and the unborn "child."

TS-
When you say "I have not thought about it in detail," it may be that you don't want to discuss your thought in an online, public discussion forum. I understand that.

But if you've not thought about it in detail, I urge you to do so. That might involve you coming to a position on when the embryo/fetus/baby acquires the right to live.

Does the "right" to an abortion extend beyond birth? See, "...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled." Post 48. Governor Northam proposed that the baby could be born and be kept comfortable, while a discussion takes place about whether the baby would live or die.

If a child is not a person, and has a right to live at birth, then when?

[Chuck Naill]

Insurance premiums or tax payers.

Post 77: Chuck abandons "laws are not the answer" principle.

Remember the context?