Conquer Club

Recently I was asked by one of our posters about my position on abortion. Given my recent schedule, including writing a 50,000 word novel for the month of November, I didn’t have any time to write down any detailed thoughts on the matter. But since I just hit the 50,000 word mark one day ahead of schedule I now have some time to write down my thoughts on the matter.

The first question is “when does life begin?” The answer, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint is that a being of the species Homo sapiens begins when the egg from a female Homo Sapiens unites with a sperm from a male Homo sapiens (yes I know it may be possible one day to create sperm from female stem cells) creating a unique combination of DNA which differs from both parents.

The second question is “so what?” The age of enlightenment thinking as exemplified in the writings of Jefferson indicated that men (that is Homo sapiens in general) were “created” equal and endowed with rights (which could not be taken away) by their “creator.” People did tend to talk in religious terms back then. So it means that from the moment of fertilization, Homo sapiens have rights that simply are. They are not earned and they cannot be taken away.

Now the first red herring is the strange word “viability.” I call this a red herring because it should be institutively obvious to a casual observer (as the rights cannot be taken away and exist as a preexisting condition) that it is not acceptable to just kill a person because he is in need of a heart transplant and in the long term without that new heart he is not “viable” (capable of surviving or living successfully).

Another red herring is the problem of “rights” in general. You may have a “right” to life, but that won’t prevent someone from walking up to you, pointing a gun at you, pulling the trigger, and ending your life. Governments are supposed to secure these rights, but no one can completely guarantee them.

So from the scientific and age of enlightenment viewpoints (notice I have not expressed a single “religious” thought in this subject so far, other than noting that Jefferson invoked the age of enlightenment notion of the generic “creator”) life begins at fertilization and that government has a duty to “secure” the rights of those individuals from the moment of fertilization. More importantly, secure does not mean guarantee the outcomes. The “right to life” does not guarantee that you will never die.

So let’s get down to the real world. While, from a scientific perspective, life begins at fertilization, we might argue that from a practical perspective, we can consider “conception” (which in turn includes implantation in the uterus) as the principle key element. I might not like the notion of deliberately, by artificial means, prevent the implantation in the uterus, but I’m going to put it near the last of things that people in general should not do.

The growing “Homo sapiens” is not, as many would like to think otherwise, merely a “blob of cells.” Cell differentiation happens quickly and some of those cells are nerve cells. Whether the fetus has the awareness and the sentience of an adult is a moot question. If you are more concerned about the pain of an animal and less concerned about the pain of the pre-born human, you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Pain is pain.

So far, I have only been looking at the not yet born Homo sapiens, and not at the woman carrying that not yet born Homo sapiens. Yes, she too has rights; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, (and property according to the original European model) but rights do not guarantee a thing. I understand the argument about a woman being forced to do a thing for a certain time, but then again, my own father, at the young age of 18 was pulled out of his home to fight in WWII without any personal say in the matter whatsoever (they even kicked him out of High School in his senior year because they were certain that he would be drafted when he turned 18 a month later).

Now we always have to look back and consider the “real world.” But even then, you might have a “right” to evict a stranger in your house, but you don’t have the right to take an axe, chop him up limb from limb and throw the parts out of the door. Nor do you have the right to pour acid on him and then throw him out the door. If you want to argue for a procedure that effectively if transferred to an adult human living in your house sounds like the plot for a blood and gore horror film, it’s probably not a procedure you should be recommending for someone given inalienable rights from the moment of their “creation.”

Again, there are always complex circumstances. Chopping up an already dead person and throwing his body parts out is less gruesome (but still disgusting) than one who is alive, feels pain, and resists the procedure. One who is alive but incapable of feeling pain is another example where the black and white argument breaks down into an odd shade of gray.

Giving birth to a perfectly healthy child and cutting his or her spine with a scissor, on the other hand is clearly right out.

Lines in the real world are a lot harder to draw than the simple lines of science. If one were to err, it would be best to err on the side of life, because at present we cannot raise the dead back to life.

Thus I would be in favor of reasonable restrictions on procedures that end the life of anyone not yet born. These restrictions would be based in part on both the conditions of the woman and the not yet born child. (This also includes the circumstance of continuing a pregnancy that cannot complete to term; for example a fallopian tube pregnancy which seriously impacts the life of the woman, or an already dead fetus – including brain dead – within the womb.) It is not and can never be a simple black or white solution.

tzor wrote:Recently I was asked by one of our posters about my position on abortion. Given my recent schedule, including writing a 50,000 word novel for the month of November, I didn’t have any time to write down any detailed thoughts on the matter. But since I just hit the 50,000 word mark one day ahead of schedule I now have some time to write down my thoughts on the matter.

The first question is “when does life begin?” The answer, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint is that a being of the species Homo sapiens begins when the egg from a female Homo Sapiens unites with a sperm from a male Homo sapiens (yes I know it may be possible one day to create sperm from female stem cells) creating a unique combination of DNA which differs from both parents.

The second question is “so what?” The age of enlightenment thinking as exemplified in the writings of Jefferson indicated that men (that is Homo sapiens in general) were “created” equal and endowed with rights (which could not be taken away) by their “creator.” People did tend to talk in religious terms back then. So it means that from the moment of fertilization, Homo sapiens have rights that simply are. They are not earned and they cannot be taken away.

Now the first red herring is the strange word “viability.” I call this a red herring because it should be institutively obvious to a casual observer (as the rights cannot be taken away and exist as a preexisting condition) that it is not acceptable to just kill a person because he is in need of a heart transplant and in the long term without that new heart he is not “viable” (capable of surviving or living successfully).

Another red herring is the problem of “rights” in general. You may have a “right” to life, but that won’t prevent someone from walking up to you, pointing a gun at you, pulling the trigger, and ending your life. Governments are supposed to secure these rights, but no one can completely guarantee them.

So from the scientific and age of enlightenment viewpoints (notice I have not expressed a single “religious” thought in this subject so far, other than noting that Jefferson invoked the age of enlightenment notion of the generic “creator”) life begins at fertilization and that government has a duty to “secure” the rights of those individuals from the moment of fertilization. More importantly, secure does not mean guarantee the outcomes. The “right to life” does not guarantee that you will never die.

So let’s get down to the real world. While, from a scientific perspective, life begins at fertilization, we might argue that from a practical perspective, we can consider “conception” (which in turn includes implantation in the uterus) as the principle key element. I might not like the notion of deliberately, by artificial means, prevent the implantation in the uterus, but I’m going to put it near the last of things that people in general should not do.

The growing “Homo sapiens” is not, as many would like to think otherwise, merely a “blob of cells.” Cell differentiation happens quickly and some of those cells are nerve cells. Whether the fetus has the awareness and the sentience of an adult is a moot question. If you are more concerned about the pain of an animal and less concerned about the pain of the pre-born human, you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Pain is pain.

So far, I have only been looking at the not yet born Homo sapiens, and not at the woman carrying that not yet born Homo sapiens. Yes, she too has rights; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, (and property according to the original European model) but rights do not guarantee a thing. I understand the argument about a woman being forced to do a thing for a certain time, but then again, my own father, at the young age of 18 was pulled out of his home to fight in WWII without any personal say in the matter whatsoever (they even kicked him out of High School in his senior year because they were certain that he would be drafted when he turned 18 a month later).

Now we always have to look back and consider the “real world.” But even then, you might have a “right” to evict a stranger in your house, but you don’t have the right to take an axe, chop him up limb from limb and throw the parts out of the door. Nor do you have the right to pour acid on him and then throw him out the door. If you want to argue for a procedure that effectively if transferred to an adult human living in your house sounds like the plot for a blood and gore horror film, it’s probably not a procedure you should be recommending for someone given inalienable rights from the moment of their “creation.”

Again, there are always complex circumstances. Chopping up an already dead person and throwing his body parts out is less gruesome (but still disgusting) than one who is alive, feels pain, and resists the procedure. One who is alive but incapable of feeling pain is another example where the black and white argument breaks down into an odd shade of gray.

Giving birth to a perfectly healthy child and cutting his or her spine with a scissor, on the other hand is clearly right out.

Lines in the real world are a lot harder to draw than the simple lines of science. If one were to err, it would be best to err on the side of life, because at present we cannot raise the dead back to life.

Thus I would be in favor of reasonable restrictions on procedures that end the life of anyone not yet born. These restrictions would be based in part on both the conditions of the woman and the not yet born child. (This also includes the circumstance of continuing a pregnancy that cannot complete to term; for example a fallopian tube pregnancy which seriously impacts the life of the woman, or an already dead fetus – including brain dead – within the womb.) It is not and can never be a simple black or white solution.

Don't entirely agree with you but it was well put together, it was nice how you didn't quote religion, yet managed to quote Jefferson and the declaration of independence, which is itself a testimony to religion, but all in all well said

tzor wrote:The first question is “when does life begin?” The answer, from a strictly logical and scientific standpoint is that a being of the species Homo sapiens begins when the egg from a female Homo Sapiens unites with a sperm from a male Homo sapiens (yes I know it may be possible one day to create sperm from female stem cells) creating a unique combination of DNA which differs from both parents.

Here is a thought experiment (which I'm borrowing from Peter Singer) for those who advocate the principle that the defining line of human life is the joining of a sperm and an egg, and even for people like tzor who likely think that a strong argument against abortion is the potential people an embyro may become.

Suppose we one day develop a method of injecting a sperm cell into an egg, that with 100% success rate implants into the egg and begins the process of fertilization. In tzor's argument, as soon as the sperm cell is injected, we essentially have created a human life. However, consider what happens in the moments just before the sperm is injected, as the doctor prepares to insert the needle. There is a negligible probability that anything will happen to stop the doctor from inserting the sperm cell. So we can take it is as a given that there is a 100% chance this life will be created. Would it be morally wrong for me to run into the room and stop the doctor from inserting the needle and fertilizing the egg?

i say abort away. there's waayyy too many fucking people on this planet already.

riskllama wrote:i say abort away. there's waayyy too many fucking people on this planet already.

Wins the debate.

You may dislike the term "viability", but it is a medical term divorced from whether a person feels that they like it or not. A red herring it is not.

And let's face it, Jefferson, a guy who raped an enslaved 14 year old and literally kept his own children as slaves, is never going to be the go- to guy on the rights children should have

Metsfanmax wrote:Would it be morally wrong for me to run into the room and stop the doctor from inserting the needle and fertilizing the egg?

But that gets into a more complex gray area (morally wrong) that has multiple dimensions to it. The question of "100%" probably doesn't come into play. (Actually he could have a heart attack before inserting the needle and never insert the needle at all so it's never 100%.)

Symmetry wrote:You may dislike the term "viability", but it is a medical term divorced from whether a person feels that they like it or not. A red herring it is not.

The red herring part is the assumption that "non viable" means it does not have a right to medical care.

Symmetry wrote:And let's face it, Jefferson, a guy who raped an enslaved 14 year old and literally kept his own children as slaves, is never going to be the go- to guy on the rights children should have

Well if you want to state your own philosophical positions please feel free to do so. But if you want to raise the standard to that of perfection (which no man possesses) don't be surprised if I shred your own authorities.

And let's face it, you are not your own authority.

riskllama wrote:i say abort away. there's waayyy too many fucking people on this planet already.

Actually, that's not true. Just take Europe. It's gotten so bad that the native population is actually in decline. Native Europeans clearly need to f*ck more.

overall, 7 billion(with a "b') is far too many. the earth simply cannot support this many folks. what's your solution?

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:You may dislike the term "viability", but it is a medical term divorced from whether a person feels that they like it or not. A red herring it is not.

The red herring part is the assumption that "non viable" means it does not have a right to medical care.

Symmetry wrote:And let's face it, Jefferson, a guy who raped an enslaved 14 year old and literally kept his own children as slaves, is never going to be the go- to guy on the rights children should have

Well if you want to state your own philosophical positions please feel free to do so. But if you want to raise the standard to that of perfection (which no man possesses) don't be surprised if I shred your own authorities.

And let's face it, you are not your own authority.

The term means that whatever stage of pregnancy a woman is in, life cannot be sustained externally. You're being silly now simply because you dislike the facts.

My philosophical position would more closely align with Orwell than Jefferson. A slave trader who claims to be a hero of freedom is a man whose rhetoric should be distrusted whether indoctrinated as a founding father or big brother.

riskllama wrote:overall, 7 billion(with a "b') is far too many. the earth simply cannot support this many folks. what's your solution?

What is your evidence of this? This kind of irrational thinking has been going on for over a century. Heck, it's even a part of Scrooge's dialogue in "A Christmas Carol." And yet the population keeps rising and the world doesn't end.

Symmetry wrote:The term means that whatever stage of pregnancy a mother is in, life cannot be sustained externally. You're being silly now simply because you dislike the facts.

NO, you are being silly because you don't want to see the implications. Does non viability imply either non personhood or the lack of the right to treatment in the first place. Is viability a simple measurement or an after the fact condition? (Well I guess, being dead, he wasn't viable.)

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[13][14] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[15][16] Neo-natologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[17][18]

The notion of a magic viability point is nonsense. More importantly, just as we are now curing many conditions that were once fatal, so to is the case of helping exceptionally early infants formerly in the womb outside of the womb. Those are the "facts."

the "world" won't end. we will...*shrugs*

Ok Tzor, under what (conditions) would (you) say abortion would be ok? Rape ,incest, knowing the child was severly deformed, brain damaged, unable to live a quality of life that by today's standards be considered normal, do tell.

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Would it be morally wrong for me to run into the room and stop the doctor from inserting the needle and fertilizing the egg?

But that gets into a more complex gray area (morally wrong) that has multiple dimensions to it.

I'm happy to rephrase it any way you want that is sufficient to get you to answer the question. Perhaps the simplest way is: can I call this an action an abortion?

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The term means that whatever stage of pregnancy a mother is in, life cannot be sustained externally. You're being silly now simply because you dislike the facts.

NO, you are being silly because you don't want to see the implications. Does non viability imply either non personhood or the lack of the right to treatment in the first place. Is viability a simple measurement or an after the fact condition? (Well I guess, being dead, he wasn't viable.)

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[13][14] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[15][16] Neo-natologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[17][18]

The notion of a magic viability point is nonsense. More importantly, just as we are now curing many conditions that were once fatal, so to is the case of helping exceptionally early infants formerly in the womb outside of the womb. Those are the "facts."

It's a medical term to be judged by medical professionals. I have accepted that you dislike the point, and I'm well aware of the complicated implications

Can we reach a point of agreement here, that you were wrong to dismiss viability and medical science, and that I should have been nicer in pointing that out?

An olive branch, if you will.

Friends again?

Why do humans have a right to life? You repeatedly say that Jefferson's view is enlightened, and but that's as good as an "It's just so". If the proposition that every human has a right to life does not have some founding basis, it's simply a poetic thought. We know that in some occasions we can save two by murdering one, or create a greater societal stability or quality of life for our own person by sacrificing another. So why ought we preserve a life even if destroying it creates a greater result for our personal goals?

tzor wrote:The growing “Homo sapiens” is not, as many would like to think otherwise, merely a “blob of cells.” Cell differentiation happens quickly and some of those cells are nerve cells. Whether the fetus has the awareness and the sentience of an adult is a moot question. If you are more concerned about the pain of an animal and less concerned about the pain of the pre-born human, you are clearly suffering from cognitive dissonance. Pain is pain.

If it is as simple as that, then the proposition can easily be turned around. "Pain is Pain" Therefore valuing a human's pain over an animal's is cognitive dissonance. After all pain is always the same mechanism that exists for the exact same purpose. What makes a human fetus special? Is it the potential to make connections? If so some may argue a dog has a greater potential for love and loyalty. Is it the potential to do good with their life? If so, can't a cow save more people throughout their lives than the average human? After all they can turn inedible grass into milk for a starving family.

The only "special" association an unborn human has to a human is being the same species, which begs two questions: Why does this matter? And if it does matter, at what point did this trait come to matter? After all there are other divergent species that look and act quite similar to us, even bearing a greater intelligent behavior than a curve of our own species. So does a rhesus monkey have a right to life and liberty? Even if saying no will cure the world of polio?

One who is alive but incapable of feeling pain is another example where the black and white argument breaks down into an odd shade of gray.

or an already dead fetus – including brain dead – within the womb.

This is another important point, because for a significant window, every fetus is "brain dead". This is why I posted the timeline in the other thread. For about 6 weeks there is no brain activity, Heck for two weeks there IS NO BRAIN. How could you possibly argue that terminating something without a brain is bringing any pain to a living being? Even if there are nerve cells, there's nothing to send it to.

Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.

whenever i see a pro life bumper sticker, i always, invariably, without fail, think to myself "right wing, religious nutter" then, i key their fuckin' car...

DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.

Murder is wrong if it comes back to bite you. It's a complex self-serving social contract, bad for the gander, bad for the goose.

just kidding, i've never keyed a car in my entire life. calm down everyone...

DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.

Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about. Feel free to take your time figuring out why you're mistaken.

Symmetry wrote:

DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.

Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about.

More like manslaughter, amirite?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

DaGip wrote:Murder is wrong...therefor, abortion is wrong. But I don't have a vagina or a uterus, therefor...my opinion is obsolete.

Now that would require a belief that abortion is murder. Now, I hopefully believe that you don't consider the many women who suffer miscarriages to be murderers, but then aagain people who equate abortion with murder rarely know what they're talking about.

More like manslaughter, amirite?

Who knows with a group of people who think that roughly 1 in 5 US women are murderers