ABORTION

[Man of Ham]

Ireland's pro-life stance is the cause of many deaths, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

First of all, wikipedia isn't a good source for news articles, secondly one death isn't "many," thirdly, the pro-life stance is fighting the millions (in the hundred millions) of unborn that have been killed.

[Man of Ham]

Kudos for the well thought out and well spoken logical assessment of the argument of when life begins. 

 

Stick with me on the following

 

If your sister or mother or wife/gf or some female family member was raped and impregnated. 6 weeks go by and she has missed her last cycle without the possibility that it is another man's sperm IE she hadn't had sex with any one up to and after that horrific event. Went to her OB/GYN and it was confirmed that she would not survive the pregnancy to birth (nor would the fetus) and got the same results from a second opinion and even a third. You would still fight that abortion is wrong and never an answer or choice, to save said family member, when it has been confirmed with logical and scientific proof the fetus nor the now pregnant woman would survive to term. You would let her die as a result of you fighting it.

 

Also typing up a response to bringing cell biology into the mix. Sorry for the delay, coffee hasnt sunk in yet.

I favor the choice that saves the most lives possible. For example, an ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy problem where the embryo implants in the fallopian tubes instead of the uterus. In this situation the unborn has no chance of surviving, so in order to save the mother's life a medical abortion would be necessary.

[Pyrocide]

Yes abortion is necessary. 

[polar]

They could breath, as you said, they were human.

 

What does breathing really mean? Lungs don't actually mature until week 32-34.

 

Past a certain point abortion IS in fact murder.

 

That is, of course, the question, isn't it?

 

 

We've all been fetuses at one point. Let's say that you're the result of an accident. And your mother is considering abortion. If you were born, you would have to go through many hardships and/or have to stay in an orphanage hoping to be adopted. Would you prefer death, or poverty? Death, or hardship? That's what every single aborted human being never got the chance to say.

 

Are you accounting for the fact that a fetus born to a mother that is undernourished / not taking care of herself during pregnancy can have severe disabilities / disorders and die at a young age anyways?

 

 

 

Anyways, I'll give my 2 cents here:

 

Let me describe a few patients I had back in medical school.

 

Patient A: Morbidly obese. Comes into the hospital complaining of abdominal pain. Ultrasound shows that she is not only pregnant but in labor. Baby is birthed that very night. She had no idea she was pregnant.

 

Patient B: Patient with slightly above average BMI. Has been gaining weight over 6 months. Someone (I can't believe how) doesn't realize that that is a pregnant belly not a fatty belly. In fact, she has been eating less and smoking to lose weight. Still been drinking alcohol, smoking, hasn't been taking folate supplements. Didn't actually see the US, but yeah, decent change of severe MR in the baby.

 

Patient C: Patient comes in at 16 weeks. U/S shows classic signs of Downs.

 

Should age of the abortion be dependent on maturity of the fetus or time it takes for the mother to realize she is pregnant and make a decision? If we have the forsight to know a baby will be born with severe disability and will die at a young age, should we have the choice of terminating? If it was an accidental pregnancy and the baby has a decent chance of being birthed with disability (that we can't confirm on scans) AND into a really bad social environment should we have the choice of terminating?

 

Obviously all a grey area and no absolutely right or wrong answer. All depends on what we value and everyone values things differently.

[~shenanigans]

Abortion is always a sensitive topic. When does aborting a fetus turn into murdering a life? Some argue it always is so. Others argue only after a certain time into development. Tied to abortion is the issue of stem cell research, which harvests embryonic stem cells to be used in differentiation research. Some say this is akin to killing a baby. Others say the cell itself may not have ever developed into a child. We can all agree that killing some of our body cells isn't considered murder (ex. you tear off a bunch of epidermal (skin) cells each time you scratch yourself). So, just what makes stem cells so different? One can argue that it is because it has the potential to become any other cell in the body, and can develop into another human. However, what about induced pluripotent stem cells? They are not the native "stem cell" from an egg, but rather differentiated cells that have been forced to become pluripotent. This technique has been shown to work on mouse fibroblast cells, and it is possible it may work on other body cells. Also, in a related fashion, some differentiated cells can be returned to a state of totipotency (difference between pluripotent and totipotent is that pluripotent can differentiate into any of the three zygotic germ layers, while totipotent is actually everything). Following this, it is possible that in the future we may discover ways to turn skin cells back into totipotent cells. At this point, would scratching your skin be the same as killing thousands of potential lives?

[ThatOtherChigga #Mack]

why? huehuehue

because we had to pick a critical issue and abortion seemed easy

[~shenanigans]

Response to any pro-choice argument:

The only ways to disprove my argument, or any argument for that matter, is to show that I have an error in my induction (facts and observations) or to show that there is an error in my deduction (reasoning) through showing that I have made a logical fallacy.

Thus I offer a simple syllogism:

A: It is wrong and should be illegal to kill an innocent living human being that is a person.

B: The unborn, from the point of fertilization, are innocent living human beings that are persons.

C: Therefore, it is wrong and should be illegal to kill the unborn from the point of fertilization.

I think we all agree with statement A, but it obviously should be illegal to kill an innocent living human being that is a person because of our basic human rights.

Anyway, on to statement B

1. Innocent: The unborn are obviously innocent; they have not intentionally committed any actions, just like a new born baby does not intentionally commit any actions. Even if the unborn's presence endangers the woman, for example, through an ectopic pregnancy, it did not intend to and is only an innocent aggressor.

http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/response-to-logical-argument-for.html

2. Living organism: The unborn is undeniably living. A standard biology text book will list the characteristics of life. Those include genetic information, growth and development, environmental interaction, metabolism, and reproduction. The unborn has all those characteristics and is, thus, a living organism. First, the unborn have DNA, 23 chromosomes from each parent and 46 in all, making them chemically unique from the point of conception. Secondly, the unborn is also growing and developing; once the egg is fertilized, it starts taking in nutrients, causing it to grow and divide rapidly. Thirdly, from the point of ferilization, the unborn interacts with the environment as it moves though the fallopian tubes implants into the uterus, and continues to move and interact as it develops in the amniotic sac. Fourthly, the unborn has a metabolism from conception. Fifthly, the unborn has cell reproduction and the ability to twin, both forms of reproduction. The following link describes a living organism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Link on the unborn's development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development

3. Human being: The unborn is obviously human because it has 46 chromosomes like all humans and by the law of biogenesis, only human organisms can come from human organisms.

Link to the law of biogenesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

4. Person: Finally, the unborn is a person. It has been argued that since the unborn do not have characteristics like consciousness, self-awareness, memory, and other traits, that it is not a person. However, this is false since these are acquired traits. If it was true that these traits determine personhood, any human not having these traits would no longer be a person. That means that if a person is asleep, or unconscious in any other way, he or she is no longer a person. This also applies to self-awareness since a person can only be self-aware while they are conscious. Finally, memory does not determine personhood because new born babies do not have memories and someone's memory can be lost through injuries or diseases. This is why inherent capacity is needed to determine personhood, not present capacity. Thus it follows that the unborn has inherent capacity for those characteristics since it is a member of the human species and is thus a person. For a more detailed explanation of this, refer to this link:

http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/response-to-logical-argument-for.html

Therefore, it can be concluded that the unborn are living human beings that are persons and killing them is wrong and should be illegal. Any objections to this claim that are not either claiming that I have made a logical fallacy or have used incorrect evidence, are purely emotional or volitional and do not disprove anything that I have shown.

 

There are a few things I don't quite agree with.

 

1. Innocent: the unborn cannot be innocent, because innocence is a characteristic of someone who can make rational moral decisions. A recently fertilized egg has not formed a functional brain, and so it cannot make moral deliberations. In this respect, it makes to sense to value something's innocence if it cannot have the attribute in the first place. It would be like claiming that a gun is guilty of shooting someone. The gun obviously cannot understand innocence or guilt, because it is an inanimate object, and it cannot be "guilty" of committing a crime. Another example: if a brain dead person accidentally kills someone by unknowingly twitching and knocking the victim off a 20 story building, the brain-dead person is not responsible for anything, because there was no moral deliberation in that person's mind. This kind of defense is used when pleading insanity, in that the "insane' person cannot understand right versus wrong, and so they cannot be morally culpable for their actions. Those declared mentally insane are not sentenced to jail or given penalties, but are put in an insane asylum.

 

2. Living organism: let me just take the same link you used. "An organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of responding to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole." First, a just-fertilized zygote cannot respond to stimuli. They have no means to respond by. If anything, it will probably burst. Moreover, the zygote cannot maintain homeostasis as a stable whole. If you remove the zygote, during any stage of development, from the mother, it will inevitably die. It has absolutely no means of maintaining its own homeostasis. You could argue that the mother is its food source, much like a parasite is to its host. However, a parasite still has some control over body conditions and can survive on its own for a short period of time. The zygote cannot be separated from the mother at any time. Finally, and most importantly, the zygote cannot reproduce. Sexual reproduction is, of course, out of the question. Parthenogenesis is equally absurd. One could argue that the cells are dividing themselves, making copies of itself, but humans are not composed of only one cell, and so it is not true reproduction. Also, development, there are chemical gradients in the embryo which dictate what cells become differentiated into what (for example, look at Hox proteins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene ). The critical thing is, this is regulated by maternal mRNA, not the zygote's own.

 

3. Person: in this discussion, you talk about the inherent capacity. The fact is, the capacity for thought, will, etc that define a "person" ultimately comes from having a developed brain. If a child is born with a defect (like anencephaly), where it is missing a large chunk of its brain, I would argue that the child cannot think, learn, or have self-awareness. Therefore, a zygote does not always have inherent capacity.

[polar]

 Following this, it is possible that in the future we may discover ways to turn skin cells back into totipotent cells. At this point, would scratching your skin be the same as killing thousands of potential lives?

 

Eh, just because a cell is pluripotent does not mean it can be used to create an entirely different organism. Killing stem cells in the adult human body is quite different from killing a zygote. 

[~shenanigans]

Eh, just because a cell is pluripotent does not mean it can be used to create an entirely different organism. Killing stem cells in the adult human body is quite different from killing a zygote. 

 

Pluripotent cells can differentiate into any of the three germ layers. Theoretically it could turn into another living person (like a clone of oneself). Totipotent cells can actually become anything, including a zygote, and later a human. Where is the line drawn... does having the potential to become a human separate cell destruction from murder? Why should pre-existing embryonic stem cells or zygotes be afforded more (or less) attention than something that could also potentially become one?

[polar]

Pluripotent cells can differentiate into any of the three germ layers. Theoretically it could turn into another living person (like a clone of oneself). Totipotent cells can actually become anything, including a zygote, and later a human. Where is the line drawn... does having the potential to become a human separate cell destruction from murder? Why should pre-existing embryonic stem cells or zygotes be afforded more (or less) attention than something that could also potentially become one?

 

Again, I think the issue is more that we are so far away from that actually happening - stem cells used to create a complete human being, say from your basal skin cells or bone marrow niche - for your comparison of scratching your skin to killing a zygote or embryo to be really relevant. "Potential" is a pretty loaded word. And I see a big difference in the theoretical potential of converting basal skin cells to a full human to the that of embryonic stem cells or zygotes. If it's something that can't and has never been done, it should "be afforded less attention."

[~shenanigans]

Again, I think the issue is more that we are so far away from that actually happening - stem cells used to create a complete human being, say from your basal skin cells or bone marrow niche - for your comparison of scratching your skin to killing a zygote or embryo to be really relevant. "Potential" is a pretty loaded word. And I see a big difference in the theoretical potential of converting basal skin cells to a full human to the that of embryonic stem cells or zygotes. If it's something that can't and has never been done, it should "be afforded less attention."

 

I think there are a few problems with this kind of view as well. An embryonic stem cell doesn't always develop into a newborn child either - during development, many things can go wrong that lead to spontaneous abortion. According to this study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11950476 ), the chance of a spontaneous abortion is 17-22%. That means 1/5 of fertilized eggs will naturally not develop into a living child. In this study ( http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867413005710 ), the scientists show that embryonic stem cell-like cells can be derived from somatic cells. They stopped before actually doing any human cloning, since historically cloning has been a political issue ( http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/human-cloning-laws.aspx ). Just because something hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. Also, if we talk about success rates in developing into an actual human child, (~80% for regular fertilized eggs versus ??% for induced cells), who is to say what success percentage marks the cutoff? Any such distinction, say a 5% confidence interval, would be an arbitrary dictation as opposed to moral deliberation.

[Pyrocide]

Well that escalated quickly.

 

I had to find my old biochem texts to look up context of some of those words just thrown out by shen and bear. Touche.

[BQE]

depends on the situation, but overall, I am in favor of less government involvement in my personal life. 

 

also, I am HIGHLY in favor of male financial abortion.  If a woman can abort a pregnancy even if the man doesn't, a man ought to be able to abort financial responsibility if the woman doesn't.  

[Silent Scream]

Pro-Choice, although if the fetus has developed to the point where it's a week or two away from birth, I feel like you should give birth to it.

 

Otherwise, hell, your uterus. You do what you want.

 

<---Is obviously a guy.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Yep, Pro-choice, choose to not be a dumbass and use a condom/birth control. 

 

/all for pro-choice if its rape or life threatening. 

[Silent Scream]

Yep, Pro-choice, choose to not be a dumbass and use a condom/birth control. 

 

/all for pro-choice if its rape or life threatening. 

I'd like to point out condoms have a 30% chance of failing last time I read up on that.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

I'd like to point out condoms have a 30% chance of failing last time I read up on that.

there are alternatives, plus you don't need to have sex.

[Silent Scream]

there are alternatives, plus you don't need to have sex.

I know.

 

I'm just pointing that out.

[puddingkip]

I'd like to point out condoms have a 30% chance of failing last time I read up on that.

Idk about your country, but if the failing chance is >5% you'll get a hell lot of shitstorm here. I was taught in biology class they've got 99.5% chance of success. 30% is ridicilous, why even bother buying them???

[Silent Scream]

Idk about your country, but if the failing chance is >5% you'll get a hell lot of shitstorm here. I was taught in biology class they've got 99.5% chance of success. 30% is ridicilous, why even bother buying them???

I live in 'Murica. Don't know where you are.

 

Also, 70% chance of inhibitation > 30% of failure. That's why.

[puddingkip]

I live in 'Murica. Don't know where you are.

 

Also, 70% chance of inhibitation > 30% of failure. That's why.

Welp, still sorry but uhm 30% is wayyyy too much. As my proflile reads I'm a Dutchie. But seriously, 30% failure chance. If you have sex twice in the "good" period (ovulation? Idk the English word) You've only got a bigger chance that the girl DID receive the sperm than not. (chance of staying "clean" is .7 .7 squared is .49 if my maths don't fail me again. If there's such small use for it, I wouldn't spend my hard-earned money on them and just trust/rely on the pill

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Its actually 2-15% depending on if its used properly or not. 

 

Also, Pill is like 99% success rate, theres really no need for both. 

[Silent Scream]

Its actually 2-15% depending on if its used properly or not. 

 

Also, Pill is like 99% success rate, theres really no need for both. 

So we need Pills.

[puddingkip]

Its actually 2-15% depending on if its used properly or not. 

 

Also, Pill is like 99% success rate, theres really no need for both. 

And since pill is 0.78 euros a month (yay government funding) nobody ever buys condoms here. Case closed

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

And since pill is 0.78 euros a month (yay government funding) nobody ever buys condoms here. Case closed

And in America its like $20 a month, but its also free if you have health insurance. Either way, its quite a bit cheaper than condoms.