Fetus First
Radwaste pointed me to a great piece over at Discover magazine's Bad Astronomy blog, the question of when is a human human?
Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait writes about Colorado's Prop 48 (which, thankfully, did not pass) to amend the Colorado Constitution to define a person as an legal entity at the moment a human sperm fertilizes an egg!
Prop 48 is ridiculous for any number of legal reasons. For example, if a woman who is pregnant for a day has a few drinks which cause damage to the embryo, can she be charged with reckless endangerment? What if she takes medicine that saves her but endangers the embryo? If I drive a pregnant woman around, can I use the HOV 3 lanes?There are other vital issues, like how granting civil rights to a collection of cells takes away many civil rights of women, and the huge increase in governmental involvement this would mean in people's lives. These are important to be sure, but not the point I want to make here. Also, these are age-old arguments, and in fact I can see where intelligent people can come down on opposite sides of them.
The real point is, Prop 48 isn't about science, and it's not even about legal issues. It's about religion. This proposition is obviously based solely on religious beliefs; there is little reason outside of that to even bring the argument up that a fertilized egg is entitled to rights as a human being. It is only the belief that the human soul enters the cell at that moment that this is an issue at all.
Proposition 48 is religion trying to create legislation, pure and simple.
And it's based on flawed reasoning. Try this thought experiment: you're walking down the street, and you see a building on fire. You enter it to help anyone out, and see it's a lab. On one side is a five-year-old boy, and the other is a petri dish clearly labeled as having a dozen fertilized eggs in it. You only have time to rescue the boy or the eggs. What do you do?
I would argue that it would be, ironically, an inhuman act to rescue the dish. Yet, according to the law if Prop 48 passes, you would have just chosen to let 12 human beings die to save one.
To me, those cells are just that: cells. There is nothing there that makes them human other than their DNA and their potential to grow.
Phil Plait, like me, points out that no one can say in any definitive way that a human becomes human at any particular point. In his words, we are trying to define something that's "fundamentally undefinable."
Simply put, we don't know when a human becomes human. And guess what: You don't get to legislate my behavior or anybody else's based on "we don't know."
Oh, I do think you're incorrect. Is there really any dispute that a human life is created at conception? If not, does it suddenly become a human life 3 months in? 6 months in? Only after the baby emerges from the womb but not 5 minutes before?
With that said, I'm fully willing to concede that a woman should have full rights to an abortion ... up until a point.
But let's not pretend that when the sperm fertilizes the egg that it's anything but a human life.
Robert W. at November 16, 2008 12:42 AM
I'm back from vacation just in time, yeah! There are 2 points a baby can become a human. At conception, or when it's born. No soul (or whatever you use to define being human) wanders in at 12 weeks, or 16 weeks, or 24 weeks. Either it's one when it's made, or one when it breathes, and I see no rational argument, other than political convenience, for saying anything else. Which means, you should either be for unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, or for none at all.
All readers here know I am for none at all. Not even for mom's life, really, since that happens so rarely as to be a nonargument. You can undergo chemo while pregnant. Chemo drugs don't cross the placenta. So the "What if mom gets cervical cancer, do you want to sentence her to die, doesn't her other family need her" crowd are full of shit on that one. If you have a poorly placed placenta, and risk bleeding out, a c-section is just as safe as an abortion. I"m trying to think of other "save the moms life" arguments I've heard here. Those are the only 2 I can bring up offhand. There may be some valid ones, but again, so few as to be a nonargument.
I also don't really give a rats ass for the rape argument. Doesn't matter as far as the baby is concerned how it was conceieved. People for it in cases of rape are really just saying moms who enjoy the sex should have to reap the consequences, while good girls who are forced should have an out. Not logical, and again just makes people feel warm and fuzzy for being illogical.
Yes, many embryos die early and are passed out. Many newborns die, and many kids, and many adults. In fact, every living thing dies. Nature (god, what have you) gets a free pass on killing. We don't.
Embryos are supported buy a yolk sac, not moms blood supply, for months. The mom taking a drink at day 3 and injuring it argument is so idiotic as to be not worth my time to mock. Someone can beat a pregnant woman in her abdomen to the point they kill the baby and cause pregnancy loss, and are guilty of nothing more than assault. That's an area that needs work. I can assure you the mom feels it was murder. If she didn't, she would have availed herself of the still-legal abortions open to her.
I am all for choice. Choosing to use birth control. 2 forms, if you're so certain that you don't want a kid that the 1% failure rate of the pill is a concern to you. I am for choosing to not have irresponsible sex. I am for choosing to give your child a life with a couple who can't conceive. And yes, I agree that stupid people, who are so irresponsible to not use BC, are not the ones we want raising kids. I disagree that we should kill the kids. Let's prevent them instead. I'm suprised this hasn't been latched onto by the race crowd yet, as blacks are far and away the largest utilizers of abortion, especially multiple abortions.
momof3 at November 16, 2008 5:29 AM
Robert W. and momof3, you insist on drawing hard bright lines around a nebulosity. I think this human habit comes from treating abstractions as if they were concrete objects. But even among concrete objects, we can't determine the edge of a cloud the way we can the edge of a crystal.
"Human life" is like most terms for big ideas: "species," "freedom," "natural rights," terms such as those. We all pretty much agree about where the big amorphous center lies, and we assume there must be edges. We need edges so much that if we don't see them, we make them up. In some cases, unfortunately, we have to.
It would be nice if we could treat the concept of human life like the concept of species. Do the red-shafted and yellow-shafted flickers of North America belong to one species or two? Not a big deal. We can leave the question up to ornithologists and go about our business. No such luxury in the case of beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues; we're all involved, and in something more than just an intellectual exercise.
We could all smooth the necessary process of drawing the lines if we acknowledged that where we put them is inevitably going to be arbitrary. Even if the beginning of life is defined on the basis of an objective reality, such as conception or breathing, the objective reality does not speak for itself; human beings establish it by social convention.
Axman at November 16, 2008 6:38 AM
If religious nut jobs want to define when a human life begins they should read that life manual they all ignore when they find it inconvenient - its called the bible I'm sure you remember it.
According to the bible human life is not sacred until the moment a child draws breath. According to the myrid of laws comprised under what is known as the 'Law of Moses" anyone attacking a pregnant woman and causing the unwanted loss of a child was subject to a small fine.
So here is my question to all of you religious morons.
Given you already have "GOD's" answer to this quetion, why are you ignoring his will?
lujlp at November 16, 2008 6:52 AM
How fired up people get because one woman can insist that what they want isn't what's going to happen!
There are questions people just won't answer, because it upsets the little "perfect world" fantasies they have.
How much am I supposed to pay for the technology for you to play Gregor Mendel with gametes so that you can have a baby?
What is the penalty for bearing a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - a clear sign of abuse?
What must the law force a parent to do at what point in the pregnancy - and how does that change with adverse diagnoses?
Just who do you think gets punished by abortion laws and their close relatives?
How do you imagine the law will apply equally to people with different access to technology?
Laws mean enforcement. What agency do you expect to carry laws protecting fetal "persons" out? Do they actually know anything?
When you define a "person", what level of intelligence and/or ability qualifies a parent for aid from the State?
When you define a person, does this mean you're going to stop being an ass to the LGBTs?
These things will demand deep thought, because the genetics people keep advancing the boundaries of natural selection.
-----
"Not even for mom's life, really, since that happens so rarely as to be a nonargument."
So maybe the "even one life" argument doesn't apply if you're here already? You're here, then, specifically because you've never been the subject of that argument in the way you propose for others (how generous). That situation is more common than you think. Look up the effects of rabies, Marburg, and even influenza.
-----
I support the idea that personhood is bestowed at birth for one all-encompassing reason.
If it is defined as any other time, mothers, and to some extent fathers, can be held hostage by a legal system manipulated by meddlers who would dictate their every move, heedless to the throw of dice each conception represents. It is physically impossible for the public to confer the legal concept of personhood - and whatever twisted idea that public might have of "rights"- to a fetus the same way in Appalachia as in Beverly Hills.
You would make the embryo the ward of Child Protective Services, that beacon of success with actual living autonomous people.
Don't do that. It's not enough to just blink at people and say that every pregnancy results in a perfect child, because that doesn't happen.
Radwaste at November 16, 2008 7:06 AM
And lujlp, it doesn't promote helpful dialog to call people you disagree with "religious nut jobs" and "morons," either. Remember, people like us who lack religious faith are in the minority. It must be normal for human beings to hold irrational beliefs. Maybe those of us who can't work up a good case of religious faith are the nut jobs. Not morons, though.
Axman at November 16, 2008 7:17 AM
Rabies? Are you seriously proposing a mom might get rabies and need to abort? That happens how often? Rabies treatment is ok while pregnant, and if you don't get treated it kills you, so please improve the levels of arguments you bring here.
You are new to the abortion debate here, or you wouldn't so casually say the mom's right to life issue never affected me. My last kid very nearly killed me, within minutes. I know quite well what it feels like to face death. I would never sacrifice my kid for myself. And medically, it's a nonissue. You look it up. Find me one case where a mom had to lose the kid or die, that WASN'T a 1-time only rarity. And that wasn't the outcome of crappy medical advice.
I had rabies exposure while BFing. Really shitty series of a uncountable number of shots later, issue is solved. I did ask what would happen if I'd still been preggers. Answer, I got the immunoglobulin and vac anyway, just like I did. No issues. So I really am just very unclear as to why rabies would be brought up? You confuse me. The flu shot likewise is fine throughout pregnancy, so why would the flu be a reason for abortion?
Science is very clear on what constitutes life. That is not to be confused with having a life. Cells are alive. Prions are not. Tumors are alive, by that definition. We have no problem killing them. The problem we have is not defining life, it's deciding what life is ok to kill and what is not. Very different issue than that which you brought up in your first post.
Loojy, were we to take that book literally, we'd have to kill you, being a nonbeliever. So don't ask us to do so unless you really want the results. Christianity was reformed well over 1000 years ago. Get with the times.
momof3 at November 16, 2008 7:58 AM
Axman, while I do find the religious(unless their children) to be nut jobs and morons - in this particular instance I was using those terms not a a personal jab but a a logical one.
After all only nut jobs and morons who claim to belive in a god and then work to change laws to reflect the OPPOSITE of what god commands.
These people claim to follow the bible as it is "gods word", and then proceede to ignore its dictates at every turn.
Who but a moron whould behave in such a manner?
god has already spoken on this subject any yet they fight against it? Only a crazy person whould fight the will of god right?
lujlp at November 16, 2008 8:00 AM
Momof3 its been 10 centuries since christianity was reformed, perhaps it is you who needs to get with the times.
As for killing non belivers when christ reformed judaism and preached non violencce he never mentions when life began - as an omnipotent being dot you think he would have known 2000 yrs later we whould be haveing this debate and would have said something?
lujlp at November 16, 2008 8:06 AM
So how do we know when conception happens? Do we wait for the blinding flash of light and the music of the angels in heaven?
christina at November 16, 2008 8:11 AM
lujlp,
The passage in the Bible you are referring, you are reading it incorrectly. It says that if two men are fighting and one strikes a pregnant woman during and she suffers a miscarriage(i.e.,baby isn't full-term but comes out alive) then there is a small fine. If the baby is born but is dead, then the Biblical laws of retaliation are in full effect. You know, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, so on and so forth. If you're going to use the Bible for your argument, then get it right.
I'm with momof3, we need to be focusing more on prevention of pregnancy, not termination.
maureen at November 16, 2008 8:17 AM
Momof3 states 'Science is very clear on what constitutes life.'.
Tell me, what does science tell me about a virus?
While I agree that we should focus on prevention, I don't believe a fetus is a human. I think my beliefs are closer to Axman's here. I don't think there is a well defined point where the collection of cells is a human. I believe it happens by degrees.
I believe that at some point in the future, mankind will have the ability to modify genes to create creatures that are more or less human - a whole spectrum between fully human and something else, just like many 'species' are so closely related that it's hard to specify which members belong to which species. At what point do you call something human? When it shares most physical characteristics? When it has a specific percentage of shared characteristics, or percentage of intelligence? Would an intelligent being created for living in water or space, with the same level of socialization, be considered human of not? Would it be less human or have fewer rights than a natural human that had genetic defects that caused it to be barely aware of its surroundings and definitely not capable of acting as a functioning being without constant help from others? If it is less human, please explain why, and leave out religious arguments.
William at November 16, 2008 10:02 AM
problem is maureen that most of the people who want to stop abortion are just as interested in stoping contraceptives as well.
On a far more pressing matter does anyone know if Sci Fi will air re runs on the first half of Battlestar Galactica's season 4?
lujlp at November 16, 2008 10:04 AM
Everybody's watching the puppies, right?
I love those little fuckers.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 16, 2008 10:06 AM
Thank you Maureen. I hate when anti-religion nutjob morons misquote the bible, and rarely have time to go check the verse and correct them.
Looj, you are very very wrong when you state that most who want to stop abortion want to stop contraception. That's your very skewed opinion and not based on fact. We may want to stop people fucking like irresponsible and indiscriminating bunnies, the diseases they spread by doing this are not helping society any. But that doesn't mean we want them doing it unprotected.
Virus's aren't alive. You don't deal with science much, do you? At least, with the non-fiction kind, apparently.
momof3 at November 16, 2008 11:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/16/fetus_first_2.html#comment-1605546">comment from maureenwe need to be focusing more on prevention of pregnancy, not termination.
Fine, focus on it. And if you think abortion is wrong, pay pregnant women to have a baby and then place it in a family and pay to raise it. Feel entirely free to do that.
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2008 12:21 PM
Not to parse linguistics, but "A fetus is not human"? "Human" is the species by definition. What is it then, a different species, perhaps a chicken or a smallmouth bass? Nothing changes species during its development. Unless you meant to say a fetus is not "a fully formed" human.
As to viruses; there is no comparison to human life whatsoever. Viruses (and virions, and prions) are NONLIVING fragments of DNA and/ or protein, smaller than bacteria. They do not replicate as living cells do but rather take over a living host cell and replicate within it until the host bursts and dies. (Wow, I actually retained something from Microbiology last semester)
As to Lujlp's "According to the bible human life is not sacred until the moment a child draws breath.", what about Jeremiah 1:5: "Before you were formed in the body of your mother I had knowledge of you, and before your birth I made you holy" So as to that particular argument, life is actually considered sacred according to Jer 1:5. There's still wiggling room as to the biblical definition of life itself, since many verses can be interpreted as life is only life when there is breath/ breathing. Yes, I know, the Bible often contradicts itself, which only makes these discussion more interesting.
juliana at November 16, 2008 12:22 PM
A priest, a minister and a rabbi are debating the issue of when human life can be considered to have begun.
The priest says he believes life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized.
The minister says no, it begins when the baby is born.
The rabbi says, "Oy! You both got it wrong. Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies."
Having survived two kids and three dogs, I agree with the rabbi.
Kirk Strong at November 16, 2008 12:30 PM
It's unfortunate that right after my comment came that of 'momof3'. Not that there's anything wrong with her views, but just that I can see why some put me in her camp, when that's not true at all.
What's much worse is that the like of 'lujlp' espouse their great ignorance on a regular basis here. Dear Sir/Madam/Twit, precisely how did you become aware of my religious views? The fact is that you don't know A THING about me or my views and yet decided to libel me as a "religious nut job".
My statement was purely one based on science, not religion. Once again, when the sperm and the egg fuse together, what kind of life do we have there? Is it the makings of a kitten perhaps? Maybe a toad?
C'mon folks, get real. In the same way that a newborn baby is the precursor to a 1 year old, so is an 7 month old fetus the precursor to a newborn baby. And so is the solitary cell at conception the precursor to that 7 month old fetus.
With all that said, I do not agree with 'momof3' or Sarah Palin. I was indeed raised as a Roman Catholic but began questioning the teachings in my teens. One of the biggest questions I could not get a suitable answer for was this: "If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, is that God's will?"
The aforementioned ladies would say it is. And morally, I respect the purity of their argument. But no benevolent God IMHO would ever expect a woman to carry through with such an unwanted pregnancy.
Further to that, I've also come to realize that women and/or couples may not want to carry through with a pregnancy for many reasons. And so I've come to the conclusion that a pregnant woman should be allowed to have an abortion in the first trimester for any reason, no questions asked.
In the 2nd trimester, I believe she should have to get permission from a doctor. And I have no problem if the law states that she must first watch a gov't sanctioned presentation which shows the pros and cons of having an abortion ... and then she has to wait for 48 hours.
In the 3rd trimester, I believe that something more stringent than just permission from a solitary doctor is needed. Perhaps a small panel of doctors and some from other walks of life.
I believe this proposal is well thought out, moderate, and balanced.
Contrast it with the likes of 'lujlp' who states that "human life is not sacred until the moment a child draws breath". If one believes this then that means that a perfectly healthy mother with a perfectly healthy fetus and no expected complications would be perfectly fine to abort her baby 5 minutes before she is due to give birth. Such a viewpoint is beyond repugnant to me and I bet to most other people on this planet.
Robert W. at November 16, 2008 1:05 PM
Rob that isnt my view - its the bible(which I only use to deconstruct the arguments of people who use religion as a basis for public policy)
julianna we could trade scriptures and their intepritaions all day - one possible interpertaion of that scripture is that the soul was being disccused and not the body, after all the key phrase is before you were formed. Conception is the start of the formstion process. Therefore it has to be the soul being discussed.
Personally I dont think any abortion is good thing, but neither is yet another unwanted child. And given a choice between the two I'd rather a child never be born the grow up being abused, ignored , and abondoned.
And quite frankly until humanity respects the life already in existance how can you reasonably expect them to respect something they dont consider to be life?
lujlp at November 16, 2008 2:05 PM
"Rabies? Are you seriously proposing a mom might get rabies and need to abort?"
Well, I was going to start my previous post with, "I'm sure lots of people will sound off here without knowing anything of biology," but it seems logic has been left behind in favor of emotion, too.
No, momof3, I am not showing that rabies is common among expectant mothers. I am showing you that the rarity you imagine isn't what you think by naming diseases which do pose threats to mothers for which their survival is enhanced by abortion, and I'm showing you the awesome hypocrisy in those who would say, "if only one life...".
You, yourself, are rare, there being only one of you. Therefore, by your "reasoning", nothing which protects you specifically should be made law.
-----
Oh, yeah - the Bible. Get what you will from this:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." -- Exodus 21:22-23
Do note that if she loses "her fruit" and nothing else, no mischief occurs.
Here's the price of a life, after the instruction of Leviticus 27:2: "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6
There's no worth accounted to persons under a month old in this passage.
You're not a person until one month: "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." -- Numbers 3:15-16
So much for Bible quotes.
Considering what Christians and other Abrahamic faiths have done to women over the centuries, I've concluded that only abject ignorance can allow a woman to be a Christian. Go look what the Bible says about your rights and duties.
That shouldn't be surprising, considering God™ is imaginary.
-----
You all should read the discussion linked, on Bad Astronomy, and perhaps surf Pharyngula, PZ Myers' blog, for a bit. There are some strange ideas among laymen what "life" is, generally because no thought has been given to what something must DO to demonstrate it is "alive"; I suggest you ask someone whose profession it is to discover these things what they have found.
Algebraically, Life = 42 - (The Universe and Everything). There you go!
Radwaste at November 16, 2008 2:13 PM
Possession is nine-tenths of the law.
If there is anything that fits the notion of possession in its purest form, pregnancy is it, through at least the beginning of the third trimester.
Until then, because possession is so absolute and unavoidable, the decision should be the woman's.
-----
The anti-choice argument must confront the absurdity of their position.
32,000 some-odd women per year become pregnant through either rape or incest.
The anti-choice people must either come right out and admit they would perpetrate the consequences of the crime upon its victims, or admit their life argument is empty.
Hey Skipper at November 16, 2008 3:16 PM
I'll put my biological knowledge against yours any day bud. Rabies, influenza, neither of these has an enhanced maternal survival by abortion. Try again. No dr on the planet would recommend one for either situation.
Rubella can cause birth defects. Not even sort of the same argument as "abortion needed to save the mother's life".
Again, waiting for a situation where it was die or abort, for the mom. waiting. waiting.
I'm a non-attending methodist, if we really think religion is involved. I don't think God plans a woman's rape. Free will is a bitch, and even men have it. Women have it with how they react to the rape, along with every other occurence in life. Kill the baby, or don't blame it. Hate all men forever after, or accept that some suck but most don't. Get your butt to the hospital immediately and make the whole issue moot, or be a dumb-ass and sit around for months first. All free will. And much like the "baby might kill the mom" scenario, I am speaking from experiene here. I tend not to hold harsh and exceedingly firm opinions in areas where I don't have any experience. That's just me.
God (nature, pick your name) kills indiscriminantly. We can't.
Christianity came 10 centuries ago? That's news to me, I thought it was more like 20, being that it was Christ that started it. Hmm, guess non-believers have me beat there. Bummer.
What does Christ-who's new testament teachings christians follow-say about women? I am not one of the christians who believes the bible arrived from heaven via fax. Men wrote it, edited it, complied it, and made versions of it. I think you can get to the truth by reading christs actual words. There's a very clear plan for the way to live there. What other men thought and wrote matters much less to me, if at all.
momof3 at November 16, 2008 3:19 PM
Amy,
I feel as if you are willfully misunderstanding what I was saying. No, I don't agree with abortion. Regardless of my position, it is legal and will probably remain so for a very long time. I never once said anywhere in my post that it shouldn't be legal.
I was simply correcting lujlp about the Bible passage he referred to.
All I was trying to point out about prevention is that it should be the first line of defense. I know and have known far too many people, men and women, who have the attitude of "Well, if she/I get pregnant, she'll/I'll just have an abortion." Like it's the only option for birth control. That is an attitude that I hate because it is so completely irresponsible. I honestly rage at how many abortions occur because of irresponsibility.
maureen at November 16, 2008 3:27 PM
I find these all-or-nothing, conception or birth demands to be a bit extreme.
There are tons of benchmarks you can use... I don't have a source for this, but I believe at one point the "quickening", ie when the mother first felt the baby move, was considered the beginning of life. It could be when the heart is formed. It could be when the hands are formed. The genitals. The nose. When the tail goes away.
The thing is, become a human is a gradual process. As is becoming an adult... we call 18 an adult, but that is a bit arbitrary. When does a person move from one phase to another?
IMO, the difference between an egg and an egg that was fertilized an hour ago is minimal.
Nicolek at November 16, 2008 3:37 PM
Some of Hiatt's examples are red herrings:
if a woman who is pregnant for a day has a few drinks which cause damage to the embryo, can she be charged with reckless endangerment?
Not if she didn't know she was pregnant. The legal standard for recklessness doesn't assume people are omniscient.
If I drive a pregnant woman around, can I use the HOV 3 lanes?
Depends on the applicable law. A state is free to make laws which state that a fetus does not count as a separate occupant for HOV purposes even though it's considered fully human. It could rule the same way about any child under legal driving age, and I think some do.
Rex Little at November 16, 2008 4:37 PM
Simply put, we don't know when a human becomes human. And guess what: You don't get to legislate my behavior or anybody else's based on "we don't know."
We don't know when a human becomes human, but the law has to draw the line somewhere, and people's behavior gets legislated on that basis. I don't see "at conception" as being any less rational than "at birth" just because most of the folks who believe the former happen to be religious. (Note that you don't have to be religious to believe that, although I grant it helps.)
Personally, I think the most sensible view is to treat a newly conceived fetus as human until and unless we can somehow prove otherwise. However, I also think abortion should be legal until the fetus reaches the point where it's medically possible to remove it from the mother alive and bring it to term outside her body. This is because I don't believe that one human has the right to live inside the body of another without her consent (which consent can be withdrawn anytime). If she wants to be rid of it, and the only way to do so is to kill it, that's her right.
Rex Little at November 16, 2008 4:59 PM
Momof3 insults me with with an ad-hominin (not sure of the spelling) "Virus's aren't alive. You don't deal with science much, do you? At least, with the non-fiction kind, apparently."
I don't think all biologists agree on this.
My point wasn't trying to compare people to viruses, but that this isn't a black and white, yes or no thing.
julianna said "Not to parse linguistics, but "A fetus is not human"? "Human" is the species by definition."
Ok, I used a bad choice of words. I should have said a fetus isn't a person. Not when it's just a fertilized egg, anyway. Again, trying to make the point that the collection of cells doesn't change from not being a person to being a person at a specific point.
William at November 16, 2008 5:40 PM
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." -- Exodus 21:22-23
Maureen I was busy and radwaste posted it before I could.
Note that if the baby dies and nothing else there is a fine.
momof3 you said christianity was reformed a thousand yrs ago, in fact I think you said 'well over'.
I said it had been ten centuries, quoting your figure but I wasnt really paying attention - I was only repeating the time scale to tell you to get with the times.
In any event the reformation was closer to 500 yrs ago
lujlp at November 16, 2008 6:12 PM
Maureen - isn't a miscarriage when the fetus dies? Doesn't that mean dead fetus = fine?
christina at November 16, 2008 7:01 PM
Wow, momof3. That you will argue passionately against abortion (innocent life and all that) and in the same breath call a woman who has just been raped and doesn't think to rush to a hospital a dumbass is pretty spectacular compartmentalization. I don't care if you have been there, done that. Any compassion I might have for that is eliminated by your contempt for rape victims who don't exactly have their head on straight right after. Someone is too traumatized to think clearly so the best course of action is to force them to bear the resulting child? This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Let me guess, you also think that it's her fault for walking in that alley, having a few drinks, agreeing to a date, etc.?
christina at November 16, 2008 7:18 PM
IF it's not human, what is it? Animal, vegetable or mineral? I'm pro-choice and I like abortion safe, legal and rare.
But, a fetus or fertilized egg is a clump of cells--human cells. And they're living cells. So, cells are alive, and they're human cells. Add it all up and you have human life.
Kate at November 16, 2008 7:41 PM
By that reasoning so is cancer.
lujlp at November 16, 2008 7:54 PM
"There are 2 points a baby can become a human. At conception, or when it's born."
Says who?
"No soul (or whatever you use to define being human) wanders in at 12 weeks, or 16 weeks, or 24 weeks."
Actually, I call it a brain. And I'm pretty sure it does in fact develop sometime between conception and birth.
That said, I actually have no problem with overturning Roe. If a state full of non-scientific thinkers were to decide that life occurs at conception and outlawed abortion. When you're dealing with issues this esoteric, I'd rather have communities closer to its constituents make that call rather than the Supreme Court. Hell, the best case scenario would not be state-by-state, but city-by-city.
snakeman99 at November 16, 2008 9:56 PM
> You don't get to legislate my
> behavior or anybody else's
> based on "we don't know."
Why not? Nobody really know how old you should be for your first drink, either, but the law says 21. Ain't the end of the world.
> In his words, we are
> trying to define something
> that's "fundamentally
> undefinable."
Medical science continues to spank abortionist ass, as ever-younger fetuses ('Not humans, goll darn it! No, I'm really sure! I really mean it!') are nurtured through premature birth. You bet this can be "defined."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 16, 2008 9:57 PM
PS- When humans get cancer, it's human.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 16, 2008 10:10 PM
Then perhaps it's against god's plan for us to be killing cancers. We should stop until the Pope tells us whether it's ok or not.
GMan at November 16, 2008 10:50 PM
I don't care about arguing God. Can you imagine a more mundane blogfight than the existence of God? I think most parties on each side of the argument (and I've spent a decade or two on each side now) uses their baseless certainty to look down on other people... That's what they really want out of it. Why ruin the fun for any of them?
It's just too mundane. But people shouldn't say silly things, like cancers (or fetii) aren't human. When they're yours, they're human indeed.
Gman, where do you live?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 16, 2008 11:38 PM
In support of Snakeman99- brain development begins in the 3 week-old embryo. It begins with the neural tube, which differentiates into the 3 primary brain vesicles in week 4, the secondary brain vesicles by week 5, and the more familiar/ recognizable brain structures by 13 weeks. Cerebral hemisphere, cerebellum, pons, medulla oblongata, spinal cord, all of it. And they're not in there just idly standing by....
All in the first trimester. 13 weeks.
I just love Anatomy and Physiology; it may be sucking all the joy out of my life, but at least it comes through in a pinch.
juliana at November 17, 2008 4:55 AM
Given you cant get that sort of detail from a sonogram I'd be willing to bet that such info came from studyng the aborted remains
lujlp at November 17, 2008 5:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/16/fetus_first_2.html#comment-1605687">comment from julianaRead the link to my piece and Michael Gazzaniga's Home Depot analogy, Juliana. Because there are the beginnings of brain structures doesn't mean the thing is a person, deserving of rights.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2008 5:47 AM
Spare me the rage on me expecting a woman who was raped to seek medical help. I also expect people in a car accident to seek it, not claim injuries days or weeks later. I see no difference in source of the trauma. Do I blame the woman for wearing that/walking there/dating him? No, but come on ladies, I do expect you to have some common sense about where you go and what you do. Just like a man who walks down the wrong street at night and gets mugged should have been thinking a little better, so too should a woman. Should I be able to walk alone naked downtown at night and not be molested? yes. Is it smart of me to do? No.
Anyway, rape is a crime of anger, not sex. That's why rape is cosistent over age ranges, weights, race, etc. They don't really want sex with a hot chic, they want to hurt someone. Assault, but with sex organs.
Again, people against abortion except for rape (lots of religious people fall here) aren't worried about the baby's right to life or the women's rights to abort. They are punishing women who enjoy the sex. Period. Not protecting the rights of a crime victim. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy and rational, but it's not.
It's not an ad hominem attack to point out every scientific point you've made is refutable at best.
I've heard, in another thread here I think, that rapes are more likely to result in pregnancy than other sex. I don't know if it has any truth to it. Makes some sense, many mammals require some pain to ovulate. And if that's the case, there is almost certainly a benefit to society from it. Nature doesn't do things randomly. Novel gene recombinations, maybe? People do tend to breed with others similar to them, which results in a narrowing of the variations in the gene pool. Maybe we need those 32,000 babies a year for species vitality. It's an interesting thought from a scientific standpoint. But, I knew at 14 if my rape made a baby I'd have it. Life goes on.
All theoretical anyway, as Roe isn't going to be overturned, much as I think it should be. And even if it was, states could decide on their own to have it or not. Governments should reflect the values of those who live there.
Just got back from my 12 week ultrasound. Baby all formed, got nothing much to do but gain in size and lung function from here on out. Little penis sticking out, and everything. All of 3 mm long right now :), but I"m sure he'll end up fully equiped in the size department.
momof3 at November 17, 2008 8:50 AM
For the record, I voted against the Ammendment because it was so poorly worded and thought out that it would take years and millions of dollars in lawsuits before they repealed it for being poorly written and unenforcable.
Seems like the way this thread has gone is indicative of the reason we can't seem to hammer out a legal point of view on what the start of human life is. Or what it means to be alive. What is the qulity of humanity?
Life may well be scientifically defined, but I'd wager that it doesn't define what YOUR life is. Why rain makes you sad, why holding hands is important, why you hate eating fish because of that bone one time when you were a kid...
This is your life, and it is also the reason that as a community, we feel that it should be against the law for anyone to deprive you of it. Sure we have to measure the lack of life scientifically with some assumptions, but that doesn't define the breadth of it. For THAT reason, when being human is new, the difinition is somewhat fuzzy. We can't tell what is going on with a fetus, to the level of wonder. The presupposition is that until the brain is at a more advaced state, that thing that we all call "life" isn't possible. Therefore it's OK to end before that, as a matter of public policy.
IF you follow a religion that has a higher standard, why are you not free to follow that higher standard?
That would fit as the reason why roe v. wade is an issue of privacy, and why public policy is different than personal [or religious] belief.
SwissArmyD at November 17, 2008 12:20 PM
momof3, I wish I could remember the name of the condition my former sister-in-law had that put her in the abort-or-die posistion, but it's been something like 14 years ago, so I don't remember it. What I do remember is that she was in the 3rd trimester, the fetus was in distress, and if they hadn't aborted, both mother and unborn baby would have died. Sometime during all of this, it was discovered that the placenta was on the OUTSIDE of the uterus, so not only did they have to take her baby, but she had to have a complete hysterectomy as well. And this was right before Christmas. Merry Christmas.
I'm not going to argue religion with anybody here. I'm simply going to state that MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that the soul doesn't enter the body until the moment of birth. Otherwise two souls would occupy the same body (the mother's).
And yes, I'm pro-choice, which doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. I think people should use the brain in their heads and be responsible when they have sex (as well as other things which are off-topic). This is why I'll be getting my two daughters on the pill when they hit puberty. And yes, I will make sure they take them.
Having an abortion is one of the hardest decisions a woman can make. I know, I've made that decision. I had to think about what kind of future I would be able to give my baby and I was honest enough with myself to admit that it would be a horrible one. The only thing I would have been able to give that baby would have been a lifetime of poverty, resentment, and possibly even abuse. Don't preach to me about adoption. I'm not the kind of person who would ever be able to give up a baby for adoption. And I know that by waiting to give birth, I've given the children that I now have a better life than I would have given the one that was aborted.
Sandy at November 17, 2008 3:03 PM
momof3:
I've heard, in another thread here I think, that rapes are more likely to result in pregnancy than other sex.
Before wandering off into the hinterlands of conjecture, consider the obvious: Women who have been raped were not, by definition planning on having sex.
So their birth control measures may well have been different than otherwise.
Regardless, you can be quite certain the rapist probably didn't care enough to protect their victims against anything.
Hey Skipper at November 17, 2008 3:10 PM
"I'll put my biological knowledge against yours any day bud."
Okay, good. Now, explain how you get to say nobody gets to live if it costs them their baby.
"God (nature, pick your name) kills indiscriminantly. We can't."
Actually, we do, but unwilling mothers don't. They know exactly what's going to happen, and have to live with their decision however it turns out relative to their expectations. And if they abort, they can try again later after changing their mind.
It's the wildest thing that some people imagine the consequences to them are more dire than to the woman making the decision.
"Christianity came 10 centuries ago? That's news to me, I thought it was more like 20, being that it was Christ that started it. Hmm, guess non-believers have me beat there. Bummer."
Bummer, indeed. If you're a Protestant, you didn't have a voice until Martin Luther, circa 1570. If you're a Catholic, you hid Europe from the achievements of Roman and Greek and Egyptian scientists and engineers for a thousand years. Yes, you had help from Islam. Such a precious thing, religion.
"What does Christ-who's new testament teachings christians follow-say about women? I am not one of the christians who believes the bible arrived from heaven via fax. Men wrote it, edited it, complied it, and made versions of it. I think you can get to the truth by reading christs actual words. There's a very clear plan for the way to live there. What other men thought and wrote matters much less to me, if at all."
Be my guest to relate anything directly from Jesus. The entire Bible features what other people said he said. You're only accepting hearsay because of the special pleading that it be allowed. And apparently, when the Bible says the Lord said something in the OT, it's not really true and/or doesn't count. That's the tactic I see most often when people are challenged by direct quotes from the Bible.
Genesis is in the OT. Give that up? Don't think so.
Radwaste at November 17, 2008 4:42 PM
I imagine that, if the point were true, it would have been controlled for BC use. As I said, I have no idea as to authenticity, just speculating off a point someone here made.
Do tell on your SIL's condition. I'd be interested, as I had thought there were no such situations. Given that an abortion requires killing the baby, at that age via an injection, then delivering it vaginally, with or without collapsing the head first, and a c-section would be faster by a factor of about 10. Is it possible they baby was in distress, they couldn't get it out fast enough, and it died, then they had to do a hysterectomy b/c of the placenta? Because quite frankly, it sounds like she's got a hell of a malpractice suit on her hands otherwise. And there are some spectacularly shitty drs out there, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.
Rather selfish to kill a kid because you couldn't stand to give it up and let it have a life, don't you think? Not a decision I would brag on, personally.
THose conjoined twins here in the US, who are so conjoined that they literally are almost one person with 2 heads, do they each have a soul? Or since it's one body, is it 2 brains but one soul? How does that fit with your no-2-souls-per-body theory? What about less conjoined twins that still share a body?
If possession is 9/10th of the law, why don't I own my kids? I don't, obviously. I can't spank them, and am restricted in any number of other ways, yet am completely responsible for them. Do the dads who are 50% of that fetus have a say? Any ownership there? How does that work?
momof3 at November 17, 2008 4:43 PM
"You bet this can be "defined.""
Sure, Crid. Now, notice how few want to address the questions above, dealing with, "How?"
It's more important to lots of people to enforce their will upon others than to think about the situation.
Radwaste at November 17, 2008 4:50 PM
Seriously, momof3, you're equating rape with a car accident. Sideswipe me any day, sister.
And gee, ya think maybe rapes result in a higher incidence of pregnancy not because nature needs violence to procreate but because. . .rapists tend not to use condoms, or necessarily pick victims taking birth control pills, or ask whether it's a good time in their cycle for avoid unwanted motherhood?
Also, I wish you the absolute best of luck in your pregnancy. But maybe before you become momof5 (I assume this one's No. 4) you might consider adopting one of those babies who would be killed if folks like you didn't get in line to adopt them, regardless whether they have birth or chromosomal defects or complications that require hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care.
I'm pro-choice but also pro avoiding abortion whenever possible. But seems to me it's kind of selfish to have both your views and one baby after another of your own without having saved a single one yet.
My apologies if you have in fact adopted or taken in an otherwise unwanted child.
JulieA at November 17, 2008 7:38 PM
I have a heart condition (in addition to an immune suppressing disease and a couple of other things), if I was pregnant I would need to be off all medication and in the hospital for the entire duration of the pregnancy. I've been told that it could be that my heart couldn't support me being pregnant. To me, if they told me, "you have to abort this baby or your heart will fail"...well, I'd hate to not have the option available to me and my doctors.
Currently I've been told that I can't get pregnant, and I also am on "the pill" for medical reasons. If I somehow beat the odds and wound up preggars and then the state stepped in I'd be enraged, despite my religious background which tells me that all life is precious.
Stacy at November 17, 2008 9:33 PM
If possession is 9/10th of the law, why don't I own my kids?
Two reasons:
First, you could give ownership of your kids to someone else -- say, by adoption.
Second, your kids are, to a certain extent as a function of age, autonomous beings.
In contrast, until fairly late in a pregnancy, it is impossible to transfer ownership of the fetus to anyone else under any circumstances. All the risk and physical investment are the woman's.
Second, the fetus is not the least bit autonomous.
During pregnancy, the woman's ownership is complete and non-transferable. Based upon that consideration, her decision should be paramount.
No matter what I think of abortion.
Hey Skipper at November 17, 2008 10:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/16/fetus_first_2.html#comment-1605871">comment from JulieAI'm pro-choice but also pro avoiding abortion whenever possible. But seems to me it's kind of selfish to have both your views and one baby after another of your own without having saved a single one yet. My apologies if you have in fact adopted or taken in an otherwise unwanted child.
Great point, JulieA. I find that the people who try to legally prevent others from having abortion are rather slow to offer (as I suggested) to pay a woman to bring a pregnancy to term and then pay to raise the child and send it to college. And I'm guessing few take the approach you suggest, either.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2008 11:10 PM
momof3 - Rape, car accident, same difference, right? You are absofuckinglutely insane. Your rigidity now makes a lot more sense. 'It happened to me, and I survived and took care of it, so everyone else should handle it the same way.' How unbelievably arrogant If you can honestly say that you think a rape has the same impact as a car accident, you need a shrink.
Rape is nature's way to novel gene recombination? Huh. From what I've read, our sense of smell is involved in sniffing out mates with dissimilar genes so that our offspring has better gene variety. Also, every offspring results in a new and different gene combination. And incest has long been taboo across cultures. There are a lot of ways nature takes care of this one. And didn't you just say that rape isn't about sex? What exactly are you smoking? I do remember coming up with some half-ass nonsensical "theories" of my own under the influence of certain substances. I just managed to realize how ridiculous I sounded when I sobered up.
Medical reason to abort: ectopic pregnancy
Christina at November 17, 2008 11:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/16/fetus_first_2.html#comment-1605880">comment from ChristinaRape is about sex. See A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. Oh, and read law prof Owen Jones' review. Terrific book. And I've heard Thornhill and Palmer present on this topic and others many times. Solid researchers.
Amy Alkon at November 18, 2008 12:02 AM
Wow. All the things I wanted to say, but lacked the articulation to do so. I, like, Sandy, made what was at the time the best decision for all concerned. I do not regret it. Twinges of remorse? Fading. And like JuliaA, I am pro-choice, which does not necessarily mean I am pro-abortion. I am, however, very much pro-privacy. It's my uterus, keep your (and the government's) damn nose out of it!
Flynne at November 18, 2008 6:31 AM
momof3, I was not BRAGGING about the abortion that I had, merely relating that it happened. Neither of the two decisions that were in front of me at the time were good ones, and I refuse to allow you to make me feel guilty about something that happened seventeen years ago. At the same time, I'm not the kind of person who thinks, "oh well, if I get pregnant, I can always have an abortion!" That's what birth control is for. At the time that I got pregnant I believed that I was sterile and so was not on the pill. Now I know better and take precautions.
As far as my former sister-in-law's condition, I have already related everything that I know about it, except that it was during a routine examination that it was determined that the procedure needed to be done. There was no way the baby would have survived. I didn't press me SIL for precise details, because she was already very distraught over everything that had happened. Nobody in my family was told about any of this going on until after she had been released from the hospital.
Only slightly off-topic question. Has anybody seen the movie "Citizen Ruth" with Laura Dern? Ruth is a huffer who gets pregnant, and the town she lives in goes into an uproar, fighting over whether or not she should have the baby. The press gets involved and everything gets even crazier. In the end, she ends up having a miscarriage and slips out of town before anybody realizes it.
Sandy at November 18, 2008 7:54 AM
Momof3 states "It's not an ad hominem attack to point out every scientific point you've made is refutable at best."
I didn't make any scientific points, I asked a question.
From my previous post:
Momof3 states 'Science is very clear on what constitutes life.'.
Tell me, what does science tell me about a virus?
How did you respond, with this:
"Virus's aren't alive. You don't deal with science much, do you? At least, with the non-fiction kind, apparently. "
Please show me where you refuted anything. All I see is you making an insulting statment about me and then stating your opinion. You neither offered any evidence for your statement nor a logical argument supporting it.
Here, I'll offer an example of support of my position so you can see how it's done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
If you don't believe wikipedia is a valid source, try following the links in the article.
William at November 18, 2008 10:09 AM
Oh, Momof3, since you think that science is very clear on what constitutes life, could you provide me with the scientific definition of life? Since they are so clear on it, they must have a good definition that precisely states what life is, but I haven't seen it. But then again, I don't deal with science much so why would I have seen it?
William at November 18, 2008 10:17 AM
Momof3: Rather selfish to kill a kid because you couldn't stand to give it up and let it have a life, don't you think? Not a decision I would brag on, personally.
For those of us (like me) who don't think a fetus is a kid, she didn't "kill a kid". And, of course, the followup to that is that since it's not a kid or life of its own yet, to us, "letting it have a life" is just as absurd as saying women should get pregnant every month to let that egg have a life. I'm not sure how we could manage the bazillion sperm men produce. I'm sure you can come up with something, though.
Then, we've got "give it up" being, evidently, unselfish. See, and I do realize I'm probably a minority on this one, but I consider adoption unthinkable. Once a kid is born, whether I want it or not, it is a HUGE responsibility. I doubt I could ever, EVER trust someone enough to hand them a baby and walk away. I could never give up a *dog or cat*, for heaven's sake. I don't care if home studies have been done, etc, etc. Pawning off a real, existing, born, HUMAN INFANT to a stranger is absolutely inconceivable to me. I would consider aborting a fetus to be far more responsible a decision.
As for "selfish", can you please provide me with a list of a minimum of 5 reasons you have kids, which do not include the words "I/we want(ed)"? I'd love to know your undoubtedly entirely unselfish reasons for popping out your kids. I've yet to come across any actual altruistic reasons, so perhaps you'll impress the heck out of me.
Of course, if you can't, then your use of "selfish" as an insult becomes pretty chuckle-worthy.
Helen at November 18, 2008 10:48 AM
"You don't get to legislate my behavior or anybody else's based on "we don't know."
Considering all the legislation based on the hoax known as Anthropogenic Global Warming, this is pretty funny. The general populace is too stupid to know it is being lied to.
Pick your topic, Palin, mandatory recycling, ethanol, Islam, ANWR, Iraq, Global Warming, whatever. They don't need facts anymore kids; they just make them up.
MarkD at November 18, 2008 1:04 PM
A fluid-filled sphere of human cells is not a person just as a fluid-filled sphere of feline cells is not a kitten. Until the fetus is developed enough to be cognizant and able to survive in the world its rights are (less than symbol) mother's. Screw religious and emotional BS, we're all responsible for ourselves.
No, abortion should not be used for stupid sluts who use it as a back up, but it should be available for medical reasons & rape cases. It should always be an option but never abused. There's too many children/babies out there that need homes/parents, let's not make the problem worse. No one should feel ENTITLED to pop out kids that they can't afford or give the proper life and expect society to pony up.
Human development has been exhaustively studied and the timeline generally determinded for almost everything, no we don't know exact instances when certain thresholds are met, BUT what we do know is based on facts not personal beliefs dictated by propaganda. Yes, life is "sacred" in the sense that it is special, not fully understood, and cannot be willed into existence, but don't pretend you don't have a hierarchy of value you would place on things when forced to choose.
Torque at November 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Leave a comment