tribalbeeyatch

No thanks, I'd much rather patrol yours.

ex-xian

I have to say that this comment and comments like it are the most asinine that can be made regarding abortion. When discussing the morality of an action, what does gender have to do with anything? People have penises, not arguments.

Should a childless person have no opinion about child abuse? Should a white person have no opinion about black on black violence, or vice versa.

Should all the men who helped to advocate for women's choice have shut up and gotten out of the way? Please! Come back when you have an actual argument to make or a real contribution for this thread.

ex-xian

From reading the replies, it seems to me that brain function may be a good definition of when humanity begins, which, as I understand it, begins at about 40 days after conception. The reason being that when a person's brain stops functioning, they are considered dead. I have two questions about this position.

First, it seems to me that this may be a false analogy. An adult who is brain dead has no chance of regaining consiousness, and so, are dead. But a fetus has the intrinsic ability to develop that functioning. So it seems that the fetus and the brain dead person are in two different metaphysical states.

Second, do those who hold this position believe that abortion is immoral after the fetus develops brain function? If yes, then what is the justification?

brighid

Ex-xian,

I believe the brain function a fetus has after 40 days is very basic, reflexive and certainly not consciousness.

B

ex-xian

Really? Well you can see how ignorant I am of the subject. I never liked biology...more of a physics person. When does full function begin?

Dr Rick

The term "brain dead" is a colloquialism, and an inaccurate one at that. It is used as a label for those who are in a persistent vegetative state without any cognition, but almost all people in such a state have some brain function. A person who is in a persistent vegetative state is not dead, even if he is not conscious

pz

I had a conversation with a bioethicist just yesterday, and she told me that there are many people who are now seriously arguing this idea of "brain birth" as a complement to "brain death". She thought it was an awful idea. So do I. These are not complementary phenomena.
Sure. The two states are not really comparable...so why compare them at all?

We could also argue that an adult has the intrinsic ability to develop into a 'brain dead' person. We would rightly reject that as an excuse to kill any old person on the street. Potential is not a worthwhile rationalization.

Also, a 'brain dead' individual has far more functioning brain tissue than than the mass of the entire embryo at the time of 'brain birth', and that tissue is better organized than that of the embryo.
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. I think 'brain birth' is a silly notion, and I also answered "at birth" in the poll. I think many of the people who believe in that concept reject abortion as immoral at just about any stage, and that's just another one of their many excuses.

Dr Rick

Like all rights, the "right to life" is a legal and ethical construct. It is not absolute. It has limits and specific definitions, just as the rights to representation and speech do, and those limits and definitions are what society says they are. The right to life does not apply to fetuses anymore than it applies to individual organs or gametes, because society chooses not to give any of those things that right. Human beings have a right to life only to the extent that society says they do, and that extent is not extended by society to fetuses

Arguing that fetuses have an inherent right to life because other humans beings have one is begging the question; why should fetuses have the same right to life that born persons do? It is not persuasive to reply that they do simply because other human beings do. As it now stands, the inherent right to life that human beings have does not apply to fetuses

If you are referring to Roe v Wade, it effectively declared nothing of the sort. The SCOTUS in that decision defined the limits at which the state's reight in preserving life may outweigh a woman's right to privacy. It did not define an inherent right to life for humans or an exclusion to such a right for fetuses

Daleth

In the case of a fetus, you're not allowing a person to ever start being. This is the line of thinking that the Catholic church carries to its logical extreme by disallowing birth control in any form but abstinence. I mean if it's not a person, why is it different to stop it becoming one than it is different to stop an egg or sperm from becoming one?

I don't completely hold this position, but am sympathetic towards it. As I've said, I don't think it's a person yet, but would give it more consideration than a clump of cells. There are still very good reasons to allow abortion past this point, including fetal testing.

Chorionic Villus sampling is a test that can detect chromosomal defects in the fetus. It can not be done before 9 weeks because it would risk damaging to the fetus. It is normally performed at 10-12 weeks and it takes 1-2 weeks to get the results. The results of this test can give people some very good reasons for a theraputic abortion. However CVS can not detect neural tube defects or RH incompatibility.

Amniocentesis can't be performed safely until 14-18 weeks, and it can take up to a month to get the results. This test also provides info about chromosomal problems, but it can also detect neural tube defects (some of the most horrible birth defects) and RH incompatibility (which is a risk to the mother's life). Again, it can give parents some very good reasons to choose a theraputic abortion.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by pz:
The funny (sad) thing is, if fundamentalist Christians were consistent with their application of this argument from potential, they wouldn't dare disturb dirt. Why, god might just magick it into people! After all, he's done it before.

They would also, of course, have to mandate that all girls be impregnated immediately upon coming of age, because, after all, we all know that menstrual flow is just another potential person.

On the other hand, we do know how they feel about spilled semen. If they were aware that semen is wasted if it's not used, I'm sure they'd extend their judgement.