Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm not going to edit this article yet, but I think a major issue in applied ethics it's leaving out is the viability of the fetus outside the mother's womb. The article in its current form focuses strongly on the right of a woman to do what she wishes with her own body -- however, if the fetus can live just find outside the mother's womb (perhaps in an incubator), this is no longer really the issue. The issue then becomes whether she has a right to take positive action to destroy the fetus, despite an option to remove it from her body without destroying it being available. I'd say this is probably a good 50% of the current academic abortion debate, and as medical technology moves the date of viability further backwards, it will become essentially the only important issue -- the "parasite" argument will no longer apply, since the fetus will not physically need the mother to survive. --Delirium 02:53 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding when human life begins, let me point out an issue of consistency. If you hold that a new human life begins at conception, then all forms of abortion mean the death of a human life. This includes natural, spontaneous abortions, such as happens to something like 50% of all fertilized eggs before they can even implant in the womb. They, too, represent the death of a human being. True, they are not something we can prevent (at least with present technology), but there is also the issue of how we normally deal with deaths of human beings, such as disposing of the body in a dignified fashion, with appropriate ceremonies, and mourning the loss. Nobody does anything like this for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs. Indeed, such eggs are liable to be passed out with the woman's menstrual flow without her ever realizing that conception took place.

Does this situation bother those who consider that human life begins at conception? If not, why not? After all, a human being is a human being, right? Ldo 04:12, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I hold that mammalian (including human) life begins at conception, and therefore that all forms of abortion result in a human death (with the rare exception that some aborted human fetuses do, in fact, survive).

What appears to Ldo to be an inconsistency is not, in light of a distinction. The issue is one of the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Some humans are born so badly deformed that they die within a few months or years. This is sad, but is also entirely different from the case where they are deliberately killed. The moral issue is whether the killing is deliberate or not. Another example would be an ectopic pregnancy. Here the offspring can not be saved by current medical science, but failure to remove the woman's offspring will result in her own death. In this case, the death of the offspring is not deliberate; there is simply no way to save him/her.

As to no mourning or loss, I think it's safe to assume that you have not experienced a miscarriage. When a miscarriage is known to have occurred, or is even suspected to have occurred, there very often is mourning and a deep sense of loss.

Yes, human beings are human beings. All human beings are going to die sooner or later. The issue is not whether any human being dies, but rather of whether innocent human beings are killed deliberately. Verax Tue Sep 16 22:18:58 PDT 2003

I have reverted:

The anti-abortion ("pro-life") argument is that a Homo Sapien embryo is the offspring of a Homo Sapien father and a Homo Sapien mother, and that all members of the species Homo Sapiens are human beings. The pro-abortion ("pro-choice") argument is that which members of the Homo Sapiens species are members of the human race is a matter of debate or convenience; if a woman so desires, she can choose to exclude her embryo from the human race, and can therefore choose to kill that embryo without considering the result as the unjust killing of a human being.

You can't call these the pro- and anti- positions; it was correct before, at least with regard to calling this the extreme pro- position. It's not the mainstream pro- position, which is that personhood does not begin at conception. The claim is that the foetus is not yet a person (though it is human). It would be an extreme claim that the woman can choose to exclude the foetus from the human race. Evercat 02:21, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have included:

On the other hand, is a fetus a disposable part of a woman's body...

I think pro-abortionists would not expect a physician to amputate someone a member simply because they ask him/her to do it. This is what I want to stress by "disposable" which may not be the proper term, though. Obviously, that is the extreme pro-choice statement, but I think it fits in with the "On the other hand... statement". Pfortuny 13:49 Thu Oct 9 2003 (UTC).

This is my opinion, but I thought that using the word disposable in that context was a bit POV. I think I understand what you were getting at, but using that word seems to imply that pro-choicers think that fetuses are disposible, which I think would especially offend any pro-choicers who happen to be expecting mothers. I don't think that's what you meant to imply, but like you said above, "disposable" really isn't the proper term. I think it's right to say that the heart of the issue is a clash of two rights, so I tried to change it to just list the two rights that are "clashing": The right to life and a woman's right to control her body. I also added a bit after the paragraphs about "extreme" stances, trying to mention some of issues that concern the less extreme factions, including the issue of "viability". - Eisnel 05:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personhood

What's missing from this article but is often discussed in the philosophical literature on abortion is the importance of being a person.

For many philosophers, personhood, rather than species identity, is what's regarded as morally significant about the average adult human being.

From what I've read, most of the serious debate on abortion recognizes that biology will not be very helpful in answering the moral questions. But for what it's worth, there are several biological milestones that could be taken into account with regard to when a two gametes that fuse become a person. Extracted from http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/StemCells/embryonic.html

The genetic view is the same as that of the Catholic Church. It believes a new life begins at fertilization when the genetic material of sperm and egg combine.
The embryological view judges life as when an embryo is an individual. The formation of twins can occur as late as day 12 post conception, and in some cases twins can be conjoined with seperate personalites (in religious terms different souls) and share the same body. An embryological view would allow ~~contraception~~, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.

Contraception may be part of the legal battles surrounding sex (it used to be illegal for non-married couples to buy contraception devices. It may be part of the religious debates (dogma). It is not part of abortion. It's a related topic.

~ender 2003-11-07 19:26:MST

The neurological view complies with our soceties definition of death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. They use this definition to define life which would then occur at about 27 weeks. This view would allow mid-trimester abortions.
The ecological view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment, or outside the womb. This naturally occurs when the lungs are mature, but with current technology a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks. This view would technically allow late term abortions if the baby is too young to survive outside of the mother.
Similar to this is the integrated physiological view when the infant is seperate and independant from its mother for bodily functions. This is the traditional birthday when the umbilical cord is cut.

The immunological view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self meaning when a fetus' immune cells begin to recognize its particular signiture over that of its mother or surroundings. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

I'm sorry but this is blatantly false, it is now clear that

the mother's body clearly reconginzes the fetus' cells as alien ones, but

fails to kill them. You can see some articles:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/021118/021118-9.html

http://www.hum-molgen.de/NewsGen/01-2001/msg02.html

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2003/May2_2003/immunology.html

That also demonstrates clearly that the fetus is by no mean

a part of the woman's body.

I think you've misinterpreted the immunological view of life. It holds that a fetus is an individual when it recognizes itself as distinct from it's surrounding. The mother, with a fully developed immune system, obviously is able to recognize the fetus as non-self, but this isn't a revealing point. What you might want to consider is whether the immunological view as I've described it is itself a meaningful definition of human life. Personally, I think it isn't appropriate because an adult human without an adaptive immune system (think bubble boy) is still clearly a individual. Rikurzhen 03:50, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

The metaboloic or developmental view is that there is clear point at which life begins. The egg and the sperm cells are just as alive as any organism and combining them to develop into a human being perpetuates the never ending cycle of life. This view does not appear to have any particular stand on abortion, some may view it as similar to the death of a cell, and others might view abortion as immoral even at the earliest stages, possibly even before conception.

With that in mind, many of the statements in this article are too limited in scope or actually false.

We need a discussion of the view of personhood and potential persons, human dignity, etc. to be more complete and accurate. Rikurzhen 06:29, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree with last paragraph. I definitely agree with using person rather than human being in the text, because it reflects more properly both the philosophical/legal issues. Pfortuny 12:01, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, so where are the medical issues linked? I see personhood...

I'd like to read legal issues/ethical/philosophical, medical issues, religious issues, and political issues surrounding abortion.

One of the things mentioned were survivability, or another really good word which encapsulated better terms, which stated a time. Unfortunately that time-period is not static, and keeps being pushed back. Just like alternative methods to human female wombs to put children in are also coming into play. All of these aren't super interesting to the political/religious debates, but are interesting in terms of medical capabilities and alternatives.

~ender 2003-11-07 19:13:MST

I proposed splitting the page:

History of the abortion debate, current legal restrictions or permissions on abortion around the world, and major news items -- watershed trials, major demonstrations, etc. This page would have facts everyone agrees on: e.g. summary of the fact that the Roe v. Wade case occured. This page would also have links to the following two pages and would NOT take a pro or anti stance itself.
Arguments against abortion, that would support a position of government restrictions on, or outright prohibition of abortion; the "pro-life" position with its shadings.
Arguments in favor of abortion being a personal matter, an option that should be available to pregnant women without government prohibition, or even something that should be provided for by public health programs; the "pro-choice" position with its shadings.

Each of the arguments page could in turn address philosophical, medical, religions, social, etc. items proponents for each position might wish to address. The attempt to fairly present both points of view on the same page is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. Better to fairly link to impassioned and articulate presentations of the best each side has to offer. - 11/20/2003

I don't like this title. The comma implies that it is about abortion and legal and moral issues (not legal and moral issues relating to abortion, but abortion and any old legal and moral issues). Abortion: legal and moral issues would be better, though I don't like using colons in this context (I know they're used elsewhere, but I don't like it). Tuf-Kat 07:33, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Your right about the sentance structure of the title. Personally, I think this should be a section of the abortion article itself, but for some reason there are numerous situations where articles like this are split off. Do you know why this is done? Somebody told me it has to do with excessively large articles being difficult to read on certain browsers. Any additional info please? I think it would be MUCH better if stuff like this was part of the larger article, not its own (in my opinion not appropriate) seperate article. Jack 09:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At 32k, articles become essentially uneditable by certain browsers (I dunno for sure which ones, except IE on a Mac, which I used to use). Without warning, they cut off the article after the 32k cut-off. Splitting articles up is generally a good idea when they get that long anyway because it makes it easier to read and so on. The idea is good, though it is always done too well, as in this case. Each article should stand on its own, IMO, though I know others disagree and have no problems with articles only really making sense in relation to each other. Tuf-Kat 18:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

That sucks. My browser is really great, and I edit by section generally.... Can't we look forward to a future of 1000 page articles and decent browsers commonplace? Wiki is not paper...... :'( Oh yeah, are we gonna change the name of this article or something? Jack 21:55, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was bold and moved it to the way the subject was introduced in the first sentence. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I think the new name is acceptable, a distinct improvement. Jack 17:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A somewhat offtopic, philosophical analysis

There's something very singular about the ways people deal with the abortion issue. Call it hypocrisy, call it a peculiarity, whatever it is I find that it is more compelling than the actual debate itself.

Many pro-lifers draw a line in the sand and say that all fetuses (or all fetuses that have passed stage X) are human beings and deserve to live, period. This is a perfectly rational (though not necesarrily correct) belief--certainly, I think it's a lot more rational than saying "Well, you shouldn't kill a fetus because it's a human being... unless the mother was raped or the fetus is deformed, in which case, it's perfectly ok to kill it." A lot of people do subscribe to this line of thinking, but it's kind of hard reconcile these "exceptions" with the statement that fetuses represent human life. Thus, when I say "pro-lifers", I will be referring to people who believe that fetuses are alive and should not be killed, period (...unless it is to save the mother's life--she is also a human being.)

The thing which intrigues me is this: The vast majority of these pro-lifers openly deplore acts of violence against abortion clinics. Generally speaking, these people are not pacifists. They support war to stop human suffering. They support a cop's (or even a civilian's) right to kill someone who is killing or threatening to kill innocents. In most other circumstances they would certainly put the preservation of human life above the law. To me, if I accept the fundamentals of western Christian-based morality and the assertion that a fetus is a human life, it would be a horribly immoral decision NOT to stop abortion doctors by whatever means necessary. (Disclaimer: I do not accept either of these things, and I do not in any way condone attacks on abortion clinics.)

A cynic would say that people are sheep, and are merely following the herd (and the herd has deemed that abortion is wrong, but not THAT wrong, irregardless of the actual moral principles involved.) I have a slightly more forgiving point of view: The popularity of abortion has forced pro-lifers to accept the good intentions of the (potential) mothers and doctors involved. They transcend the "killer" label and become regular people making a tough, morally misguided decision. Thus, taking violent action against these people becomes a much less acceptable option.

Of course, one could argue that Hitler and Osama bin Laben and certain serial killers were just doing what they thought was right, too. The scary part is, I think that there is a lot of merit to this argument. Abortion clinic doctors believe they are helping women in need--they do not believe that they are killing "unborn babies." Osama bin Laden believes that he is fighting against the forces of Satan (...or whatever. I'm probably horribly mangling his dogma, but you get the point)--not killing innocent civilians.

Is the humanity pro-lifers grant pro-choicers merely pragmatic--are they merely trying (subconsciously) to avoid a civil war? Do we declare all-out war on dictatorships and terrorist groups more easily simply because we are less able to recognize their beliefs as being noble in intent, or perhaps we're not able to view people from another culture as being 100% human? Maybe it all boils down to the "victims"--we cannot directly see or touch or hear fetuses, whereas we remember all too clearly people jumping out of the WTC? (Yes, I'm being a horrible USA-centric person here. Just try to bear with me.) Certainly, I think that one can make a very convincing argument that flashy, romantic, tragic deaths are much more likely to be met with strong action than less flashy deaths (witness the famous "School violence actually went down during the 90's" and "Many more people died from car accidents during September, 2001 than died as a result of terrorism" factoids.)

Anyway, like I said this is all a little offtopic, but I can't shake the feeling that this should be addressed by Wiki somehow. I surfed onto this topic via a link from philosophy, and I think that this subject deserves a slightly more philosophical treatment. Any neutral, unbiased person would realize that in the context of conventional western morality, the assertion that a being is human life has *enormous* repercussions. I don't think that we can say "pro-lifers believe that it's murder, and it should therefore be illegal" and leave the analysis at that. How we deal with and enforce our beliefs speaks volumes about conventional morality--much more so, in my opinion, than the side of the fence on which the majority happens to sit.

Or maybe I'm just looking for neutral ground to spout off a rant that I've never managed to get anyone to take seriously. Meh.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?

yer a dum-head.

Seriously tho, this isn't the place for talking about stuff like this. Its really more of a debating topic, or at best original research. I'd be glad to discuss it elsewhere if you like (I have my own unique views which might rattle your cage a bit ;). Here is a link to my contact info User:Sam Spade/Info. Sam Spade 13:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While there is definitely much to debate (even I haven't formed any solid conclusions), I do NOT think that it is debatable that there is an inconsistency here. The action (or inaction) of pro-life activists shows that their belief that fetuses are alive is not consistent with their beliefs that is it ok to use deadly force against kill other killers. Where exactly this inconsistency lies is extremely debatable (morality itself, human perception, the pro-lifers specifically, etc.), but I do not believe that its existence is. It's pretty evident that this is inconsistency is highly relevant to the debate or the system of morality that lurks behind it (or both.)

That said, even if this is all provably true (and it isn't, because it's an abstract issue), it does qualify as "original research." I sort of understand the purpose of disallowing this sort of thing, but I have a couple of quick questions:

1)Is there any Wiki that IS attempting to become a "primary source"? I really really REALLY think that there should be such a thing. Mindless reflection of knowledge that's already out there and/or widely believed can do just as much harm as good.

2)How strict are these guidelines, anyway? I noticed, for example, that there is under the Common Cold entry, it says this:

"The term "cold" is misleading, as the temperature does not play a role, nor are any other factors known which increase or decrease the probability of infection. Colds are somewhat more common in winter since during that time of the year people spend more time indoors in close proximity of others, increasing the infection risk."

According to the guidelines under "original research", Wiki has no business discrediting a VERY popular (if utterly wrong) belief, without presenting the "alternative" point of view. Hell, I've even heard my own doctor espouse the "cold weather hampers your immune system" theory. (... and it drives me nuts. For two years in junior high I wore nothing but shorts, and I often had wet hair from my morning shower, too. I still got sick more often in the spring and summer.) I agree that scientific fact should outweigh popular sentiment, but Wiki guidelines make no allowance for such a discretion.

Similarly, I think that a logical proof (ex. "There is a clear inconsistency in your beliefs if you examine XYZ") should carry more weight than an emotional one with no basis in logic ("Killing unborn babies is just wrong! But killing the people who kill them is wrong too! It's ok to kill murderers, though...")

The difference is that scientific fact is somewhat easier to grasp than logic--and especially logic as it applies to moral debates. Still, though, I do think that it's a bit of a double standard.

bah

What part of "post comment" doesn't wiki understand? I suppose it's my fault for not previewing first... Too tired to figure out how split apart our posts right now, sorry...

Lode Runner

Huh. People do kill abortion doctors. Problem is its illegal, so thats why its not widely advocated. Anyhow, to answer your questions

http://www.everything2.com/
Policies on the wiki are notoriously unenforced. I think it sux, and others think its dandy. Either way, there isn't much in the way of wikipolice, just alot of ornery editors.

Sam Spade 02:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adoption

No mention of adoption anywhere. Shame on you guys! :P I'd work it in, but I'm a little too busy at the moment (first it'd involve actually reading it (I only searched the page for "adop") and finding a good place for it...) I personally think it's ludicrous how nearly every discussion of abortion I can remember has completely failed to mention the idea of putting up the baby for adoption. I think Wikipedia should set a better example. --Furrykef 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense

The last sentence under the topic, Modern Arguments, doesn't make sense to me. Is there an error?

In response to "Abortion opponents also point out the abortion proponents rarely suggest killing infants and todders as a solution to hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts," the article reads, in part,

"Moreover, many proponents of abortion believe that babies are persons and thus infanticide would be immoral."

"Many believe. . ."???

I wonder, just how many proponents of abortion do you think believe that babies are not persons, and that infanticide is not immoral?

Surely almost none. Therefore this view cannot be important to this discussion.

Perhaps the last sentence should be changed to say that defense against this point would be that because fetuses are thought by many proponents of abortion to lack personhood and the rights that infants and toddlers unquestionably have, this point misses the mark.