I don't frequent the fray, so I don't really know how well I'll keep up with any responses here, but I had a few things that I really felt I had to say. I'll do my best to keep up with any following comments.

The first is about the South Dakota law. Everybody is so fixated on the term 'human being' that they gloss right over the 'whole, separate, unique' part. Granted, I am not my baby and my baby is not me, but for the first nine months we are inseparable. If the fetus truly is a whole and seperate human being, then what does it need to be in the womb so long for? A four-week-old embryo lacks a head, body, arms, legs, and internal organs. It is only alive because of the safe environment and nutrients provided by the mother's body. Yet this is supposedly a whole and separate human being?

Anybody should be able to see that this is rediculous. A baby is neither a whole nor a seperate human being until it is finished gestating. Until then, it has the potential to turn into a whole and seperate human being, much the same way that a bowl of cake batter has the potential to turn into a cake.

The other is about the unspoken assumption that all abortions are performed because the baby is unwanted, when so many times that is nowhere near the case. For a heartbreaking account of this, please read here: <link>

The sad truth is that if you outlaw abortion, even those women carrying a child that couldn't possibly survive outside the womb, or with a myriad of other health complications or problems, would be denied access to this procedure. Would you doom both babies with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome to die, when an abortion could save the life of one of them? Or would you force a woman to carry to term and deliver a stillborn baby with anencephaly when she could have had an abortion at 12 weeks, when it was first discovered that the fetus had no brain?

Something to think about.

loth:

Everybody is so fixated on the term 'human being' that they gloss right over the 'whole, separate, unique' part. Granted, I am not my baby and my baby is not me, but for the first nine months we are inseparable. If the fetus truly is a whole and seperate human being, then what does it need to be in the womb so long for? A four-week-old embryo lacks a head, body, arms, legs, and internal organs. It is only alive because of the safe environment and nutrients provided by the mother's body. Yet this is supposedly a whole and separate human being?

Anybody should be able to see that this is rediculous. A baby is neither a whole nor a seperate human being until it is finished gestating. Until then, it has the potential to turn into a whole and seperate human being, much the same way that a bowl of cake batter has the potential to turn into a cake.

Whether or not abortion should be legal aside, this is not the argument to make for its continuing legality.

1. Even when we're talking about a just fertilized egg, we're talking about a whole, separate, unique set of chromosomes that barring natural or "artificial" intervention will become a whole, separate, unique human being.
2. That set of chromosomes doesn't have to wait nine months to become a whole, separate, unique human being. 26 weeks should do it, and medical technology is obviously improving all the time the chances a fetus has outside the womb. So what we're talking about from a time perspective - 40 weeks versus 26 weeks or whatever - is simply a difference in degree, not principle.
3. Proximity to the womb is also a difference in degree, not principle. If it would be wrong to kill a baby one minute after it was outside the womb, why is it not wrong to "terminate" a fetus one minute prior to exiting the womb via birth?
4. As a parent of three children who are all outside the womb, their respective ages of 11, 8 and 5 don't really mean anything despite the fact that we are physically separate. We are still "inseparable" in terms of their continued dependence on me as a parent, because I provide a "safe environment and nutrients" they would have difficulty obtaining otherwise, despite the fact that they are "whole and separate" human beings.

kenrockthefirst:

Even when we're talking about a just fertilized egg, we're talking about a whole, separate, unique set of chromosomes that barring natural or "artificial" intervention will become a whole, separate, unique human being.

I agree. The embryo will become a 'whole, separate, unique human being', but it isn't yet.

kenrockthefirst:

That set of chromosomes doesn't have to wait nine months to become a whole, separate, unique human being. 26 weeks should do it, and medical technology is obviously improving all the time the chances a fetus has outside the womb. So what we're talking about from a time perspective - 40 weeks versus 26 weeks or whatever - is simply a difference in degree, not principle.

I never said that it had to be a nine month gestation, although I can see how it could be interpreted that way. And in fact, this enters a moral gray area for me as well. My personal feelings, and I believe there is wide agreement on this, is that an abortion should only be performed this late if there are health problems for the fetus and/or the mother.

kenrockthefirst:

You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way. But utilitarian arguments such as those you've tried to make here are both morally bankrupt as well as logically flawed.

Morally bankrupt is your opinion. As for logically flawed, I fail to see the flaws. Your arguments apply only to late term abortions - what about the first two trimesters? And as for your argument that your children are as dependent on you as they were during gestation, I have to disagree. My son is 14 months old, and he is perfectly capable of surviving on his own. Not totally on his own, mind you, but any number of people other than me can (and do) easily provide for him. This wasn't the case 1 1/2 - 2 years ago.

Also, you've addressed only the first half of my post. Are you conceding that the second half makes sense?

You said; My personal feelings, and I believe there is wide agreement on this, is that an abortion should only be performed this late if there are health problems for the fetus and/or the mother.

*****

Now I agree with you that there is wide agreement on this.

I would also say there is aggrement that an aboriton is OK prior to 4 weeks or so (not wide aggrement but I believe most polls indicate over 60% of voters are OK with this).

Bbut what legally or morally separates a late term abortion from one done, say, in the first 4 weeks?

The only clear difference is the development of the fetus and this then falls into the territory of drawing a fixed line for when a fetus becomes a 'separate human person'.

And once the debate goes back to where this fixed line is drawn there no longer is wide aggrement or even partial aggrement.

This is why I'm willing let each women decide where this line is drawn.

Agreed.

"I would also say there is aggrement that an aboriton is OK prior to 4 weeks or so (not wide aggrement but I believe most polls indicate over 60% of voters are OK with this)."

I think your estimate may be a little early - most pregnancy tests can't even accurately predict that a woman is pregnant before 4 weeks. I think it's possibly more like the first 12 weeks - there's still a high chance for miscarriage up until this point, so many people are reluctant to even consider themselves pregnant until week 12. I know I was.

Thanks for the clariy. I'm just a man so I don't know the specifics!

degsme:

and the logical flwas in the utilitarian arguemetns are? You don't get to say they are flawed and then fail to point out the flaws. That itself is the logical fallacy of Arguement by assertion.

Re-read my post, in which I rebut the logically flawed assertions.

loth:

kenrockthefirst:

Even when we're talking about a just fertilized egg, we're talking about a whole, separate, unique set of chromosomes that barring natural or "artificial" intervention will become a whole, separate, unique human being.

I agree. The embryo will become a 'whole, separate, unique human being', but it isn't yet.

No, it is barring any natural or "artificial" intervention.

loth:

kenrockthefirst:

That set of chromosomes doesn't have to wait nine months to become a whole, separate, unique human being. 26 weeks should do it, and medical technology is obviously improving all the time the chances a fetus has outside the womb. So what we're talking about from a time perspective - 40 weeks versus 26 weeks or whatever - is simply a difference in degree, not principle.

I never said that it had to be a nine month gestation, although I can see how it could be interpreted that way. And in fact, this enters a moral gray area for me as well. My personal feelings, and I believe there is wide agreement on this, is that an abortion should only be performed this late if there are health problems for the fetus and/or the mother.

Right, so what we're talking about is a difference in degree, not principle. If it's wrong to "terminate" a fetus at 40 weeks, why isn't it wrong to "terminate" it earlier?

loth:

kenrockthefirst:

You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way. But utilitarian arguments such as those you've tried to make here are both morally bankrupt as well as logically flawed.

Morally bankrupt is your opinion. As for logically flawed, I fail to see the flaws. Your arguments apply only to late term abortions - what about the first two trimesters? And as for your argument that your children are as dependent on you as they were during gestation, I have to disagree. My son is 14 months old, and he is perfectly capable of surviving on his own. Not totally on his own, mind you, but any number of people other than me can (and do) easily provide for him. This wasn't the case 1 1/2 - 2 years ago.

Also, you've addressed only the first half of my post. Are you conceding that the second half makes sense?

Morally bankrupt is of course my opinion. But if one rebuts your utilitarian argument, what's left. In any event, your child is not capable of survival without an outside agency, period. So, being inseparable does not equate to not being a human being.

I addressed the second half of your argument by stating that perhaps you could get some traction with the statement that "[y]ou can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable.

Kenrock-

"No, it is barring any natural or "artificial" intervention."

So, if there is intervention, it isn't? You still seem to be agreeing with me.

" If it's wrong to "terminate" a fetus at 40 weeks, why isn't it wrong to "terminate" it earlier?"

Good question. My thinking is because it could survive outside the womb at that point. At 8 weeks, it couldn't. I'm sure other people could make some excellent arguments otherwise. I'm not saying my way of thinking is the only way. And this seems to be meandering off-topic.

"In any event, your child is not capable of survival without an outside agency, period. So, being inseparable does not equate to not being a human being."

I specifically said that I wasn't addressing the human being part, just the 'whole and separate' part. My son is a part of me on a purely philosophical/spiritual level, but he isn't a part of me in the way that my gall bladder or appendix is. As a fetus, he was. And that is what I meant when I said that a fetus is neither whole nor seperate - before he developed the organs that he now uses every day, he was not whole, and during the time he was developing them, he was not seperate.

"I addressed the second half of your argument by stating that perhaps you could get some traction with the statement that "[y]ou can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable."

Actually, what you said was:

"You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way."

Which suggests that you refuse to consider my second point because you disagree with the first. And you disagreeing with me doesn't make me morally bankrupt or logically flawed.

loth:

Kenrock-

"No, it is barring any natural or "artificial" intervention."

So, if there is intervention, it isn't? You still seem to be agreeing with me.

" If it's wrong to "terminate" a fetus at 40 weeks, why isn't it wrong to "terminate" it earlier?"

Good question. My thinking is because it could survive outside the womb at that point. At 8 weeks, it couldn't. I'm sure other people could make some excellent arguments otherwise. I'm not saying my way of thinking is the only way. And this seems to be meandering off-topic.

"In any event, your child is not capable of survival without an outside agency, period. So, being inseparable does not equate to not being a human being."

I specifically said that I wasn't addressing the human being part, just the 'whole and separate' part. My son is a part of me on a purely philosophical/spiritual level, but he isn't a part of me in the way that my gall bladder or appendix is. As a fetus, he was. And that is what I meant when I said that a fetus is neither whole nor seperate - before he developed the organs that he now uses every day, he was not whole, and during the time he was developing them, he was not seperate.

"I addressed the second half of your argument by stating that perhaps you could get some traction with the statement that "[y]ou can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable."

Actually, what you said was:

"You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way."

Which suggests that you refuse to consider my second point because you disagree with the first. And you disagreeing with me doesn't make me morally bankrupt or logically flawed.

Your argument is based on proximity to womb and survivability outside the womb. This is encapsulated in your statement, "[a]nybody should be able to see that this is rediculous [sic]. A baby is neither a whole nor a seperate human being until it is finished gestating. Until then, it has the potential to turn into a whole and seperate human being, much the same way that a bowl of cake batter has the potential to turn into a cake."

I countered that a) the whole, unique, separate set of chromosomes make a fetus a human being (unlike your gall bladder or appendix), b) time of gestation and "humanness" was relative, i.e. a difference in degree, not principle, c) proximity to womb and "humanness" was also relative, i.e. a difference in degree, not principle, and d) that post-natal children were, up to a certain age, as dependent on their parents as pre-natal children.

Your argument is based on what I'll term mechanics, plumbing, if you will, hence my characterization of it as utilitarian. Unless you can demonstrate to me a difference in *principle*, not simply *degree*, I will continue to regard your argument as utilitarian, and therefore both morally bankrupt (my opinion) and logically flawed. For example, should we regard the elderly or handicapped as not fully human because they are dependent on outside agents for survival?

With respect to your argument that "...the unspoken assumption that all abortions are performed because the baby is unwanted, when so many times that is nowhere near the case...," that is what I meant when I said that if you made the argument that abortions are a tragedy but sometimes understandable, you might get some traction. But that is a different issue than your first, utilitarian argument.

you don't addresss the logical flaws of utilitatrian arguements. You make a very flawed pass at addressing the science based claims - but you dramatically fail on those:

• Genetics - skin cells have been shown to be pluripotent and have a full chromosonal set. You slough skin cells- both living and dead, every night (actually all the time) - so using your chromosonal arguement, your bed is full of independent human beings.
• Your interdependence with your children is an emotional construct. There is nothing that precludes you, other than personal emotional attachement, from walking into a lawyers office in the next hour and signing papers that renounce your parental rights and obligations to those persons. As Wards of The State, they have no connection to you any longer.

So I'm still waiting for the LOGICAL flaws in the utilitarian arguement. You attempted - and failed - to underscore factual flaws, but made no attempt to disprove logic.

Morally bankrupt to whom? To you?

Policy is inherently a utiltiarian goal.

But your arguements about chromosomes and womb proximity are factually flawed themselves and thus don't rebut anything Loth has said.

So please reset your arguement to be more accurate factually

degsme:

you don't addresss the logical flaws of utilitatrian arguements. You make a very flawed pass at addressing the science based claims - but you dramatically fail on those:

• Genetics - skin cells have been shown to be pluripotent and have a full chromosonal set. You slough skin cells- both living and dead, every night (actually all the time) - so using your chromosonal arguement, your bed is full of independent human beings.

My question, in summary, is this: what is the difference in *principle* between "terminating" a fetus a four weeks or at forty weeks?

degsme:

• Your interdependence with your children is an emotional construct. There is nothing that precludes you, other than personal emotional attachement, from walking into a lawyers office in the next hour and signing papers that renounce your parental rights and obligations to those persons. As Wards of The State, they have no connection to you any longer.

So I'm still waiting for the LOGICAL flaws in the utilitarian arguement. You attempted - and failed - to underscore factual flaws, but made no attempt to disprove logic.

In terms of "interdependence, you mistake my argument. I didn't say that *I* had to care for my children. But *some* external agency must do so. This despite the fact that they are "whole, separate, and unique" human beings outside the womb.