Dear Banjo,

«I think it would help if we all agree on what exactly a foetus is»

An organism (during its early development stage).

This doesn't tell us much about its value: unless someone identifies with a given organism, that organism by itself is of less value than, say, a chair or an umbrella. The question is whether someone is identified with that organism, to what extent, and what have they to lose should the object of their identification be destroyed.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Perhaps a sub-organism ? Something dependent on an organism ? A non-independently-viable sub-organism ? Part of an organism i.e. part of the bearer ? After all, by definition, it can't exist on its own.

Women carry hundreds of eggs, each of which could be impregnated and become such a sub-organism, OR not be impregnated and so be expelled during menstruation. Even if a woman doesn't have protected sex during the period immediately preceding menstruation, this must drive the anti-abortionists a little bit crazy: an egg which isn't fertilised ?! An egg going to waste ?!

Either way, sex or not, abortion or not, it's a women's business what to do with each egg, fertilised or not. It's amazing how many men seem to assume that they have some over-riding say in what happens to each of them.

Joe

Dear Joe,

«A non-independently-viable sub-organism ?»

No organism is viable - they all die!

«After all, by definition, it can't exist on its own.»

It can, just not for long, so why should we give different names to organisms based on how long they can survive on their own, does it matter whether it is 20 minutes or 20 days?

«Women carry hundreds of egg...»

The same can probably be said not just for eggs, but for each and every cell in a woman's (or man's) body. The question is whether and if so, to what extent, does any soul identify with a single cell (whether an egg, fertilised or otherwise, or from some other body tissue). In my view, the chance for that is very small and even if that happens then the identification is very weak and short-lived.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You indicate :

« … a foetus is … an organism … unless someone identifies with a given organism, that organism by itself is of less value than, say, a chair or an umbrella. The question is whether someone is identified with that organism, to what extent, and what have they to lose should the object of their identification be destroyed »
.

You introduce the notion of “value” which is not the subject of this discussion. Peter Sellick defines the subject of the discussion as “abortion and the human person” and what he sees as the difference between the Christian and Jewish “understanding of the human person” on the one hand and what he calls the “secular” (non-religious) understanding on the other.

Not surprisingly, his “jumping off point” (his expression) is the assumption that there is a “God”. From that point on, no further discussion is possible. It’s a foregone conclusion.

For all intents and purposes, the article could have ended right there, at the end of the second paragraph.
.

That said, Yuyutsu, here are my initial thoughts on the question you raise.

The OED indicates no less than 9 different meanings for the word “value” as a noun, and 2 different meanings for it as a verb.

The meaning attributed to the term “value” in respect of an organism, depends on who is doing the evaluating.

For some, it could be the market value, for others it could be the sentimental value, for yet others it could simply be the interest, and so on. For the organism itself, it could be self-esteem.

The “value” you seem to have in mind invokes notions such as envy, desire, possession, conservation and perhaps, even, utility or monetary value (you mention chair, umbrella, identity, loss and destruction).

In the US, research labs pay upward of $850 (plus testing, cleaning and shipping charges) for an organism such as a fœtus, and over $20,000 for a vial packed with pure stem cells.

Perhaps this is the sort of thing you have in mind :

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/the-case-for-fetal-cell-research.html

.

To David F. Though the two quotes in my last comment are things I agree with, they aren't my words. They are in this article the Peter Sellick wrote, which has opened up our discussion on abortion. In my opinions on these are points worth considering.

That 1) a fetus is considered less then human but more on the lines of animal tissue that has no rights or consideration, but in fact a human fetus is the opposite. It is human and is the early stages of life as a baby, as a child, as a human in any sense. 2). Pro-abortion proponents regularly call anti-abortion proponents as irrational, but so far pro-abortion perspectives ignore the human element of a fetus, and the issue of killing another human. What is rational about that? It sounds irrational to me, but is part of the mantra of a woman's choice and in that perspective to ignore any other counter point as irrational.

3) No one wants back yard abortions to return, but instead of giving support to a pregnant woman, we leave her be with a woman's "choice" while ignoring limited finances, life skills, or education. Yet we still have the gall to call it a choice when we fully support aborting the baby, even to offer financial assistance programs if abortion is chosen. Peter Sellick gives a few explanations for why people allow this reasoning, and they are fair points. 4) the women who are pregnant who are not married should not be at society's scorn but are our members of the community.

I encourage those points to at least be addressed instead of ignored in the discussions of abortion by those who rattle on how irrational I or anyone else might be for standing against abortion.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said though. David F you say you would not like abortions to happen as often either? That's quite a change in stance. Can I ask you to elaborate? My views on contraception is that it is a means to reduce pregnancy in a society that makes no intention to resist or reduce it's sexual output. Instead sex and themes of sex are promoted and in my opinion are an active role for young teens to seek out sex as a form of love. (Instead of actual points on what makes a healthy relationship). Abortion is in the same light a solution to a society addicted to sex. Except that abortion is actually killing. In this way I see both casual sex, (and casually having sex early in the relationships) as well as abortion as an evil in society. Abortion is the worse of the two, but casualness to sex feeds the issue of abortion. Does that answer your question?

To Toni Lavis. I don't see women as evil. But abortion is wrong. I've given reasons, to which you've avoided.

To Banjo Paterson. You mentioned that many if not most jurists and medical practitioners agree that abortion within the first trimester are morally and medically acceptable. My question would be why? Why is it acceptable at all, and why only for the first trimester? If a fetus is not a person yet till the moment it is born, then why isn't it acceptable to have an abortion moments before birth? Medically the answer might be due to health and complications of the woman. But morally? Why is it allowed at all. And why only for the first trimester?

(Continued)