Abortion-relevant science

[ronburgundy]

This is NOT a thread to debate whether abortion should be legal or is moral, b/c any such debate ultimately rests upon subjective moral values.

Rather it's a thread about establishing the scientific facts that have some logical relevance either to the arguments made about abortion or that help explain what might motivate those who oppose abortion. Let's keep the debate to whether the enumerated facts are true, and thus proper for the "Natural Science" area.

That said, I think some context is important to motivate why establishing these facts is important and what my motives are.
I saw a social media post by a person who is studying genetics in college, seems generally smart, but made a rather unscientific argument in defense of abortion. The comment was highly supported by others, many of whom generally claim to be supportive of science and rationally based policy, and I've seen similar comments, including on this board.
They said "What's to debate? It's a simple medical procedure that makes no more sense to debate the legality or morality of than any other medical procedure, including having an appendix removed."

I find this quite simply absurd, despite me being not only pro-choice, but pro-abortion (I think its a wise choice that many more women should consider and the world would be better with more abortions). I state my position on abortion just to clarify that my motives for rejecting this person's argument have nothing to do with trying to weaken the case for legal abortion.

So, here are some scientific facts that I think this person's argument implicitly denies. Part of my goal is to make sure I am correct about these facts.

1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

4. Combining the above facts leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

For the record, below are the basic scientific facts that, despite the above facts, I think are sufficient to protect abortion rights, when combined with the basic principles of individual rights that rest upon bodily autonomy:

5. 100% of abortions are the killing of a fetus that is inside the mother's body.

6. A fetus formed and still inside another's body is, by definition, not an individual organism, especially if it cannot survive outside that body.

7. Fetuses inherently impact and pose risk to the mother's body.

8. Actions a mother takes on her own body can have inherent impacts on anything inside that body, including a fetus.


Again, please center your replies on whether or not you accept the enumerated facts and/or offering new abortion-relevant facts that are well supported by consensus biological science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

I can't confirm the 80% number but I will agree with the rest of it.

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

So is any tissue sample--including blood draws.

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

Late term includes a bit of time before the earliest point the brain might be switched on. And 24 weeks in is awfully premature, survival usually means birth defects.

4. Combining the above facts leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

It depends on what you care about. To me the important part is the mind--and that definitely does not exist before the 7th month. I only consider it worthy of protection from first consciousness to last consciousness.

 

[Toni]

You should clarify and specify what you mean by abortion. Abortions can be spontaneous or induced. Please specify which type of abortion you mean.

 

[steve_bank]

Abortion is not a scientific question, it is a moral and philiswophical question.

Where a boundary is set to say when a fetus is a functional human is subjective interpreting of science.

The boundary runs from moment of conception to just as the fetus is being delivered, late term abortion. The RCC says condoms are immoral, they interfere with the natural process of conception.

 

[ronburgundy]

You should clarify and specify what you mean by abortion. Abortions can be spontaneous or induced. Please specify which type of abortion you mean.

I am referring to induced abortions and the deliberate killing of the embryo or fetus, not the spontaneous death of a fetus that is typically referred to as "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage" and rarely referred to simply as "abortion".

Abortion is not a scientific question, it is a moral and philiswophical question.

Where a boundary is set to say when a fetus is a functional human is subjective interpreting of science.

The boundary runs from moment of conception to just as the fetus is being delivered, late term abortion. The RCC says condoms are immoral, they interfere with the natural process of conception.

Whether we should abort or should allow abortions are moral/legal questions. I am not asking those questions here. What abortion entails and it's relative degree of similarity to killing a human infant are scientific questions. Those are the questions I am addressing.
That an 8 week fetus has 80% probability of being a live birth human being if not deliberately killed is a scientific fact.

It's also a scientific fact that all other tissues and organisms that are legal to kill have a 0% chance of being a live birth human if not killed. That includes sperm and unfertilized eggs which are not the same organism and have a different DNA composition than a fertilized egg.

That makes the killing of a fetus objectively and scientifically closer to (though not identical to) the killing of a human infant than any other legal act besides euthanasia where consent is given or capital punishment where a person has been stripped of their human rights.

Note that I did not refer to any specific point at which the organism has sufficient developed traits as to qualify as "fully human". That is a purely "philosophical" and largely arbitrary and a rational consideration. It depends entirely upon what arbitrary definition one wishes to construct for the concept of "fully human". I am referring only to the facts regarding the DNA the organism contains and what it will develop into and be indistinguishable from (a live birthed infant) if not deliberately killed by an induced abortion.

Note that, as per my OP, I am NOT arguing that any of this makes abortion morally equal to killing an infant or anything that should be illegal. I'm merely trying to establish facts that make abortions objectively closer to the act of killing an infant (killing an organism that will very likely become an infant) than any other currently legal act.

 

[steve_bank]

Again, the arguments comparing abortion to killing an infant is a moral/legal issue. Personaly I oppose late term abortion. It just does not feel right to me.

The question is where to set the boundary. How the abortion is done is irrelevant.

 

[ronburgundy]

Again, the arguments comparing abortion to killing an infant is a moral/legal issue.

No it isn't. I am not comparing the acts in terms of their level of morality. I am comparing them in terms of the objective properties of the actions. It's no more a moral issue than to say that the action of cutting celery has more in common with the action of cutting broccoli than it does to the action of hitting a rock. IOW, if the concept of morality did not exist, a meaningful comparison could still be made in terms of biology and physics about the relative similarity between various actions and the objects impacted.
The fact that a fetus is likely to become a human infant if not killed before hand, while nothing else we kill has any chance of doing so is a scientific fact establishing an objective similarity between those actions that is not shared by killing of other living organisms.

Those objective similarities can and do have moral implications for people, but that is a separate issue. Also, moral implications are themselves separate from the questions of legality, since the law must always balance often conflicting ethical concerns and goals. Facts, morals, and the law are potentially related but fundamentally distinct aspects of any action and any similarity between actions. I am only trying to discuss the former in this thread.

 

[steve_bank]

Again, the arguments comparing abortion to killing an infant is a moral/legal issue.

No it isn't. I am not comparing the acts in terms of their level of morality. I am comparing them in terms of the objective properties of the actions. It's no more a moral issue than to say that the action of cutting celery has more in common with the action of cutting broccoli than it does to the action of hitting a rock. IOW, if the concept of morality did not exist, a meaningful comparison could still be made in terms of biology and physics about the relative similarity between various actions and the objects impacted.
The fact that a fetus is likely to become a human infant if not killed before hand, while nothing else we kill has any chance of doing so is organisms. a scientific fact establishing an objective similarity between those actions that is not shared by killing of other living

Those objective similarities can and do have moral implications for people, but that is a separate issue. Also, moral implications are themselves separate from the questions of legality, since the law must always balance often conflicting ethical concerns and goals. Facts, morals, and the law are potentially related but fundamentally distinct aspects of any action and any similarity between actions. I am only trying to discuss the former in this thread.

You are making a moral argument not a scientific argument.

Objectively the process begins with conception with sperm and egg, the process ends when the fetus is delivered and is then call an infant or baby. It is a biological process start to finish objectively and scientifically well understood.

The question is where in the process is it acceptable to abort. That is not a scientific problem. It is a subjective moral problem.

Does life begin at the moment of conception the position of the RCC on abortion. If not at conception when is the fetus an independent living thing with rights and not just an appendage of the mother. Science can provide objective information on the stages of development, but science can not make the decision.

 

[Peez]

They said "What's to debate? It's a simple medical procedure that makes no more sense to debate the legality or morality of than any other medical procedure, including having an appendix removed."

While I would not necessarily agree, this is no more absurd than some ethical debates that have actually been had (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions).

So, here are some scientific facts that I think this person's argument implicitly denies. Part of my goal is to make sure I am correct about these facts.
1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

I would like references for these claims.

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

First you would have to define a "living organism". Is a sperm cell a living organism? Is a white blood cell a living organism? Then I would like you to address the point that Loren raised: "So is any tissue sample--including blood draws."

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

This is so vague as to be essentially meaningless (not to mention self-contradictory): how can something "rare" happen "often"? If you wish to deal with 'scientific facts', exactly what do you mean by a "late term abortion", exactly how often do they occur, and what would constitute a "meaningful biological difference"?

4. Combining the above facts leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

This is not a 'fact', it is apparently an attempted conclusion based on previous alleged facts.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

This is not science, this is ethics.

For the record, below are the basic scientific facts that, despite the above facts, I think are sufficient to protect abortion rights, when combined with the basic principles of individual rights that rest upon bodily autonomy:
5. 100% of abortions are the killing of a fetus that is inside the mother's body.
6. A fetus formed and still inside another's body is, by definition, not an individual organism, especially if it cannot survive outside that body.

This seems to contradict your 'facts' 2 and 3 above.

7. Fetuses inherently impact and pose risk to the mother's body.

So do children.

8. Actions a mother takes on her own body can have inherent impacts on anything inside that body, including a fetus.
Again, please center your replies on whether or not you accept the enumerated facts and/or offering new abortion-relevant facts that are well supported by consensus biological science.

Fair enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that a fetus is likely to become a human infant if not killed before hand, while nothing else we kill has any chance of doing so is a scientific fact establishing an objective similarity between those actions that is not shared by killing of other living organisms.

Oh, fuck!

It's the only think with any likelyhood of creating a human infant.

 

[Gun Nut]

So, here are some scientific facts that I think this person's argument implicitly denies. Part of my goal is to make sure I am correct about these facts.

OK, science only...(my bolding)

1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

This may or may not be a fact. But either way, it is not scientific. It is called "Fetal Viability" and it is political, not scientific. Google the term.

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

This is a proposed definition of a word, which is not scientific... it is just a definition. Use it if you like. The medical procedure whereby a fetus is removed from a pregnant female is not called "killing a live organism". So this is not only unscientific, it is not even factual.

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

Location is not a biological difference.. this is dishonest and highly unscientific. The difference is that one is a dependant "parasite" on a human being and the other is not. It's like saying the only "meaningful" difference between Eddie Murphy and Bill Cosby is location... one is in prison and the other isn't.. so same-same.

4. Combining the above facts

not facts

leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

.. definitions. I hereby define the word "Ron" as meaning "gay pediphilia". So you're a gay child molester... by definition.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

false.. any biopsy of more than a gram of tissue material is MORE closely like "killing of a biological human being" according to your made-up definitions.

For the record, below are the basic scientific facts that, despite the above facts, I think are sufficient to protect abortion rights, when combined with the basic principles of individual rights that rest upon bodily autonomy:

5. 100% of abortions are the killing of a fetus that is inside the mother's body.

false. 100% of abortions are the removal of unwanted foreign DNA. 100% of abortions are for the ultimate purpose of the preservation of the quality of life of the patient.

6. A fetus formed and still inside another's body is, by definition, not an individual organism, especially if it cannot survive outside that body.

again, "by definition" means "I can make anything up at all that I want as long as I can get other people to use these words too". One can simply remove the "by definition" (de)qualifier.

7. Fetuses inherently impact and pose risk to the mother's body.

impact... yes. Risk.. maybe... OK, I guess so.

8. Actions a mother takes on her own body can have inherent impacts on anything inside that body, including a fetus.

can, might.

Again, please center your replies on whether or not you accept the enumerated facts and/or offering new abortion-relevant facts that are well supported by consensus biological science.

I do not. My core rejection is with your choice of words to describe the situation.. "killing", "live", "biological human being"...
I am of the opinion that a fetus fails to meet the parameters of a human being, being "alive", or having any more rights than an appendix (to use your cautionary example of what not to do in this discussion, heh).

Everyone agrees "killing" is bad. The disagreement is about what "killing" is, as I see it.

 

[ruby sparks]

This is NOT a thread to debate whether abortion should be legal or is moral, b/c any such debate ultimately rests upon subjective moral values.

Rather it's a thread about establishing the scientific facts that have some logical relevance either to the arguments made about abortion or that help explain what might motivate those who oppose abortion. Let's keep the debate to whether the enumerated facts are true, and thus proper for the "Natural Science" area.

That said, I think some context is important to motivate why establishing these facts is important and what my motives are.
I saw a social media post by a person who is studying genetics in college, seems generally smart, but made a rather unscientific argument in defense of abortion. The comment was highly supported by others, many of whom generally claim to be supportive of science and rationally based policy, and I've seen similar comments, including on this board.
They said "What's to debate? It's a simple medical procedure that makes no more sense to debate the legality or morality of than any other medical procedure, including having an appendix removed."

I find this quite simply absurd, despite me being not only pro-choice, but pro-abortion (I think its a wise choice that many more women should consider and the world would be better with more abortions). I state my position on abortion just to clarify that my motives for rejecting this person's argument have nothing to do with trying to weaken the case for legal abortion.

So, here are some scientific facts that I think this person's argument implicitly denies. Part of my goal is to make sure I am correct about these facts.

1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

4. Combining the above facts leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

For the record, below are the basic scientific facts that, despite the above facts, I think are sufficient to protect abortion rights, when combined with the basic principles of individual rights that rest upon bodily autonomy:

5. 100% of abortions are the killing of a fetus that is inside the mother's body.

6. A fetus formed and still inside another's body is, by definition, not an individual organism, especially if it cannot survive outside that body.

7. Fetuses inherently impact and pose risk to the mother's body.

8. Actions a mother takes on her own body can have inherent impacts on anything inside that body, including a fetus.


Again, please center your replies on whether or not you accept the enumerated facts and/or offering new abortion-relevant facts that are well supported by consensus biological science.

I broadly accept all your facts. I don’t think any of them are really worth quibbling about.

Regarding 5-8, I personally don’t base my pro-choice opinion only on bodily autonomy (and nor may you) but I do take it into account, and as such your facts are relevant to that valid consideration, imo.

 

[ronburgundy]

OK, science only...(my bolding)

1. The vast majority of abortions occur after week 4 and most after week 6, when the odds of the fetus naturally maturing to a live birth are above 80% without abortion (in the US).

This may or may not be a fact. But either way, it is not scientific. It is called "Fetal Viability" and it is political, not scientific. Google the term.

Of course it's a scientific fact. It's about biological systems and the medical realities that determine the odds of spontaneous abortion or miscarriage after week 4, which is when more abortions occur b/c of biological realities that lead to a pregnancy not being diagnosed until then.

2. Abortion is the killing of a living organism with a full human genome.

This is a proposed definition of a word, which is not scientific... it is just a definition. Use it if you like. The medical procedure whereby a fetus is removed from a pregnant female is not called "killing a live organism". So this is not only unscientific, it is not even factual.

It's not a proposed definition of abortion. It is identifying the biological facts that are logically entailed in the procedure of ending a pregnancy. It is biological fact that the fetus is a living organism. It is a medical fact that the living organism is killed during the abortion procedure. How medical practitioners explicitly refer to the procedure is no logical relevance, just as how a car mechanic describes his work to a customer is of no logical relevance to the facts of physics, chemistry, and electricity that such work inherently entails.

3. Though rare, and almost always done when added health risks are involved, late term abortions are often the killing of a fetus whose only meaningful biological difference from a newborn is it's current location.

Location is not a biological difference. this is dishonest and highly unscientific.

One biological organism being located inside of another biological organism is biologically different than the two organisms being physically separate. You might want to google to learn than biology and physics are parts of science and that aspects of physics (such as relative location) are central to biology and all sciences.

The difference is that one is a dependant "parasite" on a human being and the other is not. It's like saying the only "meaningful" difference between Eddie Murphy and Bill Cosby is location... one is in prison and the other isn't.. so same-same.

The only reason those late term fetuses in question are "dependent parasites" is b/c of their location inside the mother. In terms of the organisms own biological and psychological features there is less difference between a late term fetuses and a newborns than between newborns and 1 month olds. A 37 week baby isn't even considered preterm, and late term fetuses are often more developed in every way than naturally birthed preterm babies. And your analogy is a total failure b/c it compares two specific individual persons rather than two classes or organisms. Any two random individuals differ more than classes of individuals where individual variation averages out. IOW, other than things directly determined by still being inside the mother's womb, two random individual newborns differ from each other by more than newborns as a group differ from 38 week fetuses as a group.

4. Combining the above facts

not facts

All basic textbook consensus facts that you apparently are ignorant of.

leads to the logical conclusion that most abortions are killing an organism with a full human genome that will likely mature and be a live birth if not killed by an abortion, and sometimes is biologically no different than a newborn other than it's location.

.. definitions. I hereby define the word "Ron" as meaning "gay pediphilia". So you're a gay child molester... by definition.

I've used dictionary and scientifically grounded standard definitions of terms. Your the one whose inventing absurd definitions so you can deny that fetuses are living organisms or that causing a living organism to die is not "killing" it. Part of the problem is that you don't know the difference between a definition vs. facts logically implied by combining that definition with basic facts.

This logically makes abortion scientifically closer to killing a human than any other medical procedure or any other action that is currently legal. That is what makes this person equivalence to other medical procedures like appendix removal absurd, and what makes abortion a particular medical procedure that is more reasonably subject to moral/legal considerations than any other.

false.. any biopsy of more than a gram of tissue material is MORE closely like "killing of a biological human being" according to your made-up definitions.

So, a gram of tissue has an 80% probability (95% for late term fetuses) of becoming a live birth baby, if it's not deliberately killed?
No, it has a zero probability of ever developing into a live birth baby. That is the critical difference between a fetus and every other organism that can legally be killed. A thing that will very likely develop into X in a several months is far more similar to X than something that can never become X.

5. 100% of abortions are the killing of a fetus that is inside the mother's body.

false. 100% of abortions are the removal of unwanted foreign DNA. 100% of abortions are for the ultimate purpose of the preservation of the quality of life of the patient.

False dichotomy (you might set a record for the most logical fallacies and acts of intellectual dishonesty in a single post). All of those things are perfectly compatible and all are true about abortions. By your logic, shooting the head off an armed intruder in your home does not entail killing a person, because it is merely the removal of unwanted foreign DNA from your home. Your assertion means that directly causing a living organism to no longer be living is not "killing it". Once again, you are inventing definitions that contradict how 99.99% of people understand the terms.

6. A fetus formed and still inside another's body is, by definition, not an individual organism, especially if it cannot survive outside that body.

again, "by definition" means "I can make anything up at all that I want as long as I can get other people to use these words too". One can simply remove the "by definition" (de)qualifier.

No, once again you are rejecting standard dictionary definitions, such as "Individual: single, separate" Do I need to define "separate" for you or will you show a shred of honesty and accept that an organism being created within and always only existed within another organism violates the meaning of "separate"?

7. Fetuses inherently impact and pose risk to the mother's body.

impact... yes. Risk.. maybe... OK, I guess so.

Oh, you finally accept a basic medical/biological fact. Perhaps b/c this one fits with your faith based dogma and political position.

Again, please center your replies on whether or not you accept the enumerated facts and/or offering new abortion-relevant facts that are well supported by consensus biological science.

I do not.

I know. You reject more basic scientific facts and creationist.

My core rejection is with your choice of words to describe the situation.. "killing", "live", "biological human being"...
I am of the opinion that a fetus fails to meet the parameters of a human being, being "alive", or having any more rights than an appendix (to use your cautionary example of what not to do in this discussion, heh).

Everyone agrees "killing" is bad. The disagreement is about what "killing" is, as I see it.

What "killing" means not open to rational debate, nor is what is "alive". You are rejecting the most basic facts of medical and biological science by rejecting that a fetus is alive and that the procedure of abortion kills (i.e., causes the death of) that living fetus.
I never said a fetus is "a human being" or has "rights". I said that unlike everything else that it is legal to kill, the vast majority of aborted fetuses are a living organism that would naturally develop into a live birthed baby that you, I, and nearly every pro-choicer would acknowledge as a human being with individual rights that make killing them a crime. This conclusion based upon textbook facts and basic logic that you reject.

 

[Peez]

4. Combining the above facts

not facts

All basic textbook consensus facts that you apparently are ignorant of.

I don't suppose that you could identify a couple of the textbooks?

Peez

 

[ronburgundy]

All basic textbook consensus facts that you apparently are ignorant of.

I don't suppose that you could identify a couple of the textbooks?

Peez

First tell me which fact you think is false.
1. That a fetus is a living organism?
2. That if you cause a living organism to die, then you've killed it?
3. That 80% of fetuses beyond 4 weeks survive to birth?

And as for point 1, what matters for the discussion is whether any standard definition of a living organism would include a newborn but exclude it 5 seconds prior when still inside to mother.

IOW, while that exact criteria for "life" can be scientifically debated, is there any biomedical definition for when an organism is alive that would hinge upon which side of the mother's birth canal it is on?

 

[Peez]

All basic textbook consensus facts that you apparently are ignorant of.

I don't suppose that you could identify a couple of the textbooks?

Peez

First tell me which fact you think is false.
1. That a fetus is a living organism?
2. That if you cause a living organism to die, then you've killed it?
3. That 80% of fetuses beyond 4 weeks survive to birth?

And as for point 1, what matters for the discussion is whether any standard definition of a living organism would include a newborn but exclude it 5 seconds prior when still inside to mother.

IOW, while that exact criteria for "life" can be scientifically debated, is there any biomedical definition for when an organism is alive that would hinge upon which side of the mother's birth canal it is on?

I have already addressed this points, but you did not respond. You seem rather evasive, and here again you refuse to support your own claims.

Peez

 

[ronburgundy]

First tell me which fact you think is false.
1. That a fetus is a living organism?
2. That if you cause a living organism to die, then you've killed it?
3. That 80% of fetuses beyond 4 weeks survive to birth?

And as for point 1, what matters for the discussion is whether any standard definition of a living organism would include a newborn but exclude it 5 seconds prior when still inside to mother.

IOW, while that exact criteria for "life" can be scientifically debated, is there any biomedical definition for when an organism is alive that would hinge upon which side of the mother's birth canal it is on?

I have already addressed this points, but you did not respond. You seem rather evasive, and here again you refuse to support your own claims.

Peez

I didn't see you first reply on the prior page.

The first applies a standard definition of a "living organism" such as from this Bio textbook. Note that any argument that it doesn't include a fetus would logically exclude a newborn as well, meaning that cutting the head off a newborn it not killing an organism. Yes, of course other "meaningless" life inside a human body is often killed, like human tissue and parasites. That's why that fact by itself is meaningless. It is only when combined with the fact that the vast majority of killed fetuses would have naturally develop into birthed human babies that the killing has relevance, b/c that is not true of those other living organisms.

The second is just the standard dictionary definition of "kill: to cause the death of" and the standard meaning of the word used by nearly every person you uses it in a literal sense.

The third is something you could easily google and every hit would give you similar numbers. Here is a source using multiple scientific articles to give the probabilities of miscarriage. Prior to week 5 (the probability of miscarriage prior to birth is below 20%), and rises quickly to 5% by week 8.

Together, these necessitate the deductive conclusion that abortion is the killing of an organism that would otherwise be very likely to develop into a birthed infant human. Which is really the only point I am trying to make.

 

[Peez]

First tell me which fact you think is false.
1. That a fetus is a living organism?
2. That if you cause a living organism to die, then you've killed it?
3. That 80% of fetuses beyond 4 weeks survive to birth?

And as for point 1, what matters for the discussion is whether any standard definition of a living organism would include a newborn but exclude it 5 seconds prior when still inside to mother.

IOW, while that exact criteria for "life" can be scientifically debated, is there any biomedical definition for when an organism is alive that would hinge upon which side of the mother's birth canal it is on?

I have already addressed this points, but you did not respond. You seem rather evasive, and here again you refuse to support your own claims.

Peez

I didn't see you first reply on the prior page.

The first applies a standard definition of a "living organism" such as from this Bio textbook.

Thank you, the definition given is:

What Is a Living Organism? Living organisms have the following characteristics (Fig. 1-1).
They are made from structures called "cells."
They reproduce by genetic material called "DNA."
They respond to stimuli from the environment.
They synthesize an energy substance called "adenosine triphosphate (ATP)" from the environment, and they live and grow using that energy.

It is not a great definition, but since you accept it, then you accept that the following are "living organisms": sperm cells, unfertilized eggs, cancer cells, stem cells, virus-infected cells, red blood cells, white blood cells... the list is long.

The second is just the standard dictionary definition of "kill: to cause the death of" and the standard meaning of the word used by nearly every person you uses it in a literal sense.

I don't remember askingt for a definition of "kill", but perhaps I did somewhere?

The third is something you could easily google and every hit would give you similar numbers. Here is a source using multiple scientific articles to give the probabilities of miscarriage. Prior to week 5 (the probability of miscarriage prior to birth is below 20%), and rises quickly to 5% by week 8.

Estimates vary, but some make it about 75% of fertilized eggs do not make it to birth (e.g., here). Obviously the probability of failure drops steadily, reaching close to 0% at birth. At exactly what % should we declare that it is unacceptable to terminate the process?

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

I didn't see you first reply on the prior page.

The first applies a standard definition of a "living organism" such as from this Bio textbook.

Thank you, the definition given is:

What Is a Living Organism? Living organisms have the following characteristics (Fig. 1-1).
They are made from structures called "cells."
They reproduce by genetic material called "DNA."
They respond to stimuli from the environment.
They synthesize an energy substance called "adenosine triphosphate (ATP)" from the environment, and they live and grow using that energy.

It is not a great definition, but since you accept it, then you accept that the following are "living organisms": sperm cells, unfertilized eggs, cancer cells, stem cells, virus-infected cells, red blood cells, white blood cells... the list is long.

The second is just the standard dictionary definition of "kill: to cause the death of" and the standard meaning of the word used by nearly every person you uses it in a literal sense.

I don't remember askingt for a definition of "kill", but perhaps I did somewhere?

The third is something you could easily google and every hit would give you similar numbers. Here is a source using multiple scientific articles to give the probabilities of miscarriage. Prior to week 5 (the probability of miscarriage prior to birth is below 20%), and rises quickly to 5% by week 8.

Estimates vary, but some make it about 75% of fertilized eggs do not make it to birth (e.g., here). Obviously the probability of failure drops steadily, reaching close to 0% at birth. At exactly what % should we declare that it is unacceptable to terminate the process?

Peez

based on these definitions, I accept that abortion can be called something like "murder", as long as it is equally murderous to ejaculate, take penicillin, or wash your hands. I do not subscribe to the trivializing of actual "murder" this way, so I maintain that abortion is not murder... it is ironically closer to preserving life than the converse.