Abortion

The genetic identity exists before there is ever a fertilized egg -- it consists in the mathematical product of all of the genetic possibilities of the father's gamete times all the genetic possibilities of the mother's gamete (this is not accounting for recombination events between maternal and paternal DNA). Which combination happens to constitute the zygote is a statistical happenstance, not some event of cosmically moral significance.

Furthermore, there is no way one can argue that even genetically a male has equal claim to the resultant fetus. Why?

1) The male does not contribute any mitochondrial DNA, but the mother does
2) All of the cellular components of the zygote are derived from the mother
3) Polarity already exists in the unfertilized egg (i.e. dorsal/ventral, lateral, and cranial/caudal gradients), and this is wholly determined by preconceptual trafficking of mRNA into the oocyte by maternal cells (this establishes polarity gradients, so that the head / tail / front / back / sides of the organism are already determined in the unfertilized egg -- and this is true in ALL animals). This is a maternal physiologic process -- it doesn't depend at all on the genetic activity of the oocyte (the unfertilized egg). If this did not occur, then tissue differentiation would NEVER happen after fertilization -- the zygote would just divide and divide into a big undifferentiated ball.

I would like to point out that I feel cognitive ability to be a very important factor in determining whether abortion (or infanticide for that matter) should be allowed.

Ironically, Ruthless Logic has used the words "cognitive" or "cognition" fourteen times in this thread, and every single one were used to call into question the intelligence of someone who holds a differing opinion.

Not a one was on topic.

To consider the assignment of proportional ratios of genetic material as a process for claiming ownership of a fetus is completely unapproachable by any standard of rational consideration. The requirement based on the sum of the ENTIRE parts of a fertilized egg produces the moral dilemma

Based on these parameters, how can enduring a pregnancy which represents less then 2% of the potential time interval of a Human Being be the bases for the complete latitude in deciding the access to the substantially larger interval of time that is offered to the average Human Being after birth?

I have to say, I do find Ruthless Logic's view rather appealing. It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception. Now of course it is absurd to argue against contraceptive measures, as any material disposed of at that stage would only find itself in a toilet anyway.

Once the trajectory towards birth has begun, I am affraid that I cannot agree that the mother should have a say in the death of her child. She can give it up for adoption should she so choose, but beyond this, I see no justification to stop the process.

The argument for potentiality has strong footing at the instance of conception. Before conception, the uncombined reproductive cells are not necessarily potentially children, they are both potential children and potentially toxic bodily waste, but upon concpetion the potential is clear.

I have to say, I do find Ruthless Logic's view rather appealing. It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception.

Once the trajectory towards birth has begun, I am affraid that I cannot agree that the mother should have a say in the death of her child.

but upon concpetion the potential is clear.

I don't think anyone has even brought up in any sincere mode, such an absurd position. The father cannot have reign over the mother's body.

It seems to me to be the case that the clearest line to draw is at conception.

One last point directed to Aedes, is the position that a diesase would make one's life unpleasent not akin to eugenics?

I cannot subscribe to abortion due to birth defect/disease as it is too similar to eugenics.

Could one not argue that then those alive with defects are better off dead?

Abortion - great issue for men to play moral politics with - when we can't truly understand the situation; and better yet, american and european men - wringing our hands over decisions we can't understand while elsewhere in the world thousands of children die from preventable diseases every day.

I'm pro-choice by default, in that I don't consider myself qualified to express any other opinion. I imagine it can't be an easy decision to make - and if it is, it's probably better that person not breed. But for the vast majority of women, I imagine it's a deep and traumatic question that shouldn't be made more difficult with layman's opinions.

One way or the other, the woman will have to live with her decision for the rest of her life, and thus I think it important the woman be free to make that decision without the emotional blackmail of religious and political agendas - pushed by people who don't know and couldn't care less about the welfare of either mother or child, but are simply playing politics.

I recognize there are interesting philosophical questions here about where life begins, conflicts of rights and so on, but it infuriates me that these questions get worked up into political issues - and there is nothing more bizzare in all the world than a Catholic priest - a man, and a celibate man at that, telling women that abortion is wrong.

iconoclast.

P.S. How do you guys feel about Obama lying about his position and voting record in regard to live-birth abortion, which hewas in favor of? Is there any justification for allowing live birth abortion at all? Is it not in actuality akin to murdering live infants?

I want to clarify somthing. Is it not true that a tumor has the same genetic identity as the person in which it develops? If this is true, then a zygote is not comparable to a tumor, is it? I may well be missing somthing here, but the comparison to a tumor seems inaccurate.

Tumors are not genetically identical to the host, actually. They are derived of course from the same zygote originally, but they accumulate genetic errors. That is one basic characteristic of tumors, that they have unique genetics.

As for the eugenics point, the issue is that our abortion discussion is not taking into account a population based policy on which pregnancies to keep and which to abort. This is still an individual decision, with the mother at the center of it weighing all the personal and (in some cases) medical considerations. Thankfully in 2008 we don't know much about how to detect qualities like strength or intelligence in the fetus, so aside from gender the only info we have is purely medical.

I read that it was the illinois bill though CFP: Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum.

We aren't far away from the point, though, are we?