Abortion S.L.E.D.

Abortion S.L.E.D.

by BecauseHeLives | Published on January 26th, 2008, 8:06 pm | Religion

I was reading an interesting argument for the pro-life movement and there is an acronym being used called SLED. The logic used really makes a whole lot of sense to me. There are basically four attributes that are different for a baby inside the womb from a baby outside the womb:

The following describes each letter in the acronym (Notice that none of them are religious-based points):

1. Size or Physical Appearance – Do humans lose value when they don’t look right? Does size equal value? Men are generally larger than women. Does that mean men are more human than women? Shaquille O’Neil is larger than Hillary Clinton. Does that mean Hillary Clinton is less human than Shaq? The term used to describe the destruction of groups of people based on their physical appearance is ethnic cleansing or genocide. But human value transcends physical appearance. Therefore, “not looking right” cannot disqualify a human being from being valuable.

2. Level of Development – Is a person’s value defined by his abilities, by what he can or can’t do? Do we forfeit our rights as human persons because we don’t have the capabilities others have? Do stronger, more capable, more intelligent people have more rights than others? Do human beings become disposable simply because at their level of development they are helpless, defenseless, and dependent? Human value transcends abilities or the lack of abilities. Therefore, missing abilities cannot disqualify human value.

3. Environment – Do humans forfeit their worth when they change locations? Baby Rachel was born prematurely at 24 weeks. She weighed only 1 lb. 9 oz., but dropped to just under 1 lb. soon after. She was so small she could rest in the palm of her daddy’s hand. She was a tiny, living, person. Heroic measures were taken to save her life. If a doctor had killed Rachel we would have recoiled in horror. However, if this same little girl was inches away from the outside world, resting inside her mother’s womb, she could be legally killed by abortion. Clearly, one’s environment can’t be the deciding factor. Changing locations is morally trivial. Environment has no bearing on who we are.

4. Degree of Dependency – Is human value determined by our degree of dependency on others? The unborn’s dependency on his mother for sustenance is irrelevant to the baby’s value. No baby is “viable” if degree of dependency matters. All babies need their mothers for feeding whether via blood (an umbilical cord), breast, or bottle. Human beings may be dependent on others for their survival, but they aren’t dependent on others for their value. All physically dependent people are at risk if degree of dependency determines their value – those dependent on kidney machines, pacemakers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. Dependency does not determine worth.

http://www.frontlinemin.org/abortion.asp

More interesting tidbits:

Day 1 – Fertilization! All human chromosomes are present and a unique human life begins.

Day 22 – The baby’s heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood – often a different blood type than the mother.

Week 6 – At this stage, brain waves can be detected. The child’s mouth and lips are present and fingers are forming.

Week 8 – At this stage, every organ is in place. Bones and unique fingerprints begin to form.

Week 17 – The baby can now have dream (REM) sleep.



Ø Since 1973 (when abortion was legalized in the U.S.) there have been more than 43 million abortions.

Ø The annual number of abortions has nearly doubled since Roe v. Wade, from 744,600 to 1,313,300 for 2000.

Ø For every 1000 live births, there are 306 abortions.

Ø There are more than 140,000 second and third trimester abortions each year.



After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. had begun to drop back to levels not seen since the 1970s. What follows is a simple outline to help you persuade other Americans to adopt a pro-life position in an effort to continue to bring down the number of abortions performed in the United States.

[Liv]

This thread makes me think about Balut.

[A Person]

After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. had begun to drop back to levels not seen since the 1970s. What follows is a simple outline to help you persuade other Americans to adopt a pro-life position in an effort to continue to bring down the number of abortions performed in the United States.

Their seems to be a smug assumption that it's the antiabortion movement that has achieved this drop. The key to bringing down the number of abortions is to bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies. We've seen that even the loudest antiabortionists will line up to get an abortion if they get caught.

The drop in abortion follows the drop in teen pregnancies due to the increase in sex education and confidential access to contraception.

Perhaps better funding for family planning associations, like Planned Parenthood, so that people can get accurate, confidential advice and access to contraception will help continue the trend.

[Questioner]

Then God is the greatest abortionist. A significant number of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally. So if God doesn't implant them, then God has committed abortion.

Even the American Medical Association does not consider the woman pregnant until the embryo has implanted in the uterus and formed the beginnings of its umbilical cord. And many, many pregnancies naturally terminate long before birth. I have a patient who was pregnant for "12 months". She and her husband were trying to have a baby, and when her period was 2 weeks late, her pregnancy test was positive. However, three months later her uterus was nowhere near the size it should be for a 3 month pregnancy. Make a long story short, her body reabsorbed that first fetus and she got pregnant again immediately without even kowing that the first fetus had died and been reabsorbed by her body. Let me tell you, we had quite a time trying to figure out what was going on there! In any case, I've seen huge numbers of miscarriages and cases where the woman never miscarried, but the body just reabsorbed the embryo or fetus relatively early in the pregnancy.

The problem with your argument is that you seem unable to understand that other people do not agree that a single celled organism is a full, human person. No doubt it is human tissue, with the potential to implant in a uterus and from there to develop into a human baby. But to call a fertilized egg a "person" or a "baby" makes no more sense to me than to call a fertilized chicken egg a "rooster" or a "hen".

In both cases, the fertilized egg carries some potential to develop into the creature for which it holds the DNA. But in neither case, IMHO, is it logical to call the egg a unique "person" or "animal". It is just an egg.

[BecauseHeLives]

The problem with your argument is that you seem unable to understand that other people do not agree that a single celled organism is a full, human person.

These "Other people".... are they ALL in agreement? I'd be surprised to hear that the medical community could come close to a "majority" opinion on this much less a unanimous one. Besides, does it have to be a FULL person to be human? Look back and read the Level of Development section again.

No doubt it is human tissue, with the potential to implant in a uterus and from there to develop into a human baby. But to call a fertilized egg a "person" or a "baby" makes no more sense to me than to call a fertilized chicken egg a "rooster" or a "hen".

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

[BecauseHeLives]

Then God is the greatest abortionist. A significant number of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally. So if God doesn't implant them, then God has committed abortion.

Let it be duly noted that Questioner was the first person to bring God into the argument (inslting Him at that).

[A Person]

If we consider the journey of an ovum to personhood the question is 'when does it become a person'. SLED is a strawman compendium (strawfamily?) caricature of the arguments.

While the journey is continuous there are recognizable milestones in the journey which the SLED argument conveniently ignores.

Firstly the ovum becomes fertilized.
Then the blastocyst must implant.
The brainstem forms (~7 weeks)
Involuntary movements begin (~9 weeks)
The fetus responds to stimuli (~25 weeks)
Independent viability, birth (25+ weeks)

The journey doesn't end there of course, the baby continue to develop brain function and grow. As they develop they become eligible for more rights – it's not all or nothing. A child does not have the right to self determination, vote, serve in the military, drive etc. We allow parents to subjugate their children in ways that are not permissible between adults, we recognize that children are not fully accountable for their actions. In other words children are not considered full persons legally or ethically.

I think we can all agree that an unfertilized egg is not a 'person' even though it has the potential to become life. We can also agree that a baby is a 'person' entitled to the right to life (although not all human rights) once it's born.

We do recognize criteria whereby a fully grown human, with a functioning heartbeat, breathing and metabolizing is no longer considered a person and that is when he/she becomes brain dead. At that point it is generally recognized as permissible, even desirable to remove them from life support. Most Christian Churches support this concept.

If we apply that concept to a fetus, then before 25 weeks a fetus is not 'brain alive' and the SLED argument fails. After 25 weeks the fetus is likely viable and provided there is access to modern medical technology (and sufficient funds) it may live independently. I would not argue for permitting such late term abortions except on the grounds of the mother's health.

I was going to point out that the vast majority of blastocycts (fertilized eggs) have no future as they will not implant, but Questioner beat me to it. I can see no moral objection whatsoever to 'morning after pills' or IUDs which many anti-abortionists also seek to ban.

[BecauseHeLives]

We do recognize criteria whereby a fully grown human, with a functioning heartbeat, breathing and metabolizing is no longer considered a person and that is when he/she becomes brain dead. At that point it is generally recognized as permissible, even desirable to remove them from life support. Most Christian Churches support this concept.

If we apply that concept to a fetus, then before 25 weeks a fetus is not 'brain alive' and the SLED argument fails. After 25 weeks the fetus is likely viable and provided there is access to modern medical technology (and sufficient funds) it may live independently. I would not argue for permitting such late term abortions except on the grounds of the mother's health.

Your argument fails in this respect. The brain of a fetus IS developing while a brain-dead person has no hope of becoming self-aware. One is developing and one is dying.

[A Person]

I acknowledge that. I understand that an ovum, blastocyct and fetus has the potential to become a person and that an abortion takes that potential away. As does contraception, celibacy or a failure to implant or develop.

The SLED argument is about whether a fetus differs from a child.

So how can we justify killing the unborn on these grounds, when we protect born humans who have the same deficiencies?

http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/2.1_four_top_arguments.pdf?docID=861
Secular authorities and churches agree that when the mind ceases to function what is left is 'just a body' that is no longer 'alive'. By that consideration a fetus is not alive and is very different to a healthy viable infant.

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

Then God is the greatest abortionist. A significant number of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally. So if God doesn't implant them, then God has committed abortion.

You know, you're right!

In fact, this solves everything! Don't put murderers and rapist in jail, let them run loose, their innocent! Its all God's fault because he allowed their egg to be fertilized and complete a healthy cycle.

Quick! Tell everyone you know!

[Questioner]

Well we KNOW that the fertized egg HAS to be human. No doubt it is living (even science can not deny that) and it most certainly has to be human as there have been no accounts of a women giving birth to any other creature other than humans. You simply call it an "egg" because you can distance yourself from it easier that way. Its still human no matter what you call it.

I never said it wasn't human, but it is human tissue. Not a person. Not a living, breathing, individual person. At that level (pre-implantation), it is merely a fertilized egg or clump of cells (blastocyst). It has no ability to live independently. It isn't even a parasite yet because pre-implantation, it is just one more fertilized egg or cell clump that might or might not implant in a uterus, might or might not form a viable placenta and umbilicus, might or might not develop sufficiently to grow into a full term baby.

What you seem incapable of comprehending is that just because something is human tissue does not mean it is a person. If I cut a tumor off, what is cut off is human. Did it stop being human just because it is no longer attached to the person? Of course not. But it sure isn't a person. It is just human tissue. You choose to believe that a fertilized egg is a whole, separate, living, viable person. I view it as just some human tissue. Sure, it has potential to someday become a person. But at that point, there is nothing about it that I would agree is a separate person worthy of full rights of citizenship.

And of course, in all this you totally ignore the rights of the woman. Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite. It cannot live on its own. The woman's body must host it, nourish it and keep it alive. An important question here is should anybody be forced to host a parasite against their will? Nobody can force me to provide for all the needs of any other human being. Even my own children can be given up for adoption should I wish to no longer parent them. So, while you may discount it, there is a very real issue here about whether one person can be forced to host a parasite against her will.

To you, those SLED arguments are final and conclusive. They are not even correct to me. They are one heck of a LONG way from being final and conclusive to the majority of people in this country, as survey after survey shows. Right now, the majority of people support abortion in at least some instances. The vast majority support it in cases of danger to the mother's health, rape, incest and fetal anomoly. Whether you like it or not, the majority of people in this country agree that abortion should be legal in at least some situations.

Your "SLED" argument is false, and while you may be unable to see the many holes in it, the rest of us see holes we could drive a truck through. Now, what about calling a chicken egg a hen or rooster? You haven't addressed that yet.

[Sanjuro]

Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite.

Some would say up until they move out of the house.

[Questioner]

Up until about 24 weeks, that egg, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is an obligate parasite.

Some would say up until they move out of the house.

Well. There is that.

[Questioner]

I'd be surprised to hear that the medical community could come close to a "majority" opinion on this much less a unanimous one.

Then be surprised. Be very surprised! According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.

[Sanjuro]

I'd be surprised to hear that the medical community could come close to a "majority" opinion on this much less a unanimous one.

Then be surprised. Be very surprised! According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.

This is absolutely true BHL. You have any idea the numbers of embryos that do not plant and no one is the wiser?

[royaldiadem]

I was reading an interesting argument for the pro-life movement and there is an acronym being used called SLED.

I have this material brother, I will begin a class @ Shepherd's Fellowship in March if anyone is interested, email me.

Sterling

[A Person]

According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.]

This is also the view of the BMA

The term 'abortion' is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation). It does not include the use of emergency hormonal contraception which the High Court has confirmed is not an abortifacient. [Go to reference 2]. All current methods of emergency contraception work prior to implantation and therefore are not abortifacients.

[BecauseHeLives]

8-week old baby

[BecauseHeLives]

According to the American Medical Association, a pregnancy is defined as an implanted embryo. Until implantation, there is no pregnancy. That is the official definition and the official position of the only association that represents medical doctors in the U.S.]

This is also the view of the BMA

The term 'abortion' is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation). It does not include the use of emergency hormonal contraception which the High Court has confirmed is not an abortifacient. [Go to reference 2]. All current methods of emergency contraception work prior to implantation and therefore are not abortifacients.

So you guys are against aborting babies that are implanted?

[A Person]

Is that more 'reading like a book'?

[BecauseHeLives]

Is that more 'reading like a book'?

Well you guys are bringing up implanted embryos in the conversation as if that's an important cut-off point. I think its a valid question. Otherwise why are we discussing it?

[A Person]

If you read my earlier post you'll see that there are several milestones in the development of an ovum to personhood. A journey that does not end until adulthood. My view is that there is no one 'binary' point at which the fetus suddenly becomes a person. As development advances more respect is due. We do not examine menstrual fluid for fertilized ova that failed to implant so that we can hold an inquest and a funeral. The implantation stage is merely an example of hoe the 'God gives a baby a soul at conception' argument fails. If that were the case then the souls of the unborn would outnumber the souls of the lived by 100 to 1.

However we have to put some formal demarcation points. The lack of a clear dividing line does not mean that there are no difference, merely that the line is fuzzy. As such my view is that we attach special significance to brain function and acknowledge that this is one of the things that makes us people. If there were a fire in a hospital we would be justified in saving a child before frozen embryos or a brain dead adult. A child can feel pain and experience terror. I would feel justified in saving a dog first for the same reason.

So my view is that abortion should be avoided wherever possible through good education and access to contraception. When an abortion is called for, it should be performed as soon as possible. Abortion after the brain starts to function (22 weeks) should demand some good reason - such as a threat to the mother's health.

[BecauseHeLives]

So my view is that abortion should be avoided wherever possible through good education and access to contraception. When an abortion is called for, it should be performed as soon as possible. Abortion after the brain starts to function (22 weeks) should demand some good reason - such as a threat to the mother's health.

Why?

[A Person]

I thought I had explained why.

Would you let a child die in a fire to rescue a container of 50 frozen embryos? If not why not?

[IgnoranceIsBliss]

I thought I had explained why.

Would you let a child die in a fire to rescue a container of 50 frozen embryos? If not why not?

Why not? Because the child is absolutely, with no doubt, going to live on if i save him/her. First of all, why am I in the fire? Am I a fireman, did i make the fire, or am I a courageous bystander? Assuming i was a fire man or any of the other choices, how would I know that they were embryos? Is there a label on the container? How do I even know theirs embryos in the container? Do I get burnt saving any of them? Do i have a mental illness, or am I extremely selfish in this situation? Why cant i save both? Is their a fire timer? Do I even want to save the child or the embryos? If I'm hungry i could roast marshmallows instead...So many variables.

The Embryos will be fine, their frozen ....Why are those two anywhere near each other?