Pro-choicers face reality of ultrasound pix

A few weeks ago, I went to lunch at a diner in Mount Vernon with Rick Marino, a moral philosopher disguised as a home renovation contractor. The subject turned to pregnancy and ultrasound. A decade ago, when I was having my last crop of kids, the pictures came out fuzzy. The doctor would point - "These are the fingers" or "There is the head" - and I'd nod. In truth, I couldn't make much of the blurry images.

Today's ultrasound photos come in 3-D and color. At 18 weeks you can easily discern fingers and facial features. At seven months, you have a fully recognizable human baby. It's so clear that even a man can see it.

For a couple of hundred bucks a pregnant woman can go to the mall nowadays and have a picture taken of her baby. Or even a video with a musical soundtrack.

Rick and I were marveling over this when we were interrupted by the waitress. "You guys talking about ultrasounds?" she asked. At first I missed the edge in her voice.

"They're going to be used against women," the waitress snapped. She was obviously ready to sacrifice a tip to make a point.

She was right, of course. Ultrasound images are already changing the perception of abortion. Once, the idea of fetal humanity was a matter of religious conviction. Now, it is an observable fact. If you don't believe me, go to Google Images on the Internet and type in: Ultrasound, 30 weeks.

In the new Bush administration, abortion is going to become the hottest of hot buttons. The President will probably appoint three or four Supreme Court justices. At the very least, a Bush-leaning court would probably reverse previous rulings that outlaw a federal ban on third-term abortion. Ultimately, Roe vs. Wade itself may be in danger.

Obviously this is a crisis for the abortion-rights movement. It is also a problem for the Democrats. Most Americans are already queasy about third-term abortions. As ultrasound imagery improves, abortion-righters may find themselves without significant support in their own party.

Dogmatic orthodoxy on abortion is also a philosophical problem for the left. In the great moral debates of our time, they have rested their case on science, not blind belief. Lately they have taken to calling themselves "reality-based," in somewhat sneering contrast to presumably simpleminded "faith-based" conservatives. The problem is, this time they are on the wrong side of science.

It is true that millions of opponents of abortion arrived at their position without the need for photographic evidence. They have always believed that human life begins at conception. But there are million of others, neither reactionary nor religious, who have now concluded - or are in the process of concluding - that at some point, before birth, fetuses become babies, deserving of protection.

Finding that point will be the crux of the coming debate. If the abortion-rights movement wants the support of the middle-aged, socially liberal guys in the diners of America, it had better find a more convincing tone than anger - and an argument that doesn't require us to deny, on doctrinal grounds, the evidence of our own eyes.

Well, strictly speaking, it's impossible to cross an infinite number of points in a finite period of time, so motion is thus impossible.

No it isn't. That "paradox" was clarified a long time ago. It is irrelevent to our discussion anyway.

Come on. Are you telling me there's no way to tell the difference between (1) a sperm and an egg; and (2) a human life with human DNA?

Of course not. And I don't see how you read that into my comments. I am merely telling you that the world we observe, above quantum scales, appears governed by continua. Perhaps you've heard of a small thing called "the space time continuum"? It is you who seem to be denying this fact. I accept the sperm, the egg, and the adult. The difference between us is that I recognize the elementary science of the continuum that connects them.

Not to throw labels around indiscriminately, but you are thinking like a liberal. You seem inclined to apply complex answers to simple questions.

Complex?! This is as basic as physics gets. How do you get through high school thinking that processes operate by skips and jumps rather than continua? What in your life experiences would cause you to even think such a magical thing? Have you observed time skipping?

It's not often that I find someone on this forum accusing liberals of thinking rationally. I have to disagree with you there as well.

How do you get through high school thinking that processes operate by skips and jumps rather than continua? What in your life experiences would cause you to even think such a magical thing? Have you observed time skipping?

Oh, that hurts. But come to think of it, it is truly a wonder I got through high school, seeing how I had to spend so much time saving smug, smart-mouthed physics geeks from getting their butts kicked by my less tolerant fellow athletes. But that's neither here nor there.

If you'd bother to read my posts, my position on this issue would "magically" appear to you. I don't think I've ever denied that continua exist in physics, in biology, or anywhere else. But hey, get this. All along these continua are things called "thresholds." And once you've crossed the relevant threshold, it doesn't matter where on the continuum you are. So, forgive me if I don't see why you insist on getting wrapped around the axle on how "mature" or "developed" a human life is. The relevant question is whether the life is human. End of story.

I'll say it once again (though I just know I'll live to regret it). Once an "organism" is a "human life form" -- i.e., "it" has crossed the threshold into being "human" -- "it" should be given rights accordingly. It does not matter how far "it" is along the path to maturity. It's kinda like a smug, smart-mouthed physics geek who walks through the door into the locker room. Once he crosses that threshold, he is in danger of getting hung up by his underwear. It doesn't really matter how far into the locker room he is; that's purely academic. The relevant inquiry is whether he's walked through that door -- and into the zone of "wedgie danger."

Now, if you have a better answer, fine. I'm all atwitter to hear it. But so far all you've said is that there is a continuum that governs the process of life. Eureka. I'm truly impressed. You want me to accuse you of thinking rationally? First, put down the Rubik's Cube. Then focus your answer, quit dwelling on the irrelevant, and offer a counter proposal instead of viewing everyone else as fools who can't make it through high school. Or shall I await my next lesson on the wonders of continua?

If you'd bother to read my posts,

I've read your posts to me. You'll excuse me if I don't seek out your vast expositions (as you've undoubtedly done with mine) despite being so thoroughly impressed by the few I've read.

I don't think I've ever denied that continua exist in physics, in biology, or anywhere else. But hey, get this. All along these continua are things called "thresholds."

Threshholds are points that *people* place along continua. There is no significant difference between points immediately on either side of a threshold other than the fact that they are on opposite sides of a threshold. That is why thresholds, like drinking age or abortion age or human rights age, or any pinpointed age are necessarily arbitrary.

That is what it means to be a continuum. There are no significant immediate differences, only significant widely spaced differences.

I'm sorry if continua are too sloppy for your liking, but wishful thinking won't change the universe. Maybe you should consider instead realizing that that is how the world works, and any real understanding must be compatible with it.

So, forgive me if I don't see why you insist on getting wrapped around the axle on how "mature" or "developed" a human life is.

I forgive you, its just that dolt who wrote that rights begin at the point of conception. Since "begin" and "point" imply specific points in a continuum, they are arbitrary, and thus provide us with little more than a stipulated heuristic--certainly not any understanding--of the actual meaning of "rights", which was the initial question.

seeing how I had to spend so much time saving smug, smart-mouthed physics geeks from getting their butts kicked by my less tolerant fellow athletes.

Some of the smartest "geeks" in my school were some of the best atheletes (and the very few "butts" kickers were as pathetic then as now), so I don't know what you are talking about. Most took high school calculus, and so were necessarily familiar with the ubiquitous modeling of the physical world along a time continuum.

But what do I know. Maybe your school taught "Poof! There it is!" instead of calculus.

And if you get so offended at being wrong, then you might try posting with a bit more thoughtfulness.

Threshholds are points that *people* place along continua.

So let me get this straight. You believe that water freezes at a certain point on the “temperature continuum” because *people* set the threshold for freezing. You also think a jet aircraft accelerates along the “speed continuum” and crosses the sound barrier because *people* have determined the speed of sound. I know a lot of USAF pilots who would be interested in manipulating that threshold; may I give them your e-mail address?

I think you give our species (or perhaps yourself) too much credit. If you think nature and physics don’t impose thresholds of their own, then you will never understand my position on when rights should attach. I just knew I was wasting my breath by restating my position for you.

I asked you last time for your counter-proposal, and in response you gave me just what I predicted: another sermon on continua. You have assumed the intellectual fetal position and denied -- incredibly -- there is any such thing as a natural threshold. And you continue to avoid the issue at hand. Like a Trekkie run amok, you seem more interested in pontificating about the space-time continuum than with acknowledging that a natural point exists at which an unborn entity may successfully be identified as a human life. You criticize the notion of conception as the invention of a dolt, but you have repeatedly failed to offer a more logical or more ethically defensible alternative. Not terribly courageous; rather weenie-like.

In conclusion, here’s your original question: When do rights attach? Here’s my answer again: When the life form can be identified as a human life (not, as you imply, at a particular “age”). Your answer is yet to be announced. I have to say I’ve been amused by your reluctance to offer one.

So let me get this straight. You believe that water freezes at a certain point on the “temperature continuum” because *people* set the threshold for freezing.

No, I believe that as the temperature drops *gradually* to a plateau, there is a *continuous* series of molecular events that over a period of time *gradually* result in the solidification of water. Then, the temperature *gradually* descends below the plateau. That is, at one end of the continuum you have water, at the other end ice, but there is also everything in between. There is no temperature *point* at which you have ice.

You on the other hand believe the magical temperature is reached and POOF!--no water, all ice. But there is no poof.

You also think a jet aircraft accelerates along the “speed continuum” and crosses the sound barrier because *people* have determined the speed of sound.

No, a jet accelerates along the speed continuum (quotes are unnecessary) and eventually a gradual series of events occurs resulting in the propagation of a wake. At one end of the contuum there are widely spaced sound waves, and the other end there a single wake, and then there is everything in between. There is no speed point separating oscillating sound waves from the wake.

You on the other hand believe the plane accelerates along until POOF! sonic booms. But there is no poof.

And as a matter of fact, to set a perfectly precise temperature or speed point is a matter of human declaration, since the actual physical phenomena do not involve a point, but a contiuum of events. The points are chosen (or measured with error) to occur somewhere within the interesting portion of the continuum.

We observe many interesting changes in nature, some of which occur on relatively short time scales. However, zoom on that time scale and you'll eventually see that what may have looked like a poof to the uneducated eye, is really a rapid transition along a continuum.

Nature and physics do impose discrete time points, but not on the cellular scale. The apparent continuum doesn't start to break up until you reach quantum scales (or at least quantum phenomena of whatever scale), but that scale is not relevent to most biological discussions.

So you can choose to draw your lines somewhere in the middle of a bell curve or along a rapid upslope, and then declare you've made some grand metaphysical discovery. Unfortunately all you've done is to choose a heuristic and refuse to appreciate the true underlying nature, which is the actual bell curve or upslope and the continuum of its transitions.

And refusing to accept those truths, you've given up on any desire to understand. You might then ask yourself what your real desire is.

I asked you last time for your counter-proposal

I missed it if you did. But your proposal is just as wrong whether or not anyone has a counter-proposal. You base rights on a known falsehood--the discontinuity of biological events. I don't have the answers, I'm just seeking them, kicking the trash aside along the way.

and in response you gave me just what I predicted: another sermon on continua.

Only because you continue to insist the world is flat (metaphorically speaking).

You have assumed the intellectual fetal position and denied -- incredibly -- there is any such thing as a natural threshold.

Hey, if by "threshold" you mean some "continuous series of events", then I accept it. If instead, you mean some infinitessimal time point with significant differences between arbitrary close points on either side, then you are just flat wrong (within the current context).

Like a Trekkie run amok, you seem more interested in pontificating about the space-time continuum than with acknowledging that a natural point exists at which an unborn entity may successfully be identified as a human life.

I said NO SUCH THING. You continue to reveal your ignorance of what a continuum is. I believe there is such a thing as a beard. I also believe there is such a thing as a whisker. However, as you add whiskers, there is no meaningful "threshold" at which you suddenly declare a beard. Continua DO exist, and that is their property. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I didn't create the universe.

You criticize the notion of conception as the invention of a dolt

NOOO. I criticize the notion of a meaningful time point during the process of conception as the invention of a dolt.

but you have repeatedly failed to offer a more logical or more ethically defensible alternative. Not terribly courageous; rather weenie-like.

Would you continue to believe you had two heads until someone gave you a better explanation why you were so smart? Just count your heads. There is just one. I don't know why you're so smart, but you still have just one head.-- Look at the universe. There are no poofs. I don't know when to recognize rights. But I'm not going to get any closer to understanding rights by accepting blatant falsehoods.

If your theory of rights is incompatible with the facts of the universe, you might want to reconsider your theory. Or else, don't claim that being right or wrong matters to you.

In conclusion, here’s your original question: When do rights attach?

Did I really ask such a question? "When-attach" implies a meaningful discrete time point (no rights, then POOF!, rights), which doesn't exist. Are you sure I didn't ask something like "When can we say a thing has rights?" Actually, I think what I probably asked was, "What characteristics allow us to determine if a thing has rights?"

Here’s my answer again: When the life form can be identified as a human life (not, as you imply, at a particular “age”).

So you are quite certain...hypothetically speaking...that no extraterrestrial lifeform we may encounter, no matter how intelligent, can ever have rights? Do you define "rights" as "human"? Or, are there some characteristics of humans that allow you to decide that they have rights. For that matter, what are rights?

Your answer is yet to be announced. I have to say I’ve been amused by your reluctance to offer one.

Why should I offer something I don't have? I'm glad you are amused at my ignorance, but frankly, the real comedy is to be laughed at by a flat-earther.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.