Here Is An Interesting Scenario

[singinbeauty]

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

[Jose]

I am not suggesting in any way that it is an easy decision to come to. I am merely theorizing that the hormones can magnify a situation to a woman so much that it seems like a logical choice. Just a theory though!

To be "strictly correct," we'd have to say "hypothesis" rather than "theory," but who's going to quibble with words at a time like this (uhhh...me?) I agree that it's a good idea. I just wish we knew how many "new" hormones come into play with the onset of pregnancy. There must be some...

As for the "convenience" statement I disagree... how is abortion never about convenience?

Sometimes, it really is about convenience. But, in the case of tubal pregnancy, surgical removal is required to save the life of the mother. The embryo is doomed anyway, but it still is an abortion of the embryo. There are other instances in which the life of the mother is in danger, and we have to choose between a premature infant with its dead mother, vs a live mother but no infant. There are complications that can arise, which can cause this kind of problem. Then there are rape and incest (sometimes both). In the former case, I'd argue that it is in society's interest not to propagate the genes of someone who has that kind of behavior. In the latter case, I'd argue that the fetus has such a high probability of serious genetic health problems due to homozygosis of recessive alleles that it is inadvisable to bring it to term. I guess, we could say, we are favoring the "convenience" of the mother in not having to bear and raise a detestable creature that normal morality would say she should never be faced with, but I'd put health and sanity as priorities here, not convenience. Besides, I'd really like to select against rape and incest, and we won't do so by protecting the products thereof.

[singinbeauty]

Then there are rape and incest (sometimes both). In the former case, I'd argue that it is in society's interest not to propagate the genes of someone who has that kind of behavior. In the latter case, I'd argue that the fetus has such a high probability of serious genetic health problems due to homozygosis of recessive alleles that it is inadvisable to bring it to term.

Are you saying that a baby should be aborted because it is the fruit of a rapist and therefore will become a rapist later on in life? This does not make sense. I don't believe that that behavior is genetic but learned through experiences in life. Now with the incest (and mind you I think that these are terrible things for a woman to go through but why should a baby suffer just because the woman has?) it is not always guaranteed that the baby will be a "mutant". There is no promise that it will be born with deficiencies of any kind. It's highly probable yes but not guaranteed.

I will go on to say that I have never experienced either of these situations so I don't know what I would do if I was raped and became pregnant. But from where I stand I cannot fathom killing another human being no matter what stage in life they are in... (except maybe my rapist! )

[Gaunt]

why should a baby suffer just because the woman has?

This can be taken the other way as well. Since the baby doesn't have a nervous system for the first few weeks, abortion would not cause it to suffer. You can't suffer if you are unable to feel pain. Conversely, if the child of incest was brought to term and it did end up have deformities or whatnot, it would suffer for its entire life. So, in order to lessen the suffering of all involved, would not an abortion be the best answer, if the mother did not want to have the child?

[singinbeauty]

I guess I just cannot wrap my mind around killing an innocent child just because it "lessens" the suffering for anyone. I do not understand the argument. I just can't imagine telling a, what-could-be, healthy child that just because it may grow to have deformities it has to be terminated. By this logic we should abort every baby because there is always a chance for deformity.

[Jose]

The last measurement I heard of the mutation rate in mammals, and in humans specifically, was 0.2 base changes per billion bases per year. That works out to 264 mutations per person per generation. There's lots of genetic variation. Many of these mutations won't cause problems, but a lot of them will. Most homozygous mutant embryos abort before the mother even knows she's pregnant. But, not all do.

And, of course, it turns out that a lot of behavior is genetic. There is ample proof. One of the examples I like is the incest taboo in chimpanzees. Homozygous recessive deformities don't help the troupe. Those with a genetic predisposition not to find their relatives sexually attractive at maturity are the ones who pass on their genes.

There are also learned behaviors that people can develop. Still, I wouldn't wish on anyone the bringing to term and caring for the child of a rapist. The one woman I know who was raped (over 20 years ago, now) still finds it horribly traumatic. She was not impregnated, so she didn't have to face this particular issue, but I know she would have detested the idea of being forced to raise her rapist's child.

[singinbeauty]

But she does not have to raise the child... Like I said, I cannot imagine being in that situation so I cannot say for sure what I would do. But I don't believe that I would want to kill the child growing inside me. It would be horrifying to say the least that such a violent act would result in something so beautiful as a child but does that give us the right to kill a child? And without bringing in the chimps could you quote other studies that would prove your theory that rapists make rapists by genetics?

[Spongemom]

But she does not have to raise the child... Like I said, I cannot imagine being in that situation so I cannot say for sure what I would do. But I don't believe that I would want to kill the child growing inside me. It would be horrifying to say the least that such a violent act would result in something so beautiful as a child but does that give us the right to kill a child? And without bringing in the chimps could you quote other studies that would prove your theory that rapists make rapists by genetics?

Criminal intent is genetic, as is mental illness. Just like twins, you never know who's going to have it and who isn't.

And regarding one of your earlier posts...you actually think a woman who is impregnated as a result of incest should be forced to go through with the pregnancy?? Would you carry your father's child? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Corvus]

But she does not have to raise the child...

But what she does have to do is carry the reminder of a traumatising event for 9 months, then, if she gives it up, has to live with the knowledge that the child of such an odious coupling is walking around in that small world out there, and she could bump into this child at any time, who could resemble the father in appearance, if not in character. I can see how someone could develop a neurotic fear of society because of such a situation. This is not to say all women would react in this way. It is my experience that different women react differently to rape. My ex-girlfriend, when I was still involved with her, rather than admitting that she was raped, told me that she had consentual sex with the rapist! I don't know exactly why, for she loved (and, sadly, still loves) me fiercely. In some cultures, rape really isn't such a big thing, and the traditional method of finding a wife is to abduct one on horseback, and now by car, - Kyrzigstan comes to mind, since I wrote a short thing on it in my journal a while ago - but I suppose they are psychologically and emotionally prepared to accept such things.

Like I said, I cannot imagine being in that situation so I cannot say for sure what I would do. But I don't believe that I would want to kill the child growing inside me. It would be horrifying to say the least that such a violent act would result in something so beautiful as a child but does that give us the right to kill a child?

Beautiful and horrifying are subjective statements. You probably understand by now that I do not believe life is of inherent value. What I do believe is "mind" or "sentience" is of inherent value, simply because our society and government is built around the concept of tacit and explicit consent, which is a conscious or subconscious process. Our justice system also presupposes that a will is contradicted when a criminal act is committed against another. An example is the law that allows the next of kin to terminate the life support of a person who is comatose with no hope of recovery. One can only "murder" if the victim's conscious will is overridden. One is fully entitled to murder themselves.

Awareness of suffering is also a concern, and like Gaunt, I would put forward that if done at the right time, abortions do not result in suffering or a contradiction of the will. In fact, far from it, for if the age of accountability argument is to be accepted, the baby will always find itself in heaven.

The Body Identity Index disorder (remember that?) is a complicated case because the person who is the criminal is also a victim. But then the criminal/victim is quite obviously a victim because we expect him to regret his misguided decision after the act, and the purpose of government is to protect the people within its borders who have given their agreement or acquiescence to the social contract, though not everyone agrees to the extent of the protection. Laws against BIID prevens against a person mistakenly - almost unwilling, since this is a disorder we are talking about - contradicting their own future will.

[Jose]

But she does not have to raise the child... Like I said, I cannot imagine being in that situation so I cannot say for sure what I would do. But I don't believe that I would want to kill the child growing inside me. It would be horrifying to say the least that such a violent act would result in something so beautiful as a child but does that give us the right to kill a child? And without bringing in the chimps could you quote other studies that would prove your theory that rapists make rapists by genetics?

It's not entirely clear that she does not have to raise the child. The options are not as clear-cut as you might think. Still, I think your main argument is that you cannot imagine seeking an abortion for yourself, as you've said. This is wonderful. But, we can't apply what we think (now) about ourselves to different people in different situations. As you see from the discussion, there are a number of other viewpoints, some of which are very strong. In some sense, all of the arguments have validity. The challenge is to find the optimum middle ground, which will probably please no one perfectly--but should not be coercive to a less-fortunate fraction of society.

I'll look around for information on the genetic component of violent behavior. We will never, of course be able to "prove" such a hypothesis--that's the nature of science. If you want "proof" you have to go to religion, which is the only thing that claims to offer Absolute Truth (which may or may not reflect the natural world). We can, at best, offer observations and data. You'll have to come to your own decision about whether you accept the conclusions that the data suggest. At present, I've only said that we know that a considerable fraction of behavior is genetic. This is true. Whether the specific behavior of rape (or more generally, violence, or violence against women) is among these I cannot yet say. I'd be surprised if it is not.

[Jose]

Here are a few references to the genetics-of-violent-behavior literature.

Sluyter, et al. Behav Genet. (2003) 33:563-74. Toward an animal model for antisocial behavior: parallels between mice and humans. This paper discusses a comparison of antisocial humans and a strain of mice that has been bred for antisocial behavior. The parallels are remarkable. This opens the door to analyzing antisocial behavior in a more tractable "model system," which will make progress faster than if we could only use humans.

DiLalla and Gottesman Psychol Bull. (1991) 109:125-9. discussion 130-2. Biological and genetic contributors to violence--Widom's untold tale. This is a response to a review by Widom, which omitted mention of the genetic factors that were known in 1991. Because this is so old, it is now out of date--but gives us a sense of the newness of the field of behavioral genetics of humans. (Behavioral genetics of animals has been around for a long time.)

If behavior is genetically-based, how does it work? There are many possibilities, but one promising approach is to look for molecular characteristics that are fairly general--such as neurotransmitter levels, etc. These next two references do this.

Liao et al. Neuropsychobiology. (2004) 50:284-7. Possible association between serotonin transporter promoter region polymorphism and extremely violent crime in Chinese males. This paper identifies the serotonin transporter as a variable in violent behavior. This is not a surprise, since it is also a variable in pleasure-seeking, depression, etc. because of its essential role as a neurotransmitter. Thus, genetic variation in the genes involved in serotonin levels would be linked to behavior.

Skondras, et al. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. (2004) Nov 12; [Epub ahead of print] Platelet monoamine oxidase activity and psychometric correlates in male violent offenders imprisoned for homicide or other violent acts. Monoamine oxidase is another player in molecular neurobiology. Again, genetic variation in MAO would be linked to behavior.

It is important to note that these kinds of studies are in their infancy, and have not explained how different behaviors work. That will take some time. However, they indicate to us that behavior has a genetic basis, for some of which we can begin to envision molecular mechanisms. This does not provide "proof" that a predisposition to rape is heritable, for that particular trait has not been studied in sufficient detail to draw such a conclusion. Indeed, the single behavior of rape is probably not directly coded genetically; it is more likely part of an overall tendency toward antisocial, violent, thrill-seeking behavior in general.