A Discussion of Abortion — Part Two: Follow-Up Questions
Interesting discussion in response to yesterday’s questions about abortion. Let me summarize what I see in the responses (and please: keep them coming!) and pose some follow-up questions.
First, most people seem to believe that the question raises moral issues. People also see it as an issue of individual rights, but for most people, the point at which it ceases to be a question purely of individual rights is a moral question.
This is interesting because, while the public discusses the issue this way, the courts do not. They view the issue in terms of rights and countervailing state interests — but the state interest in life is not generally referred to in moral terms.
The second question was: when is a fetus entitled to moral respect, such that the state may legitimately involve itself in the abortion decision in some way? Here there were three basic answers: at conception, at viability, and at some point in between. I’d like to probe each position further with follow-up questions.
To those who say they accord full moral respect to life at the point of conception: how do you define “conception”? As the union of sperm and egg? As implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall? Do you oppose the birth control pill? How do you feel about abortion after a rape?
To those who say they accord moral respect at the point of viability: do you oppose any regulation of abortion before viability? Do you view a previability abortion as simply removing a clump of cells, like clipping toenails?
If you answered these questions “no,” then you probably fall in the large group that accords some moral respect to fetuses before viability. So:
To those who accord some moral respect to a fetus between conception and viability: on what basis is a fetus entitled to moral respect?
This is a tricky question, and there is no obvious right answer. Several possibilities suggest themselves: the capacity to feel pain, the development of a brain, the resemblance of the fetus to a human, the length of time that loved ones have invested their emotions in the fetus, etc. The list goes on.
I think this issue should be confronted before one tries to determine what abortion regulations are justified.
Our esteemed host asked:
I define conception as the point at which the sperm and egg become a single unit, with human chromosomes, giving it a lifespan beyond the normal short life of the gametes, and the ability to grow and develop.
Oral contraceptives normally prevent the ovaries from releasing an unfertilized egg, which is unobjectionable. But oral contraceptives also prevent implantation of a human zygote if an egg was released and fertilized; that I do find objectionable. Thus, were I emperor, they would be outlawed.
Abortion after rape is no different from abortion following consensual intercourse: a human life is destroyed. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but it is less than murder; we ought not to murder a living human being because someone else is suffering.
Quite frankly, the differentiation that some take in allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, but not for any other reason, have always seemed to me to be making the availability of abortion dependent upon whether the pregnant woman behaved herself properly; it was as though not allowing abortion if the woman had consented to sex a form of punishment for the woman more than concern for life of the child.
Dana (3e4784) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:00 amA pre-viability fetus is wholly dependant on its host – mom. When it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is still part of its mother. It should be cultivated with care and love of course. But if it is not, what harm has been done? Is this the “moral respect” question posed by Patterico?
Whatever the definition of “moral respect”, I don’t think the question of moral respect of a fetus extends to anyone who does not bear responsibility for its survival. It is not in the world yet, and when it comes, then it will be a player on the stage of life. I think that parents’ moral duty mirrors their biological one, and in the earliest stages of life, the mother bears it most heavily. Come hell or high water, the fact is that she owns this fetus, and thus the attendant moral issues. Society does not. Not even slightly.
Pre-viability abortion is a medical procedure within the mother. While it takes a life, it is not a homicide – the fetus is not a person. As such I think it is outside of the state’s jurisidiction. The fetus does not (and cannot) live in the world that is the subject of the state’s police power.
I oppose the legislative intrusion into abortion on grounds similar to those for Patterico’s opposition of judicial intrusion into the same. I know that “moral welfare” is in the purview of the legislature’s duties (whereas it is not in the courts’) but read this aspect of the state’s police power very narrowly. Proponents of abortion regulation read it widely. If the courts protected the subject of abortion (to some degree if not completely) from the legislature, I would agree with that, more than I agree with the privacy reasoning in Roe.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:16 amTo put it succinctly, mom is a moral firewall. When the fetus is viable, then society’s claim to (and demands upon) its now-member will attach, whether said claims are moral, criminal, taxes, etc. But not before.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:24 am…and with those claims come the rights that can be accorded only to individuals.
Okay, I think I’m done now.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:26 amThere are other people involved besides the mother and the fetus. These are the father and two sets of grandparents. I don’t say that the views of these others should decide the matter, but they shouldn’t be ignored either. What’s needed is not so much law, as wisdom. Each case has a number of special circumstances, and so it’s unwise to have one rule for all.
dchamil (239bf1) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:35 amdchamil, I agree. To clarify, I wrote that “I don’t think the question of moral respect of a fetus extends to anyone who does not bear responsibility for its survival.”
The moral responsibility for,and to, the fetus, extends only to those with an actual (extra-moral, “biological-plus”) responsibility for the fetus’ development to personhood. The mother is the de-facto repository of this elastic authority/responsibility, but there are other players.
But the state is not one of them.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:41 am“To those who accord some moral respect to a fetus between conception and viability: on what basis is a fetus entitled to moral respect?”
One important basis is what a majority of women believe. A vast majority of women in the United States believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester. If presented with the biological facts, and if asked the question point blank, I believe that a majority of women would also say it should generally be illegal once the embryonic stage has ended. A majority of women have much more moral authority to decide this whole issue than a majority of men (and the moral authority of seven men in the year 1973 is virtually nonexistent).
People deciding this issue should — I think — be guided by when there is a significant realistic possibility of meaningful human life, rather than a “probability” of meaningful life. Ability to feel pain is almost irrelevant, since some born children don’t even have that ability (it’s a rare medical condition).
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:57 amYou question what constitutes conception, but you do not question what constitutes viability? You have got to be kidding.
Also, regarding questions 2 & 3 – compare what you have immediately before and after the proposed threshold. Was there a significant change? That is, compared with before and after the union of sperm and egg?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:09 amA while back CSI had an episode where the doctor’s dealt with an organization that helped people adopt embryos because the group believed that life began as conception (something I generally agree with). Catherine was perturbed by this, but Grissom, being his usual diplomatic self, merely just referred Catherine to Leviticus where it says the life of things is in the blood. In development, the embryo does not have blood until about day 17. This allows for a significant number of contraceptions (IUD and Birth Control), allows for “emergency contraception” after a traumatic event, and remains consistent with one of the greater moral traditions of our citizenry.
Because I have no real way to determine when I think life begins, I’m happy to use our human traditions as a guidepost. One that quite frankly would work well.
Joel B. (4254f4) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:11 amI really am encouraged by the thoughtful consideration shown this question. My understanding of the consensus is that it remains the decision of the Mother. Where I think the law needs to provide is for rights of a man who is married to the mother. The institution of marriage signaling intent to support and succor a family unit. Spousal notification (NOT consent) should be required immediately before the procedure. It is reasonable to expect that, unless dire conditions exsist (i.e. Spousal abuse, previous child abuse), a spouse would be notified of the impact to the family that he has pledged to support by this procedure.
paul (1d4067) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:24 amAs for parental consent vs parental notification, I feel that at least the parents of a minor child having this procedure should be notified. In current medical law in my state a minor child, who has a child of their own, has consent powers over themselves and their children.
So it would seem that precedent has decided on minor consent for abortion. However, the parents of the pregnant minor have a reasonable expection to be kept informed of thier childs decision. I would note however that the timing of this notification is paramount insofar as to avoid unduly influencing the pregnant minor and her decision to abort.
The decision to allow abortions to be performed need not signal a frivolous viewpoint of human life. However a rational and informed methodology to this question is required. Not based in any one religious ethic/code. But I reserve comment on this part of the issue for future posting.
until about day 17
Every criteria has that nasty “about.” Except conception. Before conception you have two cells, after you have one – with a new, unique genome. There is no other comparable threshold.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:26 aminteresting…I thought birth presented a fairly unambiguous threshold.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:28 amPartial birth abortion would indicate otherwise.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:34 amNot a specific date, an activity: brain waves. There’s no “about” about it. If brain waves are detected, no abortion. Before that event, it’s just a clump of cells.
Now, as to why…
As a carnivore, I have no compunction about killing (and eating) other mammals. The only thing that distiguishes me from a cannibal is that I leave one particular mammal off the menu.
So, what is the distinguishing characteristic of this critter? Higher brain functionality.
So…
email is human readable – aloud
bud (46e4bf) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:38 amLet’see:
Brain activity vs no detectable brain activity
vs
a unique life vs two sex cells
No comparison, beyond differing convenience – which seems to weigh heavier than reason in these discussions. Just a thought.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:43 amReally? Is there a time when birth neither has nor has not occurred? And how close of a fix can we really get on the moment, or even the day, of conception?
If certainty is your main criteria, there are ways to get certainty. That doesn’t make them the best solution on a moral level or otherwise.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:43 amIs there a time when birth neither has nor has not occurred?
I don’t wish to get into the gruesome details of partial birth abortion. Is the baby’s head enough, or not? What’s the difference between a 6 oz preemie and the fetus of a moment before? What has changed?
And how close of a fix can we really get on the moment, or even the day, of conception?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:50 amCloser than anything else – any other criteria would likely depend on time from conception anyway.
I have to say that using brain activity has a precedent in ‘Persistant Vegatative State’ determinations. It is an objective criteria. But I am unfamiliar with the ease/reliablity of that particular test. Anyone have anything on that, EEGs on Fetuses?
paul (1d4067) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:50 amThis is clearly a search for convenient life, not a search for life. Rights are not rights when they are effective only at the convenience of others.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 11:56 amAmphipolis,
Conception may be preferable as a line, but it is politically unworkable. Don’t lose the war to win the battle.
Joel B. (4254f4) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:27 pmdo you oppose any regulation of abortion before viability? Do you view a previability abortion as simply removing a clump of cells
Patterico’s question is highly prejudicial. Opposition of regulation does not necessarily equal any particular view of what a fetus is. It includes a view of what the State is.
No, a fetus is not just like a fingernail. And as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother. Ergo, not a separate person. Ergo, discretion lies with the mom.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:43 pmA mother cannot survive outside of the atmosphere. Therefore the mother is air.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:47 pmBetter would be, a woman cannot survive unaided outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, she is not a planet (or satellite or other heavenly body).
That’s about the most I can make of your mangled analogy.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:49 pmI’ll repeat what I said below before I try to answer Patterico’s question: the amount of “moral respect” accorded a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not it ought to be dispatched at will. A Jew or a homosexual wandering through the streets of Teheran would get little moral respect from its residents or from the state. That would in no way make it okay for them to kill him. I have little moral respect for abortionists. It is not okay for me to kill them.
So having said that, I think human life begins at the union of a sperm and egg. It’s tentative and fragile and microscopic, but it is human and it is alive. And as I’ve argued repeatedly in the Schiavo context, we should err on the side of life.
Until today I was fine with the idea of birth control pills because I believed they merely prevented ovulation. In the comments below Patterico suggests they also prevent or at least impede the implantation of the embryo. But pending the resolution of that question, I would say I’m fine with methods of birth control that prevent fertilization as opposed to those that destroy a fertilized egg.
By this logic I don’t think a child conceived through rape is somehow less human and worthy of destruction.
Except for Freddy Krueger. He needs killin’.
See Dubya (ced923) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:50 pmAnd as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother.
How does the one lead to the other? Does one who has power over another always have the right of life and death?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:54 pmBiwah, I think your logic is the thing that’s mangled. You said:
“And as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother. Ergo, not a separate person. Ergo, discretion lies with the mom.”
Suppose you’re on a small boat alone in the middle of the ocean. You encounter a child on a raft who survived a shipwreck. You say, “abandon your raft and come aboard my boat.” So the child abandons the raft and comes aboard your boat. The raft is gone, so the child could not survive except by remaining on your boat. What kind of logic is it that gives you the right to kill the child, merely because the child could not survive without you? Mangled, perhaps?
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 12:56 pmErgo, responsibility for the life within her lies with the mom.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:01 pmThen again, our children seemed to be part of their mother even after they were born – at least until they were weaned!
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:10 pmThats right, Andrew, I said: And as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother. Ergo, not a separate person. Ergo, discretion lies with the mom.
Somewhere along the way you changed “cannot survive outside of” to “cannot survive without”. As in, “needs to deliver [vital resource, e.g. food, air, shelter, financial support, raft]” I might need you you to refrain from booting me off your raft, or for you to get those documents to me by Thursday, but that is not the same as not existing apart from you and being unable to exist anywhere other than inside of you. I mean, please don’t throw me into the ocean – but if you do, I still existed without you.
Amphipolis: Yep. And not with the Congress, a majority of American women, the Supreme Court, or the state legislature.
My conclusion on the moral question – that a mom who has an abortion can’t be charged with a crime as amatter of jurisdiction – but I am not just wishing away the moral weight of that decision – just guarding its residence in the mom (and other people directly responsible for that fetus as a fetus).
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:20 pmIf a mother kills the toddler she is responsible for, she is guilty of murder. Children can’t survive without adult care. The same is true before birth. If any life is protected by the justice system, it should be innocent, helpless life.
The location of the child does not give the child’s mother the right to kill it.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:28 pmdo you oppose any regulation of abortion before viability? Do you view a previability abortion as simply removing a clump of cells
causing biwah to say:
Patterico’s question is highly prejudicial. Opposition of regulation does not necessarily equal any particular view of what a fetus is. It includes a view of what the State is.
I didn’t make an equivalence. I asked two questions.
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:34 pmSo developing from a single cell to a viable fetus/infant is just about “location”?
I think it’s a little more than that – say, “existence”?
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:36 pmPatterico:
They were separate questions along a certain path, suggesting equivalence – but the clarification helps. And I did try to answer them separately.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:39 pmNo, a fetus is not just like a fingernail. And as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother. Ergo, not a separate person. Ergo, discretion lies with the mom.
Why does your second sentence begin with “and” instead of “but”? In what sense is a fetus not just like a fingernail, in your view? And does that difference carry no moral implications for your before viability?
I take it that you disagree with the California law that makes it murder to deliberately kill a fetus, whether or not it is viable?
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:41 pmto a viable fetus/infant
What is a viable fetus/infant? How is a non-viable fetus different from a wholly dependant baby?
Those who are responsible for children are held responsible.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:48 pmGood catch – after I posted that I specifically thought it should have been a “but”.
There are certainly moral implications, but they change going into viability. Previability, moral prerogative lies with the mom, not with the State. Once viable, the fetus is no longer of necessity a part of the mom’s body. I would say that around this time individual rights accrue to that fetus.
So I wouldn’t agree with the CA law as to previability. Obviously I think the presence of the fetus is relevant info for prosecution for adult victim’s assault/homicide.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:49 pmI’ll repeat what I said below before I try to answer Patterico’s question: the amount of “moral respect” accorded a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not it ought to be dispatched at will. A Jew or a homosexual wandering through the streets of Teheran would get little moral respect from its residents or from the state. That would in no way make it okay for them to kill him. I have little moral respect for abortionists. It is not okay for me to kill them.
But we’re talking about the moral respect that *you* as a person answering my question have for a fetus. You seem to be simply making the point that you should make your own moral judgments and not defer to those of others. You may also be making a further point that your judgments accord with an absolute because of their religious roots, but I think your point at a high level of abstraction is that you should not accept the flawed moral judgments of others.
So in the case of Jews in Tehran, there might be rabidly anti-Semitic and murderous locals who believe the Jew should be killed — but *you* disagree with them, because *you* correctly accord the Jew sufficient moral respect that you believe he should be allowed to live.
I take it you feel differently about depraved murderers sentenced to death in accordance with due process of law.
As for your point about abortionists, you still (unlike said murderers) accord them sufficient moral respect to allow them to live. You may not accord them the same moral respect that you do your good friends, but you assign them enough respect that you deem them unworthy of being killed.
Patterico (4d4be8) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:50 pmI define conception at the point that sperm and egg combine into a distinct genetic identity. And as a Catholic, I do oppose abortion, particularly abortion as a method of after-the-fact birth control; I believe it cheapens human life to perform abortions, and that it degrades the souls of the mother and the abortionist.
And I oppose birth control because I believe that sex is not simply a fun activity for the participants’ pleasure but an expression of love for each other and, yes, for God. No matter what method of preventative birth-control you use, there’s always a chance you can have a child, and because of that you should realize that if you don’t want to have children, you shouldn’t have sex, period.
Abortion in case of incest or rape is by far the most compelling argument for widely available abortion. I am against abortion in this case as well, even though I, and I would suspect almost every person who considers themselves pro-life, regard rape (I include incest under rape because I doubt that the people who pose this argument mean consentual sex between close relatives) as one of the most morally repugnant crimes, if not the most, as is the idea of forcing a woman to live with a reminder of that attack in the most intimate situation possible in existance. However, I believe that the child that is the product of that crime is not guilty of that crime and as such should not be killed because of something his/her father did.
Elmdor (710a21) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:51 pmWhile in partial agreement with Amphipolis, the state needs some sort of objective criteria with which to gauge abuse/killing of a ‘child’.
If we use the broad scientific “Is there life on Mars?’ criteria, then abortion can never be performed. period. I mean there exists in the mother cells that are, in fact, alive. But the problem then becomes when we consider the fact that the mother has no control over each month when that cell is expelled. Does that mean that every month of her fertility a woman aborts a life? I don’t think so.
Then there is the condition of Molar Pregnancy. Which is an undifferentiated group of cells which mimic viable pregnancy. Removal of this accretion of cells is not considered an abortion. So where does this all leave us? It comes down to the desire of the Mother to carry this life (whenever that is) to term. If the fetus is horribly deformed, but viable, are we to condemn the mother and child to a life filled with pain and agony? Some would say we afford our animals more dignity than that. But how many mother have doted over children, that may horrify others, with a love that only a Mother possesses?
Do we take the fetus in light of certain maternal death? As a husband who knows and loves his wife, yes. Would I mourn the loss? Of course. But would the Mother give her life in order for a child to have theirs. Of course. So who decides…the Mother.
Have we picked up on a common theme yet folks?
The state must come up with some objective, definable standard with which to determine life. The state must come up with boundries within which the fully informed and supported Mothers (and in some instances, Fathers) can make the life changing decision which is only theirs to make.
The state may define the limits in which the procedure may be performed. The state may decide for which procedure the indigents’ physician will be paid for. But as for when does life begin?
When your Mother says it does.
paul (1d4067) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:52 pmThose who are responsible for children are held responsible.
Amphipolis, if we all agreed that every fetus at every stage was a child, then this tautological statement would be the coup de grace. But that’s actually been the subject of debate. You seem to think the a little ambiguity in the beginning of “viability” is your trump card, but you are pretty loose with your own terms.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 1:52 pmI would like someone, anyone, to explain how viability – whatever that means – trumps conception in determining whether we are dealing with a person or a fingernail. Oh, I forgot – life is now defined by the convenience of the caregiver. How – convenient.
I gotta go – wish me well, I need to find a restaurant quick for v-day.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:02 pmLife begins at conception. Just because a baby (fetus) is dependent on its mother doesn’t give her the right to kill the baby. Also, being located inside the mother does not abdicate the baby’s rights. Biwah, you keep saying that the baby (fetus) does not exist if the baby is inside the mother, but clearly, the baby does exist, in varying stages of development. Dana is right. Human life is human life.
Perhaps this is jumping the gun on P’s discussion timetable, but I have to say that abortion will some day be illegal everywhere in the US (I’m an optimist) and this Era of Abortion will be viewed as a terrible, terrible era in US history, similar to slavery. This is not invective, just a request for abortion proponents to try and actually see it that way, for just a second.
We kill a million people a year. Many of those are viable fetuses. Right now we are at about the year 1810, in comparison to the (Slavery) Abolitionist movement. It will probably take about 50 years before we convince (and that’s all I want to do is convince) the vast majority of people that abortion is homicide (more like manslaughter than murder – the perpetrators actually believe they are innocent, so murder is an innappropriate accusation).
An anecdote: My father is a physician and an atheist. As a country doctor, he could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the years if he would have performed abortions. But his medical opinion is that abortions kill a human being. That would be violating the doctor’s hippocratic oath to do no harm. Of course, many doctors disagree with him, but there it is, my anecdotal argument against abortion.
The question is when does human life start. When a new human genome is formed. The strongest argument I hear from Biwah and other abortion proponents is that the baby (fetus) has no rights because it is highly inconenient to the mother. I grant that. Yes. Abortion abolitionists are asking a lot of women. An enormous amount. We are saying to them, your life is not your own for nine months (perhaps less if induced birth could accomplish removal of the inconvenience earlier). That’s huge and severe, but that is weighed against the life of another. The human life wins out – unless you can convince me it’s not a human life.
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:07 pmIn what sense is a fetus not just like a fingernail, in your view? And does that difference carry no moral implications for your before viability?
A fetus is different from a fingernail in many ways both conrete and abstract and indeed spiritual. The difference carries enormous moral relevance. But the remaining question is, who presides over that morality? As I’ve said, I’m highly skeptical of the State’s involvement on moral issues. This is different from prosecution of crimes that have concrete detrimental effect on the operation of the society over which the state has police power.
Where the previability fetus is concerned, it is outside of the State’s jurisdiction because (a) it is not a person enjoying the rights of a person guaranteed by the state, and (b) because the issue is wholly moral, and not based on a legitimate state interest.
The existence, development, and fate of the fetus are not morally negligible – yet another way it differs from a fingernail. However, the moral decision and indeed all of the moral issues lie with the people directly responsible for the fetus – usually primarily, and in some cases solely, the mother.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:08 pmBiwah, you keep saying that the baby (fetus) does not exist if the baby is inside the mother, but clearly, the baby does exist
No David, I have said that as long as it cannot survive outside of its mother, it is part of the mother. Ergo, not a separate person. Ergo, discretion lies with the mom.
Don’t twist what I wrote to infuse it with metaphysics. A previable fetus cannot exist outside of its mother. It has not possible existence apart from its mother. This isn’t the best discussion to be paraphrasing other people’s views – feel free to cut and paste.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:16 pmsorry – my codes got screwed up above. please don’t let this screw up the whole thread.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:17 pmBiwah, so would it be okay for Mom to abort the previable fetus, and cook it up for dinner? Instead of a standard abortion, how about one that inflict maximum torment on the fetus, on film so that the mother can send the film to her cheating boyfriend? How about if Mom keeps the little skeletons of all her aborted fetuses on the mantle, as an exhibit of feminist empowerment?
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:21 pmI think the codes are better now.
The strongest argument I hear from Biwah and other abortion proponents is that the baby (fetus) has no rights because it is highly inconenient to the mother.
David,
I have not made anything resembling the “inconvenience” argument that amphipolis and now you are ascribing to me. Please stop. I am sure “inconvenience” makes the argument against abortion regulation seem a lot more frivolous, but in the case of what I am saying, it’s flat out dishonest.
That said, I respect your vision of the future and do not consider myself an “abortion proponent”. I am not in favor of women having abortions. I am against regulation. This might seem namby-pamby to you, since you see it on a scale with slavery. So be it.
I also respect your father’s decision greatly, and can see why he viewed performing abortions as a violation of his oath. I would only point out that the Hippocratic Oath is expressly a moral and personally applied doctrine, whereas legislation is institutional and springs from state power, not moral authority (under my view).
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:27 pmoh shit. help Patterico? apologies.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:27 pmIt is hard to have a production discussion about an issue such as abortion, simply because there is very little common ground. There is no right answer – people believe based on faith, and there is really no way to reconcile both sides.
That said, I would suggest a rational, scientific definition of when a fetus deserves rights. One such criterion might be when its brain develops the capacity for higher order intentionality (I think that you think that he thinks that she thinks, etc.) Humans can comprehend 5-6 levels of this; the closest any animals come would be apes, some of which can arguably reach the second (I think that you think). So basically this would indicate that the fetus has become more than a bundle of cells; it possesses defining characteristics that are unique to humans. Life itself is not sacred; only human life is. Trees and animals are not sacred, and I don’t see why a bunch of cells should be until it actually becomes human.
I’m not sure that viability is a very productive discussion; as medical technology increases, we will soon be able fetuses at nearly any stage viable. If you want to ignore such technology, that’s the same as considering people on ventilators not human and bereft of rights.
jvarisco (2c5028) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:28 pmP:
Right, but I think I went ahead and answered your question. We’re just quibbling about “respect” here:
I didn’t mention religion deliberately. This is only a religious question for me in that my religion commands me to respect human life. (If I weren’t Christian I would probably have very little use for vast swathes of humanity and hold them in very little esteem or “moral respect”.)I’m not relying on chapter and verse in the Bible here. It’s human, it’s alive, we don’t kill it without due process and without a damn good reason–eg depraved, premeditated murder.
So yes, you’re right, I should not accept the flawed moral judgments of others–especially of, the depraved murderer you mention a little later on or my hypothetical Tehranians. We should set a statewide–or nationwide–baseline on this question that protects fetuses from hideous dismemberment, and it should err on the side of preserving innocent life.
ANY law on this will make a moral statement about the status of life before birth. Roe made one. Why shouldn’t I fight for mine?
See Dubya (ced923) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:28 pmOK. Biwah, here’s a direct quote from you, above:
startquote.
Somewhere along the way you changed “cannot survive outside of” to “cannot survive without”. As in, “needs to deliver [vital resource, e.g. food, air, shelter, financial support, raft]” I might need you you to refrain from booting me off your raft, or for you to get those documents to me by Thursday, but that is not the same as not existing apart from you and being unable to exist anywhere other than inside of you. I mean, please don’t throw me into the ocean – but if you do, I still existed without you.
endquote.
You said, contrasing the person found on a liferaft with a fetus: “…please don’t throw me into the ocean – but if you do, I still existed without you.” Why else did you write that if not to say that a (previable) fetus does not exist without its mother? My point is that there is a difference between existing and being able to survive. A previable fetus cannot survive without its mother, but clearly the previable fetus exists without its mother. It will just die if removed.
That being said, we have to return to the question of whether a human life exists. It’s really a very medical question (though I’m not a doctor). I think the answer is yes, but why do you think the answer it no?
Is it because the previable fetus cannot feel pain, or very little pain? Cannot think or cannot think well? As I said above, the strongest answer I have heard is that the previable fetus is highly inconvenient – and that argument just doesn’t work.
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:38 pmOK. Biwah, you are right, I misstated your position. I was wrong to say that you argued convenience as a grounds the legality of abortion.
So what is (or more so, should be) the grounds for the legality of abortion?
You said:
”
Pre-viability abortion is a medical procedure within the mother. While it takes a life, it is not a homicide – the fetus is not a person. As such I think it is outside of the state’s jurisidiction. The fetus does not (and cannot) live in the world that is the subject of the state’s police power.
”
It appears to me that you are just stating what the law should be, but not why. You said the “fetus is not a person”. Why?
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:47 pmBiwah, here’s another hypothetical for you. Mom is prepped for an abortion of her five-month fetus, on grounds of inconvenience. Dad hears about it, and enters the room just as the abortionist is about to go to work. Dad grasps the arm of the abortionist to prevent the abortionist from harming the fetus. Is it the duty and role of the state to remove Dad’s grip on the arm of the abortionist, so that the abortionist can abort? If this matter is outside of the State’s jurisdiction then do you think Dad and the abortioinist must be left to fight among themselves without state interference?
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:49 pmBy the way, Biwah, thanks for posting here, and thanks P for providing the forum.
Another by the way… would I be correct if I called you a proponent of the legality of abortion? I think abortion proponent is just shorthand for that. We are talking about supporting or opposing abortion rights/legality, not promoting more abortions, or less by choice, though the later result would be good.
Similarly, I think abortion rights opponents should freely say call ourselves abortion rights opponents. Or call ourselves Anti-Choice. I prefer Abolitionist, but I don’t mind if you say I am against a woman’s right to choose. I am.
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 2:56 pmAndrew’s view (Comment #7) “a significant realistic possibility of meaningful human life” is close to mine: As long as in the natural course of events there is normal and healthy development. One day, one week, one month, I could not say. As a practical matter, I do not believe we can get sufficient consensus to abolish abortions in the first trimester. I am willing to grant that for “our hardness of hearts”.
nk (2e1372) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:02 pmNo, my reasoning doesn’t hinge on pain, cognition, perception or, as I’ve said, inconvenience. My main metric is function – breathing, physical structure, survival – those things without which survival is impossible. A baseline for functioning as a person seems to be existing outside of your mother’s body. If a fetus is functionally merged with the mother, it is part of the mother. If it’s part of the mother, the issue is medical as to the mother.
Homicide is the intentional shutting down of a human beyond a critical threshold of vital function (i.e. life). Abortion is like homicide in that there is an intentional killing, but does not end a human life (my definition). But I am not saying that abortion is something to sneeze at. Just that what it deprives is a potential, not actual, human life.
And I don’t advocate for that, as much because the effects on the outside are often worse than foreseen, as because the killing of a fetus is wrong.
What about a person who can no longer live without help at the end of their life? Raises similar questions. And I think that debate is happening too. Must life always be cultivated from the seed? Must life always be prolonged to the maximum? As an article of faith, sure. As a matter of criminal enforcement, no.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:11 pmnk, I agree with you that it will be difficult to get a national consensus on banning abortion in the first trimester, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work toward that good. To draw on the Abolition analogy again, your statement is similar to someone saying in 1820, “Let’s just try to free the slaves. You’re crazy if you think we’ll ever obtain the vote for them, or the right to own property in the South.”
It’s a good thing people faught for their freedom and other rights, and of course, the struggle wasn’t over at the passing of the 13th-15th Amendments. The struggle for African Americans’ rights lasted at least from about 1800 to the 1960’s (or still continuing today, depending on what you measure). The struggle for unborn people’s rights will likely be similar in duration and magnitude.
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:11 pmnk said, “As a practical matter, I do not believe we can get sufficient consensus to abolish abortions in the first trimester.” Some states have sufficient consensus to do so tomorrow.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:18 pmBiwah, I agree that it is a medical question. Thanks for clearly stating your reasoning: function, survival. I just don’t agree with those medical criteria.
Last thoughts: If the definition of human life (to be protected by law) is based on funtion, as you argue, then the time within the pregnancy of human life start will change as medical technology changes. Already, the date of viability is moving back every year. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I think it’s cutting into the second trimester now (that they can keep late second trimester premies alive now, I think). Some day we will probably be able to keep fetuses alive from around the beginning of the second trimester. What if some day we can keep them alive from very early, say it gets back to about 6 weeks from conception? Would you then advocate making abortion illegal after that point, assuming someone would pay for incubation?
Or do you mean functional/ survival without medical/technical assistance? If so, that really opens a can of worms, as you hinted above, re removal of medical support from the medically dependent.
I will have to think about your position and hopefully post at a later date. I have to go for now.
David (6b45ed) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:25 pmThank you David. We can think incrementally. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, the 14th in 1868 and the 15th in 1870.
nk (47858f) — 2/14/2006 @ 3:29 pmRegarding distinguishing pregnancies resulting from rape, this seems reasonable to me. Denying a woman an abortion may not be “punishment” but it does impose a burden on her. In cases of rape this burden is likely to be particularly great and it is one the woman has in no way consented to. So I think the case for allowing abortion is particularly strong. As I understand it, the law in general imposes no duty to rescue so for example if you come upon a drowning man you are under no legal obligation to throw him a rope. So I don’t think it is illogical to believe that the law shouldn’t impose a much greater obligation on a woman pregnant from rape.
I personally also believe that genetics strongly influence behavior, that children born of rape are likely to carry genes for antisocial behavior and thus that it makes sense for society to encourage abortion in such cases.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/14/2006 @ 4:03 pmDana pretty much said it for me, but let me just add two things: The arguments about “viability” are red herrings, pure and simple. Logic dictates that once the process has begun (sperm meets egg), it doesn’t matter at what point you stop it. Think of a ball bearing rolling down a finite inclined slope. If you don’t stop it, it will roll off the edge. It doesn’t matter whether you stop it right after it starts rolling or whether you stop it two inches from the edge. Either way, you’ve halted the process.
As for the argument that “Well, it might not get implanted on the uterine wall,” or any of the other things that occasionally result in the baby not coming to term, that’s argument by exception. I could get hit by a bus walking across the street tomorrow, but it’s not going to keep me from going out. In the normal scheme of things, if left alone, the fetus will grow to term and be born.
CraigC (4525c5) — 2/14/2006 @ 4:37 pmCraigC,
Indeed — except that your analysis does not take the mother’s interests into account at all. Her body is held hostage for about 10 months during this process. Usually that is by choice; not always.
The issue of how to balance the mother’s interests against the fetus’s potential life is obviously the subject of serious disagreement, and you might not believe that the mother’s interests should be taken into account absent a threat to her health or life, but I want to make sure you see that you are indeed ignoring them.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 5:25 pmbiwah,
Andrew asked you:
Biwah, so would it be okay for Mom to abort the previable fetus, and cook it up for dinner? Instead of a standard abortion, how about one that inflict maximum torment on the fetus, on film so that the mother can send the film to her cheating boyfriend? How about if Mom keeps the little skeletons of all her aborted fetuses on the mantle, as an exhibit of feminist empowerment?
I think you should answer this. It is fruitful in the debate.
Andrew has set up, quite deliberately, some absurd possibilities to show how your position could be taken to a logical extreme. It’s a valid question whether your position on this is so rigid that you would not involve the state even in the outrageous instances described. How do you respond?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 5:28 pmDana:
You say:
Abortion after rape is no different from abortion following consensual intercourse: a human life is destroyed. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but it is less than murder; we ought not to murder a living human being because someone else is suffering.
You will concede, though, that most people disagree with you on this — right? Are you willing to live with a rule that respects the opinions of people who disagree?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:09 pmbiwah:
I have a very important question for you. If you believe that the state has no business dictating how the mother exercises her decision, do you think that the state is permitted to attempt to influence how she makes her decision? For example, what if each side’s arguments for or against abortion were presented in a short pamphlet, and the woman were required to wait 24 hours and certify that she read the pamphlet (or had someone read it to her if she were illiterate). Would you oppose that?
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:12 pmStray thought;
paul (464e99) — 2/14/2006 @ 6:37 pmby imposing certain religious values on a woman considering abortion (When a fetus is a human, viability etc.) are we in fact, as a nation, endorsing a certain religion(s)?
Does the template of religious thought on abortion violate the seperation of church and state? As it would pertain to abortion rights?
Then there is the “Obverse Test.”
If the state has the right prevent a woman from having an abortion, does the state also have the right to sterilize documented Unfit Mothers? If not why not?
biwah:
I should not have ascribed the “convenience” explanation to you personally. I honestly can see no other reason why conception is not embraced as the obvious time that life begins, and all other explanations to me seem to be striving for the most convenient (and arbitrary) time. But I can’t read your mind!
I can see how you could think that the fetus is functionally merged with the mother, or part of the mother. I disagree. It is a separate organism, more similar to a parasite than a cancerous growth. The function of a fetus is to grow into a baby. The function of the mother’s womb is to nurture and sustain the fetus. It is, throughout its development, separate and distinct – so much so that the mother’s body sometimes tragically rejects it. Its dependency does not make it part of the mother, any more than a parasite’s would.
No, your argument does not hold up. You have given no reason why its location, development, or dependency would make it less than a distinct human life, or why one distinct human life is less worthy of protection than another.
Perhaps the moral disagreement comes down to this – should one that has dependants be free to take the lives of those in their care, or should they be held responsible to protect the lives of those in their care?
Amphipolis (346a88) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:05 pmbiwah-
You said, “A baseline for functioning as a person seems to be existing outside of your mother’s body. If a fetus is functionally merged with the mother, it is part of the mother. If it’s part of the mother, the issue is medical as to the mother.”
What about siamese twins, where one sibling is dependent on a major organ of the other, such as a heart? This may not even be possible, I know little to nothing about them, but for the sake of argument, assume it is. If the “weaker” twin had its own brain but was completely dependent on the heart of its sibling for circulation, it would seem to fit in your description above. The weaker cannot exist outside of hte stronger twins body, and is functionally merged with the stronger. Would it then be okay to end the life of the weaker twin at the discretion of the stronger? Is the analogy flawed?
nyy23dm (907320) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:12 pmI know that there are some significant dis-analogies in the following comparison, but with an issue as controversial as this, it can be instructive to try to strip away the emotions temporarily. I start wondering: at what point during manufacture does an automobile become a car? Now the car is worth a lot less than a human, has no soul, and this analogy makes no sense to those who believe that a soul becomes present at conception. But for others, it is one way to sort of put it in perspective. Does a car become a car when it gets an engine? Can it be called a car without the body on it? Where do you draw the line and start calling it a car? It is almost similar to me with fetuses except I put most of the moral emphasis on thinking and feeling.
Let’s take this hypothetical example: what if there was a person who existed without a body. (How would we know the person was there? I don’t know – but this is hypothetical.) If such a thinking being was destroyed, wouldn’t that still be murder? I think it would be. So my emphasis is more on consciousness rather than physical traits.
At the same time, I believe that other factors play a moral role as well. If the fetus has an illness and will only die suffering in two weeks after being born, then that has to be taken into consideration too.
Amphipolis, I believe that a lot of women would argue that an unwanted pregnancy is much more than just “inconvenient.” Some women couldn’t think of giving their own child away. So their option is not just 9 months of “inconvenience,” but at least 18 years and nine months. (Although I concede that after having the child, the mother almost always loves the child.)
I also contend that complete abstinence as a form of preventing pregnancy is unrealistic for most of us. After all, sex is good for mental health. We’re even built for it.
Psyberian (1cf529) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:44 pmThink of a ball bearing rolling down a finite inclined slope. If you don’t stop it, it will roll off the edge. It doesn’t matter whether you stop it right after it starts rolling or whether you stop it two inches from the edge. Either way, you’ve halted the process. (#62)
That’s an interesting way of phrasing it CraigC. It is a process of becoming. But becoming what? Human. If you stop the process before a fetus becomes a human (in the full sense of the term), then that is not really murder then, is it?
Psyberian (1cf529) — 2/14/2006 @ 7:58 pmI like that Patterico’s questions are provoking responses about “moral respect” for the fetus. Necessarily, the Mother and sometimes others in the family get brought in. We are leaving public-policy and Utilitarian questions for another post, once the basic arguments are better developed, and that’s helping.
From a biologist’s point of view, the single most important “bright line” event in each human’s life is the moment where sperm and egg fuse, and a particular genetic identity is created. If going from “no moral respect” to “respect” requires an objective, yes/no state-change, fertilization is it. “Implantation” and “birth” are also fairly clear-cut.
Other criteria (brainstem development, similarity to an infant, ability to feel pain, etc.) are gradual, and will always involve making excruciating distinctions between two nearly indistinguishable fetuses, one barely under the line and one just over it.
But as we live our lives, we deal with these sorts of decisions all the time (an arbitrary drinking age, the GPA cutoff between magna cum laude and cum laude, whether that person is handsome/nice/rich enough to qualify for a second date…).
Is binary clarity the most important trait in deciding when moral respect is accorded? I don’t think so.
As far as viability as a governing criterion, consider that it’s now plausible to talk about Brave New World‘s vision of fetuses grown in creches, outside a mother’s womb. Over the next couple of decades, the time of viability is going to inch closer and closer to the time of conception. (A bug to some, and a feature to others.)
To those who accord some moral respect to a fetus between conception and viability: on what basis is a fetus entitled to moral respect?
1. On the basis of the fetus’ acquisition to broadly-accepted attributes that make a person human. These are traits such as awareness of self, awareness of others, ability to feel pain, ability to generate brain waves indicative of higher mental processes. Not all infants possess all these characteristics; not all adults do.
2. On the basis of the probability that the fetus can develop into a fully human person, in time.
A 64-cell zygote doesn’t much resemble a person, to me. Compared to a 6-month fetus, it has a much lower chance of completing development (avoiding lethal genetic problems, spontaneous miscarriage, and the like).
Sometime in the 2 to 4 month time frame, an embryo becomes recognizable as a pre-human, sharing many of the features that a human exhibits as a born baby. So in my view, a fetus acquires progressively more right to “moral respect” in the 2-month to 9-month window.
It also seems to me that the mother isn’t a spectator, but another party with important claims to rights that are potentially in direct conflict with the fetus’ entitlement to moral respect.
AMac (b6037f) — 2/14/2006 @ 8:13 pmBoom. AMac has begun to hit on what I think are the important concepts. Please respond to what he has said.
Patterico (de0616) — 2/14/2006 @ 8:17 pm[…] Patterico has posted A Discussion of Abortion — Part Two: Follow-Up Questions. I’ll follow suit by posting more answers. While the question was asked as one paragraph, I think it makes sense to break it down into three questions: […]
Minor thoughts » A Discussion of Abortion, Part 2 (aa3f29) — 2/14/2006 @ 9:51 pmI used to think that at fertilisation, the fertilised egg was also simultaneously infused with soul [ for want of a better word]. That bothered me a lot about, excess 100,000 embryos in fertility clinics of the 400,000 embryos in fertility clinics throughout all the states [ in US] That bothered me of, those who argued for stem cell research on these excess embryos.
Recently I have revised my view and think viability at 20-22 weeks would be the point of concern. With that, morning after pill is OK, stem cell research is OK, discarding excess embryos is OK, abortion before 20 weeks is OK.
Yi-Ling (dd5dfe) — 2/15/2006 @ 3:55 amA 64-cell zygote doesn’t much resemble a person, to me.
So a person is entitled to respect based on how they look? Which is merely a function of age? Not to me.
Compared to a 6-month fetus, it has a much lower chance of completing development (avoiding lethal genetic problems, spontaneous miscarriage, and the like).
A person’s moral respect is based on their potential health? Do you see where this is going?
Shouldn’t the weak and helpless and dependant and ugly and mute be entitled to more, not less, protection? Why protect anyone at all?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 5:22 amRecently I have revised my view and think viability at 20-22 weeks would be the point of concern. With that, morning after pill is OK, stem cell research is OK, discarding excess embryos is OK, abortion before 20 weeks is OK.
A moral argument based on the convenience of the powerful. Everything is OK for the strong, not so good for the weak. It’s a brave new world.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 5:25 amAmphipolis (5:22am):
> So a person is entitled to respect based on how they look?
Few would claim that the differences between a 64-cell embryo and a person (say, one walking down the sidewalk) center on appearance.
>A person’s moral respect is based on their potential health? Do you see where this is going?
Why, yes.
On the other hand, the suppositions and arguments you offer take us directly to the notion lampooned by Monty Python. After all, sperm don’t outwardly look like people either, and many of them also have the potential to lead to fertilization, implantation, and so on.
If this issue was capable of tidy resolution by simple observation and argument… well, then how many of us would have bothered to comment on these posts? Put another way, the spectrum of opinions on abortion that are held by reasonable people is very broad. That means something.
AMac (b6037f) — 2/15/2006 @ 5:57 amFew would claim that the differences between a 64-cell embryo and a person (say, one walking down the sidewalk) center on appearance.
You did. Or do you care to give another reason why the difference matters?
After all, sperm don’t outwardly look like people either, and many of them also have the potential to lead to fertilization, implantation, and so on.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:10 amThere is a significant difference between a sperm, with a life expectancy of a few days, and a fertilized egg, with a life expectancy of 80 years. I don’t know how you can compare a sperm to a unique, separate human life.
If we’re just talking about “moral respect” then I say that begins at conception. Obviously any parent who got choked up seeing their baby on ultrasound would agree with me whatever else they have to say on the matter. However in my mind morality is functionally irrelevant to the question of abortion from a legal standpoint; morality is cause for personal opinion but as a personal matter is not very useful beyond that point.
The question of “what defines ‘life'” is not very helpful – sure a fetus is a “life” as soon as it becomes able to control its own development at least on a cellular level i.e. that would be from conception. But so what – the symbiotic organisms living in our intestines can also be considered “life”, yet no one other than perhaps the Hindu lament their passing.
Therefore viability is the more legally useful term for me; we have to recognize when discussing application of laws to women seeking abortion that the status of a fetus inside a mother is not the same as that of the same fetus outside its mother. Women are under no special obligation (legal, contractual or otherwise) to bring their fetus to term, and therefore I don’t see how the law has the standing to prohibit abortion of an unviable fetus – until that fetus is viable it is functionally a part of the woman’s body and abortion at that stage is analogous to self mutilation; unpleasant or perhaps even horrific but ultimately her call and no one else’s just as if she decided she’d like to self-amputate her hand.
Viability marks the point where the second state becomes a spossibility, where the fetus has some chance of surviving on its own in an incubator.
That is the point where I do feel the law is able to recognize the fetus as a life for legal purposes, and I feel that from that point forward any request for abortion should be reviewed by the state – denial meaning that the state is then obligated to have the baby removed – immediately and at it’s own expense – and placed in state care thenceforth, the mother to never have contact whatsoever with the child.
Counselling should be encouraged prior to going down that road but once the trip is made there should be no going back. Everyone has to live with the consequences.
Scott (57c0cc) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:19 amAMac:
Looking back, the word resemble does not have to refer to appearance, so perhaps you did not mean that the difference is based on appearance. So what is the difference between a 64-cell embryo and a 128-cell embryo? Where do you make the (arbitrary) break?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:21 amScott:
However in my mind morality is functionally irrelevant to the question of abortion from a legal standpoint; morality is cause for personal opinion but as a personal matter is not very useful beyond that point.
Like it or not, our laws are more or less based on our morality. That’s why murdering someone who is inconvenient (even if that person matters to no one) is illegal, and that’s why many people have a problem with abortion-on-demand.
Viability is not a reliable measure. Who is to say if a particular fetus is viable or not, a judge? There is no point to mark.
And your statement about the baby being part of the mother makes no sense biologically, as has been pointed out above.
If a person’s life is dependant on another, the powerful one has an obligation to protect the weaker one. Especially when (in the vast majority of cases) the weaker one was put in that position by the actions of the stronger one. Otherwise, why have laws at all? The poor, the sick, the helpless – kill them all, if they get in your way. Morality has nothing to do with it, right?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:34 am“A moral argument based on the convenience of the powerful. Everything is OK for the strong, not so good for the weak. It’s a brave new world. ”
Unless you believe in the existence of a soul, this is always the case. I regularly eat animals that have much more reasoning power than a 64 cell fetus, and as I eat them I am morally responsible for their deaths. I would never eat a person. The only utilitarian argument I know of that supports this distinction is that I beleive that humans are much more deserving of respect and have many more rights than cows and chickens. And this view is ultimately self-interested: I am human.
This utilitarian reasoning is definitely applicable to a fertilized egg.
And I’m still puzzled by the proponents of conception as the point at which rights accrue to a human. Absent a soul, is it then the genetic identity that matters here? In other words is it the set of genes that have the right to be born? The only real difference I can see between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is the genetic identity. In all other ways they are identical.
And if fertilized eggs have all the rights of adults should we not be focussing more on all the reasons that lead to fertilized eggs not implanting in the uterus? I don’t have the numbers handy, but I’m sure that, on an annual basis, the number of fertilized eggs that are not implanted is significantly higher than the number of implanted eggs that don’t come to term.
nittypig (4c1c43) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:45 amThe only real difference I can see between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is the genetic identity. In all other ways they are identical.
Compare the difference to any other difference in the development of a human being. I think you will admit that the moment of conception is far and away the most significant change. Also, note my observation on the life expectancy of a sperm vs a fertilized egg – same goes for an unfertilized egg.
As for eggs that don’t emplant, they die of natural causes and for many reasons. There is a big difference between a death from natural causes and a deliberate killing for motives of personal benefit.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:51 amThis utilitarian reasoning is definitely applicable to a fertilized egg
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 6:57 amAnd many other things (people?). History is full of examples. It could even be rationalized to apply to you, unless you are powerful.
Why do we have such resistance to letting the Mother decide this issue? We keep referring to science, religion, society when in fact, it will be the mother, for whatever reason, who will act upon seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
paul (1d4067) — 2/15/2006 @ 7:15 amAmphipolis(whos main discussion tactic is semantic manipulation) is focused on not letting the powerful in society decide. Nittypig gets all tangled up in the religious viewpoints, genetic identity and the like. Amac on the other hand focused on the fact the mother is a major factor in this equation “It also seems to me that the mother isn’t a spectator, but another party with important claims to rights that are potentially in direct conflict with the fetus’ entitlement to moral respect.”
We either will allow the Mother this right or we won’t. Let’s see an up or down vote now.
Why do we have such resistance to letting the Mother decide this issue?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 7:22 amAnd your reason for giving a mother the right to kill her child is…?
Short on time, but I’d like to address two earlier questions.
Andrew:
would it be okay for Mom to abort the previable fetus, and cook it up for dinner? Instead of a standard abortion, how about one that inflict maximum torment on the fetus, on film so that the mother can send the film to her cheating boyfriend? How about if Mom keeps the little skeletons of all her aborted fetuses on the mantle, as an exhibit of feminist empowerment?
You are asking, would it be okay. I will re-frame it as, could she be imprisoned for such acts. To the second question, I would answer no. This extreme scenario would trigger a lot of issues outside of the criminal law, but I’ll leave those aside.
And no, I would not be “okay” with it. But that’s not the criteria for defining governmental authority.
Patterico:
If you believe that the state has no business dictating how the mother exercises her decision, do you think that the state is permitted to attempt to influence how she makes her decision?
I think that the State would be justified in giving some incentive to have the baby. The basis for such laws/policies could include the well-being (“welfare” being a radioactive word) of the mother or larger public policy. Deeming abortion as a crime against person, e.g. homicide of any stripe, would by contrast be based on the state’s jurisdiction over a fetus that was never viable as a person, a power that I firmly believe should not exist.
For the state to offer adoption counseling (a line has to be drawn well short of coercion, obviously), housing, and addiction treatment contingent on a mother’s keeping the child would be not only alright, but great IMO. I cringe to think of NARAL’s probable opposition to such positive programs. I think that in addition to being a legit exercise of state power, they would make the difference in a far better way than any criminal prohibition.
biwah (f5ca22) — 2/15/2006 @ 7:29 amabortion as a crime against person, e.g. homicide of any stripe, would by contrast be based on the state’s jurisdiction over a fetus that was never viable as a person, a power that I firmly believe should not exist.
You make the determination if viability based on a judge’s decision on a fetus’ potential health (see above)? Is that how personhood is to be determined? Perhaps so, but it will not settle the issue. It is arbitrary, dependant on technology, and conception will always remain the obvious start of personhood.
If protecting the weak and innocent is not a legit exercise of state power, I don’t know what is.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 7:41 amAre chickens and cows not weak and innocent? Being weak and innocent is not a reason to call for the states protection, the state needs to provide protections to the strong and the guilty as well.
In order to believe that state intervention is warranted (at any stage in the pregnancy) you have to believe that the fetus is human (not just life) and is entitled to rights that outweigh the right to personal autonomy of the mother.
I can agree that fertilization is the most significant change (not necessarily ‘far and away’). But I don’t buy the argument about life expectancy. An unfertilized egg is a single cell that has a short life expectancy, regardless of what happens to it outside the ovaries. However, an egg that doesn’t implant in the uterus is also a single cell that has a very short life expectancy. Both fertilization and implantation must happen for a fetus to srvive. Each is a biological process that depends very much on the conditions in the uterus. The only distinctions I can see are:
1) The genetic makeup of the egg is different after fertilization.
2) The actions of the mother are more likely to influence fertilization than implantation.
In case 1) you’re arguing that genes are what makes a human cell a person. This is perfectly reasonable. In case 2) you’re changing the balance betweem the fetus’ rights and the mothers based on the mother’s behaviour.
Otherwise the choice of fertilization is simply a matter of convenience.
nittypig (4c1c43) — 2/15/2006 @ 8:07 amI can agree that fertilization is the most significant change…
Well, there we have it.
However, an egg that doesn’t implant in the uterus is also a single cell that has a very short life expectancy.
Nobody knows how many don’t implant. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority do. Even if they don’t, the life expectancy would be vastly different. But I agree that the value of life is not determined by life expectancy. It’s just another difference.
A fertilized egg is more than genes. It is a separate, distinct, living creature – it was not before. The genes are just a part of it.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 8:40 amAmphipolis:
Like it or not, our laws are more or less based on our morality. That’s why murdering someone who is inconvenient (even if that person matters to no one) is illegal
That’s loopy. Murder is illegal because it maliciously and capriciously inflicts death, which interferes with life, which is the basis for all of the various rights and protections enshrined in our legal system. Pretty straightforward – I think you’re building your argument around the idea that abortion = murder, something that is not a given in our discussion – we’re still at the “scrabbling to find common ground” stage of the conversation.
Viability is not a reliable measure. Who is to say if a particular fetus is viable or not, a judge?
You honestly can’t think of anyone who is able to make a determination or at least estimate of a fetus’ chances of surviving a move from the womb to an incubator? Who do you think works in the preemie ward? Fetal viability is measured every day in hospitals across the country…
And your statement about the baby being part of the mother makes no sense biologically, as has been pointed out above.
Evidently not to you, but from your comments above I’m not going to take that too personally.
If a person’s life is dependant on another, the powerful one has an obligation to protect the weaker one.
Bad analogy – if I come across you lying in the street with a broken neck and there is no one else for a mile around (i.e. your life has become dependant on me), the law says I can keep on a-walkin’ if I so choose. This is something that comes up in first aid training, the question “do I as a private citizen have an obligation to help the sick, weak injured etc that I come across?” and the answer is no. So what you just said is on its face demonstrably wrong.
Especially when (in the vast majority of cases) the weaker one was put in that position by the actions of the stronger one.
This is the only point where the stronger/weaker argument even becomes worth debating – and whether you think so or not it has more than one logically supportable position.
Things to consider:
1) Rape. Not everyone is impregnated willingly. My feeling is that laws should address the lowest common denominator rather than trying to get tangled up in who said what/when, meaning I’d prefer one standard that covers both consensual conception and rape, and the weak/strong thing fails in that scenario as being inconsistent (i.e. consensual conception could be argued to be a form of contractual intent, but then we risk mothers without morals copping “rape” like murderers cop “insanity”, and I’d prefer to move beyond that).
2) Standing. This goes back to the heart of the matter; a viable fetus to me can be considered a singular, independent entity and in my opinion that’s what is needed to qualify for basic legal protection. On the same grounds I don’t consider an unviable fetus so qualified.
Otherwise, why have laws at all? The poor, the sick, the helpless – kill them all, if they get in your way.
A poor, sick or helpless person has legal standing because they are recognized as “persons” – meaning someone who is capable at least of surviving hooked up to a machine. Total whiff there, but nice try.
Morality has nothing to do with it, right?
Scott (57c0cc) — 2/15/2006 @ 12:09 pmSee above
Nittypig,
In your 8:07 comment you say, “However, an egg that doesn’t implant in the uterus is also a single cell that has a very short life expectancy.”
Do you mean embryo or an unfertilized egg that doesn’t implant? By the time an embryo reaches the uterus he or she is composed of a hundred or so cells.
Jivin J (fac739) — 2/15/2006 @ 12:41 pmMurder is illegal because it maliciously and capriciously inflicts death
Because that is considered – wrong.
Fetal viability is measured every day in hospitals across the country
Not for the purposes of determining life or death. or at least estimate… – is an estimate really good enough? Seems highly arbitrary. And why the fetus’ chances of independent life should determine it’s life or death has never been stated. Why not when it reaches a certain weight, or when it moves, or some other arbitrary time? Why should independence matter so much for a baby?
if I come across you lying in the street…
If you let a rope go knowing that someone will fall to their death – and you let go because that person is inconvenient – you are liable. Especially when you put them on the rope.
As for standing, you have given no reason to have standing after viability. We both have the same dilemma. But I think conception makes a lot more sense.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/15/2006 @ 2:20 pmMy previous remark was pretty unclear. I meant to say that a fertilized egg that will not ultimately be implanted in the uterus is, immediately after fertilization, just the same as it was before, and with about the same life expectancy. You are right that it will undergo cell division and grow, I was really trying to address the question of why the moment of fertilization should be so much more important than the moment of implantation. The only thing I can really understand on that point is that genetically the cell changes radically at that moment. Rights accruing to all cells that are human and have a distinct genetic identity is a principal that I can understand, but I don’t share it.
nittypig (4c1c43) — 2/15/2006 @ 2:59 pmTo: Amphipolis
My revision of point of moral respect is based on recent experience. I had undergone IVF and had three frozen embryos for another round. I wanted to read for my Bar and postpone the the third IVF for after the Bar, but was anguished about the soul of the embryos in the hyper cold freezer being and feeling cold for so long. My revision is based on the experience after I undertook 3rd IVF partly because of my concern for the cold embryoes and my insights after that. They are not said out of convenience nor from position of strong versus weak.
Yi-Ling (895a23) — 2/15/2006 @ 7:44 pmlol. Patterico, your life categories are “impoverished”.
Which of the following equals “human life”?
a parthenote (haploid)?
a maternal clone?
a parthenote raised to diploid with nuclear transfer?
an invitro fertilization?
an oocyte with impact sperm?
a morula?
a blastula?
a nerula?
None of this matters a whit.
matoko_platonist_against_aristotelians (5d3f43) — 2/15/2006 @ 10:37 pmwe will do abortion, because we CAN do abortion.
science mitigates biology.
it is only a choice if it is done in a back alley or a clinic.
you choose. 😉