Chicken Girl

and that, right there, is the reason I'm pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion!). If a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, and she's desperate enough, she WILL go to the back alley abortionist.

It all boils down to:

which would you rather have, a dead fetus and a dead or maimed mother, or a dead fetus and a healthy mother able to bring a child into the world when and if she WANTS to?

Bad Kitty

I understand how it is "unfair". But I'm weighing the unfairness of no "responsibility-free" sex against a human life. So how can I answer this question otherwise, given my beliefs? As I said, it isn't a "pretty answer". And as a women, I'm not thrilled with the possibility of carrying a child, because I don't personally want children but I *do* want to have lots of sex with my husband.

But the bottom lines is, as of now, I have seen no evidence that compels me to believe that a fetus is deserving of less rights under the law than a newborn. Or that a six-month fetus is more deserving of rights than a three-month fetus. Thus, my reply has to be: accept that sex has more ramifications and responsibilities than dinner and a show. If you are not ready to accept the possible responsibility for producing another life, one should perhaps be very creative and careful about the sort of sex one has.

I am open to suggestions, and I mean that seriously. It would be ever so much easier to be convinced that a fetus really is NOT a person. But I can say that out loud: "A fetus is not a person", and I can listen to other people say it many times over with utter confidence, and it just doesn't ring true for me. It feels WRONG to me. It feels like a convenient lie to me. You know?

I guess my approach is less about the "sacredness" of life and more about fair and equitable application of very basic human rights. As I don't believe in any gods, I don't really think in terms of life being "sacred" either. Your philosophy says,"after you are born" you have a right to remain alive. I have a hard time (obviously) with birth being the point at which the fundamental human right to life is applied. I guess I have a problem with it because it seems such an artificially drawn line that has less to do with the fetus itself and more to do with the opinion of the mother. Because in essence, it says a pregnant woman defines and bestows personhood. Probably that sounds straight up to some people, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

Do you mean that not every pre-birth life that is created needs to be preserved? Because it does sound in general like you think post-birth life should be preserved: help them if they are sick, don�t take another life. Are you anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia?

I think I am confused here because your statement seems like a non-sequitor to me: �Life� in general isn�t special, therefore post-birth humans deserve more consideration than pre-birth fetuses? I guess I could only agree with this statement if I thought there was some ethical value difference between, say, a newborn suffering from a congenital birth defect and a perfectly healthy 8 month fetus. But for me, both are �persons� and the only true difference I can see is location (and of course the fact that they currently don�t have exactly the same protection on the law).

As I�ve mentioned before, I think that advancing medical technology is going to be a problem for pro-choicers who think �viability� should be the cut-off point for abortions. And there are a lot of them, at least according to the polls I�ve seen.

I intellectually �understand� this comment, but have real ethical problems with it. If the burden of pregnancy is taken out of the picture entirely, I don�t see how a woman�s desire to stop her �genetic material� from being in the world could possibly outweigh a fetus� (which for me is a person) right to life. I mean, genetic material is in your hair and skin and you shed that all over the place, right? Plus, the genetic material of a fetus is not completely the same as the mother�s or the father�s, it is unique to the fetus. Perhaps I�m over-simplifying this? Of course, if you think of a fetus as a fingernail, the whole question becomes moot.

Anyways, I�m not sure how much support in general the idea of an abortion solely to prevent the distribution of your genetic material would receive, even from people who believe that abortion prior to the third trimester is alright in certain circumstances. Here is some data from Gallup Polls on this topic (I would be interested in more recent ones if anyone has them):

Of course, this says nothing as to whether it is �right� or �wrong�, I�m just interested in the prevailing attitudes in society, because as I believe that attitudes about abortion must change before it could possibly be phased out.

This quote of yours is out of proper order with your other quotes, but I wanted to address it last. I wish I had a clear roadmap for how to change society�s attitudes. I mean, I know huge changes CAN occur. At one time, women didn�t have all the same rights as men. Blacks didn�t have all the same rights as whites. Big changes in overall attitude are feasible. But I�ll admit to NOT having the complete answer. I guess my first logical battle would be to tackle sex ed and birth control. Enabling people to have the maximum control possible over their fertility would be a damn good start.

Michelle

Bad Kitty

Which is why I feel so very strongly that society's attitude about sex, pregnancy, abortion, fetuses as a person, etc. much change before abortion could be "successfully" made illegal. Because in today's climate, I absolutely agree with you that this would be the result.

That isn't what it all boils down to for me. I can't decide that fetuses aren't really people just because some women would disagree if I believe that they ARE people and kill them anyways -- and risk their own lives to do it.

I understand that this may be the bottom line for YOU, and I respect where you are coming from. But I still have unanswered questions.

Michelle

cheetah

Actually, really I don't. Of course it doesn't sound like a convenient lie to me. Saying a fetus is a person also doesn't sound like a convenient lie, just something that is not necessarily true. Birth is less arbitrary to me than brain waves or trying to capture the elusive function of conciousness because there is more to having what we call life (in this matter) or being a "person" than having a brain. We don't similarly protect life in other instances, so it's not just that it's life, it has to have something that we call personhood, which is also not the same thing as having the DNA of Homo sapiens. Anyway, this lack of agreement is all based on feeling, which is why I don't think it will be resolved anytime soon. I can say I hope that we continue to convey to future generations that a fetus is not deserving of personhood, but there are many people hoping the opposite.


Yes, I think post-birth life has a right not to be interfered with, because that person is a person, and those rights should not be conveyed to a fetus. How can we grant rights to a lump of cells that we refuse, for instance, to chimps and orangs and gorillas, full-grown? The things we do to them, considering their understanding of the world are far worse than what we do to the lump of cells. And I don't mean to open a discussion of ape rights, but only to indicate that there is inconsistency and bigotry in any view, and where will it end? I don't want to be a bigto and draw a line artificially, but if we're not gonna give rights to apes, I wouldn't yield on giving rights to a lump of cells and it is indicative to me of our self-centeredness (which ok, is evolutionary, fine) and that in itself is artificial and doesn't serve a purpose. I am not in favor of the death penalty per se, though I am under consideration of the idea that there are things people can do to forfeit their right to not have their life interfered with, but I am in favor of euthanasia, because one can't consider killing oneself as someone else interfering in his/her life. I think this is consistent with abortion and the concept of individual liberties. one should always have the right to do what one wants with one's body, unless it interferes with someone else's rights.

You're right. I hope it doesn't come to that. Biological viability should have nothing to do with giving fetuses rights, otherwise, we should definitely give apes rights, as they are far superior, biologically, to a fetus.

I think the concept in the Gallup poll of things outside the woman's control fits perfectly. If they used protection properly, it WAS outside of her control that it failed that time.

Bad Kitty

Birth is not less arbitrary than brain waves to me.

Regarding consciousness: "consciousness" is not currently a requirement for personhood in the eyes of the law. People in persistent vegetative states are unconscious and unaware but still enjoy the protection of the law. So generally I'm not interested in whether a fetus has consciousness at any specific point, since that is not a current standard by which "personhood" is measured.

I don't talk about the qualitative meaning of "having a life" either, as it also has no bearing on if or when the law grants rights to a person. In a previous thread, it was discussed that even brainless babies (which also have no consciousness) have the protection of the law for the brief time they are "alive", which can be minutes, hours, or rarely days. Thus, a mother can't immediately strangle and toss in a trash can an anencephalic baby just because it is sure to die very shortly anyways. The "having of a life" of any particular quality is not really a way to decide whether a fetus deserves rights.

Exactly. I'm interested in when and how personhood as we know it today (and when I say personhood, I am referring to that which qualifies one to have rights under law) is applied to humans, not animals (at least in this thread). I don't think there is any argument that a fetus isn't human. I don't think it is reasonable to equate a 6 month fetus with measurable brain waves with a fingernail, just because they both have human DNA and are both connected with the mother. But that is just me.

Yes, but "feelings", particularly those of Supreme Court Justices, get codified into law, hence the ban on late-term and partial birth abortions. This is why I think the definition of "personhood" is a worthy discussion.

Because the lump of cells is human and primates are not. The law is very "species-ist" that way. While you may feel outrage at bigotry against the great apes, I feel equally outraged at bigotry against fetuses, which are in fact human. Legally at least (though maybe not philosophically) primates and humans are not equal -- which is why it is legal (if not wise) to remove a baboon's liver and give it to an ailing HIV patient (which happened in 1992).

"Full grown", has nothing to do with anything. Newborns aren't full-grown and they are persons under the law.

[If you WERE to apply rights to "full-grown" primates, I would probably then be ethically pondering at what point THEIR rights should apply and you'd be telling me I don't care enough about those apes after they are born. ]

I don't think it is ethical to deny rights to a human fetus just because the great apes don't have equal rights under the law. Yes, humans are incredibly self-centered. In fact, what makes an ape so much more worth of rights than a pig? Why, they very fact that is it more like a human. We give rights to animals based on how much they are like us -- the less like a human you are, the less rights you'll have. Unless you happened to be an endangered species.

Anyways, I'm not sure this is all either here nor there. A human fetus isn't really, really, really close to being human. It is human.

I assume you are making a play on words, because that is not what the poll said. "Out of control of her fertility" means "rape or incest, or when the mother or fetus's health is seriously endangered", not the proper or improper use of birth control. For your interpretation to be true, someone would have had to force the woman to have sex.

Or were you being facetious?

Michelle

Edited as usual for typos

cheetah

Here is the text I was referring to: Obviously, the failure of properly used contraceptives is beyond the users control. I know most people responding to the poll probably weren't thinking that at the time, and I also know Gallup isn't law, but I think people should be encouraged to remember that.

cheetah

I know all this doesn't currently matter in the eyes of the law. You were talking about soe of the things you wish would happen, and I am doing the same. Setting some rules by which we might define who gets personhood and who doesn't. The problem comes in defining these things, which are neither agreed upon nor understood. Well, the problem also comes in that most people wouldn't agree anyway.


I don't think we give animals special rights if they are more closely related to humans. First, because many wouldn't even acknowledge the relationship! Second, because we may treat them differently, but they don't have different rights. We treat a lot of our domesticated pets a lot better than some other hominids, though. In any case, I think we ought to come to a level of maturity where we can acknowledge that that is not right. That there is nothing "more special" about humans just because we have an unprecedented capacity to modify our environments. We should acknowledge that that is not to be abused. Why is it okay that the lump of cells "count" more than an ape or a pig? I don't really think it is ok, but we can acknowledge that we feel that way and move beyond our primitive feelings. Anyway, I see no reason to give fetuses special rights if we continue to arbitrarily discriminate against other life. To me, we should maintain that there is a qualitative difference in the state of being in the biological care of another human being, and we should maybe take a moment to consider the death and pain that we are causing other life. If the only thing that makes a fetus more special than other life is that it contains human DNA, then that is sad. If people really are worried, as in the Gallup poll, about viability and the consciousness of suffering the pain of the abortion (which I have also heard), they should understand that humans aren't the only species to feel that. I feel it is terribly immature to stick with this speciesist reasoning.

BTW, here's a different kind of conundrum. What about interbreednig between us and primate cousins? Some experiments I have heard of found that fertilized eggs started reproducing, but they stopped the experiment. Nevertheless, that was a fertilized egg, so do you believe it shouldn't have been "aborted" because it was (half) a human life, or is it ok because it was *just* (half) an ape life?

I originally saw information linked to from this board, maybe I'll see if I can dig it up again...
I know. I wouldn't codify that wording into law, it was just to add further descriptive wording to get the point across.

But not a person.

Bad Kitty

.I guess I don't think either some measurement of consciousness or some sort of "projected quality of life" are good ways to determine personhood.

People came to some sort of agreement about third trimester fetuses receiving protection based on "viability". Therefore, I don't think it is unreasonable that they could come to a majority (not all) agreement that changes this to something else -- perhaps brain activity, perhaps birth, who knows.

I didn't say "related" I said "like". People find commonality with dolphins (intelligence, social behavior, communication, grace) therefore they protect them with dolphin-safe fishing laws. People feel very little in common with the tuna. Therefore they eat them with mayo on rye bread. There are no tuna-safe fishing laws. People feel more in common with primates than they do with rats, because apes are more like humans than rats. Therefore, many people ardently protest experimentation with primates but think experimentation with rats is ok.

Yes they do, as far as the kind of rights I'm talking about. You must be talking about different rights.

You can ask that question of anything, I see no reason to ask it specifically of a fetus. Why is okay to value a newborn over a pig? Why is ok to value your pet dog over the mahi mahi you ate for dinner? Why is ok to value a condo over a spotted owl?

But I'm not comparing humans to animals -- that is a different topic. I'm comparing humans to humans. I'm talking about valuing an unborn fetus the same way we value it a millisecond later when that same fetus is ejected from the womb.

If you want to extend your valuation to other species, fine. But it concerns me more that we already show a callous disdain for our OWN species. With humans undervaluing their own species I hold out little hope that their consciousness will ever be raised enough to consider the rights and value of the other living creatures on the planet.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Currently the only thing that makes a newborn more "special" than other life is human DNA. I guess that's sad too.

But, I'm not interested really interested in "special", I'm interested in rights under the law. Fetuses won't have a chance to be "special" if they don't even have a right to life.

I think Peter Singer writes alot about this very topic, and many of his ideas are quite radical. He is also a vegetarian for this very reason (that there is no objective value to human life over animal life).

As I don't know how the law would treat "half-breed" humans, I'm not sure how it should treat half-breed fetuses. If such a thig became commonplace and "half-breed" people had the same rights as full-breed people, then my same feelings would extend to half-breed fetuses.

Currently, not a person under the law (and even that is subject to change). But a person nonetheless.

abe smith

You are free to think whatever you like, Big Zoo, and (as we know from what you tell us of your own choices & provisions) you are evidently free to have arranged YOUR OWN life to do what you want.
So, well, Madam, have the decency to permit other human beings the same sort of freedoms as those you yourself so blandly practise & enjoy.

YOUR RIGHT AND POWER TO LEGISLATE HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND ITS EFFECTS STOPS AT THE PERIMETERS OF YOUR OWN BODY!
Hence my word to you, friendlily & w/o rancour, is BUGGER OFF! Well, a little less totalitarian than that: you have as we all (nominally) have here in the US of A, the right to preach your position & values; and to try to persuade others freely to convert to your way of thinking & acting. You do NOT have the right to FORCE your position & your practises upon them/us.

openeyes

Michelle: Would do you consider a determination of personhood? For example, consider the other end of the spectrum of life: We had a case in my city years back where a man wouldn't allow medical personnel to take his 89 year old wife off life support. She was unconscious and not likely to become conscious. She had a host of medical problems. She lingered for months before her body finally gave up on its own, if I remember correctly (or maybe the hospital won the court case.) Of course, the cost of her care was largely picked up by the county, state or federal government. Was maintaining medical care the right thing to do?