bd-from-kg

Danya:

Regarding your comments on adoption in your post of March 23, 11:11 PM:

You seem to have a habit of losing sight of the original point. Originally I pointed out that, unlike the laws that restrict the rights of children, which are all designed to protect them, the legalization of abortion is not designed to protect the fetus. (You might even recall that this was a response to Jamie_L’s point that children do not have the same “rights” as adults.) You replied by saying:

This could only be relevant if the point was that perhaps legalizing abortion was after all intended (at least in some cases) to protect the fetus – from hunger, abuse, etc. if it should be born.

This was the context of my comment about adoption. As I said, the point was not that adoption is a cure-all. But the option of adoption shows that abortion is never a necessary or reasonable way to “protect” the fetus. Its purpose is to benefit the pregnant woman by allowing her to avoid the kind of dilemma you describe by killing the fetus.

That doesn’t mean that aborting a fetus to avoid this dilemma is wrong. (Whether it is depends on whether the fetus is a “person”.) But it does show that legalizing abortion cannot be construed as being intended to benefit the child, even in a few cases. Abortion is never the best solution for the child. Its purpose is to benefit the mother at the expense of the child.

Danya

I agree that the adoption issue is besides the point. Especially when there is no moral obligation on the woman to go through with such a traumatic experience unless it is her personal choice.

So, the only argument left is when does the embryo become a person. I will lay out my argument once again...starting where it left off.
If I am unclear maybe another reader can simplify my point. Or if they don't agree at least point out where the logic fails.

Your definition of a person is a thing that will become something else. become is an adjective not a noun. When I say an embryo can become a person that does not make it a person. It could become cognative but that does not mean it IS cognative or that it even WILL be cognative.

I don't see how the word 'naturally' can be included in your definition. This is why it doesn't work. Whether or not a pregnancy begins and ends naturally has no bearing on whether or not you are dealing with a person.

If I understand your use of the word 'naturally in this case means with or without intervention.

A.A woman can abort(commonly known as miscarry)naturally or with intervention.

B. A woman can have a child naturally or with intervention.

The fact that you prohibit one from interference and not the other does not change the fact that it either is a person or it isn't.

An embryo that is in a petri dish is no more a person than the one that is in a womb. Both have grown to get to that point, btw. Both have the possiblity and fighting chance to either become a person or abort. Either one can happen in a natural way or by intervention.

Your argument allows you to say intervention is acceptable for only one of the women and you get to choose which one. You cannot say that one case has nothing to do with the other unless you are intentionally ignoring the facts. You are discriminating against the woman who is not allowed to use medical intervention in planning her family while allowing another to not only use medical intervention but cause more embryo's (or using your term, children) to be destroyed. The location of the embryo does not change the fact that if given a 'fighting chance' both will foreseeably have the same result.

The AntiChris

Danya

I agree. It therefore seems unnecessary to pursue bd's apparent IVF inconsistency unless you think there's the possibility that he'll concede your point and agree that it is irrational to confer the status of "personhood" to both types of foetus.

Far better to concentrate on the central issue here - a reasonable definition of "personhood".

Good luck.

Chris

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: The AntiChris ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Danya:

Your last post consisted almost entirely of reposts of things you’ve said before. Please be patient. I don’t have time to answer every post at once, especially when nearly all the posts but mine are directed at me. (And I do have a life; family duties took up almost three solid days recently.) I was already preparing an answer to your earlier posts when this one arrived.

I’m replying here to points made in more than one of your posts (not counting your last one.)

But this is practically the whole issue between the pro-life and pro-choice camps! Surely you can’t be surprised that they disagree about what is a “person”.

Unless you’re referring specifically to the difference between a test-tube embryo and an embryo in a womb. If that’s what’s confusing you, keep in mind that a “person” in this context just means an individual entitled to legal protection. (As I pointed out earlier, this is the Supreme Court’s terminology, not mine, so if you have a complaint take it to them.) There’s nothing inconsistent about saying that an individual in one situation (or location) is entitled to legal protection but the same individual in another situation (or location) isn’t. If I’m on American soil I’m entitled to legal protection from the U.S. government, but if I’m 13 miles offshore I’m not.

Not so. An acorn can become an oak tree, but a small stone the same size cannot. This is not merely a description of possible futures, but a description of a fundamental difference between an acorn and a stone. In other words, what a thing “can become” is an important aspect of what it is. So in saying that A can become B we are describing a property of A. However, to pin this down we have to specify that by “A can become B” we mean that it is capable, in some sense, of transforming itself into B. Thus, a large block of marble can be transformed into Michelangelo’s David, but one would hardly say that it is in the block of marble’s nature to become David. And therefore I would not say that the block of marble “can” become David in the sense I have in mind. Perhaps it would be better to use the word “develop into” rather than “become”. Thus “anyone who will naturally and foreseeably develop into someone capable of cognition is a ‘person’”. Then the meaning of “naturally” that I had in mind may also be clearer: I mean that the development in question must proceed from the individual’s innate nature; it must be something that the individual does rather than something that is done to it.

It took me a while to figure out what you were getting at in your remaining points. I think I finally understand. They all seem to be based on the same misunderstanding. When I say that, to be a person, it must be the case that an individual “will” naturally and foreseeably develop...” I do not mean that there actually will not be any intervention to prevent this development. This would entail that an fetus which is killed by an induced abortion was never a person in the first place. Since I am obviously pro-life, this can hardly be what I mean. The intended meaning is that it can be foreseen as a reasonable possibility that if there is no such intervention the individual will, (through the unfolding of its innate nature as explained above) develop the capability of cognition.

Godless Dave

Abortion in the third trimester makes me queasy. At that point the fetus is viable outside the womb (with heavy medical intervention) and has a pretty well developed brain. If my state outlawed third-trimester abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother (which I believe is what the Supreme Court required in Roe v. Wade, but I haven't followed their judgements lately) I wouldn't fight it.

I think the pro-choice position is that as long as the fetus is inside a woman's body, it is solely the concern of the pregnant woman. I can respect that, but I don't think I agree with it.

I don't have any problem with early-term abortions. A zygote is not a human being. Do we have a funeral for every miscarriage? How about the ones we don't know about, where the egg is fertilized but doesn't attach, and is passed with the woman's next period?

Jamie_L

So, we're back to defining what is a person (in the sense of deserving legal protection). We may be rehashing the 12-week old fetus thread. However, I've thought more on this and decided to add another post.

I'll admit I haven't fully formed my definition of person. However, I've formed some opinions, so here they are:

I am not comfortable with personhood being linked only to cognitive ability. It seems like the mental gymnastics required to explain why a man in a drunk stupor is a person using these definitions is excessive. I feel like a man in a drunk stupor is not a person simply because he will be capable of cognition in the future, but that some aspect of his physical structure and level of functioning AT THAT TIME makes him a person. Likewise with an infant. I feel the infant is a person by virtue of the way it is, not what it will become.

I feel that there is a level of development of the fetus before which these structures and levels of functioning aren't present. This is what underlies my feeling that a frozen IVF embryo is no more or less a person (in this sense of the word) than an embryo of similar development inside a woman.

Again, these are feelings I have, and I have not thought things through far enough to really make a defensible argument. Nevertheless, that's where I'm coming from.

Jamie

WJ

I don't think this is a religious issue(even though I'm a Christian). I came full circle on this. I used to be pro-choice (and in favor of the death penalty). Now I'm pro-life (and against the death penalty).

I feel much more comfortable and logically consitent with this position.

The only problem would be military service and eminent death of the mother prior to delivery. In those cases, killing/sacrificing to serve a greater good (future life) is sometimes logically necessary-if that makes sense.

Feel free to poke holes if you like.

Walrus

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Danya

Thank you for your reply bd from kg. If I had known you planned on responding to my questions I would have gladly waited. I don't know if I will have any further thoughts on this issue anyway. I think we have hit an impass. But I will say that I don't think 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed except in extremely rare cases. I think the number of women that seek them is extremely low. I will have to look into that to be sure though...it is too bad that the two sides will never be able to compromise or find a middle ground.

bd-from-kg

To all:

Since my case against legalized abortion rests ultimately on the principle of equality under the law, I thought that it would be useful to copy one of my posts on the subject from the 12-week-old fetus thread into this one. Here it is:

The idea of giving some people legal preference over others is not new; it is very old. In fact, it is the most natural idea in the world. It is what all governments did throughout most of history and what most of them do today. The justification is always that some people are more “important” to society, others are less important, and still others are positively harmful.

Of course this is really true; no sensible person can doubt it. The problem comes when you try to recognize these differences in the law. As soon as you do this, everyone’s legal status depends on how “valuable” those in power consider him to be. Those who are deemed sufficiently valuable are able to do as they please without having to worry about petty concerns such as whether they are breaking the law or destroying the lives of less “valuable” citizens. They can be sure that their lives, property, and interests will be vigilantly protected. Those deemed less valuable are far more vulnerable. They are essentially at the mercy of the privileged. And the authorities will not be nearly concerned about crimes that may be, or have been committed against them; it just won’t be worth much of their time. As for the least valuable – those who are considered a positive burden on society – they will be lucky if they are not driven away, or enslaved, or exterminated.

No doubt those who suggest that a person’s legal rights should be based in some sense on his “value” do not intend all this. They want only those who are “clearly and objectively” more valuable to be given preference over those less valuable. But even if there were a “clear, objective” measure of a person’s worth, and even if it were desirable for the law to treat people accordingly, those in power would not apply such a standard. What they will apply is the measure of what is most useful to them. In practice any standard based on “objective value to society” is no standard of all; it is just an invitation to the arbitrary exercise of power. The experience of thousands of years, with every form of government known to man, has confirmed this sad truth. The standard of “objective value” – of treating each man according to what he is “worth”, or “deserves”, or “can contribute to society” (they all come to the same thing in the end) is the formula for tyranny. If the government is a democracy, it will be tyranny of the majority, but tyranny nonetheless.

Only one thing has ever been found to offer any protection against tyranny: the principle of equality under the law, or the “rule of law”. Thomas Jefferson expressed this idea eloquently in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. The idea was revolutionary precisely because it is so counter-intuitive: after all, it is self-evident that all men are not created equal. But the idea was that the law would not be permitted to recognize, or to take cognizance, of these differences, except insofar as they are manifested in violations of the law itself. And any such violation was to be treated the same, no matter who had committed it.

This principle has by now been implemented to greater or lesser degree in many countries by now, and the results have been phenomenal. There has been an explosion of freedom, and a corresponding increase of happiness, in the countries that have adopted this principle, even if imperfectly, while those that have not have remained mired in misery and oppression.

Obviously the principle of equality under the law has costs. Since some people really are more valuable to society than others, and others are quite worthless, treating them as equal under the law will result in suboptimal results in the short run in a great many cases. But the benefits of adhering to the principle have been found to far outweigh these costs.

It is often tempting to abandon this principle in specific cases when it appears that doing so will have some benefit to society. But to make an exception is to repudiate the principle. You cannot say that no one is above the law, but Smith is above the law. You cannot say that everyone is to be given the equal protection of the law, but Jones will not be given the equal protection of the law.

Another perennial temptation is to define whole classes of human beings as non-persons, and thus not entitled to equal treatment. Thus blacks can be enslaved, and Jews can be exterminated, because they aren’t “really” people, even though they are plainly human beings. (This is why the Nazis referred to Jews as “vermin”.) Needless to say, this subverts the principle to the point of annihilating it entirely. If we can define which human beings are persons, “equality before the law” is just an empty phrase. The whole point is to protect those who are not popular, those whom many do not sympathize with, those who are unwanted, those who are considered to be of little “value”. To declare some human beings to be “nonpersons” is to reject the whole concept of equal protection of the law. The principle is meaningless unless there are no exceptions. It is only the guarantee that there will be no exceptions that makes our rights secure.

Abandonment of this principle subverts the very foundation of our society. It is an arrogant refusal to accept the lessons of history, which the founding fathers knew so well, and which have been abundantly confirmed in the last two centuries. It must inevitably lead to the loss of our freedom. We cannot claim the equal protection of the law for ourselves while denying it to others. And nothing else will serve as a bulwark against arbitrary power.

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, and that property is "can become", not "is".

I see little value in defining a person as that which could become a person. I wish I had something better to offer, and I envy you the ease of your convictions, but I have difficulty accepting that 'personhood' lends itself to this type of reductionism, or that the destruction of a zygote constitutes manslaughter or murder.

At the same time, I value the dialog and completely agree that this is the question at hand. And, on this question, on the issue of defining what constitutes a human life, there is no "women's right to choose."