bd-from-kg

Jamie_L :

Quite so. The question isn’t whether you would prefer that someone not have an abortion, but whether having it would harm someone who has a right to be protected from harm. If so, that is a compelling reason to have a law against it.

It seems to me that you’re formulating the issue improperly. The issue regarding conception is not whether a “separate entity” comes into existence but whether a human being comes into existence. And it’s beyond argument by now that a new human being comes into existence at conception.

I think you’re saying that the level of development determines whether the fetus should be considered a person – i.e., a being entitled to legal protection. But why is the level of development relevant? If it is relevant, shouldn’t an adult be entitled to more legal protection than a child because it is at a higher level of development? Why should there be an “all-or-nothing” line of demarcation; why shouldn’t a human being be given more legal protection as he reaches higher levels of development? Perhaps geniuses should be given more legal protection than morons because they have reached a higher level of development?

Do you think this is an appropriate criterion? Why or why not? If you do, what is the justification for denying legal protection to somone on the grounds that they are dependent on someone else for survival?

In the case of a risk to the life of the mother there is no real argument; even the Catholic church agrees that abortion is justified in this case. Risk to the health of the mother is a much vaguer concept, and it does indeed raise difficult moral issues. Unfortunately, in the U.S. the Supreme Court has short-circuited any serious discussion of this issue by declaring arbitrarily that any “health exception” would have to include all aspects of the mother’s health, including her mental health, and that “mental health” includes any unhappiness she might experience as a result of giving birth to an unwanted child.

But aside from the impact of this surreal SC position, the “life and health” question is practically irrelevant to the abortion issue. Practically all abortions are done for reasons that have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother.

Again, how do you justify this position?

Jamie_L

bd-from-kg:

Does a human being come into existence at the moment of conception. I don't think that is beyond argument at all. Is a single cell a human being? What is it about conception that makes a single-celled embryo a human being but an unfertilized egg is not?

If "human being" is the standard rather than "separate entity", I would still argue that level of development is important for determining what is a human being and what is not.

Furthermore, adult humans ARE afforded more rights than children. People with severe mental deficiencies ARE afforded less rights in some cases.

Is viability an appropriate criteria? Honestly, I have not thought enough about where to draw the line. My gut instinct is that the transition to "human being" or "person" occurs sooner than that, but I don't have a good reason for saying that or a good idea when it actually occurs.

You say dependence is irrelevant. I say you are wrong. It is not just about who is a human being. It is about one human being's rights infringing upon the rights of another. To resolve this, we have to decide whose rights take precedent, and what rights take precedent over what other rights. The right of the fetus to live infringes on the rights of the mother to choose who gets use of her body.

Even in cases where the mother's life is at risk, the decision of whose rights are more important matters. In cases where the fetus may be able to survive, we are deciding that the mother's right to avoid risk to her life is more important that the right of the fetus to live.

In the case from your post in a previous thread, with conjoined twins, the continued existence of the dependent twin infringes on the right of the other twin to live independently and control the use of his own body. Thus, dependence does enter the picture.

I'm not saying the mother's rights always supercede those of the fetus, but the fetus cannot have absolute rights unless we DECIDE that the mother always takes second place when those rights are in conflict. If we don't say ALWAYS, then we must enter a decision making process about when to choose one person's rights over the other. This process is complex, and goes beyond just "who is a person and who isn't."

You state that most abortions have nothing to do with the life or health of the mother. That's fine. What really has to be defined are what rights are afforded when, when do certain rights infringe upon the rights of another, and in those cases, which rights are more important.

As a side note, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on my IVF thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000082" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000082</a>

Jamie

echoes

I don't really buy the argument that a fetus isn't truly a person, because a fetus seems to do almost everything that we do- it consumes, excretes waste, learns from and interacts with its environment, etc.

Maybe not to the same extent as we do, but one could argue that certain people don't do those same things either, however they are certainly still people, and we certainly don't kill them when they become an inconvenience.

However, as immoral as it may seem, abortion is an effective counter-measure against over-population. And when we are threatened with a problem of such magnitude, what is practical should take priority over what is supposedly more moral.

bd-from-kg

echoes:
FYI, the so-called overpopulation problem was wildly overhyped a few years back. In reality the best estimates are that world population will peak sometime this century at a level not much higher than the present value and will then start dropping. On the basis of current demographic trends there is no end in sight for this drop once it starts.

In any case, if killing people is an acceptable means of bringing about socially desirable results, why don't we start by klling all the idiots, imbeciles and morons, then move on to habitual criminals, the seriously handicapped, the aged, everyone with serious genetic defects (why let them continue to pollute the gene pool?), and any other socially undesirable groups?

Jamie_L:

I won't be able to reply to your post until late Sunday.

echoes

We cannot currently feed every mouth on the planet. The global population WILL increase, making it even more difficult to feed everyone. When you can't feed everyone or provide everyone with basic services, then we do have an over-population problem. What will cause the world population to drop? Mass starvation for billions of people?

Which is why I said "one could argue that certain people don't do those same things either, however they are certainly still people, and we certainly don't kill them when they become an inconvenience."

To clarify that, killing people is of course bad, but for all we know, it may have to come to that at some point, and it seems to me like abortion, for better or worse, is in some ways a step in that direction.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]</p>

bd-from-kg

echoes:

Nonsense. We have more than enough resources now to feed everyone in the maximum expected population, much less the current one. The main reasons for some people going hugry are stupid (and in some cases genocidal) policies of some governments, and in a few places, chaos so severe that it interferes with food distribution. But there is enough food being produced now to feed everyone, and a good bit more could easily be produced without stressing the environment.

There is no reason whatsoever why it should ever come to that. The grossly false ideas that you've been fed are designed to serve an ideological agenda. If you want to figure out what kind of ideology this might be, ask yourself what ideologies have justified the killing of millions of innocent people for the supposed good of society.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Danya

When it is a zygote or an embryo. It does not become a fetus until the third month.

Jamie_L

Regardless of the data, I don't buy the notion that the ends justifies the means with respect to abortion - that is even if abortion were a good counter to a real threat of overpopulation, I don't think it would be good to legalize it if we felt it was wrong.

The legality of abortion should be about the rights of the parties involved within the legal framework we have constructed for our society. Not about religion, and not about draconian methods of population control.

Jamie

echoes

Whether or not we have the resources isn't the issue, but because of the factors you mentioned, not everyone on the planet is being fed. It doesn't matter WHY they aren't being fed, but if X people can't all be fed for whatever reason, then adding more people will only hurt the situation.

Uh, I think you misread my last post.

Not to justify it or anything, but it already HAS come to that point in one case, with the example you give. With insufficient lebensraum, certain groups were eliminated. That was the solution they came up with, but it certainly wasn't the best solution. And just to make it crystal clear for you this time, this is not something I support or agree with.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Jamie_L:

This really isn’t complicated. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

There is no room for rational doubt that a fertilized egg is a distinct, complete organism of the species Homo Sapiens. Since that’s what it means to be a “member” of a species, and being a member of the species Homo Sapiens is what it means to be a human being, a fertilized egg is a human being.

Just watch a fertilized egg and an unfertilized one for a while. The difference will soon become manifest.

At this point you’re talking about whether a given human being is a person – i.e., whether it is entitled to legal protection. (Don’t blame me for this terminology; it was invented by the Supreme Court.) But why is the level of development relevant to whether a human being is entitled to legal protection, or how much legal protection it’s entitled to?

That’s a good point. Children do have fewer rights, in a sense, than adults. but it’s important to understand in what sense, and why. For example, children do not have the right to leave their parents or guardians and fend for themselves. The reason, of course, is that a child without a guardian is in serious danger. In other words, the child is “denied” this right in order to protect it; it’s done for the child’s own welfare. Similarly, a child does not have the right to decide whether or not to go to school. Again, the child is denied this right for its own good; an education is necessary in order for it to enjoy a reasonably normal life when it grows up. There are no cases in which a child is denied a right granted to an adult when having this right would be beneficial to the child. In other words, we do not treat children as “second-class citizens”. They are entitled to every bit as much legal protection as an adult, if not more. But because they are not yet able to make rational judgments as to what is really in their best interests, many such judgments are made on their behalf. It is questionable whether this practice can properly be described as “affording children less rights than adults”. In a sense, these restrictions on what children are allowed to do are designed to protect their more fundamental right to be allowed to develop into responsible adults.

Also, it is well worth noting that children also have rights that adults do not have. For example: it is illegal to have sex with a child, or to place a child in serious danger, even with its consent. Again, it is clear that all of the restrictions on what can be done to a child are designed to protect it.

All of this has an obvious bearing on the abortion question. Legalizing abortion is not designed to protect the unborn child; its intent and effect is precisely to place it in danger. This is the exact opposite of the intent of restrictions on children’s rights.

Again, it depends on what you mean by “rights”. The principles governing the rights of such people are essentially the same as those governing the rights of children, except that the need to protect children’s ability to reach a higher “level of development” is not applicable here. In any case, a person with an IQ of, say, 86 is not accorded less rights than one with an IQ of 220. The principle that a person’s rights depend in general on one’s “level of development” is unequivocally repudiated by our society. Only when a person’s level of development is such that he is clearly not competent to judge what is in his own best interests does a person’s “level of development” come into consideration, and in such cases the restrictions placed on his freedom are intended to be in his best interests.

OK, dependence enters the picture. But can the right of the stronger twin to live independently override the right of the weaker twin to live? This looks like a no-brainer to me.

Before deciding “whose rights take precedence” we have to decide whether we accept the principle that some people’s rights take precedence over others. If so, we are repudiating the principle of equality before the law. If not, this question doesn’t even enter the picture.

As to what rights take precedence, this can be a difficult question. But when one of the rights involved is the right to life, this doesn’t look like a really tough decision.

In a sense this is true: there is a sense in which someone has a “right” only if we “decide” that he has that right – i.e., if there is a law on the books giving him that right. But in another sense it isn’t: we can meaningfully ask whether there ought to be such a law. And when a person says that someone has a right he often means, not that there is such a law, but that there ought to be.

Of course, I can’t imagine anyone thinking that the rights of the fetus always take precedence over the rights of the mother. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

But once again, is the issue one of whose rights take precedence? Are we really prepared to abandon equality before the law? Or is the issue which rights take precedence?

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>