Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[JJM 777]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.

[Bob Blaylock]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.




A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.

There are exactly two points in the human life cycle where something new comes into existence, which didn't exist before.

The first of these is meiosis—the process by which gametes (sperm and eggs) are produced. In this process, a diploid cell divides twice, but the DNA only divides once, producing four cells that each have a randomly-selected subset of half the parent cell's DNA.

The other point is syngamy, where the two haploid gametes combine, to form a new diploid cell, with a new and unique complete DNA pattern, that defines this cell as a human being, and distinguishes him as a different organism from both of the parents whose DNA went into creating him.

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.

[Pure Argent]

There's obviously a line somewhere, but I have no idea where it is. I'm glad I'm not a woman so I don't have to deal with it. At least, not directly.

[Skeptic]

There is no clear line. There is no clear line between night and day, winter or summer, young and old, or A and ~A in just about any non-trivial situation. This, however, does not mean there is no real difference between night and day, or celibacy and infanticide.

[bookitty]

That point is established between a woman and her doctor depending on the circumstances of each case.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it's the point when the fetus becomes an entity capable of having desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled. That point differs from individual to individual, so the line we've drawn legally (the first trimester in most cases) is one where we assume the neurological development hasn't advanced far enough to reach that state.

Obviously there are cases when the baby isn't viable at all or obviously doesn't have sufficient neurological development even much later than that.

Sorry I referred to the legal point of view, but I don't see any reason to divorce the two.

Further, there is the argument that breaking the law, even when you disagree with it, has moral consequences, so I find it impossible to talk about the moral/ethical acceptability without consideration of the legality.

FWIW, I think the current legal line drawing is about ideal.

[Marquis de Carabas]

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable?.
When the entity gets a job.

[godless dave]

IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception,

IUD kills the fertilized egg before conception by preventing it from implanting in the uterus. About 40% of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally and pass without the woman even knowing.

A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before

Unfortunately reality rarely fits into such simplistic boxes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.

There are exactly two points in the human life cycle where something new comes into existence, which didn't exist before.

The first of these is meiosis—the process by which gametes (sperm and eggs) are produced. In this process, a diploid cell divides twice, but the DNA only divides once, producing four cells that each have a randomly-selected subset of half the parent cell's DNA.

The other point is syngamy, where the two haploid gametes combine, to form a new diploid cell, with a new and unique complete DNA pattern, that defines this cell as a human being, and distinguishes him as a different organism from both of the parents whose DNA went into creating him.

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.

Your scheme seems highly arbitrary. The cells were all living cells--before meiosis and before conception. A zygot is no more a human being than a haploid cell or a diploid germ cell.

Also, your system doesn't define what is is that separates a human life from another life form that carries no ethical problem with its killing--a mosquito, for example. Just saying "because it's human" doesn't answer the question, "Why is it wrong to kill one but not the other?"

The system I offered answers that question and is a more reasonable way of drawing a line. It's also one that feels more intuitively correct to a reasonable person--this is what I consider testing something that is logically moral or ethical against the moral sense someone has, which--very much like language--is the result of an innate evolved capacity and a socially learned system of conventional norms. The "conventional norms" aspect is probably the reason why Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land--that is, the majority of people in the U.S. agree with it (or at least don't disagree strongly enough to vote for a system like the one you suggest).

[JoeTheJuggler]

IUD kills the fertilized egg before conception by preventing it from implanting in the uterus. About 40% of fertilized eggs fail to implant naturally and pass without the woman even knowing.
I think you're arguing over [ETA: a difference of opinion misconception (sorry I couldn't resist)] of the definition of "conception". The most common one, I think, is that the result of conception is a fertilized egg or zygote. Implantation is a "next step". You're trying to say a fertilized egg happens before conception.

ETA: Conception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception_(biology)) is synonymous with fertilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization).

[Nogbad]

When the entity gets a job.

No - rather when they resolutely avoid work and expect Dad to pay.

Lot more good eating if you wait till infanticide.

[KingMerv00]

A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.

There are exactly two points in the human life cycle where something new comes into existence, which didn't exist before.

The first of these is meiosis—the process by which gametes (sperm and eggs) are produced. In this process, a diploid cell divides twice, but the DNA only divides once, producing four cells that each have a randomly-selected subset of half the parent cell's DNA.

The other point is syngamy, where the two haploid gametes combine, to form a new diploid cell, with a new and unique complete DNA pattern, that defines this cell as a human being, and distinguishes him as a different organism from both of the parents whose DNA went into creating him.

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.

You are morally opposed to the termination of a human zygote. Are you morally opposed to the termination of a pig zygote? If not, why not?

If so...uh...I guess you are a Jainist. Good luck with that.

[slingblade]

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.

Obligated?

Y'know, Bob, I'm not thrilled about abortions as birth control. But I know that the last thing I would want is someone telling me I can't have an abortion because he doesn't approve. I don't tell women what to do with their bodies, their lives.

I strongly resent others trying to tell me what to do with my body. And yes, I specifically resent men telling me how to handle my reproduction.

In cases of medical need, I absolutely insist that a woman have full access to an abortion.

It's fine that you are against them, Bobby. But that's where the line gets drawn, my dear. It's my body. Not yours.

[LostAngeles]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.

Actually, my IUS (newer version of IUDs) works pretty much the same as the pill. It prevents ovulation and makes it so a fertilized egg can not implant.

A lot of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway. I'm not trying to make one, hence the IUS.

What would you have I do? Have an unwanted child? Stop engaging in sexual activity with my partner? Why do you get any input on this at all? What do Spartans have to do with this when people around the same time were using Silphium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium) to prevent pregnancy, whereas the Spartan method was a form of eugenics?

And to answer your question: Viable fetus.

[lionking]

I think it's the point when the fetus becomes an entity capable of having desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled. That point differs from individual to individual, so the line we've drawn legally (the first trimester in most cases) is one where we assume the neurological development hasn't advanced far enough to reach that state.

Obviously there are cases when the baby isn't viable at all or obviously doesn't have sufficient neurological development even much later than that.

Sorry I referred to the legal point of view, but I don't see any reason to divorce the two.

Further, there is the argument that breaking the law, even when you disagree with it, has moral consequences, so I find it impossible to talk about the moral/ethical acceptability without consideration of the legality.

FWIW, I think the current legal line drawing is about ideal.

Good post and I agree.

[JJM 777]

I personally think that the Spartan method is not more evil than any other known method of family planning. The consequence is exactly the same: no new child entering the society.

Of course it is quite uncomfortable to discuss taboos of this magnitude. What if someone takes the advice, and then says "it was the guys on JREF forum who talked me into doing it".

[Professor Yaffle]

As with a lot of things there is never a simple line you can draw and say one sideof the line is perfectly OK and the other side is wrong and evil. The way I look at it is that pre-conception it is not wrong at all to prevent pregnancy, and then after conception it becomes gradually more wrong as the foetus becomes older. At the same time we have to look at the wrong committed against the woman if she would have to carry an unwanted child and not have rights over her own body. For any pregnancy, to me the line between right and wrong comes when the gestation of the foetus means that the wrong done to it by abortion is greater than the wrong to the woman by not allowing abortion. These factors will be different for pretty much every pregnancy, so the law has to draw arbitrary lines. I think they have them in roughly the right place in the UK at the moment.

[slingblade]

I personally think that the Spartan method is not more evil than any other known method of family planning. The consequence is exactly the same: no new child entering the society.

Of course it is quite uncomfortable to discuss taboos of this magnitude. What if someone takes the advice, and then says "it was the guys on JREF forum who talked me into doing it".

What if they do? I'm not responsible because someone else is too stupid to think for herself. She read something, she thought about it, and she decided that was what she should do? Then it's her responsibility.

"They made me do it" sounds like a decent reason only to five-year-olds, for crying out loud.

[Aepervius]

The other point is syngamy, where the two haploid gametes combine, to form a new diploid cell, with a new and unique complete DNA pattern, that defines this cell as a human being, and distinguishes him as a different organism from both of the parents whose DNA went into creating him.

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.


I would place a third point at the moment where the central nervous system is finished being built, which is a tad bit later. Before that all you have is a blob of cells.

[Professor Yaffle]

I have heard someone argue that it is the point that the heart starts beating (about 4 weeks post fertilisation, or 6 weeks pregnant) that is the point where some wrong is committed by abortion (but less than the wrong to the woman by being forced to carry a baby to term).

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I personally think that the Spartan method is not more evil than any other known method of family planning. The consequence is exactly the same: no new child entering the society.

Of course it is quite uncomfortable to discuss taboos of this magnitude. What if someone takes the advice, and then says "it was the guys on JREF forum who talked me into doing it".


I believe that, if the society is the final judge of the fitness of the child, then the child has very much entered the society. The fact that the society of Sparta decided that the kid was found wanting just meant a departure of the child from society at normal gravitational acceleration.

I lean towards the, "moment of conception," but myself, but since I have a firm, "no uterus, no vote," policy on the subject, all I can do is state my position, point out alternatives, then support the person who has to decide one way or another in whatever decision she makes.

I never met a women who. at times, didn't regret having an abortion. I never met a woman who, at times, didn't regret having a baby, either. It's a hard and precipitous (in the, "you can't undo it once it's done - like jumping off a precipice," sense of the word) decision... although perhaps no longer as precipitous as it was in ancient Sparta.

[Professor Yaffle]

This is a good link showing what happens at what stage of embryonic/foetal development:

http://www.embryology.ch/indexen.html

[LostAngeles]

I personally think that the Spartan method is not more evil than any other known method of family planning. The consequence is exactly the same: no new child entering the society.

Of course it is quite uncomfortable to discuss taboos of this magnitude. What if someone takes the advice, and then says "it was the guys on JREF forum who talked me into doing it".

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions.

Abort, Retry, Fail?

[Cainkane1]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.
Tossing a living infant off of a cliff or otherwise killing it is odious to me. However I'd rather be dead than be a Spartan so maybe they were lucky.

[Beerina]

A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.

There are exactly two points in the human life cycle where something new comes into existence, which didn't exist before.

The first of these is meiosis—the process by which gametes (sperm and eggs) are produced. In this process, a diploid cell divides twice, but the DNA only divides once, producing four cells that each have a randomly-selected subset of half the parent cell's DNA.

The other point is syngamy, where the two haploid gametes combine, to form a new diploid cell, with a new and unique complete DNA pattern, that defines this cell as a human being, and distinguishes him as a different organism from both of the parents whose DNA went into creating him.

This second point, I say, is where a new human being comes into existence; and it is from this point that we are obligated to recognize this human being as possessing the same right to exist and to be protected that belongs to all human beings.

Fertilization, check!


What it is, scientifically, isn't what it is, legally. "Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being. Ok, then. What's a human being?

And that's where the problem starts.


Well, actually the problem starts because murder is an irreversible process. I blame god.

[Duncanthrax]

Drawing a line is tricky, of course. The usual pro-choice answer is that the fetus has rights as a potential person that increase with its development, and when the fetus is viable outside the womb its rights begin to outweigh the interests of the woman carrying it to the extent that abortion should not be allowed unless there danger to the woman's life or health. I suppose that's a fair line to draw, although viability, danger to the woman, or for that matter rights based upon the fetus' potential are often unclear standards.

I have sometimes considered the infanticide issue. I really think that human rights are based upon a minimal level of intelligence and self-awareness, and newborn babies lack those. I've heard that chimps can reach the intelligence level of four-year-old humans. And pigs and cows, which I have no problem eating, aren't that far behind. So I don't think that a ban on infanticide can be justified on human rights grounds, at least not if you believe that some such animals should legally be killed. I still favor banning infanticide because of the slippery-slope argument on protecting older or wanted children and because modern society has the resources to care for unwanted infants. I don't condemn ancient societies that practiced infanticide if they had limited resources and overpopulation could have threatened the society with starvation.

[†= Crap!]

There will never be a clear objective line because it doesn't exist. The best we can hope for is a compromise between peoples differing values that enough of us find acceptable to work with. Which is pretty much what we have in place right now.

[bokonon]

Personally, I'd draw the line at "brain activity," for both ends of a lifetime.

[Professor Yaffle]

Personally, I'd draw the line at "brain activity," for both ends of a lifetime.

Define "brain activity" for a developing nervous system.

[maddog]

Conception to 13th birthday, it's murder.
From the child's 13th birthday to 21st birthday, any parent should be allowed to kill their child with impunity.

[JJM 777]

I heard of a case (hmmmm "anecdotal evidence") where a husband killed the newborn baby in rage, after finding out that it had serious genetic disorders. Murder => life sentence?

The man was never even tried in court, because "he would have had the right to prenatal screening, where the genetic disorder would have been found, and then the fetus could have been legally aborted". Sorry to throw this anecdotal evidence without even knowing which country is in question.

According to "consequence" thinking, the consequence of prenatal screening + abortion is the same as the consequence of birth and immediate infanticide. Neither is there a difference in the suffering of the baby/fetus.

[themusicteacher]

If we had better access to contraception, there would be very, very few abortions. It's as simple as that. If "pro-lifers" were intellectually honest and truly committed to ending abortion, they would come to this singularly simple conclusion. But, they can't allow themselves to be rational, they've got zygotes to save. Zygotes they care nothing for once they're born but they must save them nonetheless!

[bokonon]

Define "brain activity" for a developing nervous system.
The brain is capable of initiating muscle movement in the fetus.

[KingMerv00]

According to "consequence" thinking, the consequence of prenatal screening + abortion is the same as the consequence of birth and immediate infanticide. Neither is there a difference in the suffering of the baby/fetus.

Are you suggesting that a cluster of cells has the same capacity to suffer as a 3 month old baby?

[maddog]

If we had better access to contraception, there would be very, very few abortions. It's as simple as that. If "pro-lifers" were intellectually honest and truly committed to ending abortion, they would come to this singularly simple conclusion. But, they can't allow themselves to be rational, they've got zygotes to save. Zygotes they care nothing for once they're born but they must save them nonetheless!


Right. Because condoms are so hard to acquire. Maybe if they were sold in, say, drug stores, grocery stores, Wal-Marts, and convenience stores, then people would be able to get them. Or maybe if they were in coin-operated machines in the bathrooms at bars and nightclubs...

Oh, wait... they are.

Or maybe if condoms were given out free of charge at colleges, high schools, and public health facilities, then people could get them, and then...

Oh, wait... they are.

Well, maybe people are just using them wrong. Maybe if high-school students were taught how to use condoms, in, say, health class, then they would be used properly.

Oh, yeah, that's right.


[buzzer sounds] WRONG!!! But thanks for playing. We've got a lovely parting gift for you, pick it up on your way to making other unfounded accusations about how abortions are the fault of pro-lifers. (By the way, most {granted, not all} abortions are performed on pro-abortionists, not pro-lifers -- so how exactly do you get to where the pro-lifers are irrational?)

[bookitty]

[buzzer sounds] WRONG!!! But thanks for playing. We've got a lovely parting gift for you, pick it up on your way to making other unfounded accusations about how abortions are the fault of pro-lifers. (By the way, most {granted, not all} abortions are performed on pro-abortionists, not pro-lifers -- so how exactly do you get to where the pro-lifers are irrational?)

Right about here:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

[LostAngeles]

I heard of a case (hmmmm "anecdotal evidence") where a husband killed the newborn baby in rage, after finding out that it had serious genetic disorders. Murder => life sentence?

The man was never even tried in court, because "he would have had the right to prenatal screening, where the genetic disorder would have been found, and then the fetus could have been legally aborted". Sorry to throw this anecdotal evidence without even knowing which country is in question.

According to "consequence" thinking, the consequence of prenatal screening + abortion is the same as the consequence of birth and immediate infanticide. Neither is there a difference in the suffering of the baby/fetus.

You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked. Nor have you provided a cite for your story there. Is it true or did you just make it up while not answering any of the questions I asked.


Well, maybe people are just using them wrong. Maybe if high-school students were taught how to use condoms, in, say, health class, then they would be used properly.

Oh, yeah, that's right.


Abstinence-only education anyone?

I learned to use a condom from the package, myself.

So what're they supposed to do when the condom breaks, btw?

[Cavemonster]

Or maybe if condoms were given out free of charge at colleges, high schools, and public health facilities, then people could get them, and then...

Oh, wait... they are.

Well, maybe people are just using them wrong. Maybe if high-school students were taught how to use condoms, in, say, health class, then they would be used properly.

Oh, yeah, that's right.


Actually, under Bush, any state that didn't have abstinence only sex ed would be turning away a lot of money, so many many children went through sex-ed courses who's funding source explicity forbid instruction on where to get or how to use a condom, and in fact, lied about condoms.

In an Oct. 3 report that surveyed abstinence programs in 10 states, the Government Accountability Office concluded that such programs have not proven to work, and at times teach children medically inaccurate about condoms and AIDS.

The report found that in one instance, materials used in the class "incorrectly suggested that HIV can pass through condoms because the latex used in condoms is porous."

Thank you for playing, try again.

[slingblade]

I heard of a case (hmmmm "anecdotal evidence") where a husband killed the newborn baby in rage, after finding out that it had serious genetic disorders. Murder => life sentence?

The man was never even tried in court, because "he would have had the right to prenatal screening, where the genetic disorder would have been found, and then the fetus could have been legally aborted". Sorry to throw this anecdotal evidence without even knowing which country is in question.

According to "consequence" thinking, the consequence of prenatal screening + abortion is the same as the consequence of birth and immediate infanticide. Neither is there a difference in the suffering of the baby/fetus.

This one?

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/18/us/mistrial-in-killing-of-malformed-baby-leaves-town-uncertain-about-law.html?&pagewanted=1

It most certainly did go to trial, in 1985, but the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. I can't yet find anything about a new trial, if one was ever held.

[LostAngeles]

This one?

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/18/us/mistrial-in-killing-of-malformed-baby-leaves-town-uncertain-about-law.html?&pagewanted=1

It most certainly did go to trial, in 1985, but the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. I can't yet find anything about a new trial, if one was ever held.

There was a second mistrial in 1987.

In the first trial in February 1985, a jury deliberated 16 hours before declaring it could not reach a decision. Authorities said a third trial is likely ~ Lexis-Nexis search, The Washington Post October 10, 1987, Saturday, Final Edition, "Second Mistrial Ruled in Baby's Death"

In 1990 the case was dismissed by a judge.

Cook County Circuit Judge Will Gierach on Friday ruled there wasn't enough evidence against McKay to sustain the charge of murder in the 1983 slaying in this south Chicago suburb.

"There will be no more trial, it's over, it's done," said McKay's attorney Jo-Anne Wolfson. She said the state cannot bring her client to trial on a lesser charge.

...

After the two hung juries, the defense moved in November 1987 that the charge be dismissed. Judge Gierach granted the motion in January 1988, but the state appealed. The appeals court returned the case to Gierach on a technicality.

... ~Lexis-Nexis search, The Associated Press July 13, 1990, Friday, AM cycle, "Judge Dismisses Murder Charge in Infanticide Case"

ETA: Everything indicates that the defense being used was that the father suffered temporary insanity. The father was reported to have said he did so because he didn't want the child, who was severely deformed and was expected to live three months, to suffer. While that does not excuse his actions at all, it is not at all what was being claimed, i.e. never went to trial because prenatal screening was available. They did see the ultrasounds and knew there would be issues, but went ahead not knowing how bad it truly was.

[JJM 777]

Are you suggesting that a cluster of cells has the same capacity to suffer as a 3 month old baby?
No, I am suggesting that there are methods to kill a living creature without causing any suffering. Slaughterers will know more about the theory.

> bokonon:
> The brain is capable of initiating muscle movement in the fetus.

... and much more than that. Just look at a mosquito.

> themusicteacher
> If we had better access to contraception, there would be very,
> very few abortions. It's as simple as that.

First we would need contraception that actually works and feels comfortable. For many women, pills feel worse than the worst PMS. For many men, condoms feel so uncomfortable that no sex at all feels better than sex with condom. (It is strangely difficult to find any statistical research on this subject, though. I suspect a CT here, avoiding reporting anything negative about condoms to the public, because of concerns that condom is the only method that prevents the spread of diseases.)

> LostAngeles
> What would you have I do? Have an unwanted child?
> Stop engaging in sexual activity with my partner?

Hope that some of the contraception methods invented so far feel good for you, and successfully give the expected protection. If not, do whatever you can and want.

> What do Spartans have to do with this when people
> around the same time were using Silphium to prevent pregnancy,
> whereas the Spartan method was a form of eugenics?

Spartans have a role as an example of infanticide, whereas the OP asked whether infanticide is morally acceptable or not.

> is not at all what was being claimed, i.e. never went
> to trial because prenatal screening was available.

Never trust rumours. I remembered the case as good as I could. But finally we got the full story in daylight, so my vague reference served a purpose after all.

[†= Crap!]

Personally, I'd draw the line at "brain activity," for both ends of a lifetime.

An ant has brain activity. Do you get all broken up if you were to accidental step on one?

All animals have brain activity. Are they all equally worthy of presevation becuase of their precious "brain activity"? If not then what kind of brain activity is worthy of preservation and what kind is not? What criteria do you use?

[LostAngeles]

No, I am suggesting that there are methods to kill a living creature without causing any suffering. Slaughterers will know more about the theory.

How does a D&C or an zygote not implanting cause, "suffering?"

First we would need contraception that actually works and feels comfortable. For many women, pills feel worse than the worst PMS. For many men, condoms feel so uncomfortable that no sex at all feels better than sex with condom. (It is strangely difficult to find any statistical research on this subject, though. I suspect a CT here, avoiding reporting anything negative about condoms to the public, because of concerns that condom is the only method that prevents the spread of diseases.)

Hormonal Birth Control has a perfect use success rate over 99%, typical use is over 90% depending on method. What proportion is, "many?" Are you aware of the vast myriad of different forumaltions of the birth control pill? Are you aware of Depo-Provera shots that are given quarterly? NuvaRing? The Patch? IUSs? Implants?

Hope that some of the contraception methods invented so far feel good for you, and successfully give the expected protection. If not, do whatever you can and want.

The IUS sucked getting put in, is low-maintenance and unfeelable unless you're that deep in me, and has a 99.95% perfect use rate.

But why do you even care what goes on in my ****** How is it your business.

Spartans have a role as an example of infanticide, whereas the OP asked whether infanticide is morally acceptable or not.

And equated it with contraception and abortion.

Never trust rumours. I remembered the case as good as I could. But finally we got the full story in daylight, so my vague reference served a purpose after all.

I had to dig into Lexis-Nexis. I'm willing to bet slingblade used Google. Why couldn't you have done what she did to check it out?

Further, it served no purpose other than to sidetrack the discussion:

Again, what business is it of yours as to what goes on inside of my reproductive organs?

[Skeptic]

That point is established between a woman and her doctor depending on the circumstances of each case.

How about killing three-year-olds? Should that be established between a woman and her children's pediatrician based on the circumstances in each case? Of course not. Why? Because the three-year-old has rights. At some point, so does the fetus.

[Skeptic]

All animals have brain activity. Are they all equally worthy of presevation becuase of their precious "brain activity"? If not then what kind of brain activity is worthy of preservation and what kind is not? What criteria do you use?

This is an interesting question. As you mentioned criminals, I suppose you are for the death penalty in certain (presumably extreme) cases?

[thaiboxerken]

The line is drawn at birth. Until born, the fetus is not a independent being.

[Hokulele]

At some point, so does the fetus.


Why? How do you determine that point?

[SezMe]

A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.
As demonstrated by this thread, there is no such clear line. Your black&white approach to the problem is, well, a problem.

[bokonon]

An ant has brain activity. Do you get all broken up if you were to accidental step on one?

All animals have brain activity. Are they all equally worthy of presevation becuase of their precious "brain activity"? If not then what kind of brain activity is worthy of preservation and what kind is not? What criteria do you use?
What is it in the topic "Contraception, abortion, infanticide" that made you think the discussion was about ants?

[maddog]

accusations about how abortions are the fault of pro-lifers. (By the way, most {granted, not all} abortions are performed on pro-abortionists, not pro-lifers -- so how exactly do you get to where the pro-lifers are irrational?)

Right about here:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
That much was given. So where does the anecdotal evidence about a few become what forms the opinion about the masses?

Abstinence-only education anyone?

I learned to use a condom from the package, myself.

So what're they supposed to do when the condom breaks, btw?
Oddly enough, abstinence works to prevent pregnancy. And in any case, you make my point -- that condoms are easily available -- even with the goof-ball oddity that is abstinence-only education (which, I agree, is a mistake).

When the condom breaks, you don't use it. Anybody who can't figure out that much is kind of beyond help, don'tcha think?

Actually, under Bush, any state that didn't have abstinence only sex ed would be turning away a lot of money, so many many children went through sex-ed courses who's funding source explicity forbid instruction on where to get or how to use a condom, and in fact, lied about condoms.

Thank you for playing, try again.

Teaching about condoms and providing them is NOT something that should be a government function. Or maybe I missed that part of the Constitution? Plus, what a surprise that the government does/did something poorly... Yet another reason to ask: do we really want the government running healthcare? Ah, but those are two arguments for the Politics forum, not here.

Still, the point is that condoms are WIDELY AVAILABLE. And thus my point -- that themusicteacher was incorrect in blaming abortion on the lack of available contraception.

[bokonon]

When the condom breaks, you don't use it. Anybody who can't figure out that much is kind of beyond help, don'tcha think?
Assumes the breakage occurs prior to the usage, which is probably not the case in most instances, don'tcha think?

Still, the point is that condoms are WIDELY AVAILABLE. And thus my point -- that themusicteacher was incorrect in blaming abortion on the lack of available contraception.
I think abortion is only considered when other forms of contraception have failed. While I agree that gentler forms of contraception are usually available and effective for thoughtful, responsible couples, I also see great value to society in making it easier for thoughtless, irresponsible people to avoid having children and (in most such cases) also making them "responsible" for raising those children.

[JJM 777]

How does a D&C or an zygote not implanting cause, "suffering?"
In no measurable way, except possibly to the mom as she will learn that another attempt at pregnancy has failed.

Are you aware of the vast myriad of different formualtions of the birth control pill?
I am aware of what the national health services (and Wikipedia etc.) tell me. They tell that all options have some problems for some users. But if not, then the situation is excellent.

Why couldn't you have done what she did to check it out?
Because:
1) I am lazy, and
2) what the law enforcement officials in country X did in this case, does not give any objective information about the morality of the action.

Again, what business is it of yours as to what goes on inside of my reproductive organs?
I learned of your existence much later than the OP was written, so the OP has nothing to do specifically with your reproductive organs. However, I am universally interested in women's reproductive organs generally, for many reasons and with many motives. I hope that this will not cause psychological distress to you, because the phenomenon is relatively widespread on the planet.

[Elizabeth I]

Right. Because condoms are so hard to acquire. Maybe if they were sold in, say, drug stores, grocery stores, Wal-Marts, and convenience stores, then people would be able to get them. Or maybe if they were in coin-operated machines in the bathrooms at bars and nightclubs...

Oh, wait... they are.

Or maybe if condoms were given out free of charge at colleges, high schools, and public health facilities, then people could get them, and then...

Oh, wait... they are.

Well, maybe people are just using them wrong. Maybe if high-school students were taught how to use condoms, in, say, health class, then they would be used properly.

Oh, yeah, that's right.


[buzzer sounds] WRONG!!! But thanks for playing. We've got a lovely parting gift for you, pick it up on your way to making other unfounded accusations about how abortions are the fault of pro-lifers. (By the way, most {granted, not all} abortions are performed on pro-abortionists, not pro-lifers -- so how exactly do you get to where the pro-lifers are irrational?)

Except that many right-to-lifers are also strongly anti-contraceptive, especially if the people using those contraceptives might be young and unmarried. The point is that, if right-to-lifers were truly concerned about preventing abortion, they would support effective methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies. And, by the way, although this is the dreaded anecdotal evidence, I used to work at a clinic that performed early-term abortions, and it's surprising how many right-to-lifers suddenly came to the conclusion that safe, legal abortions could be useful when their high-school-age daughters got pregnant. So the only result of their activity is to attempt to deny to others the same option they took advantage of.

ETA the word "many" in my first sentence. Don't want to paint with a broad brush.

[bookitty]

How about killing three-year-olds? Should that be established between a woman and her children's pediatrician based on the circumstances in each case? Of course not. Why? Because the three-year-old has rights. At some point, so does the fetus.

So if a woman and her doctor are the ones to decide what is best for her, then the doctors will start killing three-year-olds? I'm not sure I follow that.

This discussion boils down to when does society have a moral obligation to interfere with someone's personal life. For some, it is as soon as a woman becomes pregnant. At that point her life is no longer her own, society is responsible for her choices.

For me, the guidelines that are already in place (i.e. a medical professional and a woman who is pregnant) are adequate.

[maddog]

Except that many right-to-lifers are also strongly anti-contraceptive, especially if the people using those contraceptives might be young and unmarried. The point is that, if right-to-lifers were truly concerned about preventing abortion, they would support effective methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies. And, by the way, although this is the dreaded anecdotal evidence, I used to work at a clinic that performed early-term abortions, and it's surprising how many right-to-lifers suddenly came to the conclusion that safe, legal abortions could be useful when their high-school-age daughters got pregnant. So the only result of their activity is to attempt to deny to others the same option they took advantage of.

ETA the word "many" in my first sentence. Don't want to paint with a broad brush.
(bolding added)

On the main, I agree with your assessment. I think the anti-contraception pro-lifers are generally under the impression that they have taught abstinence so well, and it has been accepted lock-stock-and-barrel by their kids, that contraception is unnecessary -- on the idea that if they discuss, provide, or teach contraception, that they are giving up on, or undoing, their primary goal of teaching abstinence. Thus, the kids can be (and I whole-heartedly agree with avoiding the "broad brush", as you said!) socially or emotionally unprepared. And then OOPS!!!

Then, the reality hits the parents like a ton of bricks -- all of a sudden, it's not just the attempted abstinence failed, it's also that the result is pregnancy. So instead of a "Maybe Johnny really thought he loved you, but you're both so young, too young to really understand love" type of conversation, it's a much more difficult situation to deal with. At this point, the ones who failed at an easier situation have to face a BIG one. And hence, some of them panic, and turn in the face of what they thought were their core principles. I think this is the bulk of those you described in the part that I bolded. It's sad, really.

As for the "how many" -- I would guess (and I think you would agree?) that this is not the majority of abortions, but is a significant and non-trivial minority. 10 - 30% ??? I don't know, but I would be curious to know.

I think abortion is only considered when other forms of contraception have failed. While I agree that gentler forms of contraception are usually available and effective for thoughtful, responsible couples, I also see great value to society in making it easier for thoughtless, irresponsible people to avoid having children and (in most such cases) also making them "responsible" for raising those children.
(bolding added)

bokonon, I suggest that the part I bolded might more accurately be: "when forms of contraception have failed or were not used", for two reasons
1) abortion is not contraception; i.e. it prevents birth, not conception
2) that not using contraception is at least as much at fault as failing contraception. Or maybe failure to use it is a failure of it? :boggled: I dunno. I don't want to argue semantics, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

For the rest of it, while I respect your opinion and appreciate what you are saying, I would rather that the primary efforts of society on unwanted pregnancies be toward adoption.

[JJM 777]

An interesting news was on France 24 television channel half an hour ago, not seen yet on their website www.france24.com (if they ever add all their news there):

A victim of rape in Burundi (if I remember the African country right) is standing trial for killing the child that was conceived from the rape.

Background for the story:
- abortion is illegal in this country, so she never had any chance for abortion
- rape is generally not punished in any way in this country

An infanticide case here. And your judgment is...?

[bokonon]

bokonon, I suggest that the part I bolded might more accurately be: "when forms of contraception have failed or were not used", for two reasons
1) abortion is not contraception; i.e. it prevents birth, not conception
2) that not using contraception is at least as much at fault as failing contraception. Or maybe failure to use it is a failure of it? :boggled: I dunno. I don't want to argue semantics, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

I agree with both of your points. You are correct, I was using the word "contraception" incorrectly to mean "prevents birth" rather than "prevents conception." I also think you're correct that failure to use contraception is responsible for more pregnancies than failures of contraception when used.

For the rest of it, while I respect your opinion and appreciate what you are saying, I would rather that the primary efforts of society on unwanted pregnancies be toward adoption.
I think adoption is a good thing, especially when a mostly stable woman becomes pregnant unintentionally. I worry about advocating that it's preferable in all cases -- if the woman is addicted to alcohol, cocaine, meth, or something similar, chances are the child is going to suffer permanent harm before it's even born, and an early abortion might be the best option for all concerned.

[LostAngeles]

Oddly enough, abstinence works to prevent pregnancy. And in any case, you make my point -- that condoms are easily available -- even with the goof-ball oddity that is abstinence-only education (which, I agree, is a mistake).

Except that they're not.

I lived in a Boston suburb and would travel a bit to buy condoms. Why? Fear that someone who knew me or my family would see me and there would be gossip.

Imagine how that is in a small, rural town.

Abstinence, like every other method, prevents pregnancy if and only if it is used properly.

When the condom breaks, you don't use it. Anybody who can't figure out that much is kind of beyond help, don'tcha think?

What if the condom breaks right at the point of male orgasm?

Teaching about condoms and providing them is NOT something that should be a government function. Or maybe I missed that part of the Constitution? Plus, what a surprise that the government does/did something poorly... Yet another reason to ask: do we really want the government running healthcare? Ah, but those are two arguments for the Politics forum, not here.

It's in the interest of public health. Condoms help stop the spread of disease. Why is that not in the interest of the government?

In no measurable way, except possibly to the mom as she will learn that another attempt at pregnancy has failed.

You don't know what a D&C is do you? And why do you think every woman wants a child? Or even knows that implantation has failed?

Because:
1) I am lazy, and
2) what the law enforcement officials in country X did in this case, does not give any objective information about the morality of the action.

If you're lazy, then don't bother and make us do your work. Why bring up something that you know nothing of? And you did try to make a claim about what the law enforcement officials did in this case as a reflection of the morality of the action.

I learned of your existence much later than the OP was written, so the OP has nothing to do specifically with your reproductive organs. However, I am universally interested in women's reproductive organs generally, for many reasons and with many motives. I hope that this will not cause psychological distress to you, because the phenomenon is relatively widespread on the planet.

Nice try.

I am a woman who uses contraception. Therefore you are concerned with it. Why?

Why is the reproductive organs of any woman the business of anyone that is not herself or her doctor?

It's not causing me, "psychological distress." I just want to know who the **** you think you are that you have any say over anyone else's body.

[†= Crap!]

This is an interesting question. As you mentioned criminals, I suppose you are for the death penalty in certain (presumably extreme) cases?

Did you quote the wrong person? I never mentioned criminals and don't see how the death penalty has any relevance to my what i said.

[†= Crap!]

What is it in the topic "Contraception, abortion, infanticide" that made you think the discussion was about ants?

You used the presence of "brain activity" as the dividing line when something becomes a "life" and presumably worthy of preservation. What is so special about about the presence of brain activity?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The brain is capable of initiating muscle movement in the fetus.
I think that's impractical (we don't currently do testing to determine that).

I think you're on the right track though. What's traditionally called "quickening" is about the time the woman can feel the baby moving about. Quickening usually happens no earlier than 13 weeks. That's probably partly why we use the line of "first trimester"--something a lot easier to determine without expensive testing in each case.

Even so, quickening, or the fetus having the neurological ability to move muscles (which is probably actually later than the first muscle movements) is really only a substitute, philosophically, for what I mentioned earlier--the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. Again, that's something that varies from one individual to the next, but the line we've drawn is a fair and conservative reflection of that.

Just because we don't know exactly when something happens doesn't mean we can't draw lines and use them as good moral conventions (or even laws!).

We don't let minors drink alcohol or vote below a certain age (not the same age usually), even though we're fully aware that not all kids are mature and responsible at the same age. We have age requirements for many elective offices, even though we know for sure people's wisdom at a given age varies widely!

In the case of abortion of an otherwise healthy and normally developing fetus by a woman whose life or health isn't immediately threatened, we draw the line at the first trimester. I think it's a reasonable line based on what we know about the neurological development of a normal fetus.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You used the presence of "brain activity" as the dividing line when something becomes a "life" and presumably worthy of preservation. What is so special about about the presence of brain activity?
Yep. That's a point I made earlier. Most people have no problem stopping a beating heart and active brain when the heart and brain belong to a cow. So the real issue is something else--and I think it's the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. (I avoid "consciousness" because that can have way too many meanings.)

Again, just specifying human brain activity (or a beating human heart) doesn't define why it's OK to kill some things with brain activity or beating hearts but not others.

FWIW, I'm a vegetarian, in part because I think a cow does have that level of neurological development. I have no problem killing fleas and mosquitos though, because I don't think they have the neural substrate required for something as complex as desires.

ETA: In defense of bokonon--I think what he's after is a substitute for what I've been calling the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. There's nothing magical about moving a muscle--nor is there anything magical about 3 months of in utero development (again, we kill other animals after the first trimester--even after they're born!). They're just conventional substitutes for that other thing.

[bokonon]

You used the presence of "brain activity" as the dividing line when something becomes a "life" and presumably worthy of preservation. What is so special about about the presence of brain activity?
Our sense of ourselves as individuals depends on brain activity. If I lose an arm, I'm still me; if I lose a brain, not so much.

[Hokulele]

Our sense of ourselves as individuals depends on brain activity. If I lose an arm, I'm still me; if I lose a brain, not so much.


Which part of your brain?

This isn't simply drive-by snarking (although I can do that too), but a serious question. From what I know, the development of the brain and the central nervous system is a fairly drawn-out process, not as simple as an on/off activity switch. There are many portions of your brain that you can lose and still be "you". How many of these are present at 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Birth?

[bokonon]

Which part of your brain?
I don't know, and am willing to err on the conservative side in the case of the fetus. It's somewhat arbitrary to begin with, and there are those who argue that a single cell should be protected by law from the moment of conception. I don't personally think a single cell, or a group of cells, rises to the level of being called a human being, and the line I'd draw is at the point where brain activity begins.

Whether that can be measured in utero is another question, and once again I don't have an answer. Joe the Juggler's "quickening" seems reasonable as a way of inferring brain activity from muscle movement.

[Hokulele]

I don't know, and am willing to err on the conservative side in the case of the fetus. It's somewhat arbitrary to begin with, and there are those who argue that a single cell should be protected by law from the moment of conception. I don't personally think a single cell, or a group of cells, rises to the level of being called a human being, and the line I'd draw is at the point where brain activity begins.

Whether that can be measured in utero is another question, and once again I don't have an answer. Joe the Juggler's "quickening" seems reasonable as a way of inferring brain activity from muscle movement.


The main reason I have a problem with this distinction is because of cases such as this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3568242#post3568242

I agree, a line must be drawn for legal and ethical reasons. However, I do not believe any one line can apply to all cases at all times. For this reason, I don't think brain activity should be the sole criteria, and in fact, I don't think there should be any sole criteria. Rather than a single line, there must be a range of options to fit the muddy, messy world in which we live.

[bokonon]

While I agree that there are circumstances which might call for a different standard, I'm not sure that case is one of them. The fetus had severe hydrocephalus, which the doctors described as "almost complete absence of a brain." I'd have made the same decision on quality of life grounds, even if what little brain it did have was capable of twitching leg muscles.

But I guess you've backed me into an additional qualification: "where normal development seems likely." Care to go for two?

[Hokulele]

While I agree that there are circumstances which might call for a different standard, I'm not sure that case is one of them. The fetus had severe hydrocephalus, which the doctors described as "almost complete absence of a brain." I'd have made the same decision on quality of life grounds, even if what little brain it did have was capable of twitching leg muscles.

But I guess you've backed me into an additional qualification: "where normal development seems likely." Care to go for two?


Heh. That's my whole point about line drawing. You can keep coming up with qualifications, and I can keep coming up with either examples or hypotheticals that would be exceptions to your rules. As I said, I agree that lines do need to be drawn, they just need to have flexibility built into them. Fortunately, the way the judicial system works in the U.S., the flexibility is built into the interpretation of those lines rather than the lines themselves. For example, with your qualification "where normal development seems likely", the flexibility is in how the law would interpret the word "normal".

ETA: Or "likely".

[MikeSun5]

Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child?

I think that should be determined by the mother's mental/emotional stability. Some women would freak out about a decision like that, and some wouldn't. It should be at their discretion.

A woman's body is her own business. Period.

Personally, I won't even listen to any anti-abortion rhetoric unless you meet two criteria:
1. You are a woman.
2. You have adopted children.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree, a line must be drawn for legal and ethical reasons. However, I do not believe any one line can apply to all cases at all times.

And the way it is now, the first trimester line is drawn only for normal "elective" pregnancies where the woman is not in any particular danger. In other cases (anencephaly, for example), the line is different. In regular cases, though, the line is meant, I think, to err on the safe side. We're pretty confident that a fetus earlier than the end of the first trimester lacks the neurological development to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled.

For this reason, I don't think brain activity should be the sole criteria, and in fact, I don't think there should be any sole criteria. Rather than a single line, there must be a range of options to fit the muddy, messy world in which we live.
I don't think anyone actually uses brain activity as the criteria. (I'm not aware of any in utero EEG being conducted prior to allowing an abortion.) The first trimester is used, as I said, to be a convenient but erring on the safe side line for normal cases. In abnormal cases, things are handled differently (risk to the woman, viability of the fetus, etc. are taken into account).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Personally, I won't even listen to any anti-abortion rhetoric unless you meet two criteria:
1. You are a woman.
2. You have adopted children.
That sounds very much like this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151500&page=2)!

I strongly disagree. I'm very much pro-choice, but I am capable of moral reasoning on the subject even though I am not a woman and I have not adopted children.

The question of whether a fetus is a human being with human rights is one that any person can discuss--even men who have not adopted children. That the arguer has a Y chromosome does not invalidate the argument.

[MikeSun5]

I strongly disagree. I'm very much pro-choice, but I am capable of moral reasoning on the subject even though I am not a woman and I have not adopted children.

Penn Jillette once said, "Everybody is both pro-life AND pro-choice, it's for or against abortion that's the issue."

Whether or not to get an abortion is a decision of unparalleled magnitude for a woman to have to make. That's why I won't listen to a man who thinks it's wrong. It's of little or no consequence to him. He doesn't have to carry the fetus inside him, or go through the anguish of having it removed.

The question of whether a fetus is a human being with human rights is one that any person can discuss...

The fact that question is even asked at all is crazy to me. With rights come responsibilities. A mother is reponsible for her fetus and has the right to do with it what she wants. A fetus is responsible for what, exactly?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fact that question is even asked at all is crazy to me. With rights come responsibilities. A mother is reponsible for her fetus and has the right to do with it what she wants. A fetus is responsible for what, exactly?

This argument doesn't work. Surely you don't buy into Palin's delusion that there are death penalties who deny the right to life from useless people, do y ou?

Being a human with human rights is not dependent on whether or not you have responsibilities. What is a newborn infant responsible for? Surely you don't think it's OK to murder a baby.

I think the right to have an abortion as an elective procedure for a woman who is not in any danger should be guaranteed during the first trimester. Beyond that, those other considerations I mentioned should be taken into account. I base my position on the near certainty that a fetus in the first trimester lacks the neurological development to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. The same standard works for adults (as with the Terry Schiavo case--she had no cortical structure, so I saw no problem with disconnecting her feeding tube).

[†= Crap!]

Yep. That's a point I made earlier. Most people have no problem stopping a beating heart and active brain when the heart and brain belong to a cow. So the real issue is something else--and I think it's the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. (I avoid "consciousness" because that can have way too many meanings.)


That is what I was skirting around. If by "brain activity" he only means human brain activity, then why?

The problem I would have with just using the presence of brain activity as the factor in determining whether a life is worthy of preservation is that all animals with brains have brain activity, and I don't get all bent out of shape when I kill a bunch of ants when they infest my kitchen. There has to be something about the form that brain activity takes to make it important, and when does that form develop in humans?

To me, the qualities a life must exhibit for that life to be worthy of preservation (and a tragedy to be ended) are reason, compassion, creativity, and a capacity for joys that extend beyond the simple satisfaction of our base needs. Basically the qualities really only present in most humans and possibly the other higher apes. It's for this reason why I'm not vegetarian. I don't believe non-human animals have the qualities to make their lives worthy of preservation (or a tragedy to be ended). This is also why I believe in human euthanasia. A human that is either brain dead or has a future that consists of little more than pain and suffering, absent of joy, is no longer a life worth preserving.

But this raises an internal conflict in my own thinking, because an infant doesn't really have these qualities any more than a non-human animal does. It seems to me that those qualities don't really form until sometime after a human is born. In fact, to my eyes, a newborn infant shows these qualities less so than the unwanted cats and dogs that we euthanize every day.

So under my thinking would it be acceptable to euthanize an unwanted infant instead of having it becoming an orphan? I don't know. One difference between an infant and a dog is that the infant at least has the capacity to eventually develop the qualities that would make its life worth preserving. The problem here though is that a two cell zygote also has the capacity to eventually develop those qualities. Are zygotes worthy of preservation? I don't know.

So as you can see I'm torn between infanticide and protecting zygotes!:p
And I haven't even factored in the needs or rights of the mother yet!

[Bob Blaylock]

Whether or not to get an abortion is a decision of unparalleled magnitude for a woman to have to make. That's why I won't listen to a man who thinks it's wrong. It's of little or no consequence to him. He doesn't have to carry the fetus inside him, or go through the anguish of having it removed.


If I come upon a women being raped, should I intervene? I am convinced that rape is wrong. Does the fact that I am a man, and not likely to be subject myself to rape mean that rape is of no consequence to me, and that my opinion on the subject carries no weight? I, myself, choose not to go about raping women; do I have the right to impose this choice on others?
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

—Albert Einstein—


The fact that question is even asked at all is crazy to me. With rights come responsibilities. A mother is reponsible for her fetus and has the right to do with it what she wants. A fetus is responsible for what, exactly?


What responsibilities does a week-old infant have? If none, then does that infant have any rights, or is he entirely the property of his mother, to do with as she pleases? What about a two-year-old? How old does a human being need to be, to bear sufficient responsibilities to endow him with the right to exist?

[JJM 777]

And why do you think every woman wants a child?
Never said that I think so.

Why is the reproductive organs of any woman the business of anyone that is not herself or her doctor?
This is not a fruitful direction to go. We have all undergone 9 or more years legally obligatory school education, where we were taught many a thing that was none of our business -- including theory about reproductive organs, contraception and some ethics.

Freedom of speech, freedom of tought, freedom to be interested, freedom to have an opinion.

[LostAngeles]

Never said that I think so.

You implied it with your response of the suffering of the mother.

This is not a fruitful direction to go. We have all undergone 9 or more years legally obligatory school education, where we were taught many a thing that was none of our business -- including theory about reproductive organs, contraception and some ethics.

Freedom of speech, freedom of tought, freedom to be interested, freedom to have an opinion.

No, learning about them is one thing. Thinking you can tell someone what to do with them is another.

Why do you think that you can?

And again, way to selectively ignore wide swaths of my post. This has looked like trolling behavior for a good while now.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is what I was skirting around. If by "brain activity" he only means human brain activity, then why?
Again, I think it's just a substitute for something else--and I suggest it's the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. Some people use terms like "consciousness" for the same idea, but I think that is too vague.

At any rate, the first trimester is a safe line drawn where we're confident that a fetus before that line has not developed whatever this characteristic is that makes it human.

But this raises an internal conflict in my own thinking, because an infant doesn't really have these qualities any more than a non-human animal does. It seems to me that those qualities don't really form until sometime after a human is born. In fact, to my eyes, a newborn infant shows these qualities less so than the unwanted cats and dogs that we euthanize every day.
So rather than use the qualities you're talking about, why not use the one I've suggested--the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled?

The problem here though is that a two cell zygote also has the capacity to eventually develop those qualities. Are zygotes worthy of preservation? I don't know.
First, when fertilization happens, the sperm and the egg fuse (the sperm really enters the egg cell) and the two haploid cells become one diploid cell.

The potential to develop the qualities that you're already unhappy with because they would allow the killing of born infants (and plenty of other people that we recognize as human)? Why not abandon that approach and use the one I've suggested? If you start playing the game where you admit x is not a human but might (or might not) some time in the future develop into one, it doesn't help with drawing the line. Really, any somatic cell now has the potential to become a human (through cloning). Also, we already throw away embryos left over from IVF.

I'll anticipate one defense of the "potential human" argument: those other things won't become a human if we just leave them alone as with a zygote in the Fallopian tubes.

That's also not true. It requires a lot of cooperation on the part of the woman for it to become a human. (If no other way, but by eating for two.) If you think they should be left alone to determine whether or not they'll develop into a human, then most of us (born in hospitals and not the result of "natural" childbirth) would not count as humans, since we were assisted with modern medical technology and the cooperation of our mothers. And once born, are we only human if we retain those qualities you're referring to without the intervention of medical technology?

The point here is that the need for medical intervention doesn't mean something isn't human, therefore if you play the "potential" human game, then any body cell is a potential human. Even without cloning technology, every gamete is a "potential" human, and most of us destroy most of our gametes without letting them become humans.

[Duncanthrax]

Again, I think it's just a substitute for something else--and I suggest it's the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. Some people use terms like "consciousness" for the same idea, but I think that is too vague.

At any rate, the first trimester is a safe line drawn where we're confident that a fetus before that line has not developed whatever this characteristic is that makes it human.

So rather than use the qualities you're talking about, why not use the one I've suggested--the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled?


I'm not at all clear what you're saying here. A newborn baby has certain very basic desires -- food, sleep, physical comfort and a very few others. You seem to be saying that this is somehow different than a cat or dog, but they have those same desires plus some more advanced ones. So how is this different from an animal that people have no problem being killed?

[†= Crap!]

So rather than use the qualities you're talking about, why not use the one I've suggested--the ability to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled?

Because I don't feel that is enough. Even if you were to make the case that a cow has "desires", I don't really care about the desires of a cow. They're not of a nature or important enough for me to be concerned with.

I realize that the criteria I'm using in determining "worth" or "of value" are completely subjective (although I would argue not completely arbitrary), but I'm more or less comfortable with that. I am making value judgments and values are inherently subjective. It also gives me little grounds to criticize the values someone else uses in determining 'worth' (your value of 'desire' for example).

I also realize that this line of reasoning opens up the possibility of prioritizing the 'worth' of different human beings. I could conclude based on my subjective appraisal of 'worth' that the ending of Carl Sagans life is a tragedy, whereas the ending of the life of some dumb redneck who passes out drunk and burns his trailer-home down isn't a big deal.

This I'm less comfortable with, because I feel thinking that way erodes my compassion. Then again not concerning myself with any possible desires of a cow may also be an erosion of my compassion. Maybe I just need to be more compassionate?

I'll anticipate one defense of the "potential human" argument: those other things won't become a human if we just leave them alone as with a zygote in the Fallopian tubes.That is the argument more or less. I'm not saying the "potential human" argument is rock solid or that I'm persuaded by it, but it is the only secular argument for the protection of life from the point of conception that comes close to making any kind of sense. It's for that reason I feel it should be taken seriously and given some consideration.

That's also not true. It requires a lot of cooperation on the part of the woman for it to become a human. (If no other way, but by eating for two.) If you think they should be left alone to determine whether or not they'll develop into a human, then most of us (born in hospitals and not the result of "natural" childbirth) would not count as humans, since we were assisted with modern medical technology and the cooperation of our mothers. And once born, are we only human if we retain those qualities you're referring to without the intervention of medical technology?

The point here is that the need for medical intervention doesn't mean something isn't human, therefore if you play the "potential" human game, then any body cell is a potential human. Even without cloning technology, every gamete is a "potential" human, and most of us destroy most of our gametes without letting them become humans.Your point isn't without merit, but I think it can become circular. A zygote isn't a potential human unless the mother cooperates in fulfilling that potential? Isn't that like saying your only potentially one year older if I don't kill you first?

For me I see cooperation as less important to the discussion at hand than inhibiting. Yes potential may require cooperation but we're discussing when it is acceptable to inhibit potential.

Yes you could say that any cell is a potential human given the right technology, but you could push it even further and say anything is potentially anything else given the right confluence of events. The atoms necessary to form Me were forged in stars billions of years ago. Were those stars potential Mes?

I guess you could argue that, but I think it would be more useful to try to establish meaningful interim stages between the creation of the universe and everything that exist now, when discussing potential.

So the potentiality argument goes: A sperm & egg are a potential zygote, a zygote is a potential human, but an egg & sperm are not a potential human. You have to establish interim stages unless you want to operate on the basis that anything is potentially anything else. Gametes to zygote is one stage, zygote human is another.

Once the zygote stage is established it is a potential human on the basis that it will fulfill that potential as long as it is not inhibited in some way. The reason a gamete isn't a potential human is because there is no human potensial to inhibit if the right confluence of events(conception) doesn't first occur for the gamete to become a zygote.

Again none of this is rock solid, but I'm trying to reason through all of it to better establish my own thinking on it.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm not at all clear what you're saying here. A newborn baby has certain very basic desires -- food, sleep, physical comfort and a very few others. You seem to be saying that this is somehow different than a cat or dog, but they have those same desires plus some more advanced ones. So how is this different from an animal that people have no problem being killed?

I've heard that dogs and cats don't particularly care about human babies being killed, but feel differently about their own ...

[MikeSun5]

What is a newborn infant responsible for? Surely you don't think it's OK to murder a baby.
What responsibilities does a week-old infant have? If none, then does that infant have any rights, or is he entirely the property of his mother, to do with as she pleases? What about a two-year-old? How old does a human being need to be, to bear sufficient responsibilities to endow him with the right to exist?

Okay, the responsibility thing was a bad example (but not as bad as the rape example, Bob :confused:). What I was trying to get at was that from conception until the baby is born, only the mother is responsible. After the baby is born, anyone can take care of it.

I think the right to have an abortion as an elective procedure for a woman who is not in any danger should be guaranteed during the first trimester. Beyond that, those other considerations I mentioned should be taken into account. I base my position on the near certainty that a fetus in the first trimester lacks the neurological development to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

This is where the debate goes into areas I can't comment on. Except when other people start saying what a person can or cannot do to their body, I will always disagree with that.

That's why I think guys shouldn't get opinions on abortion. It's nothing for us to make a baby.

[†= Crap!]

Okay, the responsibility thing was a bad example (but not as bad as the rape example, Bob :confused:). What I was trying to get at was that from conception until the baby is born, only the mother is responsible. After the baby is born, anyone can take care of it.

Answer me this: Would it be wrong to remove a fetus, that was capable of survival outside the womb, via c-section, and kill it once removed? If yes then: Would it be wrong for that very same fetus, at the same level of development, to have been killed inside the mothers womb and then removed? If no then: Why?

Just to clarify your position.

[MikeSun5]

Just to clarify your position.

Inside the mom = mom's responsibility. It's the mom's say. Can't get much clearer.

I was really hoping to avoid the extreme example ping-pong. "What if the doctor had to choose between the fetus and the mother?", "What if one of the twins was going to die?", "What if this, what if that," etc. Once a debate takes that turn, it's gone for good. ;)

[†= Crap!]

Inside the mom = mom's responsibility. It's the mom's say. Can't get much clearer.

I was really hoping to avoid the extreme example ping-pong. "What if the doctor had to choose between the fetus and the mother?", "What if one of the twins was going to die?", "What if this, what if that," etc. Once a debate takes that turn, it's gone for good. ;)

It wasn't an extreme example. The second scenario i proposed, that you advocate, is essentially a late term abortion. The first scenario, too me, is morally identical to the second. The sequence of the procedure doesn't change anything.

If you view it as wrong to kill a fetus after it has been removed from the mother, then it would follow that you feel that is in someway a "being" worthy of some rights? Why does this same "being" have absolutely zero rights by virtue of being inside a women? The fetus has no say in were it resides. If you can view a fetus capable of being a "being", then why do the mothers rights 100% override the fetuses rights?

[Bob Blaylock]

Okay, the responsibility thing was a bad example (but not as bad as the rape example, Bob :confused:). What I was trying to get at was that from conception until the baby is born, only the mother is responsible. After the baby is born, anyone can take care of it.


What difference does that make? Even after birth, even for some years at least beyond birth, the child will die if nobody takes care of him. Up until birth, only the child's mother can take care of him. What if, after the child is born, the mother doesn't want him, and nobody else wants him either? Is his humanity dependent on the willingness of someone else to care for him until he is able to care for himself?

[Hokulele]

Is his humanity dependent on the willingness of someone else to care for him until he is able to care for himself?


Yes.

[JJM 777]

Thinking you can tell someone what to do with them is another. Why do you think that you can?
Like nearly every person on the planet, I have opinions about topics which are discussed around me. In this case, my opinion is that early or late abortion, and early infanticide, are not evil things. They all lead to approximately the same consequences, with approximately the same small amount of suffering.

Again I want to comment that your hyper-sensitivity about the fact that men have opinions about women is not fruitful for you. It is a utopia, people will never stop having opinions about topics that are related to other people than directly themselves.

Even after birth, even for some years at least beyond birth, the child will die if nobody takes care of him.
Many children would "naturally" die soon after birth, without the help of latest modern technology. For example Down syndrome is mostly lethal, but the latest technology has increased their survival rates.

Who can survive without other people taking care of him? Nobody when a suitable sickness hits you. Here in northern Europe, not many would survive the winter, or the summer either, alone without any contact to other people or commodities produced by them.

[MikeSun5]

What if, after the child is born, the mother doesn't want him, and nobody else wants him either? Is his humanity dependent on the willingness of someone else to care for him until he is able to care for himself?

Here we go with the crazy extreme examples... *sigh* Seriously, I called it psychic-prediction style. I should be eligible for the JREF prize.

To answer your silly question: if nobody (including orphanages and desperate foster parents) will take care of the child, wolves can raise him. :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

The first scenario, too me, is morally identical to the second. The sequence of the procedure doesn't change anything.

It's not morally identical. While it's in the womb, it is not an individual being.

[†= Crap!]

It's not morally identical. While it's in the womb, it is not an individual being.

I don't see that as defensible. Being an "individual being" isn't dependent on were you are. If a fetus at a particular level of development can be a "being" outside of the womb, then it is still a "being" if it happens to reside inside a womb.

I do understand the concept of a women having some rights over control of her body that may override some rights of the fetus. If the pregnancy was a danger to the mothers well-being, her rights may supersede that of the fetuses, for example. But I am unconvinced that a mothers rights should 100% override that of the fetuses in all situations until birth. That's extreme.

If for example, I were to wake up one morning and find that another human being has been surgically attached to my body and organs without my consent, I don't believe I would be ethically obligated to just accept that situation in perpetuity, or even temporarily if it was seriously endangering my life. My right to control my body and life may override this other persons rights. Even their rights to life.

Although I don't believe I would have the right to just stab this person in the ear with an ice pick and have them cut off, if the situation was temporary or if there was an alternative to the death of this other being. I may have some rights that override the rights of the other, but my right to not be inconvenienced for a period of time don't override the other persons right to live.

So to bring it back to a realistic example, assuming that you can accept that a fetus at a particular level of development is capable of being considered a "being" with rights, and even though the mother has some rights that can supersede the rights of the fetus in some situations, a mothers desire not be inconvenienced with pregnancy for some months doesn't override the fetuses right to live.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't see that as defensible. Being an "individual being" isn't dependent on were you are. If a fetus at a particular level of development can be a "being" outside of the womb, then it is still a "being" if it happens to reside inside a womb.

Being an individual being depends entirely on how you live. A fetus inside the womb is living off of the sustenance of another being. Thus, it is not an individual.


So to bring it back to a realistic example, assuming that you can accept that a fetus at a particular level of development is capable of being considered a "being" with rights, and even though the mother has some rights that can supersede the rights of the fetus in some situations, a mothers desire not be inconvenienced with pregnancy for some months doesn't override the fetuses right to live.

I do not accept that a fetus has rights, ever.

[†= Crap!]

Being an individual being depends entirely on how you live. A fetus inside the womb is living off of the sustenance of another being. Thus, it is not an individual.

So in the case of conjoined twins are one or neither individuals? In my bizarre hypothetical of having a person attached to you, are they not an individuals?

I do not accept that a fetus has rights, ever.

You have yet make any kind of rational justification for that position. So far it's just an assertion.

I would argue that an individual is defined as an entity that has interests or at least potential interests. Organs and tumors aren't individuals because they don't have interests. Individuality isn't dependent on that individuals dependence on another. The most you can say is that that individual has parasitic existence, but that just means that it is a parasitic individual.

As to what kind of rights we afford that individual, and how we way them against the rights of others, that is a separate question.

[Elizabeth I]

It is a utopia, people will never stop having opinions about topics that are related to other people than directly themselves.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Or else I don't understand how you're using it.

[thaiboxerken]

So in the case of conjoined twins are one or neither individuals? In my bizarre hypothetical of having a person attached to you, are they not an individuals?

You are correct.


I would argue that an individual is defined as an entity that has interests or at least potential interests.

What interests does a fetus have?

[JoeTheJuggler]

What interests does a fetus have?

I still think a better test is the question, "Does the fetus have desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled?" but I think you're after the same sort of thing.

You can apply the same test to conjoined twins, which aren't always so straightforward. What if the extent of the "twin" is a pair of malformed limbs sticking out of the torso? If there's no evidence of the neurological substrate that would support a person that can have desires, then there would be no moral objection to removing the limbs at the choice of the person.

On the other hand, if the twin is a fully formed, completely conscious head (someone who has desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled), then it's obviously immoral to kill such a twin intentionally (unless there's a situation where both would die unless you killed one).

[Nosi]

You used the presence of "brain activity" as the dividing line when something becomes a "life" and presumably worthy of preservation. What is so special about about the presence of brain activity?

The spine is the first thing that develops, which causes arm & leg movement. I thought the brain developed after the spine & brain stem.

[Nosi]

I still think a better test is the question, "Does the fetus have desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled?" but I think you're after the same sort of thing.

Late term fetuses have simple desires that are made known. (Earlier, I don't know about.) They kick to communicate discomfort. They change position often if they are having a difficult time finding a comfortable position to be in, especially in the later pregnancy as things get very tight in there. When they are uncomfortable with the position their mothers are in, they will kick hard until the mother changes position. My sister also swore that they played with her in the womb, which we all saw, but that is just family hearsay.

One of my late sister's three children liked a certain kind of music and settled right down when it was played.

[kedo1981]

I’m in this thread a little late and am too lazy to read the whole thing so if this idea has been advance TFB.
But a EEG type test would likely allow the detection of brain waves that indicate “thought”, once that is proved the fetus should be afforded the same rights as a “born” child.
This apparently happens around the end of the first tri-mister.

You want to smack a “bee hive” tell a “life begins at conception right to lifer” that since almost half of the “(fertilized) conceived” eggs are “(medical term) spontaneously aborted (miscarriage is not what it’s really called)” then that makes GOD the greatest abortionist of all time

[JJM 777]

Some want to give 100% human rights to any newly-fertilized embryo, because "[write your subjective opinion here]".

Others to 3 months old fetus, because "[write your subjective opinion here]".

Others to newborn baby, because "[write your subjective opinion here]".

I to the baby some days later, when it socially enters the society, because "[I can write my subjective opinion here]".

[†= Crap!]

I have no problem with people simply having a different view on abortion then I do. I do have a problem with those people being so certain that their view is obviously the correct one. Because it isn't so obvious to me at all. I think there are legitimate cases to be made for and against abortion at every point from conception to after birth.

I have no certainty on the issue. I can reason my way into a position of permissible infanticide or protection from point of conception, but neither extreme emotionally feels "right".

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm fine with the laws as they currently stand. They're an acceptable enough compromise to work with. But I won't dismiss out of hand any proposal for something different.

[LostAngeles]

Like nearly every person on the planet, I have opinions about topics which are discussed around me. In this case, my opinion is that early or late abortion, and early infanticide, are not evil things. They all lead to approximately the same consequences, with approximately the same small amount of suffering.

Again I want to comment that your hyper-sensitivity about the fact that men have opinions about women is not fruitful for you. It is a utopia, people will never stop having opinions about topics that are related to other people than directly themselves.

It's not that you have an opinion, it's that you seem to think your opinion is more important than the free will of women.

And again, it's not, "hyper-sensitivity."

[uruk]

LostAngeles, It is not an issue of other people poking thier nose into what you do with your reproductive system. Frame it, put it on a wall. Decency laws not-with-standing no one really cares. It's the potential life that gestates in there that concerns other people

People poke thier nose in other people's personal busines all the time. It's called laws and social values. There are things we are not allowed to do with our bodies. Put controlled substances into them and committing suicide are just two things I can think of that the government does not allow us to do. There are various reason why we do not allow people to do so. Mainly concering on how doing these things affect society or people in general.

It just so happens that females are the gestators in our species. It is the woman who has the womb. You can see that as a advantage or disadvantage.
The issue concerning a womans reproductive system is that it is where a human life gestates untill it can survive outside the womb.

The million dollar question is when does society decide that the life of the developing child outwieghs the mother's rights to chose in this one particular issue.

Historicaly the government (or society) preffers to make the decision on who will live or will die depending on the circumstances.

Abortion places the decision on the individual.

The womb is part of the mother but the child has only 50% of the mother's DNA. The devloping embryo has it's own individual DNA make up that is distinct from the mother.
One stange thing is that the provider of the other half of the DNA which makes up the developing child has no rights in the matter at all. We don't even question it. It's just a given.

So when do we decide when that devloping embryo has the right to be protected from the mother's decision to abort it? Certainly after that point the woman has no right to kill the child. She gestated it. She gave birth to it. But she can't kill it.

And even after the child is born it is still totaly dependent on you for it's continued survival. So even if it is not siphoning nutrients from your bloodstream it is still taking from you physically and mentaly. But by then the no account, shiftless, b****ard, father can provide also.

[Erigena]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
A clear line has to be drawn somewhere—a point marked where something new exists, that didn't exist the moment before.

There are too many variables to draw a clear line. Every situation is different and there is no one size fits all answer.

For example, if a woman is raped nobody should have the right to tell her that she has to carry the fetus to term. The rape alone is hard enough to overcome, but further punishing the victim by expecting her to carry her attacker’s child is inexcusable abuse to the woman.

What about if the mother is HIV positive? An incurable disease in which the infant is most likely infected and won’t be expected to live past a certain age. The life that he/she does experience would probably be one of extreme physical pain which he/she would be forced to live as a result of people exerting their self proclaimed moral superiority over the woman’s right to an abortion.

And what about prostitutes? Do you want a prostitute raising a child? I don’t like the idea of abortion as birth control, but if abortions were illegal think of how many children might be born into that circumstance and the kind of life they would have. So yes, by all means save them all, because they will all live perfectly happy lives. Let’s not forget that then the taxpayers become financially responsible for that child, but who will be emotionally responsible? You Bob? I doubt the prostitute will, but she might sell her baby for some crack. Maybe he/she will get lucky and be sold to a nice family in the burbs.

[LostAngeles]

LostAngeles, It is not an issue of other people poking thier nose into what you do with your reproductive system. Frame it, put it on a wall. Decency laws not-with-standing no one really cares. It's the potential life that gestates in there that concerns other people

People poke thier nose in other people's personal busines all the time. It's called laws and social values. There are things we are not allowed to do with our bodies. Put controlled substances into them and committing suicide are just two things I can think of that the government does not allow us to do. There are various reason why we do not allow people to do so. Mainly concering on how doing these things affect society or people in general.

It just so happens that females are the gestators in our species. It is the woman who has the womb. You can see that as a advantage or disadvantage.
The issue concerning a womans reproductive system is that it is where a human life gestates untill it can survive outside the womb.

The million dollar question is when does society decide that the life of the developing child outwieghs the mother's rights to chose in this one particular issue.

Historicaly the government (or society) preffers to make the decision on who will live or will die depending on the circumstances.

Abortion places the decision on the individual.

The womb is part of the mother but the child has only 50% of the mother's DNA. The devloping embryo has it's own individual DNA make up that is distinct from the mother.
One stange thing is that the provider of the other half of the DNA which makes up the developing child has no rights in the matter at all. We don't even question it. It's just a given.

So when do we decide when that devloping embryo has the right to be protected from the mother's decision to abort it? Certainly after that point the woman has no right to kill the child. She gestated it. She gave birth to it. But she can't kill it.

And even after the child is born it is still totaly dependent on you for it's continued survival. So even if it is not siphoning nutrients from your bloodstream it is still taking from you physically and mentaly. But by then the no account, shiftless, b****ard, father can provide also.

God, sorry, let me clarify this again.

The OP has equated contraception with abortion and infanticide.

If I decide that I'm going to take preventative measure to keep fertilized eggs out of my womb, then that's my business, not anyone else's.

You seem to be edging into the father's rights argument. If you get a woman pregnant and she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy but you want the child, then your only option is to find a surrogate mother and get the biological mom for child support.

If you want to talk about child support and how it's broken and abused, then we can do that in another thread.

[Erigena]

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable?

I don’t believe contraception is ever immoral. If anything it is the most responsible act a person can perform. When you use contraception you are greatly reducing the risk of pregnancy as well as the personal and societal burden that comes with an unwanted pregnancy.

As far as abortion, it is immoral to force a woman to maintain an unwanted pregnancy. It is against her will. The fall out as a result of a forced decision like that would be just as great to society as it would be to the individual.

[Erigena]

Teaching about condoms and providing them is NOT something that should be a government function. Or maybe I missed that part of the Constitution?
There have been many amendments to the constitution since its inception as well there should be in order to adjust to an ever evolving society, but that is for another discussion.

I strongly disagree. I'm very much pro-choice, but I am capable of moral reasoning on the subject even though I am not a woman and I have not adopted children.
If you’re in a relationship with someone and the woman gets pregnant it’s understandable that the man might have an opinion as this is a decision that will affect both parties emotionally and financially. To be clear, I am not talking about the cost of an abortion, I’m talking about the long term financial impact of raising a child. There is more than one factor involved in this decision. One or both people might not be ready for the responsibility of raising a child because raising a child does not stop at 18. As a parent you are responsible for that person for the rest of your life even if to a lesser degree once he/she reaches adulthood. The people it affects are the ones who should make the decision. With this in mind, at the end of the day it is the woman who has to physically and emotionally endure the pregnancy not the man. Inevitably she should be the one to make the final decision.

[Mark6]

I never met a women who. at times, didn't regret having an abortion.
You never met a woman who never had an abortion? :D

I assume you mean you never met a woman who had an abortion and at times did not regret it. Well I had, many times. In Soviet Union abortion was main method of birth control, because of chronic shortage of all others (as well as of other material things). Most women (certainly over 50%) in USSR had abortions several times a year, and thought nothing of it. I am not saying it is a good thing, but it does suggest that "abortion is traumatic" is culturally dependent.

And to answer OP: My definition of 'human" is the mind, the experiences, the memories -- the software, if you will. Anything else is, to put it bluntly, meat.

An appendix is not human. An anencephalic is not human. A brain-dead is not human. And a fetus before its brain has formed is not a human either. It is mindless meat.

Thus abortion is acceptable to me before fetus has any consciousness or awareness.

[MikeSun5]

All the posts discussing rights of fetuses and embryos and whatnot are exactly why I think that certain people shouldn't have opinions on the subject.

You guys talk about the fetus as if it wasn't inside of a PERSON. That person - the mother carrying the child - comes first. No matter what. That's why the entire issue of abortion should rest on the mother and nobody else should get a say. Lots of anti-abortionists clamor about rights of unborn kids, while totally ignoring those of the women carrying the fetuses in question.

If I say it once, I'll say it a billion times: A woman's body is her own ***** business.

There are plenty of mothers that mistreat kids that are already born, and anti-abortion folks should probably concentrate their energy on them. I don't really understand why there's such aggression towards abortion when it's perfectly legally OK for a mother to drink booze and smoke cigarettes during pregnancy.

Also, if a mother wants to legally kill her child before it's born, she CAN, whether she can obtain a legal abortion or not. Sad but true. Rather than be an anti-abortionist, why not concentrate on what can be done for the mother?

[porch]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.

I'm not a historian, and I don't no nuthin bout birthin no babies, but I don't think the Spartans are the best representatives of infanticide as it's been practiced throughout time. I think infanticide has mostly been used as birth control for for the same reasons that people use other methods of birth control - because they don't want a baby, not because they don't want a baby with a birthmark.

In a time and place where other options are unavailable or extremely dangerous, I think infanticide is a sound choice. Considering those circumstances, I tell myself that personhood begins at socialization. Ta da! No problem. In circumstances where the options are greater and safer, my, um, comfort levels with infanticide and other late term abortions begin to drop.

[JJM 777]

Considering those circumstances, I tell myself that personhood begins at socialization. Ta da! No problem.
If "personhood" is the holy thing in your worldview, then I guess you are forced to find a way of saying that the being is "not a person" at the moment when you approve ending its life.

The OP has equated contraception with abortion and infanticide.
Not actually "equated". I said that I would morally approve all of these. But I also approve payments of 5 EUR, 800 EUR and 900,000 EUR without "equating" them.

[Cainkane1]

Historically humans have tried to avoid unwanted babies in many ways. In ancient Sparta they threw from a cliff any newborn baby that had some physical blemish. In modern society people try to do the same a bit earlier, screening against genetic disorders in time to have a chance for a legal abortion. IUD kills the fertilized egg soon after conception, some other contraception methods kill the sperm cells before fertilization ever takes place.

At which moment of time does contraception/abortion/infanticide become morally unacceptable? Which is the latest moment when the parents have the moral right to "undo" the process of making a child? From a theoretical point of view, without references to any laws or other written codes please.
It depends on your culture. I feel that infanticide as I understand it to be wrong in every conceivable way. Contraception is ok and abortion to me could be handled in a different way most of the time although abortion should be legal and left up to the woman.

[Cainkane1]

I'm not a historian, and I don't no nuthin bout birthin no babies, but I don't think the Spartans are the best representatives of infanticide as it's been practiced throughout time. I think infanticide has mostly been used as birth control for for the same reasons that people use other methods of birth control - because they don't want a baby, not because they don't want a baby with a birthmark.

In a time and place where other options are unavailable or extremely dangerous, I think infanticide is a sound choice. Considering those circumstances, I tell myself that personhood begins at socialization. Ta da! No problem. In circumstances where the options are greater and safer, my, um, comfort levels with infanticide and other late term abortions begin to drop.
I think infanticide is murder. Contraception is not, abortion is not in the early stages of pregnancy.

[Cactus Wren]

You guys talk about the fetus as if it wasn't inside of a PERSON. That person - the mother carrying the child - comes first. No matter what. That's why the entire issue of abortion should rest on the mother and nobody else should get a say. Lots of anti-abortionists clamor about rights of unborn kids, while totally ignoring those of the women carrying the fetuses in question.

THANK YOU. I sometimes think I'm going to throw my laptop right across the room if I read the phrase "the womb" one more time: one could get the idea that the pregnancy doesn't occupy a woman's body, but only this convenient freestanding appliance called "the womb". And what concern need we have about "the womb"? After all, "the womb" has no rights. "The womb" has no will or wishes of its own. No one harbors any concern about the needs or wants of "the womb".

Suggestion to all participants in this thread: whenever you run across the phrase "the womb", mentally substitute "a woman's body". See whether it doesn't affect the meaning of the text.

[porch]

If "personhood" is the holy thing in your worldview, then I guess you are forced to find a way of saying that the being is "not a person" at the moment when you approve ending its life.


Holy is far too strong a word. I'm not forced into my rationalizations, but they sometimes help. If anyone wants to make the case that infanticide, or abortion at any time during the pregnacy, is murder, I'm not ultimately concerned with it. Okay, I support murder under some circumstances.

[JJM 777]

Now replacing the word "murder" with "ending the life of a being with human genes" makes it sound even better.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except when other people start saying what a person can or cannot do to their body, I will always disagree with that.
But the question is, at what point is the fetus merely part of the woman's body and an actual moral entity (a person with rights, or some such)?

As I've said the debate isn't really about one side wanting to tell you what you can't do with your body and the other side wanting to OK murder. The question is about whether or at what point a fetus becomes a moral entity (a term I've been using to mean something that it's not OK to kill, in the broadest sense).

In my opinion, these other standards (dependence, responsibility, brain activity per se, intelligence) all fail. The standard that I've been suggesting, best I can see, works in all situations: human fetuses, born babies, comatose humans, other animals, conjoined twins, etc. That standard is the capability of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

I admit that's not something we directly measure, so, as far as the abortion debate goes, we use the first trimester as a line where we're very certain that the fetus does not yet have that capability. The time itself isn't the standard, though--just a convenient substitute for it. (In other words, "first trimester" might not work in other animals, and it doesn't apply in humans, for example, if the fetus is anencephalic.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Suggestion to all participants in this thread: whenever you run across the phrase "the womb", mentally substitute "a woman's body". See whether it doesn't affect the meaning of the text.

I don't think this really sheds any light on the moral question.

A parasitic flat worm lives inside a person's body. There's no debate at all about whether or not it's OK to kill the flat worm.

Why do you suppose there isn't a debate about that, but there is about a fetus?

The problem is that some people think the fetus is a person at the moment of conception (this is really a religious position and has no logical argument to support it--instead we just get stuff like saying an acorn has an oak tree in it and such nonsense). Some people reasonably think the fetus becomes a person (or in my terms "a moral entity") at some point prior to birth.

You can't make the debate go away by saying that there is no debate. There really is, and it centers on whether or at what point the fetus is or becomes a human with rights or a moral entity that it's wrong to kill without the kind of justification we would need to kill another person we all agree is a person.

[ZirconBlue]

First we would need contraception that actually works and feels comfortable. For many women, pills feel worse than the worst PMS.

:eek:

I have never known a single woman to say this. In fact, unless there are adverse reactions to the pill, it will often have additional positive side effects beyond contraception (shorter, less painful periods, etc.)

For many men, condoms feel so uncomfortable that no sex at all feels better than sex with condom.

:jaw-dropp

I doubt this claim even more than the previous one. Sex with a condom is certainly less pleasurable than sex without, but it's still pretty good. Again, I've never known a single man to say that they would rather have no sex at all than have sex with a condom.

[Sun Countess]

The problem is that some people think the fetus is a person at the moment of conception (this is really a religious position and has no logical argument to support it--instead we just get stuff like saying an acorn has an oak tree in it and such nonsense). Some people reasonably think the fetus becomes a person (or in my terms "a moral entity") at some point prior to birth.

You can't make the debate go away by saying that there is no debate. There really is, and it centers on whether or at what point the fetus is or becomes a human with rights or a moral entity that it's wrong to kill without the kind of justification we would need to kill another person we all agree is a person.

I'd be interested to know what desires a four-month fetus has that can be thwarted or fulfilled. For that matter, I'd like to know what interests even an 8-month fetus has that could be thwarted or fulfilled. A newborn baby may have some instinctive desires for food, warmth, and comfort, but none of those is true of a fetus even at the moment before birth. Just curious what your thinking is in this regard.

[MikeSun5]

But the question is, at what point is the fetus merely part of the woman's body and an actual moral entity (a person with rights, or some such)?

You're really asking, "At what point does the fetuses rights trump the mother's?"

...but I'll answer your question how it was posed:

When the fetus is no longer a fetus. Until it's born, a fetus is attached to the mother's body. Read a science book. ;)

The problem is that some people think the fetus is a person at the moment of conception (this is really a religious position and has no logical argument to support it--instead we just get stuff like saying an acorn has an oak tree in it and such nonsense).

How is your view more logical and less religious than that view?

Some people reasonably think the fetus becomes a person (or in my terms "a moral entity") at some point prior to birth.

At what point? ...And what made you choose that point?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're really asking, "At what point does the fetuses rights trump the mother's?"
Not quite. Maybe more like, "At what point is the fetus something that has human rights?"

Once you have two humans with human rights, it's really more like other situations than abortion.

When the fetus is no longer a fetus.
That's no answer. It merely changes the question to "When is the fetus no longer a fetus?"

Until it's born, a fetus is attached to the mother's body.
I've already addressed "attached to a person's body" as a standard and shown why it fails.

Read a science book. ;)
Nice. I'll compare science knowledge with you any time you like.



How is your view more logical and less religious than that view?
My view is logically consistent. It's based on desire utilitarianism and not on religion. The idea that a fetus is human at conception is based on the religious idea that God creates a soul at that point, or something like that.



At what point? ...And what made you choose that point?
Have you been reading my posts? I think it's the point when the entity is capable of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. That's not a hard and fast line, but rather a gradual process of neural development that doesn't really finish until some time after birth.

As someone pointed out in one of these threads, "quickening" usually means the muscles contract. I think that stage precedes the stage when the baby moves with volition. It's somewhere around that time, that I think the fetus becomes a baby and is capable of desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

We don't really know when that happens for each individual, but I'm content with the first-trimester line as a safe place to assume that before that point, the fetus is not yet capable of having desires.

I chose that standard because it fits with a larger moral system that results in very logical ways of understanding and answering moral questions. It's a system that I think at least approximately describes how our brains work wrt the innate capacity we have to internalize morality and moral conventions. More on desire utilitarianism (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982) and also here (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/08/desirism.html) and see the last few paragraphs here (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/03/morality-and-being-human.html) for an application to abortion, and here for other Fyfe essays on abortion (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/search?q=abortion).

[Sun Countess]

It's somewhere around that time, that I think the fetus becomes a baby and is capable of desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.
What specific desires do you imagine a fetus has?

[ZirconBlue]

what specific desires do you imagine a fetus has?

Something like

"GET ME OUTTA HERE!!!"

[JoeTheJuggler]

What specific desires do you imagine a fetus has?
Similar ones to those a newborn infant has. I hate to cite stuff that the anti-choice crowd uses, but unborn babies do move and suck and so on.

A late term fetus (say even minutes before birth) isn't so fundamentally different from a born baby. Yet both of those are VERY different from a zygot or a blastocyst.

Also note that I have very carefully said that the standard is the capacity to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled and not any specific desire. On one of these threads, someone suggested as a standard the first muscle movements. I pointed out problems with that too, although I think it was meant as a marker for what I'm talking about. Possibly volitional muscle movement would be closer.

[Sun Countess]

Do fetal movements show desire though? I've seen ultrasound images of fetuses "sucking their thumbs" but it's not a movement they can make as a newborn. Most infants can't control their thumb's movement toward their mouth until closer to 3 months old. During an ultrasound with my own unborn son, I was delighted when he grabbed his foot with his hand. Again, it was not a movement he could replicate as an infant until he was closer to three months old.

A fetus and a newborn infant are not the same, and the differences go beyond the ability to breathe oxygen from the air.

[MikeSun5]

That's no answer. It merely changes the question to "When is the fetus no longer a fetus?"

Uh... you seriously didn't understand? :confused: Do you know the meaning of fetus (http://http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus)? "When is a fetus no longer a fetus?" Are you serious? A fetus is no longer a fetus when it is born. Reread my answer with the correct definition in mind. You'll see what I meant.

I chose that standard because it fits with a larger moral system that results in very logical ways of understanding and answering moral questions.

So morally, in your opinion, when does a fetus' (unborn child) rights become more important than the mother's? When does the mother's opinion about what's going on inside of her cease to matter?

How did you determine fetuses move on their own volition, rather than simply some sort of reflex? How did you determine that a fetus has desires similar to that of a newborn - or desires at all? Newborns aren't even self-aware, so how can a fetus be? Here's a quote from a link you provided:

The fact that an individual is a ‘human’ does not automatically grant it moral rights. In order to have rights, an individual has to have interests. In order to have interests, an individual has to have desires – has to have the capacity to wish that something were the case, before those interests can be violated, and the individual can be wronged.

Okay I get it now. What you are saying is that a fetus has rights because it has individual interests and desires.

Per the source cited in your argument, a fetus must be able to "wish something were the case before it's interests can be violated."

I think I'm following you. Are you saying a fetus has the brain capacity to wish it won't die?

Also, you used the first trimester as a reference to when you think a fetus has desires. That's the first 13 weeks or so. Here's an article (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm) that explains fetuses don't even have organized brain activity. It also says that reacting to pain does not denote conscious thought.

[Cactus Wren]

Also, you used the first trimester as a reference to when you think a fetus has desires. That's the first 13 weeks or so. Here's an article (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm) that explains fetuses don't even have organized brain activity. It also says that reacting to pain does not denote conscious thought.

WARNING -- according to Norton that site is a virus vector (http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=250x.com).

[Nosi]

:eek:

I have never known a single woman to say this. In fact, unless there are adverse reactions to the pill, it will often have additional positive side effects beyond contraception (shorter, less painful periods, etc.)



:jaw-dropp

I doubt this claim even more than the previous one. Sex with a condom is certainly less pleasurable than sex without, but it's still pretty good. Again, I've never known a single man to say that they would rather have no sex at all than have sex with a condom.

If he's wearing a condom that doesn't fit properly and doesn't know about different sized condoms, I can see him making the claim that no sex is better than condom sex. Generally, condoms come in three sizes, big, medium, and small. You need to find your right size before 'the business'.

[ZirconBlue]

If he's wearing a condom that doesn't fit properly and doesn't know about different sized condoms, I can see him making the claim that no sex is better than condom sex. Generally, condoms come in three sizes, big, medium, and small. You need to find your right size before 'the business'.

I suppose this might happen very occasionally, but I've yet to encounter a single man, in real life, on the internet, or even in fiction that has stated a preference for no sex rather over sex with a condom.

[Dragoonster]

Similar ones to those a newborn infant has. I hate to cite stuff that the anti-choice crowd uses, but unborn babies do move and suck and so on.

A late term fetus (say even minutes before birth) isn't so fundamentally different from a born baby. Yet both of those are VERY different from a zygot or a blastocyst.

Truly self-aware toddlers are much more different than a late term fetus and born baby and zygote. The difference levels (of worth based on level of consciousness) aren't:

zygote------------fetus--born baby--toddler--adult. The difference levels are more like:

zygote-fetus-born baby----------------------------------toddler-adult. It could also be argued that the difference is too great to even draw a table, as we're comparing a 1 with a 0.

Also note that I have very carefully said that the standard is the capacity to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled and not any specific desire. On one of these threads, someone suggested as a standard the first muscle movements. I pointed out problems with that too, although I think it was meant as a marker for what I'm talking about. Possibly volitional muscle movement would be closer.

I don't know why we can't easily see that any fetus's desires are rudimentary at best, and almost certainly not indicative of any special level of self-awareness. Why can we see this is so? Because we were all once fetuses. I certainly don't remember being self-aware at that point, or desiring anything. "I" was as completely oblivious to everything as a fetus as I was a newborn baby or a zygote, or not existing at all. I didn't exist as an ego and wouldn't have cared if I were killed. I didn't even know I was I.

The only argument against this would seem to be if we as fetuses are entirely different entities than we as toddlers/adults, and/or that the problem is that our memories were not developed enough for any possible self-awareness to be recalled now.

But self-awareness, awareness that the self exists independent of the external world, is the quantum leap of consciousness that should determine any inherent rights, imo. And having been a fetus and newborn, and observing fetuses and newborns, seems pretty obvious that I was/they are no more self-aware than a mouse.

I guess my point is that any and all rights conferred on fetuses are not at all about respecting the present state of the fetus. Rights conferred have to also bring in a) humans are inherently of more value than other animals, and/or b) we're actually respecting the potential of the fetus, not the fetus itself. And of course the religious and other dumb arguments. But actually arguing that the mental state of a fetus confers rights, all by itself? This only works if the arguer also feels mice, moose, and ants should get the same level of rights. Otherwise it makes no sense at all as a stand-alone argument.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But self-awareness, awareness that the self exists independent of the external world, is the quantum leap of consciousness that should determine any inherent rights, imo. And having been a fetus and newborn, and observing fetuses and newborns, seems pretty obvious that I was/they are no more self-aware than a mouse.

I don't think your view is anywhere close to the consensus view. According to this, it would be OK to "abort" a baby up until about 18 months of (post-partum) age. That is, your view would make infanticide a moral and legal act.

(Please note: I did not suggest that self-awareness was the standard I would use. In fact, I raised it to show why the standard of "consciousness" doesn't work.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, you used the first trimester as a reference to when you think a fetus has desires.
I did no such a thing.

I said we use the first trimester as a stand-in for a point when we're certain neural development has not progressed far enough to have an entity that has desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled (that is, an entity deserving moral consideration).

In other words, it's not that we think the fetus has this level of neural development at the end of the first trimester; it's that we're fairly certain it doesn't have it before that point. That is, we're erring on the side of caution (which makes sense morally) by drawing the line there.

As mentioned, quickening starts some time in the second trimester. On one of these threads, someone suggested the first movements as the place to draw the line. (And this historically was where people once considered the fetus to become "alive"--which is what quickening means.) I pointed out that the real point where volitional movement happens is probably a little bit later than the first muscle contractions (as you're saying).

So again putting the line at the end of the first trimester (which is even before quickening) is to err on the side of caution.

[JoeTheJuggler]

How did you determine fetuses move on their own volition, rather than simply some sort of reflex? How did you determine that a fetus has desires similar to that of a newborn - or desires at all? Newborns aren't even self-aware, so how can a fetus be?
You're really not reading my posts, are you?

I have consistently argued against using "consciousness" or "self-awareness" as a standard. (In fact, I raised the issue of self-awareness to show why consciousness is a bad standard.)

I've also said repeatedly that it would be impractical (if not impossible) to measure the actual neural development. Since it varies from individual to individual, we draw the line safely on the side where we're certain that degree of neural development has not taken place. (I have pointed out that no abortion clinic--in a normal situation-- conducts any sort of brain scan on the fetus to determine whether it's OK to proceed with the abortion.)

[Dragoonster]

I don't think your view is anywhere close to the consensus view. According to this, it would be OK to "abort" a baby up until about 18 months of (post-partum) age. That is, your view would make infanticide a moral and legal act.

Yes it would, that's what my stance leads to. I prefer accepting the consequences of my logic rather than trying to arbitrarily define a line that both fulfills my personal wishes and appears to others to be humane or reasonable or popular. I start with the reasoning and that leads to the conclusion, but many in both pro-choice and pro-life camps start with what they want their conclusion to be and then cram their reasoning to fit it and only it.

Being a pro-choicer shouldn't be an easy thing, we are certainly preventing a fetus from becoming a fully-developed human, and we have to accept what that position leads to. We support the option to kill human life.

(Please note: I did not suggest that self-awareness was the standard I would use. In fact, I raised it to show why the standard of "consciousness" doesn't work.)

I'm having difficulty understanding how "desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled" can exist without self-awareness, or consciousness. Saying a fetus has a desire to do something makes about as much sense to me as saying a tree has a desire to do something.

[Sun Countess]

I'm having a hard time understanding fetal desires as well.

I don't think that movement indicates desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, and quickening is defined as the moment the pregnant woman first becomes aware of fetal movement, not when the fetus first moves. I didn't feel any fetal movements until 19 weeks into my first pregnancy, but felt them at 14 weeks into the second one. There exist women who claim to feel no movements whatsoever during their pregnancies.

Also, anencephalic babies and other non-viable fetuses can have noticeable fetal movements. Is this an indication the fetus has desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled? Or is it an indication that a fetus is a decidedly different creature than a live newborn?

I'm reminded of one very religious woman carrying twins conjoined at the chest, sharing less than one functioning heart between them. There was no way they would survive outside the womb, but the woman wouldn't abort (as is her choice) because she was convinced her god would change things. Besides, she could feel how strong and big her "babies" were getting. As fetuses they were absolutely fine, but they didn't last more than a few seconds once removed from their uterine environment.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm having a hard time understanding fetal desires as well.
So do you think the neural development has some grand leap forward at the moment of birth?

I think at some point during the pregnancy--a point that is definitely AFTER the first trimester but might not occur until much later--the fetus has the neural development that gives it the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. The desire might be as simple as the desire to change position, to suck a thumb, or whatever.


I don't think that movement indicates desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, and quickening is defined as the moment the pregnant woman first becomes aware of fetal movement, not when the fetus first moves. I didn't feel any fetal movements until 19 weeks into my first pregnancy, but felt them at 14 weeks into the second one. There exist women who claim to feel no movements whatsoever during their pregnancies.
Again, this is why I have said that quickening is not a good standard. I think people who use it are on the right track, but as a standard it doesn't work. (Also, it fails when you consider that ants are definitely "quick"--that is "alive"--so this standard doesn't separate a class it is OK to kill from one that is not.)

Also, anencephalic babies and other non-viable fetuses can have noticeable fetal movements. Is this an indication the fetus has desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled?
No. And again, I'm not someone who is arguing in favor of using quickening as a standard. I've said so repeatedly.

I have also been very careful to say that using something like the first trimester line (which again is a line drawn meant to err on the side of caution--which is why I pointed out that quickening happens in the second trimester) is only a stand-in for the standard we're after in normal situations. (I stopped spelling out "normal situation" but I was defining it for a long time--a normal fetus and no threat to the health or life of the woman.) In those other cases, as an anencephalic fetus, we don't use the first trimester line. So we've got to use other evidence as to weather or not the fetus has the quality we use as a standard. Lack of cerebral cortex is proof that it does not. (This standard works well, as I've shown, in brain-damage cases where the question is about killing the person by removing a feeding tube as in the Terry Schiavo case. Schiavo had a liquified cortex--so no chance of having the capacity to have desires.)

Or is it an indication that a fetus is a decidedly different creature than a live newborn?
I don't think that being born makes the entity a different kind. If so, what is the difference (bear in mind that I've already shown several problems with the "dependent on" argument)?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Note: I thought I'd already posted a reply to this post, but now I don't see it. If I'm screwing up somehow, I apologize for saying largely the same thing twice.

Yes it would, that's what my stance leads to. I prefer accepting the consequences of my logic rather than trying to arbitrarily define a line that both fulfills my personal wishes and appears to others to be humane or reasonable or popular. I start with the reasoning and that leads to the conclusion, but many in both pro-choice and pro-life camps start with what they want their conclusion to be and then cram their reasoning to fit it and only it.
So you really think it's OK to kill a 6 month old baby?

Again, even though the standards offered in this and the thought experiment threads might be standards you reject for one reason or another, they are not arbitrary.

Being a pro-choicer shouldn't be an easy thing, we are certainly preventing a fetus from becoming a fully-developed human, and we have to accept what that position leads to. We support the option to kill human life.
I don't think "human life" is the standard. Again, by taking Terry Schiavo off the feeding tube, we are killing a human life.



I'm having difficulty understanding how "desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled" can exist without self-awareness, or consciousness.
Again, I'm arguing against using self-awareness or consciousness as a standard. It doesn't mean I don't think that some level of consciousness is required for having desires. (I reject, though, that "self-awareness" is a requirement.)
Saying a fetus has a desire to do something makes about as much sense to me as saying a tree has a desire to do something.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. A near term fetus (say minutes before birth) definitely has the neural development sufficient to have desires. A tree does not (in fact, a tree has no nervous system whatsoever).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I prefer accepting the consequences of my logic rather than trying to arbitrarily define a line that both fulfills my personal wishes and appears to others to be humane or reasonable or popular. I start with the reasoning and that leads to the conclusion,
My response here is mostly a derail on the subject of morality:

I think we evolved a capacity for morality as an adaptive advantage for animals living in complex social groups (and that social organization itself a huge adaptive advantage). I think morality is very similar to language in that there is an individual innate capacity and a conventional component that is learned. (Just as any normal human infant born anywhere on Earth can learn any human language, so too can any normal human infant internalize any set of moral conventions. Also, both language and morality have a fair amount of universality in humans.)

However, you don't have to be a linguist to use language. You also don't have to be an expert in logic to "use" morality. That is, the great majority of people don't arrive at a position (on abortion for example) based on following logic. (Just like you don't have to know about transformational grammar or deep case theories in linguistics in order to communicate.)

I think desire utilitarianism is the system of moral reasoning that most accurately reflects what goes on in our minds. I don't think it's necessary to be well versed in it to make decent moral judgments. So since there is a conventional component to morality (as with language), I don't believe in absolute morality. Instead, at least some of this reflects the conventional standards (what I've been calling "the consensus"). Even though there's a substantial division in our society on the abortion issue, the standard I've been pushing lines up well with the consensus view. [ETA: I remember he related an apocryphal story where the presenter had just concluded, "While some languages allow using a double negative to mean a positive rather than a more intense negative, there are no examples of using a double positive to mean a negative." Then a guy in the audience stood up and said, "Yeah! Yeah!"]

I do not think you should blindly follow a system of moral reasoning and let it alone lead you to accept a proposition (such as "It's OK to kill 6 month old babies") as being moral even though you don't really believe it.

Similarly, you wouldn't use some linguistic theory to OK a grammatical construction that is obviously contrary to convention. I remember a linguistics prof once describing how a typical linguistics convention goes. You've got one scholar who spends an entire evening outlining his or her great new theory. Then everyone else sits up all night trying to think either of utterances which are conventionally acceptable that violate the theory or utterances that the theory would allow that are clearly not allowed by convention.

Sorry to be so long winded. I'm not sure how else to address this.

(As a further aside, I also think that many anti-choice pro-lifers don't really believe the position they profess. As evidence, there are plenty of examples of people who say "Abortion is murder" who are willing to make exceptions when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and that only the abortion doctors are criminal and not the woman; also there is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that at least a portion of such pro-lifers make exceptions when they or a close relative has had an abortion.

So, I think this means that the convention of the first trimester standard is more widely accepted than abortion opinion polls might indicate.)

[Sun Countess]

So do you think the neural development has some grand leap forward at the moment of birth?
What does that have to do with desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled? I'm having a hard time understanding how your desire standard is applied to a fetus.

I think at some point during the pregnancy--a point that is definitely AFTER the first trimester but might not occur until much later--the fetus has the neural development that gives it the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. The desire might be as simple as the desire to change position, to suck a thumb, or whatever.
Anencephalic fetuses change position and suck their thumbs. Healthy full-term newborn infants cannot suck their thumbs. They are unaware they even have thumbs. Does a newborn infant regress from its fetal state? Or is a newborn different from a fetus in ways other than dependence and environment?

In those other cases, as an anencephalic fetus, we don't use the first trimester line. So we've got to use other evidence as to weather or not the fetus has the quality we use as a standard.
Does an anencephalic fetus have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, as indicated by its movement in utero? If it does, then you're applying a different standard. Is it viability outside the womb, quality of life outside the womb, or something different?

I don't think that being born makes the entity a different kind. If so, what is the difference (bear in mind that I've already shown several problems with the "dependent on" argument)?
One is a fetus, completely dependent on another being, living in a liquid environment, able to move and grow in ways that it will not be able to once it's removed from that environment, and will take nourishment from the host body at a detriment to the host body if necessary. The quality of life for an anencephalic fetus is excellent in a way that life outside the womb will not be. That's because a fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby, provided it develops properly and for long enough to survive on its own.

[Dragoonster]

So you really think it's OK to kill a 6 month old baby?

Yes (logically), no (socially). Only no because there are adoption agencies/state foster care system to take them in. If there weren't such an "out" for mothers, I'd think it would be fine for mothers to kill 6 month old babies, for exactly the same reasons I think it's okay to kill 6 month old fetuses. The alternative is that the mother is responsible for the life and care of the entity at real expense to herself; the fetus, the infant.

Again, even though the standards offered in this and the thought experiment threads might be standards you reject for one reason or another, they are not arbitrary.

I think they are (by many), as they aren't vigorously applied to other entities having the same attributes. Ants, moose, mice. Each as worthy of life as a newborn, if mental capability is the metric. My own stance might be arbitrary, as all morals might be, but I feel more comfortable following the consequences of a single arbitrary declaration to its conclusion rather than adding many more arbitrary qualifiers.

I don't think "human life" is the standard. Again, by taking Terry Schiavo off the feeding tube, we are killing a human life.

Yeah, because Schiavo doesn't have the capability of desire that can be thwarted or fulfilled. That's consistent. But that consistency should also apply to fetuses and newborns, for me at least because I can't fathom newborns/fetuses having any more desires than Schiavo. I guess I don't see why a newborn would have that desire more than an earlier fetus (of growth that you think it's okay to kill).

Again, I'm arguing against using self-awareness or consciousness as a standard. It doesn't mean I don't think that some level of consciousness is required for having desires. (I reject, though, that "self-awareness" is a requirement.)

Perhaps, if desire is independent of the self. If it exists alone. I don't think it does.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. A near term fetus (say minutes before birth) definitely has the neural development sufficient to have desires. A tree does not (in fact, a tree has no nervous system whatsoever).

Definitely? Unless memory wasn't developed enough for me to remember it now, I had no desires as a fetus. I wasn't anything. The tree's lymphatic system or whatever it uses to extend branches to the sun would mimic a fetus/infant's "desire" to suck its thumb or whatever autonomic thing it does.

So, guess we just disagree.

[Dragoonster]

My response here is mostly a derail on the subject of morality:

I think we evolved a capacity for morality as an adaptive advantage for animals living in complex social groups (and that social organization itself a huge adaptive advantage). I think morality is very similar to language in that there is an individual innate capacity and a conventional component that is learned. (Just as any normal human infant born anywhere on Earth can learn any human language, so too can any normal human infant internalize any set of moral conventions. Also, both language and morality have a fair amount of universality in humans.)

However, you don't have to be a linguist to use language. You also don't have to be an expert in logic to "use" morality. That is, the great majority of people don't arrive at a position (on abortion for example) based on following logic. (Just like you don't have to know about transformational grammar or deep case theories in linguistics in order to communicate.)

I think desire utilitarianism is the system of moral reasoning that most accurately reflects what goes on in our minds. I don't think it's necessary to be well versed in it to make decent moral judgments. So since there is a conventional component to morality (as with language), I don't believe in absolute morality. Instead, at least some of this reflects the conventional standards (what I've been calling "the consensus"). Even though there's a substantial division in our society on the abortion issue, the standard I've been pushing lines up well with the consensus view. [ETA: I remember he related an apocryphal story where the presenter had just concluded, "While some languages allow using a double negative to mean a positive rather than a more intense negative, there are no examples of using a double positive to mean a negative." Then a guy in the audience stood up and said, "Yeah! Yeah!"]

I agree with all of this. I'm a moral relativist and it is hard to balance that with a supposedly objective moral argument. All depends on where the arbitrary line is set, which goes towards the OP's point. I guess my objection is mostly with hypocrisy, which you may not have being a vegetarian, that most pro-choice and pro-life folks feel. I do think your arbitrary line is somewhat indefensible or less than justified, but that may be only because my arbitrary line is in a different place. Or I disagree with the point itself, that fetuses/infants are capable of "desire".

I do not think you should blindly follow a system of moral reasoning and let it alone lead you to accept a proposition (such as "It's OK to kill 6 month old babies") as being moral even though you don't really believe it.

I do think it's moral, even though it personally makes me queasy. There's personal morals (I wouldn't kill an infant) and impersonal morals (if a mother wants to kill an infant, it's legal/permissable). Morals aren't about what I "like", they're about what I think is permissable for society.

Similarly, you wouldn't use some linguistic theory to OK a grammatical construction that is obviously contrary to convention. I remember a linguistics prof once describing how a typical linguistics convention goes. You've got one scholar who spends an entire evening outlining his or her great new theory. Then everyone else sits up all night trying to think either of utterances which are conventionally acceptable that violate the theory or utterances that the theory would allow that are clearly not allowed by convention.

Sorry to be so long winded. I'm not sure how else to address this.

I guess I just don't think morals should be decided based on merely being comfortable for one's own beliefs. They should have some basis in objectivity, even if that means it leads to something you personally wouldn't do.

(As a further aside, I also think that many anti-choice pro-lifers don't really believe the position they profess. As evidence, there are plenty of examples of people who say "Abortion is murder" who are willing to make exceptions when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and that only the abortion doctors are criminal and not the woman; also there is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that at least a portion of such pro-lifers make exceptions when they or a close relative has had an abortion.

So, I think this means that the convention of the first trimester standard is more widely accepted than abortion opinion polls might indicate.)

Agreed. My own argument is shunned by most people, I'm fine with that. I just don't see any other way for it to exist unless I extend it to all others that share the same qualities. Since I think fetuses shouldn't have rights because they have no real self-awareness or self-appreciation, I have to extend it to newborns too.

[Bob Blaylock]

Being a pro-choicer shouldn't be an easy thing, we are certainly preventing a fetus from becoming a fully-developed human, and we have to accept what that position leads to. We support the option to kill human life.


That's a rare thing for anyone on the “Pro-Choice” side to openly admit. Obviously, I do not ever support, as you've admitted that you do, “the option to kill human life”, except under exceptional and drastic circumstances—far more drastic and exceptional than any that are relevant in the vast majority of abortions.



I'm having difficulty understanding how "desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled" can exist without self-awareness, or consciousness. Saying a fetus has a desire to do something makes about as much sense to me as saying a tree has a desire to do something.


All living things have “desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled”. Even a sperm cell, in its limited existence, has the singular desire to find a compatible egg and to merge therewith, in order to create a complete organism of the sort that produced it.

Nearly all living things have the innate desire to survive, to grow, and to reproduce. This desire is encoded into each and every one of them, and exists even in the complete absence of any consciousness or sentience.

From the moment that an egg and a sperm have merged, and produced a new human being, that new human being, even absent any form of consciousness, has the desire to survive, develop, and grow.

[thaiboxerken]

No, Bob. All living things do not have desires. Desire requires conscious thought.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What does that have to do with desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled? I'm having a hard time understanding how your desire standard is applied to a fetus.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain this any better.

The capacity to have desires is dependent on a certain degree of neural development (a level that some organisms never attain).


Anencephalic fetuses change position and suck their thumbs. Healthy full-term newborn infants cannot suck their thumbs. They are unaware they even have thumbs. Does a newborn infant regress from its fetal state? Or is a newborn different from a fetus in ways other than dependence and environment?
I'm skeptical of the facts you're asserting here. Healthy newborns can't suck their thumbs? Anencephalic fetuses lack a cerebral cortex, including the motor cortex, so we can be sure that any movements they make are not the result of desires. Please note, something I've made clear several times, using the end of the first trimester (and its relationship to quickening) is a stand-in for the standard I'm suggesting only in normal situations.


Does an anencephalic fetus have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, as indicated by its movement in utero?
No because an anecephalic fetus lacks the neural structures and functions to have the capacity to have desires.

If it does, then you're applying a different standard. Is it viability outside the womb, quality of life outside the womb, or something different?
No. The standard is having desires. The first trimester (and its relationship to when quickening happens) is a stand-in for the standard I'm suggesting only in normal situations. In an anencephalic fetus (or an amoeba or a tree, for that matter), movements are not evidence of desires.


One is a fetus, completely dependent on another being, living in a liquid environment, able to move and grow in ways that it will not be able to once it's removed from that environment, and will take nourishment from the host body at a detriment to the host body if necessary. The quality of life for an anencephalic fetus is excellent in a way that life outside the womb will not be. That's because a fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby, provided it develops properly and for long enough to survive on its own.
At what point does a fetus become a baby? (Frankly, I think it's less important whether you name one a fetus or a baby, the important issue, as I've said is whether the entity is an entity deserving moral consideration. But I assume you're using these terms to distinguish the two categories.)

I've already addressed the issue of it being connected to the woman (we recognized some cases of conjoined twins as being two people, but not others--as when there's just a torso or spare organs). I've also already addressed the issue of dependency. All newborn infants are also completely dependent on others for survival.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think they are (by many), as they aren't vigorously applied to other entities having the same attributes. Ants, moose, mice.
The standard I've been pushing (which is close to but not the same as the "self-awareness" standard you're pushing) applies to all these cases.

At any rate, pointing out flaws in another standard does not make them arbitrary. I don't think it's fair to dismiss standards you disagree with as "arbitrary" when the people who suggest them have reasons for their standards. I think it's up to you (or me) to show why they're inadequate. In a way, saying a standard is "arbitrary" is attacking the person's motive for supporting a standard rather than the standard itself.



Yeah, because Schiavo doesn't have the capability of desire that can be thwarted or fulfilled. That's consistent. But that consistency should also apply to fetuses and newborns, for me at least because I can't fathom newborns/fetuses having any more desires than Schiavo. I guess I don't see why a newborn would have that desire more than an earlier fetus (of growth that you think it's okay to kill).
Then I disagree with you on the factual matter of whether late term fetuses and newborn infants have desires. I think a newborn infant is little more than a mass of desires.



Perhaps, if desire is independent of the self. If it exists alone. I don't think it does.
Not independent of self, certainly (and I never would've said something so absurd)--but independent of self-awareness as measured by the mirror test.

[Sun Countess]

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain this any better.

The capacity to have desires is dependent on a certain degree of neural development (a level that some organisms never attain). I do understand what you're saying about desires and how that's different from consciousness. I'm trying to understand WHY you believe that a fetus has desires that can be fulfilled or thwarted. I'd like to know what those desires are and what evidence there is that they have them.



I'm skeptical of the facts you're asserting here. Healthy newborns can't suck their thumbs? Anencephalic fetuses lack a cerebral cortex, including the motor cortex, so we can be sure that any movements they make are not the result of desires. Please note, something I've made clear several times, using the end of the first trimester (and its relationship to quickening) is a stand-in for the standard I'm suggesting only in normal situations.
Healthy newborns cannot purposefully suck their thumbs. They can do it by accident, but they are not aware that their hands are a part of them, and they don't control them. Their movements (such as gripping and rooting) are reflexive. Most healthy infants become aware of their extremities around three to four months old. (I will look for a cite, but it's certainly what I learned in childcare books and what I've seen from my own experience as an older sister, mother, aunt, and seasoned babysitter.)


No. The standard is having desires. The first trimester (and its relationship to when quickening happens) is a stand-in for the standard I'm suggesting only in normal situations. In an anencephalic fetus (or an amoeba or a tree, for that matter), movements are not evidence of desires.
I don't believe that movements are evidence of desires in healthy fetuses either. Do you have any evidence that this is so?

At what point does a fetus become a baby?
When it's born.

(Frankly, I think it's less important whether you name one a fetus or a baby, the important issue, as I've said is whether the entity is an entity deserving moral consideration. But I assume you're using these terms to distinguish the two categories.)
A fetus and a baby are two very distinctly different beings. One lives in a watery environment within a woman's body and the other does not.

I've already addressed the issue of it being connected to the woman (we recognized some cases of conjoined twins as being two people, but not others--as when there's just a torso or spare organs). I've also already addressed the issue of dependency. All newborn infants are also completely dependent on others for survival.
Newborn infants are dependent, just as toddlers and young children are, but any qualified human can provide care. They are not living within somebody else's body and having all their nutrition, warmth, comfort, excretory and other bodily functions being provided by that other body.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes (logically), no (socially). Only no because there are adoption agencies/state foster care system to take them in. If there weren't such an "out" for mothers, I'd think it would be fine for mothers to kill 6 month old babies, for exactly the same reasons I think it's okay to kill 6 month old fetuses. The alternative is that the mother is responsible for the life and care of the entity at real expense to herself; the fetus, the infant.

I agree with all of this. I'm a moral relativist and it is hard to balance that with a supposedly objective moral argument. All depends on where the arbitrary line is set, which goes towards the OP's point. I guess my objection is mostly with hypocrisy, which you may not have being a vegetarian, that most pro-choice and pro-life folks feel. I do think your arbitrary line is somewhat indefensible or less than justified, but that may be only because my arbitrary line is in a different place. Or I disagree with the point itself, that fetuses/infants are capable of "desire".
(Again, any line that has reasons for it is not arbitrary. It might be wrong or mistaken, but not arbitrary.)

I'm not sure how you see morality, then. If it's not a personal capacity (that is an ability humans with a normal functioning brain have) and a social convention, then I'm not sure what it is. Again, compare it to language. If you lack certain brain structures, you can't learn language. At the same time, what you learn, "a language" is not a natural phenomenon, but one created by convention--something that only happens with social structures. I think morality is similar in both regards.

I don't think it's necessary to be a linguist or an expert in moral reasoning to have the capacity for language and morality, respectively. So when I say I accept desire utilitarianism, for me that's just saying I think it most accurately describes what's going on in our brains.



I do think it's moral, even though it personally makes me queasy. There's personal morals (I wouldn't kill an infant) and impersonal morals (if a mother wants to kill an infant, it's legal/permissable). Morals aren't about what I "like", they're about what I think is permissable for society.
I find it hard to believe that if a man were to get angry at an infant for crying and shake it to death or throw it against the wall killing it, that you wouldn't consider him guilty of a crime and a moral wrong. I sure would!

Try the idea I've been offering of morality as a personal mental capacity AND a social convention. It seems to me, you're leave on or the other aspect of morality out when you say you consider killing a 6 month old infant to be morally OK.



I guess I just don't think morals should be decided based on merely being comfortable for one's own beliefs. They should have some basis in objectivity, even if that means it leads to something you personally wouldn't do.
I'm not suggesting the morality of an act should be based merely on your comfort level with your own beliefs. However, I think you should challenge and carefully re-examing a system of moral reasoning if it leads to something you find personally to be morally objectionable. In fact, in most of these logical systems of moral reasoning, the "what a good person would do or think" is usually part of the system or at least a test of the system.

Here's a link to Fyfe's blog entry (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2005/11/abortion-and-infanticide-part-i.html) applying desire utilitarianism to the question of abortion and infanticide.

[Professor Yaffle]

:eek:

I have never known a single woman to say this. In fact, unless there are adverse reactions to the pill, it will often have additional positive side effects beyond contraception (shorter, less painful periods, etc.)


Just by the by - here's one. I have tried several different contraceptive pills and all of them have triggered or exacerbated my depression.

[Sun Countess]

Infant development (http://www.solveyourproblem.com/baby-care/your_baby_motor_skills.shtml)
Fine motor skills aren't developed or controlled until after gross motor skills begin, with a newborn first becoming able to control his or her own neck at about two months old. Babies can't turn themselves over until after this point, yet a fetus can flip around in utero, with some even turning from or toward a breech position.


However, I think you should challenge and carefully re-examing a system of moral reasoning if it leads to something you find personally to be morally objectionable. In fact, in most of these logical systems of moral reasoning, the "what a good person would do or think" is usually part of the system or at least a test of the system.
Why? I find all kinds of plastic surgeries and body modifications objectionable, but my moral reasoning says that a consenting adult should have freedom over his or her own body.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a quote from the reader comments following the blog entry I just linked to. (I think these are Fyfe's words, but frankly, I'm not sure because I have a hard time distinguishing what's quoted from what's added as a response.)

There is a constant stream of infinitely small changes between the numbers 1 and 2. Yet, the person who argues that, as a result, 1 = 2, is making a mistake.

There is no value with desire. An entity without desires has no interests, and thus its interests cannot be sacrificed.

We can have a debate as to exactly when desires come into existence. Yet, we have no reason to doubt that it is quite a while after the egg is fertilized, and quite a while before the infant is born.

This lines up well with what I've been saying. I don't know when enough neural development has taken place for a fetus to be something that merits moral consideration.

I'm confident, though, that before the end of the first trimester in a normal situation this has not happened. Therefore, a woman who doesn't consent to have her body used to nurture a baby can abort the fetus without any moral problems at all. It's her body and her right.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Infant development (http://www.solveyourproblem.com/baby-care/your_baby_motor_skills.shtml)
Fine motor skills aren't developed or controlled until after gross motor skills begin, with a newborn first becoming able to control his or her own neck at about two months old. Babies can't turn themselves over until after this point, yet a fetus can flip around in utero, with some even turning from or toward a breech position.
I suspect that's a result of the buoyancy of the uterine environment and not a sign of neural regression.

So, no evidence for your claim that an anencephalic fetus will suck its thumb but that a newborn, normal infant cannot? I'm extremely skeptical of these claims.

A newborn infant is far behind an older baby in a great many milestones. (The primary visual cortex has hardly begun organizing until after birth.) But none of these are the standard I'm suggesting.


I find all kinds of plastic surgeries and body modifications objectionable, but my moral reasoning says that a consenting adult should have freedom over his or her own body.

And you don't believe there is any point in time where that fetus ceases to be a woman's own body? I agree a woman should have freedom over her body. She should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her consent. However, I believe there is a point after which there is another person's rights to consider. I think the end of the first trimester is a reasonable line to draw, in normal situations, before which we're confident that the point hasn't been reached yet.

[ZirconBlue]

Just by the by - here's one. I have tried several different contraceptive pills and all of them have triggered or exacerbated my depression.

Well, I'm not sure that exactly fits the criterion "pills feel worse than the worst PMS," but I'm feeling generous. So, I will modify my statement to say that in 37 years I've only heard one woman say it.:)

[Silly Green Monkey]

I suspect that's a result of the buoyancy of the uterine environment and not a sign of neural regression.

So, no evidence for your claim that an anencephalic fetus will suck its thumb but that a newborn, normal infant cannot? I'm extremely skeptical of these claims.

A newborn infant is far behind an older baby in a great many milestones. (The primary visual cortex has hardly begun organizing until after birth.) But none of these are the standard I'm suggesting.


Your first paragraph attributes a fetus's movement to the assist of buoyancy, but calls a unbuoyed newborn's inability to do the same a regression? Are you sure you're being skeptical here?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your first paragraph attributes a fetus's movement to the assist of buoyancy, but calls a unbuoyed newborn's inability to do the same a regression?
I think you missed the word "not".

I was arguing that the fact that a newborn can't roll over is NOT a sign of any sort of neural regression.

Are you sure you're being skeptical here?
Yes. I think you simply misread my post.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Check your second paragraph again. It indicates that you don't think the movements to get a thumb to the mouth are affected by buoyancy.

[MikeSun5]

And you don't believe there is any point in time where that fetus ceases to be a woman's own body?

Uh... when the fetus is BORN.

At what point does a fetus become a baby?

Uh... when the fetus is BORN.

I agree a woman should have freedom over her body.

...but only to a certain point, right?

I believe there is a point after which there is another person's rights to consider.

Now we're back to the questions you neglected to respond to...
I don't like quoting myself, but I like retyping less:

So morally, in your opinion, when does a fetus' (unborn child) rights become more important than the mother's? When does the mother's opinion about what's going on inside of her cease to matter?

At what point do the desires of an unborn child trump those of the woman carrying it? (Pretty much the same question asked 3 different ways.) :)
Also, why should a woman be forced to do something to her body against her will?

Here's another point/question you missed...

What you are saying is that a fetus has rights because it has individual interests and desires.

Per the source cited in your argument, a fetus must be able to "wish something were the case before it's interests can be violated."

I think I'm following you. Are you saying a fetus has the brain capacity to wish it won't die?

And if you think a fetus has interests and desires, then it's entirely possible that it's desires don't match yours. What if the fetus is depressed or suicidal and would prefer to be aborted? :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Uh... when the fetus is BORN.



Uh... when the fetus is BORN.
Why? Surely there's no significant leap forward in neurological development that happens at the instant of birth.

It's also not the end of the baby's dependence. So what's so significant about that point? (And before you bring up the fact of physical separation, I should remind you I've already addressed that point too. There are plenty of cases of conjoined twins--even some that share vital organs--where we recognize the existence of two entities deserving moral consideration.)


At what point do the desires of an unborn child trump those of the woman carrying it? (Pretty much the same question asked 3 different ways.) :)

It's not a question of rights trumping other rights. The question is at what point is there an entity that deserves moral consideration at all. Before the first trimester there isn't.

After that, the question has to be taken on a case-by-case basis the same as you would any other such moral conundrum.

Also, why should a woman be forced to do something to her body against her will?
She shouldn't have to do something to her body against her will. I'm in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion.

If she hasn't made that decision by the end of the first trimester, in normal circumstances, then she has consented. Obviously, there a exceptional cases that can be taken on a case-by-case basis, and I anticipate you will ignore where I said "in normal circumstances" and begin coming up with some of these exceptional cases.



And if you think a fetus has interests and desires, then it's entirely possible that it's desires don't match yours. What if the fetus is depressed or suicidal and would prefer to be aborted? :rolleyes:
I suggest before you go all snarky, you read the links I've provided about desire utilitarianism. They can be applied to address suicidal desires. Of course, it's absurd to think a fetus or an infant could be suicidal, but even if you imagine it were possible, you can address that with desire utilitarianism.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Check your second paragraph again. It indicates that you don't think the movements to get a thumb to the mouth are affected by buoyancy.
No--it means I'm skeptical of the claim that an anencephalic fetus sucks its thumb* and that a newborn infant can't. I doubt those claims are factually true.

Come on--you misread what I posted and took it to mean pretty much the opposite of what I said. I was arguing that there is no neural regression at birth based on a newborn infant being less able to move about than a late-term pre-natal fetus.

I've also made very clear that I'm not using quickening or a fetus' movements as a standard or a substitute for the point when it is capable of having desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled. (This is the point Sun Countess was arguing against. That is, S.C. was arguing that if movements are evidence of the capacity to have desires, then it follows that a newborn has reduced capacity since it has reduced ability to move.) I've said that the first trimester and its relation to quickening is the line before which we can safely say that the fetus has not yet had enough neural development to have the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

*ETA: And, as I mentioned previously, even if an anencephalic fetus did suck its thumb (which I don't believe happens), it would be unreasonable to take that as evidence of a brain with the ability to have desires since by definition an anencephalic fetus lacks cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum. But again, with an anencephalic fetus, the first trimester line wouldn't exist. For example, for a woman who wanted to have a baby, but learns later--beyond the end of the first trimester-- that the fetus is anencephalic, I have no moral if she chooses to abort that fetus. (The only reason I specify learning about it later is to push it beyond the line. I can see no reason anyone would want to carry a fetus they knew was missing the higher parts of the brain if they learned it was so before the end of the first trimester.) As I've also said before, this is pretty much the same reason I have no moral problem with removing the feeding tube from an adult in a persistent vegetative state (as with Terry Schiavo).

[thaiboxerken]

It's also not the end of the baby's dependence.

It's at the end of the fetus's biological dependence.

[MikeSun5]

Why?

...because that's what the word means. :)

Surely there's no significant leap forward in neurological development that happens at the instant of birth.

Nor any prior to it...

Of course this is where you come back debating the word "significant." The neurological development in question (desires/interests) occur way after self-awareness, which occurs WAY after birth. Saying a fetus has desires and interests that can be thwarted or fulfilled is straight up anthropomorphism.

It's not a question of rights trumping other rights.

Nice dodge.

The question is at what point is there an entity that deserves moral consideration at all.

Morally speaking, when do you think this entity is no longer the property of the mother?

When do you think the moral consideration of said entity outweigh the desires/interests of the mother?

Before the first trimester there isn't.

That is your opinion...

I'm in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion.

...but....?

If she hasn't made that decision by the end of the first trimester, in normal circumstances, then she has consented.

You anticipate incorrectly. I've repeatedly made a point about not citing extreme examples.

Anyway, you've made your position clear: After the first trimester ends, the mother must give birth because the fetus' desires and interests have rendered it a moral entity deserving of rights.

This is why I have such a problem with these views. Basically you're saying that a mother isn't allowed a say in the matter from the end of the first trimester until after the kid is born. For however many months in between, the fetus isn't even hers... she simply carries it in her womb.

Of course, it's absurd to think a fetus or an infant could be suicidal...

...but the opposite -- a desire to live? Totally possible. :rolleyes:

[Sun Countess]

No--it means I'm skeptical of the claim that an anencephalic fetus sucks its thumb* and that a newborn infant can't. I doubt those claims are factually true.
I don't know if an anencephalic fetus sucks its thumb, but they do move and "kick" in utero. Healthy newborns cannot control their extremities. They only have weak control over their neck and head. They will reflexively grip items placed near their hands and suck items placed near their mouths. They do not purposefully guide their own thumbs toward their mouths. If a newborn sleeps in a way that their thumb is near their mouth they will instinctively suck at it. Have you had much exposure to newborns? They're often kept wrapped (swaddled) in blankets to keep their arms and legs from flailing all over and causing unnecessary distress. It's actually fascinating to watch them discover their extremities and slowly gain real control over their own purposeful movements. This process usually only begins at about 3 months old.

IMO, neither fetal nor infant movements should be used to infer actual desires.

[JJM 777]

I believe that the movements and flying-around of mosquitos do infer actual desires. They have a plan what to do, where to go, what to look for. They are also quite good at hiding when you try to slap them and you miss your first hit.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know if an anencephalic fetus sucks its thumb, but they do move and "kick" in utero. Healthy newborns cannot control their extremities.
Again, movements in an anencephalic fetus cannot imply the ability to have desires since they lack cerebral hemispheres and the cerebellum. And again, a healthy newborn's inability to move without being buoyed (ever seen a new born in water?) is not evidence of neural regression.

And yet again, the standard I suggest is not the ability "to control their extremities". (For some months after birth, a baby's axons are incompletely myelinated leading to jerky, poorly controlled movements.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe that the movements and flying-around of mosquitos do infer actual desires. They have a plan what to do, where to go, what to look for. They are also quite good at hiding when you try to slap them and you miss your first hit.

That's a legitimate position, though I think mosquitos lack the neural substrate to have desires. It similar to the person who suggested that because plants turn to the sun it is evidence that they have desires. Since plants lack a nervous system, I don't think their movements are evidence of the ability to have desires. I think it's the same idea with mosquitos. While they have a nervous system, it is orders of magnitude simpler than that of even a dog.

[JoeTheJuggler]

...because that's what the word means. :)

Language works by convention, and it has certainly been conventional for a long time to refer to a late-term prenatal fetus as a baby. So if you're arguing on linguistic principles and none other, you are wrong.


Nor any prior to it...
Again, you're not reading my posts. I'm not claiming any significant leap forward in neural progress at any particular point (unlike your standard where something changes at the moment of birth). My claim is that the gradual changes result in a zygot (something that lacks the ability to have a desire) to become a baby (something that has that ability).

I have consistently said that there is no hard and fast line where that happens.

Instead, the line we draw is one that errs on the side of caution. In normal situations, we're certain that before the first trimester the fetus has not yet developed enough neurologically to have that ability.

Of course this is where you come back debating the word "significant." The neurological development in question (desires/interests) occur way after self-awareness, which occurs WAY after birth.
Again, we've gone over this argument. I specifically rejected the standard of self-awareness which leads to the position Dragoonster says he holds: that it's OK to kill a 6 month old (post partum age, that is) infant.

Nice dodge.
Not a dodge. I've consistently said that the issue is not of rights vs rights (something we can judge the way we evaluate conflicting rights among adults), but of whether or not (and if so when) the fetus is something that merits such consideration.



Morally speaking, when do you think this entity is no longer the property of the mother?
Property is a construct of social contracts. I don't even know what your question means in a moral context.

If you're asking at what point does the fetus become something that deserves consideration as an entity that has desires that may be thwarted or denied (which I think is what matters), I've answered that question. I'll answer it again: I don't know when that happens, but I'm certain it hasn't happened, in normal situations, before the end of the first trimester.


Anyway, you've made your position clear: After the first trimester ends, the mother must give birth because the fetus' desires and interests have rendered it a moral entity deserving of rights.
Under normal circumstances, if the woman hasn't terminated the pregnancy by the end of the first trimester, she has essentially given consent to the fetus using her body to become a baby.

This is why I have such a problem with these views. Basically you're saying that a mother isn't allowed a say in the matter from the end of the first trimester until after the kid is born. For however many months in between, the fetus isn't even hers... she simply carries it in her womb.
Yes, and you draw the line where the woman cannot morally kill it at birth. I've made a strong and logical case for my position. Your position hangs on a linguistic misunderstanding and the other points I've already refuted (dependency and physical attachment).

[Sun Countess]

Again, you're not reading my posts. I'm not claiming any significant leap forward in neural progress at any particular point (unlike your standard where something changes at the moment of birth). My claim is that the gradual changes result in a zygot (something that lacks the ability to have a desire) to become a baby (something that has that ability).
I don't think you've shown that a fetus has any desires. You've used their movement to indicate possible desires, without giving a reason to infer desire from their movements. A newborn baby has desires for food, warmth, and comfort. A fetus does not desire any of those things.

If you're asking at what point does the fetus become something that deserves consideration as an entity that has desires that may be thwarted or denied (which I think is what matters), I've answered that question. I'll answer it again: I don't know when that happens, but I'm certain it hasn't happened, in normal situations, before the end of the first trimester.
Are you certain that it happens in the second trimester? Or even by the third trimester? Can you list at least one desire that a fetus has that can be thwarted or fulfilled?


Under normal circumstances, if the woman hasn't terminated the pregnancy by the end of the first trimester, she has essentially given consent to the fetus using her body to become a baby.
It's not my belief that under normal circumstances women necessarily know that they're pregnant by the first trimester. Many women continue to bleed in the early stages of pregnancy, and many teenage girls have no clue that they're pregnant until much later. I don't know if these statistics exist, and certainly the "I didn't know I was pregnant until I delivered" story is a rarity, but I would be interested in knowing by what point in their pregnancies the majority of women have confirmed them. In my own anecdotal experience, women who are actively trying to conceive are the ones who confirm their pregnancies within 6 - 8 weeks. Those who are not, and this includes the vast majority of pregnant teens, don't confirm until close to your arbitrary cut-off point.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think you've shown that a fetus has any desires. You've used their movement to indicate possible desires, without giving a reason to infer desire from their movements.
I did not make that argument. I specifically have said that I am not using movements as a standard.

I have also not claimed that I know the point where a fetus has developed neurologically enough to have that capacity. I'm agreeing with the law of the land that uses the end of the first trimester, in normal situations, as the line before which we're confident that the fetus lacks that neurological development.

I said it also lines up with a more traditional standard that was "quickening" that is based on the point when the woman can feel the fetus' movements. (My own point of view--that I admit is an opinion--is that the first movements are not done with volition, and happen before the capacity to have desires has developed.)

Alonzo Fyfe uses language about when the fetus has a brain. He too says there is no moment when you can say one instant the fetus lacks one but an instant later it has one.

A newborn baby has desires for food, warmth, and comfort. A fetus does not desire any of those things.
How do you know these things? If these are true, then there is some sort of giant leap that happens at the moment of birth. What is that leap? Does it happen when the head is born but not the rest of the body? Does it not happen until the first breath?

I don't think there is any evidence of such a gigantic leap in neural development happening in an instant.


Are you certain that it happens in the second trimester? Or even by the third trimester?
No. And I have consistently admitted this. Instead we use the line before which we're certain it hasn't happened yet.

Interestingly, in the Roe v. Wade decision (that established the first trimester line) the justification given was "viability". I think the court was really thinking more along the lines of what I'm suggesting because a fetus in the early second trimester was certainly not viable back in the '70s (and today!). Also, viability changes with the technology, and it doesn't make the decision wrt brain damaged adults and other animals (or even alien life forms*), so I find it a poor standard.



It's not my belief that under normal circumstances women necessarily know that they're pregnant by the first trimester. Many women continue to bleed in the early stages of pregnancy, and many teenage girls have no clue that they're pregnant until much later.
Funny, I just talked with my girlfriend, a nurse about that. She said that it happens (a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant until into the second trimester), but that it's certainly not the normal circumstance.

In that circumstance, the issue becomes a lot more problematic, and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I would hate to be the person having to make that decision (but there are a number of moral conundrums I'd hate to be in).


I don't know if these statistics exist, and certainly the "I didn't know I was pregnant until I delivered" story is a rarity, but I would be interested in knowing by what point in their pregnancies the majority of women have confirmed them. In my own anecdotal experience, women who are actively trying to conceive are the ones who confirm their pregnancies within 6 - 8 weeks. Those who are not, and this includes the vast majority of pregnant teens, don't confirm until close to your arbitrary cut-off point.
I think you're factually mistaken. I think under normal circumstances, the woman knows she is pregnant before the end of the first trimester. I don't claim that the exceptional situations are a rarity, but I don't think that is the normal situation.

*A thought experiment. Let's say we come across an alien life form somewhere that by some strange and lucky fluke of convergent evolution turns out to be an ideal food organism for humans. How do we decide whether or not it's morally OK to raise them, kill them, and eat them? I submit that desire utilitarianism is a good description of what our minds do to answer that question.

NB: I disagree with Fyfe that a system like desire utilitarianism is necessarily useful in coming to an answer to such moral conundrums. I suspect Dragoonster would be closer to agreement with Fyfe on this point than I am. I think, rather, it's just a good theory describing what our minds do. It's analogous to a linguistic theory that does a good job of explaining what our minds do wrt to language. We wouldn't use a theory like that to generate an utterance that we all know is not right and insist it's legit because it fits the theory.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, you used the first trimester as a reference to when you think a fetus has desires.
No I did not. I said the end of the first trimester is a line we've drawn before which we're certain it hasn't happened yet. (I've said this probably 10 times by now.) I don't claim to know when a fetus first has the ability to have desires (and I don't think there is a hard and fast line for when it happens, such as the moment of birth).

Here's an article (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm) that explains fetuses don't even have organized brain activity. It also says that reacting to pain does not denote conscious thought.
This article supports my position. It supports my position that in early pregnancy the fetus lacks the neural development for complex brain activity (such as that which would be required for having the capacity to have desires).

It most definitely does not support your position that a late-term pre-natal fetus lacks these abilities which spring into being at the moment of birth.

Instead it supports my position that the process is a gradual development that continues well on into post-natal childhood. (I just heard of some research--sorry no cite since it was just something I caught on PBS while flipping through--that argues for a change in brain function at middle age. They said our tendency to use one hemisphere more than the other goes away, and our brains work in a more well-integrated manner--I think it was specifically in problem solving tasks IIRC.)

ETA: From the article MikeSun cited (my bolding):
But the human part of the brain—the cortex—is not fully developed, as shown by "brain waves" on an EEG, until very late in gestation; in fact the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood. Indeed, the "individuating" function of a person's brain doesn't start to come into existence until the outer surface of the cortex begins to develop those deep furrows, grooves, and convolutions (sulci and gyri) that make a human brain look like a walnut, unlike the smooth brains of other animals. The furrows and grooves are what enable our brains to have millions more cells and connections between them than other animals, and so create our humanity. And the precise configuration of the grooves and convolutions are part of what determines our individuality; why, for instance, indentical twins have different personalities, and even, perhaps, why Einstein was a genius. However, these structures don't begin to form until the last 2 months of pregnancy.
Clearly this doesn't argue that this degree of neural development happens at the moment of birth (i.e. that there is some giant leap forward that neurologically differentiates a late-term pre-natal baby from a newborn).

If the research shows consistently that we're safe to push that line later than the first trimester, I would be in favor of it. That is, if we can be certain that a fetus lacks this level of neural development before some later point in time, I would be in favor of using that line. I would lobby for the law of the land to reflect this development in science.

And I agree more or less with the article's conclusion (if the science is right, which I have no reason to doubt):
So I have no objection to saying that "a human life" or "human personhood" begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG. That is well into the second half of pregnancy, however, no matter how many times the "40 days" factoid is repeated.
This position is MUCH closer to what I've been arguing all along than it is to your position that the line should be drawn at birth and not before.

[Sun Countess]

I did not make that argument. I specifically have said that I am not using movements as a standard. But you have indicated that fetal movements may be an indication of desire.

How do you know these things? If these are true, then there is some sort of giant leap that happens at the moment of birth. What is that leap? Does it happen when the head is born but not the rest of the body? Does it not happen until the first breath?
I believe that the desires for food, warmth, and comfort DO happen at the moment of birth, regardless of the neurological development of the late-term fetus. While in the womb, all things are provided for the fetus at all times. They don't have to "fight" for food, warmth, comfort or sleep. Once born, the infant has to fight (primarily by crying) for these things. Of course, in normal circumstances, a caring parent or other individual will provide these things for a newborn. A pregnant woman doesn't need to provide them willfully, as the fetus will take what it needs.

I don't think there is any evidence of such a gigantic leap in neural development happening in an instant.
I don't think there's a giant leap in neural development. I do think there's a giant leap in terms of desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled.


No. And I have consistently admitted this. Instead we use the line before which we're certain it hasn't happened yet.
I just think you've drawn your line waaaaaay too far back.

Funny, I just talked with my girlfriend, a nurse about that. She said that it happens (a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant until into the second trimester), but that it's certainly not the normal circumstance.
I didn't say that women didn't know at all in the first trimester, but that many normal women, in normal circumstances, know closer to the end of that first trimester. That cut-off doesn't give them a lot of time to make a decision, which is generally not done on a whim, but after some thought.

I think you're factually mistaken. I think under normal circumstances, the woman knows she is pregnant before the end of the first trimester. I don't claim that the exceptional situations are a rarity, but I don't think that is the normal situation.
As above. She may know before the end of the first trimester, but what if it's at 12 weeks? I didn't know I was pregnant with my second until 10 weeks. It's within the first trimester, but again, very close to the end.

*A thought experiment. Let's say we come across an alien life form somewhere that by some strange and lucky fluke of convergent evolution turns out to be an ideal food organism for humans. How do we decide whether or not it's morally OK to raise them, kill them, and eat them? I submit that desire utilitarianism is a good description of what our minds do to answer that question.
I don't have any argument against desire utilitarianism. I don't know that a fetus has desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But you have indicated that fetal movements may be an indication of desire.
I did not. I said that I disagree with people who use fetal movements as the standard, but that I think they're on the right track. I said that the first trimester line (the line before which we're certain it's morally OK to abort the pregnancy because the fetus has not yet developed enough neurologically to meet the standard) may have been based on more traditional ideas of when the fetus becomes a baby (i.e. quickening).


I believe that the desires for food, warmth, and comfort DO happen at the moment of birth, regardless of the neurological development of the late-term fetus.
Ah, so are you a dualist? I don't believe it is anything other than the neurological substrate that gives rise to these abilities.

While in the womb, all things are provided for the fetus at all times. They don't have to "fight" for food, warmth, comfort or sleep. Once born, the infant has to fight (primarily by crying) for these things.

Again, I have carefully said it is the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled that I see as the standard. You could easily imagine an adult human who has, for the moment, all his or her desires satisfied. (I feel that way from time to time.) For at least that time, I have no desire for anything to be different than it is. Yet I still have the capacity to have desires.

I don't think there's a giant leap in neural development. I do think there's a giant leap in terms of desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled.
What about the capacity to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled?


I just think you've drawn your line waaaaaay too far back.
I didn't draw the line. It's the current social convention (based largely on the Supreme Court decision). I'm only showing a theory that I think explains how our brains work to draw such a line. As I said, it's not the line where we necessarily think the fetus has the capacity to have desires; it's the line before which we're certain they do not.

If the science shows the line should be drawn later, I'd support that. However, I absolutely disagree with drawing that line at birth since there is no instantaneous change. I support drawing the line where we are certain that the fetus has not yet developed the capacity to have desires.


I didn't say that women didn't know at all in the first trimester, but that many normal women, in normal circumstances, know closer to the end of that first trimester. That cut-off doesn't give them a lot of time to make a decision, which is generally not done on a whim, but after some thought.
I disagree that it's "normal circumstances" for a woman not to learn she is pregnant until late in the first trimester. I think it is the normal situation to learn of it within a month.


As above. She may know before the end of the first trimester, but what if it's at 12 weeks? I didn't know I was pregnant with my second until 10 weeks. It's within the first trimester, but again, very close to the end.
Fyfe says he has no problem having an abortion if the woman does not give consent (that is if the woman doesn't want to have the baby) through the end of the first trimester. In one of the reader comments, someone posed the unusual situation of a woman who didn't learn she is pregnant until too late. As for me, I say that's where you go on a case-by-case basis. First, I'd want to know the circumstances as to why the woman didn't know. Second, it argues for the need for more clinics that perform abortions if these things can't be scheduled relatively quickly. Finally, if she doesn't know she was pregnant, I doubt she knows the exact date of conception, so even the end of the first trimester line is a pretty blurry concept. Since we're erring on the side of caution (and the article SunMike cited suggests the safety margin might be pretty wide), I would be OK with it sooner rather than later (again, assuming it's a normal pregnancy).


I don't have any argument against desire utilitarianism. I don't know that a fetus has desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled.
But do you think it lacks the capacity?

If so, do you believe that capacity develops instantaneously (going against what we know of developmental biology) at the moment of birth?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Removed--point already made and I'm trying hard not to be so long-winded!

[MikeSun5]

Yes, and you draw the line where the woman cannot morally kill it at birth.

I don't draw the line anywhere because I don't believe it's my choice to make. I was simply challenging where you draw yours, and why you drew it there.

If you're asking at what point does the fetus become something that deserves consideration as an entity that has desires that may be thwarted or denied (which I think is what matters), I've answered that question. I'll answer it again: I don't know when that happens, but I'm certain it hasn't happened, in normal situations, before the end of the first trimester.

I asked the same question over and over in different ways to get an answer. You ignore them all, ask yourself a question and answer that instead. Mr. Rumsfeld? Is that you? ;)

So you don't know at what point a fetus should be given rights considerations similar to that of a living person, but you still think they should? Somewhere between the end of the 1st trimester and birth then?

It most definitely does not support your position that a late-term pre-natal fetus lacks these abilities which spring into being at the moment of birth.

That was never my postition. I never said anything about "abilities which spring into being at the moment of birth."

This position is MUCH closer to what I've been arguing all along than it is to your position that the line should be drawn at birth and not before.

Your position was that a fetus has the capacity for "interests and desires." My position is that a fetus does not. Neither does a newborn.

I linked to that article to show that neurological development occurs super late in pregnancy. Unorganized brain activity does not mean conscious thought, so I guess I'm just confused as to why unorganized brain activity could be considered the "capacity for desires and interests." Desires and interests surface later in infancy, not prior to birth.

I don't know... I just think a woman gets to say what happens to her body.
No matter what.
Joe - you say after a certain point the mother has given consent and MUST let the fetus "use her body to become a baby." It is this certain point that I've been asking about. It is at this point the fetus is given rights, and the mother has rights taken away. The fetus is given the right to live, the mother is refused the right to get rid of it. That's why I say a woman should be able to do what she wants. I mean, if the fetus has rights similar to a living human being, then why can't a mother be prosecuted for drinking or smoking during pregnancy? She can get busted for giving a baby booze or drugs, but not a fetus. Why is that?

There is one way to settle the abortion issue, and one way only:

Let (ONLY) women vote on it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't draw the line anywhere because I don't believe it's my choice to make. I was simply challenging where you draw yours, and why you drew it there.
You must draw the line somewhere or else you would believe there is no such a crime a crime as murder. Do you side with Dragoonster that it's morally OK to kill a newborn infant?



I asked the same question over and over in different ways to get an answer. You ignore them all, ask yourself a question and answer that instead. Mr. Rumsfeld? Is that you? ;)
Nonsense. I've fully explained a reasonable and coherent position. If you can't at least accept that reasonable minds can disagree, at the very least don't try to be insulting.

So you don't know at what point a fetus should be given rights considerations similar to that of a living person, but you still think they should? Somewhere between the end of the 1st trimester and birth then?
That's closer. I would not use the language of "a living person" because I don't think that's a good standard to use (for reasons I think I've already given), but I think that's the right idea.

The line is the line before which we're certain the fetus lacks the neural development to have the capacity to have desires. The change doesn't happen at a point in time, so the best we can do is draw a line where we're sure it hasn't yet happened.



That was never my postition. I never said anything about "abilities which spring into being at the moment of birth."
So what do you base drawing the line at birth on? That is your position, isn't it? That it's morally OK to kill a fetus all the way up until it's born?


I linked to that article to show that neurological development occurs super late in pregnancy. Unorganized brain activity does not mean conscious thought, so I guess I'm just confused as to why unorganized brain activity could be considered the "capacity for desires and interests." Desires and interests surface later in infancy, not prior to birth.
I responded to the article in several posts already. It does not support your position that it's OK to abort a normal fetus right up until the moment of birth.

I don't know... I just think a woman gets to say what happens to her body.
No matter what.
But that's just begging the question that an unborn baby is "her body". By most definitions, including the standard I'm suggesting and conventional usage of the term "baby", it is not. About all you've been relying on is the idea of physical connectedness, and I've already refuted that.


Joe - you say after a certain point the mother has given consent and MUST let the fetus "use her body to become a baby." It is this certain point that I've been asking about. It is at this point the fetus is given rights, and the mother has rights taken away. The fetus is given the right to live, the mother is refused the right to get rid of it. That's why I say a woman should be able to do what she wants.

Then can a woman kill a newborn baby? Why not use the same standard on other accused murderers (that is, let them decide if it's right or wrong)?

I mean, if the fetus has rights similar to a living human being, then why can't a mother be prosecuted for drinking or smoking during pregnancy? She can get busted for giving a baby booze or drugs, but not a fetus. Why is that?
That's a flawed argument as well. In fact, she cannot be busted for giving the baby booze or drugs "second hand". What's lacking in these second-hand cases (which is what it is when the woman is drinking or smoking and it adversely affects a fetus) is the mens rea--the intention to cause that harm. If you could prove that a pregnant woman was drinking for the purpose of causing the baby to be born with fetal alcohol syndrome (I'm not sure how you prove that except perhaps by confession), then you could hold her liable. I have no idea what the remedy would be, except maybe deeming her an unfit parent and taking custody of the baby away from her.

It is at this point the fetus is given rights, and the mother has rights taken away.
What rights have been taken away? I fully support reproductive rights for women. No one should be allowed to force a woman to get pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to (as Frye words it, no one should be allowed to use a woman's body for a purpose to which she does not consent). If the woman consents, then some time later the fetus becomes an entity capable of having desires. Then you'd have to weigh the rights of two entities, which we do all the time.

If, for example, something about the pregnancy threatens the woman's health or life, it's a pretty easy decision (especially if we're considering the interests of an entity we're not sure has the capacity for desires yet against one that we know does).

There is one way to settle the abortion issue, and one way only:

Let (ONLY) women vote on it.
I don't see any justification for that approach. Both men and women are capable of moral reasoning. That'd be like saying only CEOs can weigh in on the crimes done by the Enron execs. Or only a member of the Manson Family could pass judgment on their crimes. Or only slave owners could be allowed to decide the issue of whether slavery was moral and should be legal.

FWIW, you're factually wrong, because the way that the matter has been settled (through legislation and court decisions--particularly Roe v. Wade) is another way the matter can be settled.

[MikeSun5]

Do you side with Dragoonster that it's morally OK to kill a newborn infant?

Nope. A newborn has the option of being cared for by someone else.

It does not support your position that it's OK to abort a normal fetus right up until the moment of birth.

Please stop misrepresenting my position. I specifically stated many times that I believe I do not have a position because I do not have a uterus. I was challenging your position. I'm saying what goes on inside of a woman is the woman's choice - whether or not you think it's right or wrong.

Then can a woman kill a newborn baby? Why not use the same standard on other accused murderers (that is, let them decide if it's right or wrong)?

This is you venturing into anthropomorphism again. A fetus is not a newborn baby. A fetus is not a person.

No one should be allowed to force a woman ... to carry a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to

:eek: Wow, after all that, we actually agree. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Thanks, Joe. I guess this conversation is over... ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nope. A newborn has the option of being cared for by someone else.
So does a pre-natal baby. So why is it OK to allow a woman to choose to kill the baby in a normal pregnancy at say 8 months but it isn't OK for a woman to choose to kill the baby after birth? You have yet to distinguish those, aside from insisting that the baby is merely a part of the woman's body. (I've shown the flaw in this argument by pointing to conjoined twins, where we recognize that there are two entities that have the capacity to have desires and therefore who should have moral rights are each part of the other's body.)



Please stop misrepresenting my position. I specifically stated many times that I believe I do not have a position because I do not have a uterus. I was challenging your position.
I'm not misrepresenting your position. You're just trying to hold a position without having to defend it.

In fact, you've said repeatedly that you think the woman should have the choice to abort a pregnancy all the way up until birth. That IS a position. That's the position the flaws of which I'm pointing out.

I'm saying what goes on inside of a woman is the woman's choice - whether or not you think it's right or wrong.
And doesn't that mean that you have the position that it's OK for a woman to choose to abort a pregnancy all the way up to the moment of birth? Doesn't that mean that you think it's moral for a woman to make that choice?

Why is it that you think this is a matter of choice that only the party involved may decide but you don't use that same rule in other situations? For example, you've never been a crazed and murderous cult leader, but I suspect you find Charles Manson's actions to be immoral and criminal. This is exactly analogous to your saying that since you have no uterus you can't make a judgement on whether or not it's moral to have a late term abortion in normal situations.

I'm assuming that you don't give Manson the choice, because you think something he did was immoral. Therefore, it follows that since you would give women the free choice to have a late term abortion in normal circumstances, that you believe it is moral (that is, not immoral) for a woman to make that choice.

So, since that IS your position, I'm trying to find out what makes it moral immediately before birth but immoral immediately after.


This is you venturing into anthropomorphism again. A fetus is not a newborn baby. A fetus is not a person.
Already covered. You'll lose the battle of semantics. As I said the meaning of a word is based on its conventional usage, and it IS conventional for people to refer to a pre-natal baby as a baby. Your contention that it's only a baby after birth is just wrong from a linguistic point of view. You seem to want to use that wrong linguistic opinion to support your view on the issue of abortion.

:eek: Wow, after all that, we actually agree. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Thanks, Joe. I guess this conversation is over... ;)
No it isn't (and you misquoted me by adding in the ellipsis). You're saying that it's moral for a woman to choose to abort a late term pregnancy in a normal situation.

[thaiboxerken]

So does a pre-natal baby.

There is no such thing. Before birth, a human life-form is called a fetus. Also, a fetus cannot be cared for by another until it is separated from it's host. As long as the human life-form is biologically part of it's host mother, it garners no rights at all. It is simply a medical condition.

[JJM 777]

a fetus cannot be cared for by another until it is separated from it's host.
Just for clarification, I believe that doctors sometimes do a lot to ensure the health of a fetus, in case of some complications during pregnancy.

I am not an expert in medicine, so I don't know if any medicines are given to mothers with the intention of positively affecting the fetus during pregnancy. One essential and common intervention is preventing premature birth when the fetus is too young to safely survive outside of uterus, by giving medication that stops the birthing process.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is no such thing. Before birth, a human life-form is called a fetus. Also, a fetus cannot be cared for by another until it is separated from it's [sic] host. As long as the human life-form is biologically part of it's [sic] host mother, it garners no rights at all. It is simply a medical condition.

I've already addressed this. If you're making a linguistic argument here, it's based on a false assertion. The term "baby" has conventionally been used to refer to a pre-natal fetus for centuries at least.

At best, what you're trying to do is beg the question.

ETA: Also the point that JJM makes is valid. Prenatal care involves any number of health care professionals who give care to both the mother and the baby. In some cases where the baby would not survive after birth long enough to undergo a surgical procedure it needs to survive, that surgery is done while the baby is in utero. So yes, it's definitely possible for someone other than the mother to give care to a fetus.

[Silly Green Monkey]

However, 'giving care' and 'taking care of' are two different things, one being a surgery and the other being a constant drain of resources lasting months.

I'm still wondering why a baby gets to feed off its mother for nine months, and then can't do it anymore even if it can't survive without the connection. What's so magical about nine months?

[JJM 777]

Also I wonder what is so difficult for modern science to build an artificial uterus, which would feed the growing babetus with similar blood as has been measured from a natural umbilical cord, so babies can be mass-produced in glass tubes, and women skip the painful part of becoming a mother.

This doesn't sound extremely sci-fi to me, if USA used more money to such research instead of researching new better ways to kill people on the planet, we would probably soon have these baby-production factories.

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, 'giving care' and 'taking care of' are two different things, one being a surgery and the other being a constant drain of resources lasting months.

What's the cut off line for duration that makes "giving care" turn into "taking care of"?

I'm still wondering why a baby gets to feed off its mother for nine months, and then can't do it anymore even if it can't survive without the connection. What's so magical about nine months?
That's the question I've been asking those who argue that it's OK for a woman to choose to kill the baby at any moment up until birth, but not OK thereafter.

My position (see earlier posts) doesn't rely on an instantaneous change happening but reflects what we know about the gradual neural development that starts with something that certainly doesn't have a brain and eventually gives rise to something that has a brain.

We draw the line at the end of the first trimester, not because we know that's when the fetus becomes a baby (has a brain or has the capacity to have desires) but rather because that's the point before which we're certain it does not.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also I wonder what is so difficult for modern science to build an artificial uterus, which would feed the growing babetus with similar blood as has been measured from a natural umbilical cord, so babies can be mass-produced in glass tubes, and women skip the painful part of becoming a mother.

This doesn't sound extremely sci-fi to me, if USA used more money to such research instead of researching new better ways to kill people on the planet, we would probably soon have these baby-production factories.

That's similar to the point I made about the "viability" argument. (It's OK to end the pregnancy before the fetus is viable, but not after.) The problem is that it's not really a standard based on development per se but rather something dependent on our technology.

[thaiboxerken]

I've already addressed this. If you're making a linguistic argument here, it's based on a false assertion. The term "baby" has conventionally been used to refer to a pre-natal fetus for centuries at least.

It doesn't make it any more correct. It appears to me that people who want to limit women's choices on abortion call fetuses "babies" because it's an emotional appeal.


So yes, it's definitely possible for someone other than the mother to give care to a fetus.

That's hardly even close to the point I am making. While there may be some medical procedures given to help a fetus, the mother is STILL giving primary care to the fetus. This sophistry really doesn't help your case.

[MikeSun5]

So why is it OK to allow a woman to choose to kill the baby in a normal pregnancy at say 8 months but it isn't OK for a woman to choose to kill the baby after birth?

Because it's inside the woman, not outside. Your question assumes first that it's "OK," and second that your scenario is at all likely. Again, I've intentionally refrained from using extreme examples to make my point. They actually weaken an argument. It's ridiculous to think that a woman would have something grow inside her for 8 months and want to get rid of it, but if that was her choice, why should she be denied?

I'm not misrepresenting your position. You're just trying to hold a position without having to defend it.

I've said before, it's not my fight because I'm not a woman. Again, I'm challenging your position. By the way... your cult leader analogy wasn't as perfect as you think -- it actually doesn't apply at all. The issue is gender. Sex.

IMO, Men claiming a moral opinion on abortion is mysogyny. Women should get to say what happens to their bodies, not men.

(and you misquoted me by adding in the ellipsis)No one should be allowed to force a woman to get pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to (as Frye words it, no one should be allowed to use a woman's body for a purpose to which she does not consent).

Misquote, huh? So it doesn't say here ^^ nobody should force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? It doesn't say that one shouldn't be allowed to use a woman's body for something she doesn't consent to? :boggled: It actually does say those things. That's what I've been saying.

You claimed that carrying a pregnancy past the first trimester means the mother has given consent for the fetus to use her body to become a baby. You said that. That means if the mother changes her mind, you would tell her that she can't. You would say that she must now have the baby no matter what. That is why I disagree with you. It shouldn't be your (or any other guy's) say.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it's inside the woman, not outside.
So do you believe that conjoined twins are only one person since they're both inside the same skin?

Your question assumes first that it's "OK," and second that your scenario is at all likely.
You're wrong. You have repeatedly said that you think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion up until the moment of birth.

Again, I've intentionally refrained from using extreme examples to make my point. They actually weaken an argument. It's ridiculous to think that a woman would have something grow inside her for 8 months and want to get rid of it, but if that was her choice, why should she be denied?
The same reason she should be denied the right to kill the baby after it has been born.



I've said before, it's not my fight because I'm not a woman. Again, I'm challenging your position. By the way... your cult leader analogy wasn't as perfect as you think -- it actually doesn't apply at all. The issue is gender. Sex.
Nonsense. You're saying because of your gender you are incapable of moral reasoning on this subject. (In fact, though, by saying you think women should have the right to choose abortion even late in a normal pregnancy actually means you do not think such an abortion is tantamount to infanticide.) I think, as I've said before, you're just trying to hold a position and not be required to defend that position.

IMO, Men claiming a moral opinion on abortion is mysogyny.
Interesting--so you are a misogynist? You've been offering your moral opinion on abortion throughout this thread. You have repeatedly said that you support a woman's right to choose abortion late in a normal pregnancy. This is definitely a moral position on the subject of abortion. You seem pretty comfortable voicing a moral position on abortion, you merely refuse to defend your position.

By your reasoning, a woman accused of infanticide (for killing her 6 month old baby) should get an all-woman jury. And by your reasoning, a white person giving a moral opinion on the behavior of a black person is racism.

Women should get to say what happens to their bodies, not men.
You're just repeating yourself, and this assertion is still just begging the question.

[MikeSun5]

So do you believe that conjoined twins are only one person since they're both inside the same skin?

Stop comparing people to the unborn. They are not the same.

You're saying because of your gender you are incapable of moral reasoning on this subject.

Not incapable, I'm just saying my moral reasoning (and opinion) shouldn't matter. Neither should yours.

In fact, though, by saying you think women should have the right to choose abortion even late in a normal pregnancy actually means you do not think such an abortion is tantamount to infanticide.

Again with the extreme examples? What about a case of chronic deep vein thrombosis that keeps causing pulminary embolisms to the mother, who is 7 months pregnant with a child who won't live past a year due to medical complications? We can all come up with stupid examples.
But to answer your slanted question (I'm guessing you just want me to say something you think is immoral): No. Because infanticide is the killing of "an infant." I don't consider a fetus to be an infant.

I think, as I've said before, you're just trying to hold a position and not be required to defend that position.

What do I need to defend? I don't think abortion is equivalent to infanticide because an unborn fetus is not a breathing, crying, crapping baby. You obviously can't seem to understand the difference. I'm almost positive you're ignoring the difference intentionally. One is a baby, one is a fetus. Look at the damn definitions. One uses a bottle, one uses an umbilical cord. One lives in open air, and one lives inside a womb. :bwall

Please understand the differences between "baby" and "fetus," and "inside" and "outside." You attempted a semantic argument about "baby" earlier, so please understand that when I say "baby," I mean "infant." By "infant," I mean a child that no longer lives inside of a woman. The fact I needed to write this paragraph should be embarrassing.

Interesting--so you are a misogynist?

Cute. What I meant was "a moral opinion against abortion," not "on abortion." That's my fault for getting that wrong. I don't think you should tell a woman what to do with her uterus any more than she should tell you what to do with your prostate.

By your reasoning, a woman accused of infanticide (for killing her 6 month old baby) should get an all-woman jury.

Enormous fail. That is not my reasoning at all. You are the one who thinks that a 14-week old unborn fetus is equivalent to a 6 month old child, not me. My comment referred to a woman's body and what goes on INSIDE it, not OUTSIDE of it. Ignoring that doesn't make your points stronger.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stop comparing people to the unborn. They are not the same.
Says you. I've been asking you again and again to say what magical change happens to a fetus one minute before birth and one minute after birth to make one a "person" and one not.



Not incapable, I'm just saying my moral reasoning (and opinion) shouldn't matter. Neither should yours.
And I've shown that this makes no sense.

ETA: That is, if you're capable of moral reasoning, your opinion can be as valid as anyone else's. Whether or not you can become pregnant is irrelevant to whether or not your opinion on a moral matter should matter.



Because infanticide is the killing of "an infant." I don't consider a fetus to be an infant.
And that's just begging the question. You don't seem to be reading my posts at all. Your semantic argument that a fetus is not an infant isn't linguistically valid. You've yet to show anything else that makes a distinction that I haven't already refuted.



What do I need to defend? I don't think abortion is equivalent to infanticide because an unborn fetus is not a breathing, crying, crapping baby. You obviously can't seem to understand the difference.
So are you suggesting the difference is breathing, crying and crapping? By that standard a born baby in the ICU on a ventilator isn't a baby.

What else do you have?

I'm almost positive you're ignoring the difference intentionally.
What differences? Please, say what that difference is.

One is a baby, one is a fetus.
I've addressed your faulty argument based on linguistics. Meaning is conventional, and it has been the convention to refer to late term fetuses as "babies" for a long time. It is still done all the time.

One uses a bottle, one uses an umbilical cord.
So a baby that doesn't use a bottle isn't a baby? Really, what's the difference?

Please understand the differences between "baby" and "fetus," and "inside" and "outside."
I've addressed the "inside" and "outside" argument already. Conjoined twins, even where we recognized them as two distinct people are both inside the same skin.

You attempted a semantic argument about "baby" earlier,
No, I did not attempt any semantic argument. I merely refuted the semantic argument you made.

Cute. What I meant was "a moral opinion against abortion," not "on abortion." That's my fault for getting that wrong. I don't think you should tell a woman what to do with her uterus any more than she should tell you what to do with your prostate.
I'm not being cute. I'm pointing out that your position, that a woman may decide to have an abortion in a normal pregnancy at any point (i.e. late term) right up to the point of birth IS a moral position. You're just being evasive when you claim it's not.



You are the one who thinks that a 14-week old unborn fetus is equivalent to a 6 month old child, not me.
That's a false statement.

I'm certain I never said any such thing. I've pointed out that neurological development is a continuous and gradual process, and that there is no sharp line that distinguishes a fetus from a person. Yet we know a zygot changes into an entity neurologically developed enough to have the capacity to have desires (and moral interests). There is no sharp line where we can say this happens (contrary to your position where you draw the sharp line at birth), but we are confident that it hasn't happened yet.

Even if I take your claim to mean that I think a 14 week fetus is the moral equivalent of a 6 month old post-partum baby (rather than what you actually said), you are lying. I have carefully explained that I don't know by what point the fetus has developed sufficiently neurologically. I said we err on the side caution and use the line where we are certain it has not happened yet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

More on the "inside" and "outside" issue:

So what about a partial birth abortion in a normal pregnancy? (In the real world, such a thing does not happen. These procedures are reserved for the case of anencephalics and such.)

According to your moral position (yes it is a moral position on abortion), if the umbilical cord is attached and the baby is "inside" then it's OK to kill it. So if just the head is out (and the umbilicus is still intact), do you still leave it up to the woman to choose whether or not to kill the fetus? After all, it's clearly not "outside" yet. It's not breathing yet. It's not eating from a bottle or crying or crapping yet.

[MikeSun5]

You don't seem to be reading my posts at all.

Ditto.

Your semantic argument that a fetus is not an infant isn't linguistically valid.

Why not? A fetus (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus) is unborn. An infant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infant) has been born. How do you not see the difference?

So are you suggesting the difference is breathing, crying and crapping? By that standard a born baby in the ICU on a ventilator isn't a baby.

:bwall :bwall :bwall Let's use the terms "unborn" and "born already" then. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

What differences? Please, say what that difference is.

One entity is unborn. The other entity has been born already.

I've addressed the "inside" and "outside" argument already. Conjoined twins, even where we recognized them as two distinct people are both inside the same skin.

And I've addressed your conjoined twins example as being irrelevant. Those people are born already. They do not feed on placenta.

I'm pointing out that your position, that a woman may decide to have an abortion in a normal pregnancy at any point (i.e. late term) right up to the point of birth IS a moral position. You're just being evasive when you claim it's not.

I don't claim to not have a moral position. I claim mine shouldn't matter.

I'm certain I never said any such thing.

It was implicit. You said after the 1st trimester, a woman has given her consent for a fetus to use her body to become a baby. To morally support said usage, you compare abortion to infanticide. My statement wasn't false. Hyperbole, maybe.

Even if I take your claim to mean that I think a 14 week fetus is the moral equivalent of a 6 month old post-partum baby (rather than what you actually said), you are lying. I have carefully explained that I don't know by what point the fetus has developed sufficiently neurologically. I said we err on the side caution and use the line where we are certain it has not happened yet.

Where is the line then? When do you consider an unborn entity to be the moral equivalent of a 6 month old child? You say you don't know when the fetus has developed sufficiently, yet you attack my statements by comparing this (possibly) undeveloped entity to a child that's been born already. At what point do you draw the line?