Late Term Abortion

[Brian5000]

I'm a little confused about the arguement on this topic.

My understanding is that most if not all states only allow elective abortion in the 1st trimester of pregnancy (if at all). "Late term abortion" is a medical decision to terminate a failed pregnancy that places the mother at risk as well or to terminate a pregnancy in which the fetus has been found to be severely disabled.

My understanding is that all of these children were wanted, and some even had names and were given a burial. Just like people fall to cancer or natural disaster, these individuals deaths were not anyones choice, just an unfortunate tradgedy.

Partial birth thing too: Once it was decided that the pregnancy couldn't succeed, it seems that partial birth abortion was a way to remove the fetus cleanly with minimal risk to the mother. The alternative, hacking the fetus up and removing it piece by piece, doesn't sound much better.

I see adds from pro-life organizations lumping all of this together with voluntary abortion, which doesn't really seem fair to me. Or am I wrong?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Please, please, please don't try and introduce rational thinking into the subject of abortion. Therein lies madness and an eventual 10,000 posts.

:duck:

[KingMerv00]

My understanding is that most if not all states only allow elective abortion in the 1st trimester of pregnancy (if at all). "Late term abortion" is a medical decision to terminate a failed pregnancy that places the mother at risk as well or to terminate a pregnancy in which the fetus has been found to be severely disabled.

Just so we are clear on the current legal doctrine, see Roe v. Wade (http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html#164):


1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

[godless dave]

People on this issue, and on others (likes school prayer), have been known to demand laws be changed to what they already are. No, it doesn't make sense.

[Chimera]

Found this link which outlines state laws on abortion:

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

Although some states have named a time frame after which abortions are prohibited, most prohibit them after "viability" of the fetus. I wonder if viability is something that individual doctors/patients determine...? I'm not clear on the ruling there.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm a little confused about the arguement on this topic.

My understanding is that most if not all states only allow elective abortion in the 1st trimester of pregnancy (if at all). "Late term abortion" is a medical decision to terminate a failed pregnancy that places the mother at risk as well or to terminate a pregnancy in which the fetus has been found to be severely disabled.

Do you mean US states or states around the world? The short version is that there are some places where you can get an elective abortion late in the pregnancy but it's relatively uncommon for it to be legal and incredibly uncommon for it to actually happen.


Partial birth thing too: Once it was decided that the pregnancy couldn't succeed, it seems that partial birth abortion was a way to remove the fetus cleanly with minimal risk to the mother. The alternative, hacking the fetus up and removing it piece by piece, doesn't sound much better.

I see adds from pro-life organizations lumping all of this together with voluntary abortion, which doesn't really seem fair to me. Or am I wrong?

This is a correct observation and indeed a curious one.

[Thunder]

I don't like the idea of killing a fetus that can survive on its own outside the womb without mechanical assistance. If all it needs is oxygen, food, water, and a hug...then I think its past the point of abortion.

Now someone tell me at what point of pregnancy this is.

[Cynic]

Some suggest that the fact that those sorts of abortions are legal under any circumstances means that doctors and patients will conspire to falsify the record simply to get rid of an otherwise healty unwanted child. And let's face it: it probably has happened. But really, it's just not reasonable create a dangerous and intolerable legal situation just to avoid something so rare.

I tend to think mother takes precidence, but I admit to feeling that maybe risk is a more nobel course of action. On the other hand, I knew a woman who discovered halfway through her pregnancy that she had breast cancer and decided to press on with the pregancy. The child is fine, but she died without seeing out its first year. Had she terminated and fought the cancer immediately she almost certainly would have lived -- pregnacy can multiply the hazards of cancer.

Anyway, the controversy isn't as simple as either side would like it to be. It's probably best not to make laws assuming the worst about people though. One of the reasons Roe V. Wade has stood so long is because it's pretty much as good as we're going to get already.

[Brian5000]

Do you mean US states or states around the world? The short version is that there are some places where you can get an elective abortion late in the pregnancy but it's relatively uncommon for it to be legal and incredibly uncommon for it to actually happen.

I meant the US, yes. I have no idea what the rest of the world does.

I don't like the idea of killing a fetus that can survive on its own outside the womb without mechanical assistance. If all it needs is oxygen, food, water, and a hug...then I think its past the point of abortion.

Now someone tell me at what point of pregnancy this is.

The whole idea of this is that something has gone horribly wrong and the fetus can't survive on its own. Otherwise, I would be inclined to agree.

Medically, a normal fetus is "complete" and has a chance of surviving if born within the third trimester (about 6 months) with modern technology. I think earlier than that is unlikely.

Some suggest that the fact that those sorts of abortions are legal under any circumstances means that doctors and patients will conspire to falsify the record simply to get rid of an otherwise healty unwanted child. And let's face it: it probably has happened. But really, it's just not reasonable create a dangerous and intolerable legal situation just to avoid something so rare.


I suppose thats true, but then falsifying records would be, in itself, a crime. I guess that could lead to a charge of negligent homicide or something if the state considered the fetus a legal person, right?

[SusanB-M1]

Please, please, please don't try and introduce rational thinking into the subject of abortion. Therein lies madness and an eventual 10,000 posts.
And in the end of course there can never be a definitive answer. I think that the final decision has to be that of the mother .... and then one can think of all sort of ifs and buts.

[Beerina]

Doesn't this ensure the child gets to Heaven? If they're born, or worse, come of age, then they have a non-trivial chance of going to Hell.

[ponderingturtle]

Partial birth thing too: Once it was decided that the pregnancy couldn't succeed, it seems that partial birth abortion was a way to remove the fetus cleanly with minimal risk to the mother. The alternative, hacking the fetus up and removing it piece by piece, doesn't sound much better.

I see adds from pro-life organizations lumping all of this together with voluntary abortion, which doesn't really seem fair to me. Or am I wrong?

Why is this currious? Partial Birth abortion is a political term, not a medical one. It is one ment to inspire emotional reactions and so has nothing to to with rational arguments.

[ponderingturtle]

Some suggest that the fact that those sorts of abortions are legal under any circumstances means that doctors and patients will conspire to falsify the record simply to get rid of an otherwise healty unwanted child. And let's face it: it probably has happened. But really, it's just not reasonable create a dangerous and intolerable legal situation just to avoid something so rare.

Why? If they didn't want the pregnancy why didn't they get the abortion earlier when it was easier and safer? Well it could be that they couldn't find anyone to perform it as the terrorism against doctors is working.

I tend to think mother takes precidence, but I admit to feeling that maybe risk is a more nobel course of action. On the other hand, I knew a woman who discovered halfway through her pregnancy that she had breast cancer and decided to press on with the pregancy. The child is fine, but she died without seeing out its first year. Had she terminated and fought the cancer immediately she almost certainly would have lived -- pregnacy can multiply the hazards of cancer.

Glad she is dead I see.

Anyway, the controversy isn't as simple as either side would like it to be. It's probably best not to make laws assuming the worst about people though. One of the reasons Roe V. Wade has stood so long is because it's pretty much as good as we're going to get already.

[Cynic]

Why? If they didn't want the pregnancy why didn't they get the abortion earlier when it was easier and safer? Well it could be that they couldn't find anyone to perform it as the terrorism against doctors is working.

People can be indecisive, or lose their nerve, or have their life circumstances change, etc. The extreme dogma of "abortion is wrong under any circumstances" may lead to reason being abandoned, but the equally extreme dogma of "it's a woman's choice, period, and offspring don't have rights until they're born" is more likely to lead to the above scenario than any other.

Your question is a good reason to suggest why such a procedure would be unlikely to happen, not that it wouldn't happen at all. I've known a lot of people who easily launch into hysterical "it's a woman's choice!" rhetoric and have heard them pull out "what if she's raped?" as an argument against banning 3rd trimester abotions. That's makes zero sense as you point out, yet somehow for those who have 100% bought into their own rhetoric, it does for them.

Glad she is dead I see.

I'm going to give you a chance to explain that comment. Make it good -- she was a friend of mine.

[Cynic]

I suppose thats true, but then falsifying records would be, in itself, a crime. I guess that could lead to a charge of negligent homicide or something if the state considered the fetus a legal person, right?

Might even be considered murder -- I dunno. My point though was that it would be a crime difficult to detect as the fact that the procedure was performed wouldn't be questioned, in and of itself. It's one of those remote but realistic possibilities that some people but up as an argument against any wiggle room in normal abortion law. I don't feel it's sufficient, though maybe higher standards of documentation are warranted for such cases so long as it doesn't interfere with emergency treatment.

[godless dave]

Your question is a good reason to suggest why such a procedure would be unlikely to happen, not that it wouldn't happen at all. I've known a lot of people who easily launch into hysterical "it's a woman's choice!" rhetoric and have heard them pull out "what if she's raped?" as an argument against banning 3rd trimester abotions. That's makes zero sense as you point out,

I don't think it makes zero sense, and neither does the US Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure states aren't allowed to ban third trimester abortions in case of rape or incest.

Not every woman or girl knows she's pregnant right away, and some of them have to escape from their rapist before they can get to a doctor's office.

[slingblade]

I don't like the idea of killing a fetus that can survive on its own outside the womb without mechanical assistance. If all it needs is oxygen, food, water, and a hug...then I think its past the point of abortion.

Now someone tell me at what point of pregnancy this is.

Why? Are you thinking of having one and want to know if it's too late?


There is no one-size-fits-all morality to abortion and why does it seem men are more often than not the ones who start these threads?

Even full-term infants sometimes need "mechanical assistance" after being born. There is no definitive cut-off date, before which it is more or less moral to abort. Viability, as far as I know, is not defined as that point at which an infant can survive outside the womb with no assistance, mechanical or otherwise.

Up to a point, a fetus born prematurely couldn't survive with or without assistance. It is not viable outside the womb under any circumstances. Once it passes this somewhat arbitrary and variable point, it might be considered viable, or provisionally viable, but it would require plenty of assistance: respirators, incubators, constant care, medications, and so forth.

If, for instance, the lungs are still too under-developed to function, the fetus cannot survive birth. Hook it up to a dozen respirators, give it surfactant to promote lung compliance, what have you, it won't live. It can't live. What day of pregnancy is that, exactly?

The average human pregnancy lasts 280 days. We do not, to the best of my knowledge, have an abortion cut-off point at, say, 190 days exactly. Or any other number. In fact, viability is determined by a number of things in addition to time. Fetal weight, rate of development, and so on.

For instance:

Feb. 21, 2007 LOS ANGELES — The world's youngest surviving baby, born at 21 weeks and six days and weighing just 10 ounces, is due to be discharged from hospital this week after a battle for life described as miraculous.

With feet the size of an adult's little fingernail, Amillia Taylor measured 9.5 inches — not much longer than a ballpoint pen — when she was born at a Florida hospital on October 24.

The odds were stacked against her. Doctors consider babies who weigh less than 14.1 ounces to have no chance of survival. And no infant born before 23 weeks has survived until now.


http://www.nysun.com/national/youngest-premature-babys-survival-called-a-miracle/49036/

That article says weight is a considerable factor.


There doesn't appear to be a set of circumstances upon which to nail a proclaimation that after this point, you cannot abort.

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't like the idea of killing a fetus that can survive on its own outside the womb without mechanical assistance. If all it needs is oxygen, food, water, and a hug...then I think its past the point of abortion.

Now someone tell me at what point of pregnancy this is.

College?

[Brian-M]

I don't like the idea of killing a fetus that can survive on its own outside the womb without mechanical assistance. If all it needs is oxygen, food, water, and a hug...then I think its past the point of abortion.

Now someone tell me at what point of pregnancy this is.


Wikipedia is your friend. The point at which a baby can usually survive on it's own is around eight months after conception.

a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require medical interventions.


Babies born earlier than this still have a high rate of survival.

The earliest gestational age at which the infant has at least a 50% chance of survival is referred to as the limit of viability. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks,[65][66] although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks.

ETA: But babies born this early do require mechanical assistance.

[Brian5000]

Why is this currious? Partial Birth abortion is a political term, not a medical one. It is one ment to inspire emotional reactions and so has nothing to to with rational arguments.

I guess that's true. I think politics and medicine often don't mix. I just think it's sad that people fought against it without really understanding what it is. I remember the adds about support for banning partial birth abortion took the procedure completely out of context suggesting that it was a voluntary act. Then, I actually looked it up that I found out that partial birth abortion had never been used in that way.

I tend to think mother takes precidence, but I admit to feeling that maybe risk is a more nobel course of action. On the other hand, I knew a woman who discovered halfway through her pregnancy that she had breast cancer and decided to press on with the pregancy. The child is fine, but she died without seeing out its first year. Had she terminated and fought the cancer immediately she almost certainly would have lived -- pregnacy can multiply the hazards of cancer.

I don't think any woman is ever forced to have an abortion, but few women (or men for that matter) would have the strength to take the bullet like that. I commend her bravery.

Might even be considered murder -- I dunno. My point though was that it would be a crime difficult to detect as the fact that the procedure was performed wouldn't be questioned, in and of itself. It's one of those remote but realistic possibilities that some people but up as an argument against any wiggle room in normal abortion law. I don't feel it's sufficient, though maybe higher standards of documentation are warranted for such cases so long as it doesn't interfere with emergency treatment.

I know about the potential freedoms granted to physicians. When the only checks and balances are a medical review board consisting of one's close, personal friends, there's a lot one can get away with. I would love to see major reforms here; I don't know what, but I think the system at work only sometimes works.

[hamelekim]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.

[Brian-M]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.


What about rape victims? Or faulty birth control products?

[slingblade]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.

If a woman gets pregnant, she should do what seems best to her. When it's your body, you get to say what happens to it. When it's not, you don't.

[Cynic]

If a woman gets pregnant, she should do what seems best to her. When it's your body, you get to say what happens to it. When it's not, you don't.

And of course when one of the two bodies involved isn't yours, it gets more complicated to make such pronouncements about.

[Sun Countess]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.
Are you going to share your reasoning for that? Otherwise, your main argument seems to be "Women are stupid so their feelings don't count."

[ponderingturtle]

People can be indecisive, or lose their nerve, or have their life circumstances change, etc. The extreme dogma of "abortion is wrong under any circumstances" may lead to reason being abandoned, but the equally extreme dogma of "it's a woman's choice, period, and offspring don't have rights until they're born" is more likely to lead to the above scenario than any other.

So what percentage of late term abortions are those anyway?
I'm going to give you a chance to explain that comment. Make it good -- she was a friend of mine.

She died heroicaly by her choice, why not view it as it was. She died for her beliefs.

[ponderingturtle]

If, for instance, the lungs are still too under-developed to function, the fetus cannot survive birth. Hook it up to a dozen respirators, give it surfactant to promote lung compliance, what have you, it won't live. It can't live. What day of pregnancy is that, exactly?

On a related note I have heard of 7lbs premature babies, they where full sized but the lungs were not fully developed.

[ponderingturtle]

I guess that's true. I think politics and medicine often don't mix. I just think it's sad that people fought against it without really understanding what it is. I remember the adds about support for banning partial birth abortion took the procedure completely out of context suggesting that it was a voluntary act. Then, I actually looked it up that I found out that partial birth abortion had never been used in that way.


Again you are using the anti abortion politcal slogan. It also never adressed the procedure that would be done instead. The law did nothing to prevent abortions from happening just used politcal pressure to decide the procedure instead of what was best for the patient.

[Cynic]

She died heroicaly by her choice, why not view it as it was. She died for her beliefs.

And this makes you think I'm glad she died?

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.We all make stupid choices. We develop addictions to drugs, we smoke, we get pregnant, we drive without seat belts, the list goes on. But oddly, no one is suggesting we withhold treatment from lung cancer patients.

[Brian5000]

We all make stupid choices. We develop addictions to drugs, we smoke, we get pregnant, we drive without seat belts, the list goes on. But oddly, no one is suggesting we withhold treatment from lung cancer patients.

I have to say that, while many smokers get lung cancer, most people with lung cancer don't smoke. It actually a pretty common cancer type in its own right, even without smoking to help it along.

[fls]

I have to say that, while many smokers get lung cancer, most people with lung cancer don't smoke. It actually a pretty common cancer type in its own right, even without smoking to help it along.

Ummm....no.

Where did you get that little tidbit of misinformation?

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

People on this issue, and on others (likes school prayer), have been known to demand laws be changed to what they already are. No, it doesn't make sense.

Very well said.

That reminds me of Palin's campaign to remove the "death panels" from proposed health insurance reforms. . .and her subsequent taking credit for having succeeded (even though they never existed in any of the proposals and all she succeeded in doing was getting the Senate Finance bill to remove language that would ensure counseling sessions to come up with a living well or advance directives would be paid for).

[slingblade]

And of course when one of the two bodies involved isn't yours, it gets more complicated to make such pronouncements about.

No, it actually doesn't.

I have no problem agreeing that every man and woman has the right to decide what happens with his or her own body. This includes abortion.

I don't go around telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and that includes those who are pregnant.

I most certainly detest abortion as birth control, but it isn't my decision to make for anyone but myself. I have no right to tell you that you must abort, or that you must not. You have no right to tell me the same.

It isn't at all difficult or complicated. Your body, your decision. I get that some people don't like this. That's the way it goes.

[Cynic]

No, it actually doesn't.

I have no problem agreeing that every man and woman has the right to decide what happens with his or her own body. This includes abortion.

I don't go around telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and that includes those who are pregnant.

I most certainly detest abortion as birth control, but it isn't my decision to make for anyone but myself. I have no right to tell you that you must abort, or that you must not. You have no right to tell me the same.

It isn't at all difficult or complicated. Your body, your decision. I get that some people don't like this. That's the way it goes.

Well believe me when I say that I'm looking to insult anyone, get into a heated argument, or take this down a long and tiring road to hell. But, it's an abortion thread and these things happen. Specifically, this is a thread about late term abortion.

If I'm reading your reply correctly, I think you might have misinterpreted my intent. I wasn't referring to the man as the second body. That's a whole other can of worms right there. (And perhaps partly an answer to why it's men that start these threads -- it's the only way we can get in on the debate.)

I was refering to the offspring in question. Most of us -- and I include myself -- agree that abortion is pretty much an uncomplicated choice, ethically at least, in the first trimester. It's during the second and certainly the third that it gets muddy. Everyone knows, intellectually, that one's right to enforce their will ends at the tip of someone else's nose. For a pregant woman, there's a nose growing inside her. It's not it's fault. It didn't ask to be there. And it can't be held responsible.

Your stern pronoucement of "that's the way it goes" is false. It's not clear at all what rights the owner of that nose should have. It's a matter of degrees, not some boolean switch that triggers when the thing hits the air for the first time, regardless of laws to the contrary. It simply can't be that simple, ethically.

Plugging one's ears and chanting "woman's choice! woman's choice! woman's choice!" isn't an argument and it doesn't acknowledge the reality that it isn't just the woman's body at stake. I've gone on record here as feeling that if it must come down to it, the woman came first and it's her call. But it's not at all clear what qualifies as "if it must come down to it". I don't think "because I don't want it" qualifies after a certain hard to define point. It's got to be life or death, IMO, as with my friend who gambled and lost. I too am proud of her for being so brave. But I also would have been proud of her for making the hard choice to live and try again.

Anyway, the point is there is room for debate on the ethics, and room for justifying rules that would increasingly restrict the the legal options as the pregnacy advances into those last weeks. Nothing is ever as simple as what you're saying, and in this case, there comes a time to consider the rights of the offspring regardless of where it should happen to find itself.

[Brian5000]

Ummm....no.

Where did you get that little tidbit of misinformation?

Linda

A news article a while ago...but a quick visit to Mayo Clinic, Lungcancer.org and Wikipedia says different. Sorry, my mistake :(

[Brian-M]

Just to get some perspective....

How many people believe that late-term abortions are OK when the woman's health is not at risk?

How many people strongly object to late-term abortion in the rare cases where it comes down to a choice between the mother's life or her baby's?

I'm asking because I'm wondering exactly where the main source of contention arises.

[SusanB-M1]

Just to get some perspective....

How many people believe that late-term abortions are OK when the woman's health is not at risk?
Impossible to generalise - individual circumstances would always apply, I think.
How many people strongly object to late-term abortion in the rare cases where it comes down to a choice between the mother's life or her baby's?
Other people objecting might help to persuade the mother, but I would not have the right to strongly object.
I'm asking because I'm wondering exactly where the main source of contention arises.
I'm afraid I just don't know.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just to get some perspective....

How many people believe that late-term abortions are OK when the woman's health is not at risk?

One here, at least. The simple fact is that unwanted pregnancies don't get to be late term pregnancies. Late term abortions are incredibly rare and happen because the mother or the child has a serious and unexpected medical problem. In those cases I completely support the right to an abortion if the mother wants one.

[slingblade]

Well believe me when I say that I'm looking to insult anyone, get into a heated argument, or take this down a long and tiring road to hell. But, it's an abortion thread and these things happen. Specifically, this is a thread about late term abortion.

Yeah. I know.

Are you a lawmaker? I'm not. Roe v. Wade came about in my lifetime. No one asked me if I thought it was a good idea. But should I want to avail myself of an abortion, I can, within certain limits. I think this is generally a good thing. I'm in favor of protecting that right.

If I'm reading your reply correctly, I think you might have misinterpreted my intent. I wasn't referring to the man as the second body.

Yeah. I knew you meant the fetus. It wasn't a riddle.
I disagree that it's necessarily a person, however. I think it's more of...a fetus. Yeah, we'll just stick with that term. Fetus.

That's a whole other can of worms right there. (And perhaps partly an answer to why it's men that start these threads -- it's the only way we can get in on the debate.)

By all means, debate all you like. But when it comes to my reproduction, it's only your business if you were part of the process. You weren't? Then what I do with my reproduction isn't any of your business.

I was refering to the offspring in question. Most of us -- and I include myself -- agree that abortion is pretty much an uncomplicated choice, ethically at least, in the first trimester. It's during the second and certainly the third that it gets muddy. Everyone knows, intellectually, that one's right to enforce their will ends at the tip of someone else's nose. For a pregant woman, there's a nose growing inside her. It's not it's fault. It didn't ask to be there. And it can't be held responsible.

And, let me repeat because evidently I can't say it often enough:

It isn't any of my business if it isn't my body.
I am not in favor of abortion as birth control, but what I do or don't favor has nothing to do with you, does it? It doesn't really matter at all to you or your life, and that is how it should be.

Your stern

Flip, actually.
I'm pretty much at a loss as to how you came up with that characterization, but I do note it's a negative characterization. Try to refrain from that sort of tactic in future. You'll find it pretty much a non-starter.

pronoucement of "that's the way it goes" is false.

Not a bit. Let's take a look at what I actually said:

"Your body, your decision. I get that some people don't like this. That's the way it goes."

I'll help you decipher, shall I? My opinion is that if it is your body, what you do with it is your decision. I get that some people don't like my opinion, but there is little I can do about their disfavor of my opinion.

I made no false statement there. What follows is you reading a ridiculous amount of stuff I never said into the above comments. Try not to do that again.

It's not clear at all what rights the owner of that nose should have. It's a matter of degrees, not some boolean switch that triggers when the thing hits the air for the first time, regardless of laws to the contrary. It simply can't be that simple, ethically.

Ethically, it can be whatever I decide my ethical stance on it is. Once more: you do not decide my ethics for me. The public doesn't decide my ethics. I decide my ethical stance on any matter, and I alone. Now, if I break a law, and if I'm caught, I'll be held accountable for that. But this still doesn't make my reproductive choices any of your business.

Plugging one's ears and chanting "woman's choice! woman's choice! woman's choice!" isn't an argument and it doesn't acknowledge the reality that it isn't just the woman's body at stake.

Then it's a good thing I'm not doing that, isn't it?
So when I have an abortion, what's at stake for you?
Oh, you mean the fetus is at stake? Yeah. It's why we call it an abortion.

The only argument I have made is that what you decide to do with your reproduction is none of my business, and what I do with mine is none of yours. I got myself sterilized at 21. I didn't ask you if it was all right. I don't ask you if you're using any birth control, I don't worry that you might make an unfit parent someday, and I do not feel I have any right whatsoever to say who can have an abortion, or under what circumstances.

My body, my decision.

I've gone on record here as feeling that if it must come down to it, the woman came first and it's her call. But it's not at all clear what qualifies as "if it must come down to it". I don't think "because I don't want it" qualifies after a certain hard to define point. It's got to be life or death, IMO, as with my friend who gambled and lost. I too am proud of her for being so brave. But I also would have been proud of her for making the hard choice to live and try again.

Be all that as it may, her body is not my body, and therefore her decison was none of my business.

Anyway, the point is there is room for debate on the ethics, and room for justifying rules that would increasingly restrict the the legal options as the pregnacy advances into those last weeks. Nothing is ever as simple as what you're saying, and in this case, there comes a time to consider the rights of the offspring regardless of where it should happen to find itself.

The "offspring" has only the rights the society grants it. If the society grants it none, it has none. If the society grants rights, then rights obtain.

Look, I get that you're concerned that abortion rights could at some point lead to abortions being performed on near-infants. Or that they already are.
I get that you think people should try to decide just when, in the course of a pregnancy, an abortion is more like killing an about-to-be-born baby as opposed to sucking out and flushing a small cluster of cells. I get that, for some reason, you're worried that children--real, normal, healthy children just a couple of weeks short of their actual birthdays--are being murdered just as they're about to live.

I get that it's empathy that causes your concern. Or, at least, I generously assume it must be an empathetic reaction.

From what I've read on the subject, however, the vast, overwhelming majority of late-term abortions are performed for medical reasons. Not simply as birth control.

Now, knowing as I do that people are quite literally capable of just about anything, I am certain there have been and will be a certain number of late-term abortions performed purely as birth control. By that, I mean I am sure that some woman, somewhere, with the help of some doctor or nurse or PA or whatever, has extracted a near-term infant from her womb simply because she didn't want the little ankle-biter. I have already said I am not in favor of abortion as a method of birth control, so this would include the above.

I do not, in my wildest fantasies, entertain that this happens often enough that we need to do anything about it or even be concerned.
If you do, then please present some sort of evidence that this is a great enough problem that additional laws are needed.

Didn't Scott Peterson go to prison for the murder of his unborn son, and the murder of his wife? I believe that particular fetus was granted the right of personhood, before his birth, owing to the manner of his not getting born.

When is it too late to get an abortion? When it is unethical or immoral to abort, past what date, what stage of development?

I do not claim to know, or to have any way to know.
All I do know is that when I am the one who is pregnant, I am the one who decides the outcome, within the limits of the law at the time. If you go messing with those laws, you'd better show me the reasons you think they need to be changed. You'd better have evidence. I take my reproductive rights AND responsibilities very seriously. I don't want anyone using feelings and emotional appeals alone to alter them.

[fls]

And of course when one of the two bodies involved isn't yours, it gets more complicated to make such pronouncements about.

I dunno. Why can't it simply be left to those who are most intimately involved to decide whether that second body will be a person or not?

Linda

[Cynic]

Roe v. Wade came about in my lifetime. No one asked me if I thought it was a good idea.

Based on this morning's sample it seems clear that asking might have been a waste of their time since all they would have gotten in response is "my body, my choice, right or wrong". It misses the point, yeah? The question isn't if it's your choice, it's what about where the lines are for making that choice.



I disagree that it's necessarily a person, however. I think it's more of...a fetus. Yeah, we'll just stick with that term. Fetus.

I've avoided the term "fetus" just as I've avoided the word "baby". Both assume a conclusion. Everyone "knows" that babies are people and fetuses aren't. They're loaded terms and should be avoided in a discussion like this. The question is, at what point should the offspring (a silly but nonetheless neutral term) be considered a person? You say you get that, but your answers don't reflect that understanding.


And, let me repeat because evidently I can't say it often enough:

Evidently not.

It isn't any of my business if it isn't my body.

Irrelevant. The question is, at what point should we consider the offspring a person? Your insistence that your choice is your choice and that other people's choices are their choices and there is no crossover assumes a conclusion to that question. You keep admonishing me to not read things into what you're saying, but the fact is, what I'm reading into it is there regardless of where you see it or not, intentions be damned. Don't see it? Read the following sets of statements and note the differing implications:

1. I didn't want my offspring, so I killed it and had the body removed.

2. I didn't want my offspring, so in my first trimester I killed it and had the body removed.

3. I didn't want my offspring, so before kindergarten one day, I killed it and had the body removed.

Sentences 2 and 3 are essentially equivellent to sentence 1. All involve the killing of offspring and the subsequent removal of the body. Now you're probably thinking that this example is so hideously simplistic that I've obviously missed your point again. I haven't -- please bear with me.

The only differences between sentence 2 and sentence 3 are the age and locations implied, the difference between the first trimester and a kindergartener. Both are 100% compatible with sentence 1. Ethical considerations are easy here: it's understood that a first trimester offspring isn't a person and it's understood that a kindergartener is. It's understood that a first trimester offspring is in the womb and that a kindergartener offspring is not. All of that is blindingly obvious. Would you agree to the following logic?

P1: All (and only) people have rights
P2: First trimester offspring are not people
-------------------------------------
C: First trimester offspring do not have rights

P1: All (and only) people have rights
P2: Kindergartener offspring are people
---------------------------------
C: Kindergartener offspring have rights


If you agree with that logic, then you must agree that the value and truth of the second premise is significant. After all, it's the difference between sentence 2 and sentence 3 above.

Compared to that, the location (your body) is practically irrelevant under most circumstances and whether or not to kill a person isn't "your choice" any more than killing a kindergartener or your neighbor or me is.

I said before that this a matter of degrees, that consciousness or personhood isn't a boolean value, and I stand by that. But as a practical matter, a point must be arbitrarily choosen to represent that cutoff -- else we fall prey to the Loki's Wager fallacy.

So when you say "it's my body, my choice", your statement is reasonable if the offspring is not a person and unreasonable if it is. When you say "it's not my body, therefore not my choice", your statement is reasonable if the offsring is not a person and unreasonable if it is. To deny that last part is to deny that society does not have the right to create and enforce laws against murder, or theft. You wouldn't suggest that, so why do it here?


When is it too late to get an abortion? When it is unethical or immoral to abort, past what date, what stage of development?

I do not claim to know, or to have any way to know.
All I do know is that when I am the one who is pregnant, I am the one who decides the outcome, within the limits of the law at the time. If you go messing with those laws, you'd better show me the reasons you think they need to be changed. You'd better have evidence. I take my reproductive rights AND responsibilities very seriously. I don't want anyone using feelings and emotional appeals alone to alter them.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. But again, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the implications of late-term abortion. Late-term abortion is akin to sentence 1 for sure. The question is where the difference between sentence 2 and sentence 3 is. Saying "it's my body, my choice" or "it's not my body, so not my choice" doesn't speak to that question. It's a non-answer. It assumes sentence 2 is true when in fact sentence 3 might be closer to the truth. I'm not saying you're wrong to have that opinion, but I want you to understand that by having it, you're not being entirely reasonable. Blind assumption is never reasonable. The question at hand here is relevant, important. It deserves better than an extremist slogan, which is precisely what you offered regardless of your intention to do so. It is the truth of this question that would provide the justification for laws you suggest we should follow.

------

It amuses me that online in these discussions I'm always fighting pro-choicers and in "the real world" I'm always fighting pro-lifers.

[Cynic]

I dunno. Why can't it simply be left to those who are most intimately involved to decide whether that second body will be a person or not?

Will be? Or is? The difference between those is all the difference in the world. Those involved can make the first choice, because it is a choice. It's not up for anyone to decide if something is a person -- it either is or it isn't. Truth isn't a "choice". That's the question I'm discussing.

[fls]

Will be? Or is? The difference between those is all the difference in the world.

I chose my words carefully.

Those involved can make the first choice, because it is a choice. It's not up for anyone to decide if something is a person -- it either is or it isn't. Truth isn't a "choice". That's the question I'm discussing.

Is it? Because I don't see that there's any disagreement on whether a person is a person.

Linda

[Cactus Wren]

I'm against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Otherwise if a woman was foolish enough to get pregnant she should follow through with the full commitment.

== "She had sex, so she must be punished."

[Cactus Wren]

Didn't Scott Peterson go to prison for the murder of his unborn son, and the murder of his wife? I believe that particular fetus was granted the right of personhood, before his birth, owing to the manner of his not getting born.

Nope. Scott Peterson went to prison because the law in the state of California defines "murder" as "the unlawful killing of a human being OR A FETUS with malice aforethought" (emphasis mine). This specifically excludes fetuses from the category "human being".

[ponderingturtle]

I've avoided the term "fetus" just as I've avoided the word "baby". Both assume a conclusion. Everyone "knows" that babies are people and fetuses aren't. They're loaded terms and should be avoided in a discussion like this. The question is, at what point should the offspring (a silly but nonetheless neutral term) be considered a person? You say you get that, but your answers don't reflect that understanding.

Ah can't use actual clinical terms I see. Damn those scientists.


Irrelevant. The question is, at what point should we consider the offspring a person? Your insistence that your choice is your choice and that other people's choices are their choices and there is no crossover assumes a conclusion to that question. You keep admonishing me to not read things into what you're saying, but the fact is, what I'm reading into it is there regardless of where you see it or not, intentions be damned. Don't see it? Read the following sets of statements and note the differing implications:

1. I didn't want my offspring, so I killed it and had the body removed.

2. I didn't want my offspring, so in my first trimester I killed it and had the body removed.

3. I didn't want my offspring, so before kindergarten one day, I killed it and had the body removed.

Sentences 2 and 3 are essentially equivellent to sentence 1. All involve the killing of offspring and the subsequent removal of the body. Now you're probably thinking that this example is so hideously simplistic that I've obviously missed your point again. I haven't -- please bear with me.

What you are ignoreing here is the issue of can you force someone to do things to compromise their health to preserve your life. The current legal answer is no. You are arguing that fetus's should get this right.

Compared to that, the location (your body) is practically irrelevant under most circumstances and whether or not to kill a person isn't "your choice" any more than killing a kindergartener or your neighbor or me is.

Good logic for stealing kidneys too. That the kidney happened to be in your body is practically irrelevent. There are two kidneys that work and we both need one after all. Failure to give me your kidney is murder then.

So when you say "it's my body, my choice", your statement is reasonable if the offspring is not a person and unreasonable if it is.

Nope still reasonable, or you do argee with forced organ donations?

[Cynic]

Because I don't see that there's any disagreement on whether a person is a person.

Who would argue that a person isn't a person, or that killing people isn't ethically complicated? The disagreement is when a person qualifies as a person, thus entailing that complication. The statement "it's my body, my choice", without further elaboration or qualification, belies that disagreement -- pretends it doesn't exist as a potential complicator. Left by itself, it's dishonest.

Let's take two examples. In these examples, I don't care about what the law says or how often it happens in reality. It is and has been irrelevant to my point.


In one scenario, somewhere in the third trimester the mother decides she doesn't want to have it anymore and has an abortion.

In the second scenario, also in the third trimester, the mother is told that if she has the baby, she'll die. So she decides to have an abortion.


In both scenarios, the outcomes are the same, but in the second scenario the mother has more justification. No one disagrees with that. The disgreement is this: When your only rule is "it's my body, my choice" and "it's not my body, thus not my choice", justification isn't relevant, cannot be relevant. If we declare that the offspring isn't a person, that's fine. No "person" is hurt as a consequence of the decision in either scenario. But if the offspring is a person, one choice is murder and the other is self defense.

[Cynic]

Ah can't use actual clinical terms I see. Damn those scientists.

The desire to squelch one emotion is the desire to being another into focus. My desire is to squelch them all. Both "baby" and "fetus" carry connotations that are unproductive here, distract, and invite equivocations and accusations of equivocations.

The difference between a baby and a fetus is the difference between being in or out of the womb. As that distinction holds no meaning here, those terms are, at most, inappropriate. (Damn those logicians.)



What you are ignoring here is the issue of can you force someone to do things to compromise their health to preserve your life. The current legal answer is no. You are arguing that fetus's should get this right.

No, I'm not. I'm not arguing the law. I'm not arguing that that non-persons have rights. I'm not arguing that persons who happen to be in the womb take precidence over the person they happen to reside in. I've said as much before.

I am arguing only that determination of personhood matters. The statement "it's my body, my choice" doesn't allow for that distinction, and therefore doesn't allow for something that matters. As I suggested in a previous post to Linda, it can mean the difference between murder and self defense, regardless of what the law says. It's an ethical thing. It's a factor that should be known about and considered before the person whose body it is goes ahead and makes that choice. Pretending the distinction doesn't exist is less than helpful in that regard.

Good logic for stealing kidneys too. That the kidney happened to be in your body is practically irrelevent. There are two kidneys that work and we both need one after all. Failure to give me your kidney is murder then.

I have no idea where you're getting this. Can you explain?

[fls]

Who would argue that a person isn't a person, or that killing people isn't ethically complicated? The disagreement is when a person qualifies as a person, thus entailing that complication. The statement "it's my body, my choice", without further elaboration or qualification, belies that disagreement -- pretends it doesn't exist as a potential complicator. Left by itself, it's dishonest.

That's why I suggested that we not consider that argument, but rather leave it up to the people most intimately involved to decide whether that fetus will be a person, because it seems that the commitment to using "my body" follows from that.

Let's take two examples. In these examples, I don't care about what the law says or how often it happens in reality. It is and has been irrelevant to my point.

In one scenario, somewhere in the third trimester the mother decides she doesn't want to have it anymore and has an abortion.

In the second scenario, also in the third trimester, the mother is told that if she has the baby, she'll die. So she decides to have an abortion.

In both scenarios, the outcomes are the same, but in the second scenario the mother has more justification. No one disagrees with that. The disgreement is this: When your only rule is "it's my body, my choice" and "it's not my body, thus not my choice", justification isn't relevant, cannot be relevant. If we declare that the offspring isn't a person, that's fine. No "person" is hurt as a consequence of the decision in either scenario. But if the offspring is a person, one choice is murder and the other is self defense.

When is that first scenario ever a consideration? The decision as to whether a fetus will be considered a person usually happens during the first trimester. Women commit to a pregnancy long before the third trimester except under quite unusual circumstances.

ETA: I don't want to seem like I'm dodging the question. I would find it very difficult not to view the aborting of a viable fetus as a murder. I don't actually see how this can be considered ethical behaviour on the part of a physician. And it would require a mother with a very unusual state of mind. Is this really something that happens in the absence of congenital abnormalities and life-threatening complications of pregnancy?

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

The desire to squelch one emotion is the desire to being another into focus. My desire is to squelch them all. Both "baby" and "fetus" carry connotations that are unproductive here, distract, and invite equivocations and accusations of equivocations.

The difference between a baby and a fetus is the difference between being in or out of the womb. As that distinction holds no meaning here, those terms are, at most, inappropriate.

Good to see you have the absolute moral authority to determine what differences are meaningful and what ones are not.


No, I'm not. I'm not arguing the law. I'm not arguing that that non-persons have rights. I'm not arguing that persons who happen to be in the womb take precidence over the person they happen to reside in. I've said as much before.

You are arguing what is right or wrong, and what you think the law should be. If you are not then you are arguing nothing. No one here thinks you should get an abortion if you don't want one.

I am arguing only that determination of personhood matters.

And you are clearly wrong. A parent can legaly kill their kid in so many ways, say refusing to give them a bone marrow transplant. What should be done about such situations?

The statement "it's my body, my choice" doesn't allow for that distinction, and therefore doesn't allow for something that matters.

The distinction is unimportant. It is only with pregnancies that people talk about forcing someone to undergo medicaly risky procedures and conditions to keep someone else alive. Why is pregnancy so unique, why can't you apply the same principles to other situation and force more people to have medical procedures against their wishes?

Pretending the distinction doesn't exist is less than helpful in that regard.

It is unimportant. Unless you recognise any kind of general obligation to give your body to others, it is something you are only recognizing in the case of pregnancy. Why? Why can't I forceably take your kidney if it will not kill you and save my life?


I have no idea where you're getting this. Can you explain?

People die needing a kidney all the time, and people can donate a kidney and have minimal health consequences. I am not sure that the risks with donanting a kidney are significantly worse than pregnancy, so why shouldn't people be forced to donate kidneys to save the lives of these people(and that they are people is no question).

[Cynic]

That's why I suggested that we not consider that argument, but rather leave it up to the people most intimately involved to decide whether that fetus will be a person, because it seems that the commitment to using "my body" follows from that.

We're going in circles on this one. My point isn't about deciding if the offspring will be a person, it's about deciding when it is a person. The decision to allow the offspring to become a person must necessarily take place before that moment of becoming a person (however that is defined) takes place, else that ship has sailed and there is no "decision" to speak of.

Besides the necessarily arbitrary nature of selecting a moment of personhood in an organism with incremental development, once selected it's not subject to "choice". A thing is either a person or it isn't. What would be purpose of leaving the assignment of that definition to those intimately involved be? I use the word arbitrary, but arbitrary need not be random, not should it, to be useful in ethics, be subject to whims. That would be like allowing a doctor to decide what "dead" is on the spur of the moment to better facilitate his desire to go golfing, rather than engage in tedious attempts at recussitation.


When is that first scenario ever a consideration? The decision as to whether a fetus will be considered a person usually happens during the first trimester. Women commit to a pregnancy long before the third trimester except under quite unusual circumstances.

I will quote myself:

In these examples, I don't care about what the law says or how often it happens in reality. It is and has been irrelevant to my point.

It stands as an example, not as a likely example. Laws are, in theory, an application of ethics. Breaking the law is not in an of itself unethics, except in terms of the affect that can have on a society. It's breaking the ethics that the law is based on that is unethical by definition. So the law is irrelevant here. If that scenario were to happen in reality and the facts were brought to light, which side of "is a person" the offspring was on makes a real difference. If a decision had to be made as to whether charges should be filed, we'd need something better than "well, we thought about it and decided it wasn't a person."

[slingblade]

I don't see how I could have been any more clear, but I'll try one more time, and then I'm done with it.

I don't know where the law ought to draw the line and say that abortion is illegal as a method of birth control after X date. I do not know when that point is, or if I even think there is such a point, because it all depends on so many factors, so many variables.

I do know that when I am considering an abortion, my decision is none of your business.

That's the best I can do for you. Take it or leave it.

[Cynic]

I do know that when I am considering an abortion, my decision is none of your business.

That's the best I can do for you. Take it or leave it.

Wow. So, you just spent a whole lot of time and effort -- and a whole lot of my time and effort -- to press home a defense of your autonomy when it was never under attack? Defensive much?

[Cynic]

Good to see you have the absolute moral authority to determine what differences are meaningful and what ones are not.

We both have that authority, which comes from logic -- I'm just the only one weilding it.


You are arguing what is right or wrong, and what you think the law should be. If you are not then you are arguing nothing. No one here thinks you should get an abortion if you don't want one.

Was this meant for another window?


And you are clearly wrong. A parent can legaly kill their kid in so many ways, say refusing to give them a bone marrow transplant. What should be done about such situations?

I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.
I'm not arguing the law.

However, killing your kid falls into a range of ethical breaches, from neglect to murder.

(BTW) I'm not arguing the law.


The distinction is unimportant. It is only with pregnancies that people talk about forcing someone to undergo medicaly risky procedures and conditions to keep someone else alive. Why is pregnancy so unique, why can't you apply the same principles to other situation and force more people to have medical procedures against their wishes?

It would be more accurate to say that the distinction isn't understood.

If the offspring isn't a person, then it's pretty much like your kindey. If you want to remove it, go right ahead. If you don't, more power to you.

If the offspring is a person, then it's not your kidney. (What part of "is a person" aren't you grasping here?) If having it in your body is risking your health and you want to remove it, that's fine, ethically, because it's essentially self-defense. If it's not risking your health then it's murder.


It is unimportant. Unless you recognise any kind of general obligation to give your body to others, it is something you are only recognizing in the case of pregnancy. Why? Why can't I forceably take your kidney if it will not kill you and save my life?

Because kindeys aren't people? If happened to have a kidney that was a person (*sigh*) and I needed it to live I couldn't take it from you, not just because it's in your body, but because it isn't yours either. Ethically, a person belongs to itself. Or... oh. Wait. You're not trying to bring slavery back... are you?

(You don't need to answer that last question -- I'm just frustrated for being made to talk about kindeys as if they were people to explain a point that shouldn't have been "misunderstood" in the first place.)


People die needing a kidney all the time, and people can donate a kidney and have minimal health consequences. I am not sure that the risks with donanting a kidney are significantly worse than pregnancy, so why shouldn't people be forced to donate kidneys to save the lives of these people(and that they are people is no question).

Seriously. Where's the eyeroll emoticon? :rolleyes: Oh, is that it? There.

[Luzz]

I am pregnant, from the 20th week of my pregnancy I have seen on the scan how the fetus moves his arms, his legs, I even saw him yawning once. Do I control any of his movements? No, I don´t. It is very clear that this fetus is independent from me, he is using my body to grow and develop but he is not an extension of my body, like an arm or a leg.
Just because he is growing inside me, it does not give me the right to put a death sentence on him for the simple reason that I don´t see it as "my body". The fetus is another being, I cannot control him.
Abortion is an ethical issue and as such there is no way to know what is right or wrong. Until I fell pregnant I was a pro choice, but now I am not that sure.

[slingblade]

Wow. So, you just spent a whole lot of time and effort -- and a whole lot of my time and effort -- to press home a defense of your autonomy when it was never under attack? Defensive much?

Controlling and insulting much?

By the way, I never spent one moment of your time. You did that all by yourself.

[Elaedith]

<snip>
If the offspring isn't a person, then it's pretty much like your kindey. If you want to remove it, go right ahead. If you don't, more power to you.

If the offspring is a person, then it's not your kidney. (What part of "is a person" aren't you grasping here?) If having it in your body is risking your health and you want to remove it, that's fine, ethically, because it's essentially self-defense. If it's not risking your health then it's murder.


Because kindeys aren't people? If happened to have a kidney that was a person (*sigh*) and I needed it to live I couldn't take it from you, not just because it's in your body, but because it isn't yours either. Ethically, a person belongs to itself. Or... oh. Wait. You're not trying to bring slavery back... are you?

(You don't need to answer that last question -- I'm just frustrated for being made to talk about kindeys as if they were people to explain a point that shouldn't have been "misunderstood" in the first place.)




I don't think the analogy was that removing a kidney is like removing a person. I think the analogy was that donating a kidney to save a life is like letting a fetus (or person) use your body to survive, and that requiring a person to do the latter is like requiring them to donate a kidney (which is not considered morally acceptable even though somebody dies without it).

[fls]

We're going in circles on this one. My point isn't about deciding if the offspring will be a person, it's about deciding when it is a person. The decision to allow the offspring to become a person must necessarily take place before that moment of becoming a person (however that is defined) takes place, else that ship has sailed and there is no "decision" to speak of.

Besides the necessarily arbitrary nature of selecting a moment of personhood in an organism with incremental development, once selected it's not subject to "choice". A thing is either a person or it isn't. What would be purpose of leaving the assignment of that definition to those intimately involved be? I use the word arbitrary, but arbitrary need not be random, not should it, to be useful in ethics, be subject to whims. That would be like allowing a doctor to decide what "dead" is on the spur of the moment to better facilitate his desire to go golfing, rather than engage in tedious attempts at recussitation.

I'm sorry. Maybe I have an abyssmal imagination, but I cannot think of a scenario where a woman commits to a pregnancy, hoping to eventually deliver a healthy baby, and you need to interfere with that process. And I don't understand how that relates to late-term abortion. As far as I understand, we are referring to abortions performed with the consent of the woman.

I will quote myself:

It stands as an example, not as a likely example. Laws are, in theory, an application of ethics. Breaking the law is not in an of itself unethics, except in terms of the affect that can have on a society. It's breaking the ethics that the law is based on that is unethical by definition. So the law is irrelevant here. If that scenario were to happen in reality and the facts were brought to light, which side of "is a person" the offspring was on makes a real difference. If a decision had to be made as to whether charges should be filed, we'd need something better than "well, we thought about it and decided it wasn't a person."

Why?

Linda

[fls]

If the offspring is a person, then it's not your kidney. (What part of "is a person" aren't you grasping here?) If having it in your body is risking your health and you want to remove it, that's fine, ethically, because it's essentially self-defense. If it's not risking your health then it's murder.

I don't think you understood. If a fetus is a person, it is using your body as an incubator. An ordinary person may use your body as a source for an organ (in this case, a kidney). The comparison isn't between fetus and kidney, it's between fetus and ordinary person.

Linda

[Cynic]

I'm sorry. Maybe I have an abyssmal imagination, but I cannot think of a scenario where a woman commits to a pregnancy, hoping to eventually deliver a healthy baby, and you need to interfere with that process. And I don't understand how that relates to late-term abortion. As far as I understand, we are referring to abortions performed with the consent of the woman.

Where is all this talk about "my need to interfere" coming from? I'm talking about ethical boundries here, boundries that exist in the absence of me, the law, the police, the doctors, and whether or not the people intimately involved (who I gather includes the mother only) appreciates the ethics involved or not. I'm not talking about what I want, or the law, or if this scenario is likely -- if it can be imagined or not.

My point is and always has been about the ethical consequences surrounding the the point at which the offspring might best be considered a person (as opposed to a thing). The "location" of that point cannot be "up to those people most intimately involved" because the definition of such a point is not variable. As such, the reason it isn't up to those most intimately involved is because there is nothting for them to decide as regards the point at which the offspring becomes a person.

This isn't about the decision to abort. It's about the implications of that decision based upon whether the offspring is or isn't a person at that time. This has everything to do with late-term abortion for that reason -- it is generally agreed that the point we (or at least I) am talking about occurs within that timeframe.

[Cynic]

I don't think you understood. If a fetus is a person, it is using your body as an incubator. An ordinary person may use your body as a source for an organ (in this case, a kidney). The comparison isn't between fetus and kidney, it's between fetus and ordinary person.

Then it's a false analogy.

Generally, we talk about the woman's body as being her's an the offspring as being some sort of invader, a parasite. And parasite is a very good analogy for it. If some other person were to just up and take one of her organs, they'd be parasites too. But here is where assuming the conclusion ("my body, my choice") becomes an issue:

At the point where the offpsring is best considered a person (and not a thing), from the offspring's perspective the woman's body is its -- this is my incubator, it might think, if it could. The woman respresents a whole network of external support organs that it depends on to survive, and from the perspective of a person that finds itself in that situation, those organs are every bit as much its as they are her's.

It isn't just one or the other. This offspring didn't ask to be there, or seize an opportunity, as with the other people stealing organs. Those people are making a choice. The offlspring person didn't make any such choice. It isn't to blame, and it doesn't need it for long.

Again, this whole conversation isn't about the law, or taking people's choices away, or any of that. It's about the ethical implications at the point where that offspring is considered a person and not a thing. "My body, my choice" does not acknowledge the distinction -- it is an emotional, amoral slogan. Not immoral, amoral. It's no better, really, than what anti-abortionists suggest to replace it with. "My body, my choice" as such does not relate to the problems presented in this thread, and that is where this discussion got started.

[fls]

Where is all this talk about "my need to interfere" coming from? I'm talking about ethical boundries here, boundries that exist in the absence of me, the law, the police, the doctors, and whether or not the people intimately involved (who I gather includes the mother only) appreciates the ethics involved or not. I'm not talking about what I want, or the law, or if this scenario is likely -- if it can be imagined or not.

My point is and always has been about the ethical consequences surrounding the the point at which the offspring might best be considered a person (as opposed to a thing). The "location" of that point cannot be "up to those people most intimately involved" because the definition of such a point is not variable. As such, the reason it isn't up to those most intimately involved is because there is nothting for them to decide as regards the point at which the offspring becomes a person.

This isn't about the decision to abort. It's about the implications of that decision based upon whether the offspring is or isn't a person at that time. This has everything to do with late-term abortion for that reason -- it is generally agreed that the point we (or at least I) am talking about occurs within that timeframe.

I am suggesting that there is a sort of tautology at play. That is, a man and woman choosing to abort their fetus, by definition, do not regard that fetus as a person.

Linda

[fls]

It isn't just one or the other. This offspring didn't ask to be there, or seize an opportunity, as with the other people stealing organs. Those people are making a choice.

These people made the choice to have polycystic liver disease so that they would require a liver transplant for continued survival? I highly doubt that.

The offlspring person didn't make any such choice. It isn't to blame, and it doesn't need it for long.

You've clearly never been pregnant. :)

Linda

[westprog]

I am suggesting that there is a sort of tautology at play. That is, a man and woman choosing to abort their fetus, by definition, do not regard that fetus as a person.

Linda

They might or might not. They are not treating the fetus as a person, certainly.

[fls]

They might or might not. They are not treating the fetus as a person, certainly.

Exactly. My intention is not to quibble over what is in someone's mind. Perhaps a statment like "the man and woman do not act as though they consider their fetus a person" captures the idea?

Linda

[Cynic]

I am suggesting that there is a sort of tautology at play. That is, a man and woman choosing to abort their fetus, by definition, do not regard that fetus as a person.

"By definition" in this case highlights the problem. It also highlights the problem with using the word "fetus", which includes the property of "not a person" in its definition. Facts are being assumed in the definition, the situation, etc. I'm suggesting that there is a point at which the offspring is a person rather than a thing, and that this point isn't subject to whim. Ignorance of the point doesn't make it not exist. If the decision to abort (and the abortion itself, of course) takes place before that point, then it's fine. If it falls after that, it's more complicated. Sure, if they weren't aware than their decision amounts to murder, they shouldn't be judged as if they were. But again, this isn't about judgement. It's about understanding the ethics involved.

[Cynic]

These people made the choice to have polycystic liver disease so that they would require a liver transplant for continued survival? I highly doubt that.


No, they would have made the choice to take your organs in the scenario presented. The offspring didn't choose the host. That's an important and analogy breaking distinction.



You've clearly never been pregnant. :)


As the scenario takes place in the third trimester, it's not that long. But yeah, I have two kids and at least have a sense of how long those three months can seem.

[fls]

No, they would have made the choice to take your organs in the scenario presented. The offspring didn't choose the host. That's an important and analogy breaking distinction.

Let's use bone marrow transplant as an example in order to demonstrate how this does not break the analogy. The matching of bone marrow is highly restricted, such that you could be the only person who is a match to someone who will die without this transplant. They are not choosing to steal your bone marrow - they couldn't care less about your bone marrow. They are choosing to live. If choosing to live meant taking a medicine, they would take that medicine instead of taking your bone marrow. Whether or not their illness is treatable by bone marrow transplant is not a choice made by the individual. The problem is that it is your body and only your body which can allow them to live. They did not choose to have life-threatening aplastic anemia. They did not choose you as the host of the only marrow which happens to match theirs. They did not choose to have an illness whose only remaining solution was bone marrow transplant.

To donate marrow is easily less life-threatening, less painful, and less disruptive to your life than the final trimester of pregnancy and the delivery of a baby. And yet we still consider this a voluntary process. We don't have laws which make it a crime to withhold this life-saving use of your body, even though the other person did not choose to be entirely dependent upon your body for their life.

Linda

[fls]

"By definition" in this case highlights the problem. It also highlights the problem with using the word "fetus", which includes the property of "not a person" in its definition. Facts are being assumed in the definition, the situation, etc.

Exactly. Which is why the solution seems to be to simply make all of this explicit. The man and woman do not act as though they consider their fetus a person.

I'm suggesting that there is a point at which the offspring is a person rather than a thing, and that this point isn't subject to whim. Ignorance of the point doesn't make it not exist. If the decision to abort (and the abortion itself, of course) takes place before that point, then it's fine. If it falls after that, it's more complicated. Sure, if they weren't aware than their decision amounts to murder, they shouldn't be judged as if they were. But again, this isn't about judgement. It's about understanding the ethics involved.

"After this point, a man a woman must act as though their fetus is a person."

Okay. So what are the ethics involved in allowing another person to make use of your body against your will?

Linda

[shalomsteph]

I had a second trimester abortion...by the now deceased Dr. George Tiller. It was not a planned pregnancy, but abortion was never a consideration. We went in for the ultrasound at 17 weeks, and the baby's head was extremely large. We followed up with more ultrasounds, and the diagnosis of hydrocephaly was made. If the baby survived the pregnancy, she would have died shortly after birth. And she would have to be delivered by C section, which was a rather large risk to me, as I had two previous C sections. Sure, if the baby were going to be healthy it was a risk I was willing to take, but for a baby who was going to die? Not so much.

I ended up getting the abortion at 22 weeks, because we made a decision pretty quickly. We DID do a dilation and extraction-ie partial birth abortion. For us, it was a good way to go because it was the safest for me, especially because (pardon the bluntness) her head was so large. It helped me avoid any surgical interventions.

It was not something I wanted to do, and it was extremely emotional. It was, indeed, the loss of a child that we wanted. But, she was not meant to be, and I can live with that.

I do want to add that I went into true mourning when Dr. Tiller was killed. He was kind, professional and very empathetic. He understood that we didn't want to be there. He offered us services such as baptism and cremation. (Since we are Jewish, neither applied) He called the fetus "she" and asked if we had a name for her. He explained things taking all of this into consideration. He listened to us, and let us cry. There was not a cold or callous bone in the man's body.

Just wanted to add that. He did a job that nobody wants to do, and he did it well.

[shalomsteph]

Double post

[Brian5000]

I had a second trimester abortion...by the now deceased Dr. George Tiller. It was not a planned pregnancy, but abortion was never a consideration. We went in for the ultrasound at 17 weeks, and the baby's head was extremely large. We followed up with more ultrasounds, and the diagnosis of hydrocephaly was made. If the baby survived the pregnancy, she would have died shortly after birth. And she would have to be delivered by C section, which was a rather large risk to me, as I had two previous C sections. Sure, if the baby were going to be healthy it was a risk I was willing to take, but for a baby who was going to die? Not so much.

I ended up getting the abortion at 22 weeks, because we made a decision pretty quickly. We DID do a dilation and extraction-ie partial birth abortion. For us, it was a good way to go because it was the safest for me, especially because (pardon the bluntness) her head was so large. It helped me avoid any surgical interventions.

It was not something I wanted to do, and it was extremely emotional. It was, indeed, the loss of a child that we wanted. But, she was not meant to be, and I can live with that.

I do want to add that I went into true mourning when Dr. Tiller was killed. He was kind, professional and very empathetic. He understood that we didn't want to be there. He offered us services such as baptism and cremation. (Since we are Jewish, neither applied) He called the fetus "she" and asked if we had a name for her. He explained things taking all of this into consideration. He listened to us, and let us cry. There was not a cold or callous bone in the man's body.

Just wanted to add that. He did a job that nobody wants to do, and he did it well.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about at the start of this topic. Sometimes pregnancies just don't work out for whatever reason and intervention is necessary to stop a tragedy from escalating. I think some people in your case still get harassed like you "chose" to abort when that isn't the case at all. I think that's very unfortunate.

[Cynic]

Let's use bone marrow transplant as an example in order to demonstrate how this does not break the analogy. The matching of bone marrow is highly restricted, such that you could be the only person who is a match to someone who will die without this transplant. They are not choosing to steal your bone marrow - they couldn't care less about your bone marrow. They are choosing to live. If choosing to live meant taking a medicine, they would take that medicine instead of taking your bone marrow. Whether or not their illness is treatable by bone marrow transplant is not a choice made by the individual. The problem is that it is your body and only your body which can allow them to live. They did not choose to have life-threatening aplastic anemia. They did not choose you as the host of the only marrow which happens to match theirs. They did not choose to have an illness whose only remaining solution was bone marrow transplant.

Equivocating "choice" doesn't save your analogy. To take my bone marrow requires an action taken against me to bring about a situation that did not exist before. The offspring litterally finds itself in the womb without having taken an action or having had a chance to prevent that situation it finds itself in. Those are entirely different scenarios.

[fls]

Equivocating "choice" doesn't save your analogy. To take my bone marrow requires an action taken against me to bring about a situation that did not exist before. The offspring litterally finds itself in the womb without having taken an action or having had a chance to prevent that situation it finds itself in. Those are entirely different scenarios.

One person is currently alive, but their continued survival depends solely upon whether or not they are allowed the use of my body. That person did not choose to make themself solely dependent upon my body. Which person am I referring to? Is allowing the use of my body voluntary or should it be involuntary?

Linda

[Cynic]

"After this point, a man a woman must act as though their fetus is a person."

Okay. So what are the ethics involved in allowing another person to make use of your body against your will?

A technical impossibility, but I take your meaning. Maybe.

All ethics must take into account the total situation and what each party is aware of and capable of acting upon. In a situation like this, the offspring has no understanding, no responsibility, and no ability to affect its or the mother's situation. Allowing the burden it represents to come to its natural conclusion despite the hardship involved is surely more ethical in such a case than killing it. Killing it under those circumstances (if it's a person) just because it and the hardships it represents are not wanted is surely less so.

This is not like organ donation or rape or another other kind of "forced upon" scenaro you can imagine. All the power -- all of it -- is in the hands of the mother.

[Cynic]

One person is currently alive, but their continued survival depends solely upon whether or not they are allowed the use of my body. That person did not choose to make themself solely dependent upon my body. Which person am I referring to? Is allowing the use of my body voluntary or should it be involuntary?

The mother/donor's choices are voluntary at all times. At stake are the ethics of those choices and their outcomes.

[fls]

The mother/donor's choices are voluntary at all times. At stake are the ethics of those choices and their outcomes.

In this case, the outcome is the death of the person. Does that change your mind about whether allowing the use of my body should be voluntary or involuntary?

Linda

[fls]

All ethics must take into account the total situation and what each party is aware of and capable of acting upon. In a situation like this, the bone marrow recipient has no understanding, no responsibility, and no ability to affect its or the donor's situation. Allowing the burden bone marrow donation represents to come to its natural conclusion despite the hardship involved is surely more ethical in such a case than letting the person die. Letting them die under those circumstances just because bone marrow donation and the hardships it represents are not wanted is surely less so.

This is not like pregnancy or rape or another other kind of "forced upon" scenaro you can imagine. All the power -- all of it -- is in the hands of the donor.

[Cynic]

In this case, the outcome is the death of the person. Does that change your mind about whether allowing the use of my body should be voluntary or involuntary?

This has never been about volunatary versus involuntary. It's about the ethical implications of those choices when the offspring is a person.

[fls]

This has never been about volunatary versus involuntary. It's about the ethical implications of those choices when the offspring is a person.

I've already agreed that the offspring/fetus must be treated as a person.

I'm asking you whether that gets you anywhere at all considering that, even though whether or not a person continues to live is entirely dependent upon allowing the use of my body, allowing the use of my body is voluntary?

Linda

[godless dave]

Will be? Or is? The difference between those is all the difference in the world. Those involved can make the first choice, because it is a choice. It's not up for anyone to decide if something is a person -- it either is or it isn't.

That's a huge oversimplification. "Personhood" is very difficult concept to nail down.

[Cynic]

All ethics must take into account the total situation and what each party is aware of and capable of acting upon. In a situation like this, the bone marrow recipient has no understanding, no responsibility, and no ability to affect its or the donor's situation. Allowing the burden bone marrow donation represents to come to its natural conclusion despite the hardship involved is surely more ethical in such a case than letting the person die. Letting them die under those circumstances just because bone marrow donation and the hardships it represents are not wanted is surely less so.

This is not like pregnancy or rape or another other kind of "forced upon" scenaro you can imagine. All the power -- all of it -- is in the hands of the donor.

(Emphasis mine.)

Exactly -- it's a false analogy. In the case above, the potential recipient might die from lack of action on the part of the potential donor. In the scenario I'm discussing, the offspring-person would die if the woman whose womb it resides takes an action to terminate it.

Your scenario might concievably be considered depraved indifference. In my scenario, aborting requires an action.

[Cynic]

I've already agreed that the offspring/fetus must be treated as a person.

I'm asking you whether that gets you anywhere at all considering that, even though whether or not a person continues to live is entirely dependent upon allowing the use of my body, allowing the use of my body is voluntary?

What do you mean, exactly, by "gets me anywhere at all?" Are you assuming motives on my part beyond what I have already stated?

[Cynic]

That's a huge oversimplification. "Personhood" is very difficult concept to nail down.

I've simplified nothing, only suggested that there exists an arbitrary point at which we might, as a society, draw the line past which we have a person rather than a potential person. I never attempted to define such a line, though I consider a requirement for it should include the potential for consciousness.

The problem with things that are rightly best explained as a spectrum is insisting in all cases that it's a spectrum isn't necessarily honest, logically. It's like autism. At some point, the psychologist just have to know where to apply the label. To insist otherwise is to run afoul of the Loki's Wager fallacy of logic, where Loki prevents the dwarves from taking his head as part of a bet with them (that he'd lost) because "he never said anything about his neck".

[fls]

(Emphasis mine.)

Exactly -- it's a false analogy. In the case above, the potential recipient might die from lack of action on the part of the potential donor. In the scenario I'm discussing, the offspring-person would die if the woman whose womb it resides takes an action to terminate it.

Yeah, I think that that is really how the distinction is made. But I haven't yet figured out how that obviates my guilt. For example, there are situations when I've had a patient choose to die. And the way that this is accomplished is that I withhold intravenous hydration so that they die within a few days to a week from dehydration and kidney failure. Once I withhold their hydration, their death is inevitable (for example, the patient has had a basilar stroke and is "locked-in" - they have full use of their cognitive functions but no control over any voluntary muscles except their eye movements). In that case, why is it okay for me to kill them in a way that makes them suffer for a few days, but it's not okay for me to kill them in a quick and painless way (say by an overdose of IV morphine)? The difference is only one of inaction vs. action, but the outcome is no different. I'm not sure why inaction is okay, but action is not. It seems like it speaks more to something like 'plausible deniability' than the actual morality of the situation.

Your scenario might concievably be considered depraved indifference.

Okay. So why isn't depraved indifference unethical?

Linda

[fls]

What do you mean, exactly, by "gets me anywhere at all?" Are you assuming motives on my part beyond what I have already stated?

I'm assuming that you (and I really meant the plural 'you', as in anyone who participates in this discussion) are trying to find some sort of ethical principle that reasonably guides our behaviour in this situation. You seem to think that finding an absolute dividing line will provide guidance for our behaviour (i.e. it prohibits us from aborting a fetus after a certain point), because the ethics which guide us if one person needs the use of another person's body because the first person would otherwise die without the use of the seconds person's body, is crystal clear, whereas the point at which a fetus becomes a person is (in comparison), not clear. I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to be that clear either way.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a huge oversimplification. "Personhood" is very difficult concept to nail down.

I think that fuzzy idea is on the right track though. Other people suggest something like "consciousness" or "having a human brain" or some such. I like the language used in Desire Utilitarianism that says having the capacity to have desires is what really matters.

We've been having a similar discussion in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152722&page=4).

I'll repeat probably the main point that I've been making there. Morally, we draw the line where we do (in normal pregnancies, at the end of the first trimester) not because whatever level of neurological development needed for the fetus to be an entity that deserves moral consideration ("has a brain" or the capacity to have desires or whatever), but because that's the line where we're certain it hasn't yet happened.

That neurological development is a gradual process, and there is really no point where you can say one instant the fetus lacks that capacity and the next instant it has it. (In fact, pretty basic neurological development continues well past birth. Human babies don't pass the mirror test for self awareness until about 18 months of post-partum age.)

Since it's a gradual process, the best we can do is to err on the side of caution, and put the line relatively early (end of the first trimester). We are certain that the fetus lacks the neurological development to have desires before that point.

In unusual cases, like anencephaly or a baby that dies in utero, we don't use that first trimester line. Instead, we have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not the fetus is something that has the capacity for desire (and thus interests to be concerned about).

The questions to be answered in these cases (late term abortion) are actually more similar to cases of removing a feeding tube from someone who might be in a vegetative state. No one questions, for example, that Terry Schiavo was a "person" and even a "human". The question was whether she had the neurological structures to have the capacity to have desires. (She did not. Her cerebral cortex was liquified. She had no capacity to have desires and thus no interests. Morally, there was no problem with removing her feeding tube.)

[fls]

The questions to be answered in these cases (late term abortion) are actually more similar to cases of removing a feeding tube from someone who might be in a vegetative state. No one questions, for example, that Terry Schiavo was a "person" and even a "human". The question was whether she had the neurological structures to have the capacity to have desires. (She did not. Her cerebral cortex was liquified. She had no capacity to have desires and thus no interests. Morally, there was no problem with removing her feeding tube.)

No. That was not the reason her feeding tube was removed. And if it was, I'd be horribly disturbed by that reasoning. Her feeding tube was removed because it was determined that she would not have consented to the use of the feeding tube. If someone, who ended up in the very same state as Terry Schiavo, had indicated that they would consent to the use of the feeding tube, then there would be a problem with removing their feeding tube, even if they no longer had the capacity to have desire and interests.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. That was not the reason her feeding tube was removed. And if it was, I'd be horribly disturbed by that reasoning. Her feeding tube was removed because it was determined that she would not have consented to the use of the feeding tube. If someone, who ended up in the very same state as Terry Schiavo, had indicated that they would consent to the use of the feeding tube, then there would be a problem with removing their feeding tube, even if they no longer had the capacity to have desire and interests.

But what was that assumption of non-consent based on? If she were in a normal coma (showed normal EEG activity), that assumption that she didn't consent to the feeding tube would not be made.

The assumption that she didn't consent to the feeding tube was based on the fact that she lacked the neurological structures and functions to consent to anything at all.

My point was that the decision was not based on the fact that she wasn't a person. She was still a person, just one that lacked the ability to do something very important neurologically.

In the situation where someone stated ahead of time that they would consent to a feeding tube even when their cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum were completely lacking in structure, we would honor that wish the same way we would honor wishes on how to dispose of a body. That is, if someone went ahead and removed the feeding tube despite the expressed consent given earlier, the moral burden of that removal would be the same as not honoring someone's request for a closed casket funeral or cremation or whatever. It would be wrong, but it wouldn't be the moral equivalent of murder.

ETA: I'm fine with using the idea of "consent" as the particular desire that is important.

[Cynic]

Yeah, I think that that is really how the distinction is made. But I haven't yet figured out how that obviates my guilt. For example, there are situations when I've had a patient choose to die. And the way that this is accomplished is that I withhold intravenous hydration so that they die within a few days to a week from dehydration and kidney failure. Once I withhold their hydration, their death is inevitable (for example, the patient has had a basilar stroke and is "locked-in" - they have full use of their cognitive functions but no control over any voluntary muscles except their eye movements). In that case, why is it okay for me to kill them in a way that makes them suffer for a few days, but it's not okay for me to kill them in a quick and painless way (say by an overdose of IV morphine)? The difference is only one of inaction vs. action, but the outcome is no different. I'm not sure why inaction is okay, but action is not. It seems like it speaks more to something like 'plausible deniability' than the actual morality of the situation.

I don't think that's analogous either. While both sets of scenarios come down to direct action versus inaction, not all such sets are necessarily analogous. In your scenaro above, the patient is making a demand and hospital staff are compelled to comply. In your organ scenario, the patient is making a request and the donor has the choice to comply. In my offspring-person scenario, the mother makes choices in the absence of input from that which would be affected by it. For now, I'm going to assume you weren't meaning them to be analogous.

In your scenario above with the locked-in patient, the difference between a quick, merciful death and a prolonged, agonizing one is indeed one of action versus inaction. This is complicated though. For one, the decision to die was in the patient's hands and while it may not have been his preference, the manner of his death was also agreed to before it was arranged. In this case, both inaction and action have the same ultimate outcome. In the other scenarios, inaction and action do not. Huge difference. While it's clear that viewed purely in humanitarian terms inaction (watching the patient die) is worse than a quick, merciful death, it's not that simple.

I'm fond of thinking that intentions are irrelevant if the outcome is known beforehand. For instance, in this case if we assume the reasoning behind the law is to remove the burden of being "a killer" from hospital staff, the hospital, knowing that death -- a worse death, even -- will result anyway, is still placing the burden of killing on its staff. Even if they're diffussing it somewhat, as with a firing squad where only one man has a live round, in reality someone is still the killer. But it also serves the purpose of underscoring the fact that the hospital's position to save lives and it is only the patient refusing their assistance that is truly leading to death, that it isn't the hospital causing the death, but the patient themselves, by their own choice. In fact, it's a whole new kettle of worms of we contemplate a situation where the hospital can be compelled to actively kill someone. It's complicated. Personally, I see the hypocracy of it all as well as I believe you do. And personally, I think that in cases in which there is no abiguity of purpose or state of mind, that mercy killing should be legal -- so long as no one person is compelled to carry it out. Suicide should be legal, IMO, especially if the person in question has the means to carry out his choice on his own.

So why isn't depraved indifference unethical?

Well, depraved indifference is unethical. :)

Ethics can only really about comparisons, IMO. Absolute rights and wrongs are hard to pin down. To compare refusing to donate some bone marrow to a guy who's definately going to die without it versus aborting a baby that doesn't need to be aborted, there are two considerations that come to my mind.

The first consideration is one of proximity. Yes, the whole MonkeySphere thing. It's the reason we get upset when our friend dies and not so much when someone you have nothing to do with dies half-way around the world. No amount of proximity obligates us to feel or act a certain way, but yet it sort of does, or can certainly feel that way. Proximity can mean many things. Proximity can be the difference between not running out during your lunch breaks looking for little old ladies to help cross the street, refusing to help the little old lady cross the street right in front of you, or refusing to help your grandma cross the street. Any number of variables might affect the "ethics" involved there, but I think you take my meaning. In the same way, refusing an organ to a complete stranger is seen as less selfish than refusing one to your sister or daughter.

You might be thinking at this point that if we rely upon my logic above, it's less ethical to kill close relations than it is to kill complete strangers and vice versa. And of course you're right -- I'd be wrong if I suggested that. Ethically, killing a stranger without cause is just as unethical as killing your mom, from an objective standpoint. From an objective standpoint, is the same true of failing to save a life? I dunno, honestly. Locus of power to affect the situation is important, of course. It's that "great power requires great responsibility thing". If it is within your power to save someone, is it your responsibility? Responsibility? Maybe not technically. Would it make you a jerk if you didn't? Arguably. I'm reminded of a Steven Wright joke, where he's talking about those Smokey the Bear commericials. "Only You can prevent forrest fires. Me? Every night, out the window with a bucket and a shovel." It's funny because it's a misunderstanding of the language, but what if only Steven Wright could prevent forrest forrest fires?

The second consideration really just comes down to priority. It's tough to talk about without assuming a conclusion, but at the same time I think it can be done such an assumtion can be made with some confidence that the order isn't capricous and dependent on what the thinker would rather see be the case. And I think the answer to this has been borne out from tribal custom to families to courts around the world, everywhere. It's clear from precident that most people consider direct action that leads to a misdeed more heinous than inaction that leads to the same conclusion, even if we might be equally inclined to spit on them. For instance, the act of tossing a kitten down a well is universally regarded as being worse than failing to rescue it.

Further complicating all this that sometimes a purposeful action and an inaction are one in the same, effectively. Either way, I choice was made. For instance, is there really a difference between purposefully turning one's car into a crowd and driving into it and noticing a crowd of cars in front of your car and failing to avoid it -- even if the driver took their hands from the wheel, a choice was made whose consequences would be disasterous.

But you asked about obligation. I haven't lost sight of that. As these sorts of considerations above play out in society and in politics, I think we see how people feel. Population subjugated in Afghanistan? Screw 'em. Someone in Afghanistan was responsible for attacking us? Liberate them. War getting complicated and costly? Screw 'em again. We're a species of eminently flexible ethical values, moderated and informed by proximity and priority. Have people suffered the world over from the actions of our nations? Sure. Will people around the world continue to suffer as a result of our inaction? Sure. Are we less nonchallant about similar concerns closer to home? Absolutely. Do the actual ethical considerations change? Not in any absolute ways, but proximity and priority are real considerations nonetheless, and factor into practicality, feasability, and even obligation.

For all of these reasons, I suggest that the act of abortion has a higher priority than denying bone marrow. Proximity is difficult, it being a mostly emotional aspect. Physically, the proximity can't get any closer. Psychologically, it might be as far away as Pluto. This is why subjective measures fail in cases like this. I'm not sure what to think here, except to say that at third consideration, fairness, might be our best bet at resolving it.

Anyway, this is already waaaaaay longer than intended. This sort of discussion is why I go out to forums. It's exciting to explore things like this, to better understand what we, ourselves think, and why. Even though it was originally only my goal to illustrate why the issue cannot be as simple as "my body, my choice", this has led to interesting places. Thanks for indulging me, FLS.

[Cynic]

I'm assuming that you (and I really meant the plural 'you', as in anyone who participates in this discussion) are trying to find some sort of ethical principle that reasonably guides our behaviour in this situation. You seem to think that finding an absolute dividing line will provide guidance for our behaviour (i.e. it prohibits us from aborting a fetus after a certain point), because the ethics which guide us if one person needs the use of another person's body because the first person would otherwise die without the use of the seconds person's body, is crystal clear, whereas the point at which a fetus becomes a person is (in comparison), not clear. I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to be that clear either way.

By way of comparison to "my body, my choice", even the muddied vision we're dealing with under the assumption of such a dividing line is more clear than the purposeful obfuscation of a dishonest mantra. Rather than helping to guide our choices, such blocked vision makes the selection of that choice more difficult by denying due consideration of important factors. And that's the generous, mother-centered version. Beyond that is what I consider the real problem -- the ramifications of those decisions.

I'd say that in answer to "what we gain" by this line is an important dimension of the problem, one that can make a real difference. Much focus is being placed on the guilt people might be made to feel or even pay for if they abort after the line of personhood, where ever it may lie, is crossed. But that's overly cynical (if I do say so myself). The other side of this coin is, by understanding and appreciating such a boundry, couples who lose their offspring either by dint of genetic dice-tossing, accident, personal choice, or whatever before that line has been crossed might be better at ease with it. And that's a good thing, right? To not feel guilt or shame or terror over something?

As a father of two children, both of whom were spaced out by one miscarriage each, my pain at the lost of a potential child is just that. Were I less informed as to the science involved, I might be much worse off emotionally. Isn't that consideration alone worthwhile for parents who might face that sort of tragedy much further along in the process?

[fls]

I don't think that's analogous either. While both sets of scenarios come down to direct action versus inaction, not all such sets are necessarily analogous. In your scenaro above, the patient is making a demand and hospital staff are compelled to comply.

Are you saying that, since their choice is to die, then it should be acceptable for me to provide an overdose of IV Morphine?

In your organ scenario, the patient is making a request and the donor has the choice to comply. In my offspring-person scenario, the mother makes choices in the absence of input from that which would be affected by it. For now, I'm going to assume you weren't meaning them to be analogous.

They are meant to be analogous in the way that I stated they were analogous.

In your scenario above with the locked-in patient, the difference between a quick, merciful death and a prolonged, agonizing one is indeed one of action versus inaction. This is complicated though. For one, the decision to die was in the patient's hands and while it may not have been his preference, the manner of his death was also agreed to before it was arranged.

Nope. I highly doubt, if given the choice, a patient would choose protracted suffering. For example, there is also a difference between letting someone starve to death and letting them die of dehydration. Both those options are available to us, as they both involve inaction.

In this case, both inaction and action have the same ultimate outcome. In the other scenarios, inaction and action do not. Huge difference.

There is no difference. You are comparing the wrong things. In the other scenarios, inaction in one has the same outcome as action in the other.

While it's clear that viewed purely in humanitarian terms inaction (watching the patient die) is worse than a quick, merciful death, it's not that simple.

I'm fond of thinking that intentions are irrelevant if the outcome is known beforehand. For instance, in this case if we assume the reasoning behind the law is to remove the burden of being "a killer" from hospital staff, the hospital, knowing that death -- a worse death, even -- will result anyway, is still placing the burden of killing on its staff. Even if they're diffussing it somewhat, as with a firing squad where only one man has a live round, in reality someone is still the killer. But it also serves the purpose of underscoring the fact that the hospital's position to save lives and it is only the patient refusing their assistance that is truly leading to death, that it isn't the hospital causing the death, but the patient themselves, by their own choice.

I agree. Like I said earlier, it seems to be an issue of plausible deniability, rather than a careful consideration of ethics

In fact, it's a whole new kettle of worms of we contemplate a situation where the hospital can be compelled to actively kill someone. It's complicated. Personally, I see the hypocracy of it all as well as I believe you do. And personally, I think that in cases in which there is no abiguity of purpose or state of mind, that mercy killing should be legal -- so long as no one person is compelled to carry it out. Suicide should be legal, IMO, especially if the person in question has the means to carry out his choice on his own.

Well, depraved indifference is unethical. :)

Then why aren't non-organ donors afraid for their lives? Why don't we have protests outside of DMV's targeting people who haven't signed their donor cards?

For all of these reasons, I suggest that the act of abortion has a higher priority than denying bone marrow. Proximity is difficult, it being a mostly emotional aspect. Physically, the proximity can't get any closer. Psychologically, it might be as far away as Pluto. This is why subjective measures fail in cases like this. I'm not sure what to think here, except to say that at third consideration, fairness, might be our best bet at resolving it.

It seems to me that proximity is what I am suggesting as a solution. There is only one person, plus or minus a few more, who is proximate to the issue, and it's a relatively easy determination for them. The only thing that the rest of us can contribute is coercion.

Anyway, this is already waaaaaay longer than intended. This sort of discussion is why I go out to forums. It's exciting to explore things like this, to better understand what we, ourselves think, and why. Even though it was originally only my goal to illustrate why the issue cannot be as simple as "my body, my choice", this has led to interesting places. Thanks for indulging me, FLS.

Yeah, I think most of us like the opportunity to think things through and to try on different perspectives.

Linda

[fls]

By way of comparison to "my body, my choice", even the muddied vision we're dealing with under the assumption of such a dividing line is more clear than the purposeful obfuscation of a dishonest mantra. Rather than helping to guide our choices, such blocked vision makes the selection of that choice more difficult by denying due consideration of important factors. And that's the generous, mother-centered version. Beyond that is what I consider the real problem -- the ramifications of those decisions.

I'd say that in answer to "what we gain" by this line is an important dimension of the problem, one that can make a real difference. Much focus is being placed on the guilt people might be made to feel or even pay for if they abort after the line of personhood, where ever it may lie, is crossed. But that's overly cynical (if I do say so myself). The other side of this coin is, by understanding and appreciating such a boundry, couples who lose their offspring either by dint of genetic dice-tossing, accident, personal choice, or whatever before that line has been crossed might be better at ease with it. And that's a good thing, right? To not feel guilt or shame or terror over something?

I suspect that the guilt lies mostly in not viewing the fetus as a person when others tell you that it is.

As a father of two children, both of whom were spaced out by one miscarriage each, my pain at the lost of a potential child is just that. Were I less informed as to the science involved, I might be much worse off emotionally. Isn't that consideration alone worthwhile for parents who might face that sort of tragedy much further along in the process?

This is exactly what I'm getting at. It is your perception of that fetus as a potential child that leads you to treat it as a child. And the vast majority of parents, by the time you hit the third trimester, will have that perception. It really doesn't matter if someone wants to tell you otherwise. Your guilt or pain is tied to whether or not you saw the potential child in what you lost, not some arbitrary line that told you when it could be considered a child.

Linda

[fls]

But what was that assumption of non-consent based on? If she were in a normal coma (showed normal EEG activity), that assumption that she didn't consent to the feeding tube would not be made.

No. The assumption was based on oral testimony based on prior discussions with her family.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

It may be that even if she were in a normal coma for that length of time, her words could be interpreted as not wishing to be sustained in that state, either.

The assumption that she didn't consent to the feeding tube was based on the fact that she lacked the neurological structures and functions to consent to anything at all.

No. And that's the part that I find disturbing. It isn't the case that we should say, "she cannot consent, therefore we can do anything we want." This requires a judgement on our part as to the value or utility of someone else's life. And there seems to be no natural or reasonable way to halt this line of thinking, so that at some point, we can justify taking advantage of anyone who doesn't have the power to stop us, or we can judge others as unworthy.

Rather, what is being said is that, if her consent were sought, she would not agree to using life-sustaining measures to sustain her in this sort of situation. But only because it is a judgement that we can reasonably guess that she would make.

My point was that the decision was not based on the fact that she wasn't a person. She was still a person, just one that lacked the ability to do something very important neurologically.

In the situation where someone stated ahead of time that they would consent to a feeding tube even when their cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum were completely lacking in structure, we would honor that wish the same way we would honor wishes on how to dispose of a body. That is, if someone went ahead and removed the feeding tube despite the expressed consent given earlier, the moral burden of that removal would be the same as not honoring someone's request for a closed casket funeral or cremation or whatever. It would be wrong, but it wouldn't be the moral equivalent of murder.

Would it be murder for removing life-sustaining measures for somewhat lesser degrees of mental impairment? When would the line be crossed?

ETA: I'm fine with using the idea of "consent" as the particular desire that is important.

Are you seeking the consent of the fetus?

Linda

[RandFan]

I'm asking you whether that gets you anywhere at all considering that, even though whether or not a person continues to live is entirely dependent upon allowing the use of my body, allowing the use of my body is voluntary? Sorry, I had not seen this thread before. I'm assuming we are talking about healthy unborn babies, right?

If so, then you have two choices, kill the baby and remove it or have the baby removed alive. If it is viable then why kill it? What's the point of that? To have the power over the life of another simply because it is your body that the life inhabits? I simply fail to understand that perspective.

ETA: For those not familiar with my position, I'm pro-choice. I'm not too keen on abortion but I think most modern liberal societies have worked out a pretty good basis for allowing any abortion in the first trimester and restricting abortions in the 2nd and 3rd. I'm fine with late term abortions so long as there are questions about the life and health of the mother and the medical status of the child.

ETA 2: Linda, I'm sorry but I did not realize we both share the same delination, viability. I won't edit the post but understand that I would not have written it or would have written something different had I known.

Please accept my appology. For my part I will be more careful in the future.