Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Steve Chapman explains what the partial-birth abortion decision means to the debate over abortion at large.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 7:37AM|#
Well I just read this article over breakfast, and I nearly choked. I would rather see sausage made. Gross!
Ultima Ratio|4.23.07 @ 7:38AM|#
That such an article could appear in a magazine (or on a
website) which rigorously documents the "slippery slope" down which
all paternalistic legislation travels strikes me as bizarre.
Does the author really believe that this decision will never be
used as precedent to later make less risky abortions illegal? Or is
that what he's secretly hoping for?
Guy Montag|4.23.07 @ 7:53AM|#
That such an article could appear in a magazine (or on a
website) which rigorously documents the "slippery slope" down which
all paternalistic legislation travels strikes me as
bizarre.
Do you mean tha "slippery slope" of making murder illegal? Making
one method of legal murder illegal is cartainly a step in the right
direction.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Steve Chapman,
The striking fact about the debate here is not that some people
are appalled and revolted by what is done in these instances, but
that some people are not. They don't flinch from the violence
visited on well-developed fetuses in the name of reproductive
freedom. Any abortion, in their eyes, is a justifiable
abortion.
So the issue comes down to subjective personal tastes?
|4.23.07 @ 8:26AM|#
The bottom line is abortion should be safe and legal and very
hard to get.. This method is pretty disturbing, but all of them do
end up with the same result as the article states...
I am pro choice... choose who you inseminate, and when...
JohnD|4.23.07 @ 8:26AM|#
Mllh, I'm glad it made you choke. Maybe it will help you to
realize how barbaric it is.
To Ultima and Grotius, You 2 don't get it do you? This is worse
than any of the Nazi experiments on the Jews in WW2 and you turn a
blind eye?
dan|4.23.07 @ 8:49AM|#
If abortion-rights groups truly wanted to preserve this option in cases of significant risk to the mother, they could push for a narrow health exception for these instances. But they want to preserve partial-birth abortion for all instances, because any limit "on the right to choose" is intolerable.
Uh... the author really DIDNT read the opinion, or he'd know that
this is EXACTLY what choice advocates were asking for: a narrow
exception for the health of the mother. That's what the Court has
required in previous cases, and that's what the challengers argued
for in this case. But this author and others here think it's worth
it to kill living women in order to save nonviable fetuses.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 8:57AM|#
JohnD,
To Ultima and Grotius, You 2 don't get it do you?
Perhaps I'll get it once you stop butchering my mother
tongue.
This is worse than any of the Nazi experiments on the Jews in
WW2 and you turn a blind eye?
I can't see how this is worse. Months and months of torture by Nazi
doctors seems far, far worse than a prodecure that takes a few
minutes.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:02AM|#
dan,
That makes sense since ban on this procedure that was successfully
challenged in 2000 (?) on the "health of the mother" issue.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:11AM|#
JohnD,
As to "blind eyes," I'm not ignoring the "facts" entailed in this
procedure.
Marc|4.23.07 @ 9:16AM|#
Wait, I'm confused. I should start lobbying to legalize
infanticide?
I think I'm slipping UP the slippery slope.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:19AM|#
Marc,
Well, most of this does come down to competing typologies, there is
also probably something else undergirding those.
|4.23.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Side note: is it just happenstance that the "pro-life" movement
is usually also pro-war?
Perhaps the problem with abortion in their eyes that that too many
future soldiers aren't making it to boot camp?
Brian|4.23.07 @ 9:45AM|#
The fact that anyone could support such a barbaric act is beyond me. This type of abortion is reminds me of the negative eugenics practiced by the Nazis.
D.A. Ridgely|4.23.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Actually, the law does provide an exception to save the life of the mother. It "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." 18 USC 1531(a)
|4.23.07 @ 9:46AM|#
Guy Montag: if we're going to make one method of murder illegal, why don't we start with the electric chair?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Brian,
How so? After all, what the Nazis practiced was part of a coercive
state policy. No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety)
in the U.S. Indeed, a number of states have policies in place that
put roadblocks in front of an individual wishing to have an
abortion.
|4.23.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Before this thread turns into another massive flame war, I'd
just like to point out that it is absolutely possible to have
well-reasoned views on abortion on either side of the debate.
Not all pro-choicers are "womyn uber alles" fanatics, and not all
pro-lifers are fundie theocrats.
Personally, I agonize over the issue of abortion. I am absolutely
pro-choice when it comes to removing some tissue, and I am
absolutely pro-life when it comes to killing a human.
The problem, of course, is that we don't really know exactly when
that change from tissue to human occurs (conception is too early,
and birth is too late). Until we have some way of knowing for sure,
I'll be concerned that we're screwing over someone - I'm just not
sure if we're screwing over the mothers or the babies.
Robert|4.23.07 @ 9:53AM|#
"So the issue comes down to subjective personal tastes?"
Normative's normative, such a surprise.
Meanwhile, as I've written in another thread here, the statute
applies only to abortionists "in or affecting interstate commerce",
which could result in some interesting trial court
(judge or jury) decisions if anyone wants to risk it. Like the
organ transplantation case, it takes the jurisdictional issue out
of the appelate and into the trial courts, based on the facts in
individual cases.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:53AM|#
Jake Boone,
The problem, of course, is that we don't really know exactly
when that change from tissue to human occurs (conception is too
early, and birth is too late).
It is likely that no one will ever really "know." This debate is
philosophical in nature in other words.
|4.23.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Geh, again people clinch on to the 'partial birth' term. The medical term for this procedure is 'Intact dilation and extraction', the term 'partial birth abortion' was used by a pro-life bill attempting to make the procedure illegal. The main difference between this procedure and many other types of late term abortions is the fact that fetus is partialy extracted. But, ya, given the absolute logic, and no eek factor, being involved in this rulling this will never be used as a stepping stone to for other bans.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 9:59AM|#
Brian,
Now, according to these folks
women are forced to have abortions in the PRC.
|4.23.07 @ 10:14AM|#
No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety) in the
U.S.
Except the child.
|4.23.07 @ 10:23AM|#
That's right, an "anti-choicer" said it was "partial birth" so no one should listen to those words, the baby is just "partially extracted." We wouldn't want anyone in the pro-death camp to be offended or anything.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 10:24AM|#
You'd first have to establish that the "child" has a "right" not to be aborted.
|4.23.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I believe the Nazis simply blew away a good number of people when they came by...
|4.23.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Wow. Color me surprised that a thread on abortion turned almost completely unintelligible after only four or five posts...
mcgcruiser|4.23.07 @ 10:44AM|#
"Side note: is it just happenstance that the "pro-life" movement
is usually also pro-war?
Perhaps the problem with abortion in their eyes that that too many
future soldiers aren't making it to boot camp?"
Hmmm...wondering if it is better to be anti-war and
pro-choice...you know, kill only the innocent ones....
|4.23.07 @ 10:47AM|#
regardless of whether the majority of these procedures are performed on women with healthy fetuses, this is also the procedure used when a woman must terminate a wanted pregnancy that is firther along, for example when doctors have discovered that the fetus has some fatal defect which won't allow it to survive much past birth, and the mother decideds not to go through with months more pregnancy to deliver a doomed infant. intact dilation and extraction preserves her future fertility; the alternate means--which will still kill the fetus just as dead--puts her at risk of having her uterus punctured by bone fragments, so that having lost this one pregnancy she may never be able to bring a child to term. this type of concern--being merely frivolous on her part no doubt--has been judged irrelevant. only if she is at imminent risk of death on the table can a woman's doctor perform the abortion he and she think right for her and her future choices in life--or for her currently existing children. legislation should not be based on ickiness. we may feel that some women are getting abortions for "good" reasons and others for "bad", but we are unlikely to be in a better position that the woman herself to make this judgment, and congress does not know better than gynecologists what procedures are necessary and beneficial.
|4.23.07 @ 10:50AM|#
HoI,
Huh?
"Perhaps the problem with abortion in their eyes that that too many
future soldiers aren't making it to boot camp?"
I mean, Huh?? Someone called you a troll on another thread and I
thought it was an unfair assessment. Perhaps they were right.
|4.23.07 @ 10:51AM|#
"Side note: is it just happenstance that the "pro-life" movement
is usually also pro-war?
Perhaps the problem with abortion in their eyes that that too many
future soldiers aren't making it to boot camp?"
....powerful stuff
dan|4.23.07 @ 10:52AM|#
No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety) in the U.S.
Except the child.
Somebody doesn't understand the difference between a state
forcing someone to have an abortion and an individual
deciding to have an abortion. The only way the nazi comparison
works is if the state is forcing abortions - which it is
not.
I would think somebody on a libertarian-leaning site would know the
difference between state coercion and individual choice.
In this case, the federal law is state coercion - it controls the
choices of doctors and patients, intruding in the most intimate
healthcare decisions.
The fact that this site apparently applauds such a law really puts
the lie to any pretensions of libertarianism here.
|4.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#
"Except the child."
You mean potential child. Maybe you'd even go so far as to
say likely to be child or probable child. Maybe
"if nothing goes wrong there may be a child" or something.
|4.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
huh, I could be wrong but individuals can coerce without any help from the state...like murder, steal...but like you imply that is just beyond the scope of libertarianism anyway..
|4.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Whether the unwanted entity within the womb is merely a small
clump of tissue, a potential human being or an actual human being,
the woman should have an inalienable right to remove it from her
body. By any means necessary.
This is a corollary of property rights. If the government forces me
to allow unwanted visitors the use of my property, then in fact I
do not own that property. The government owns it.
Mona|4.23.07 @ 11:05AM|#
for example when doctors have discovered that the fetus has
some fatal defect which won't allow it to survive much past
birth,
Then induce labor, deliver the baby, and smother it. Why instead
almost deliver the child, stick scissors in the base of his or her
neck, and suck out the brains?
Oh, that's right. To preserve the legal fiction that until he or
she is entirely born we are not dealing with a human being who has
any rights at. The mother has not merely the right to control her
body, but the right to a dead baby if it is killed in time, but
nobody wants to say that too loudly.
|4.23.07 @ 11:07AM|#
dan,
Nice straw man. Beat it.
Eric,
Your compelling assertions aside, would you care to demonstrate the
difference between a fetus occupying your property and an infant? I
suppose leaving an infant outside on the street corner, because I
didn't want them in my home, is a matter of property rights?
|4.23.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Mona: The answer is that delivering a baby is dangerous, especially in high risk pregnancies. The whole purpose of this type of abortion is to avoid the health problems that arise from going into labor. FYI.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Mona,
The only to say that loudly is if I accept your characterization
and the definitions of the terms that you are using. But why is
your typology any better than an alternative one?
|4.23.07 @ 11:11AM|#
"No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety) in the
U.S."
"Except the child."
I didn't hear him object.
Can someone please answer these questions without injecting their
opinions on abortion into it:
-Is PBA/D&E ever done in cases where the mother's health is not
at stake?
-If her health's not at stake, why is this specific procedure
chosen?
I'm genuinely curious if it is only done as a last resort for
health reasons.
pro-lifers: would it be "acceptable" if the exact same procedure
took place but the fetus never left the confines of the mother's
body? (i.e. is it the "partial birth" part that is so bothersome,
or the entire procedure?). it seems like a pretty gruesome method
of abortion, but they all have the same result.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Anyway, anyone ever notice how a whole slew of libertarian principles become contested or seem arbitrary when children or "potential children" are thrown into the mix?
|4.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Lamar,
I'm honestly asking because I don't know: is it really safer to
leave the head in the womb while you perform the procedure? Why? I
would think it'd be easier to get the scissors in the head when
it's on the table, not in the womb, as the bulk of it is already
out anyway.
|4.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Grotius,
I have noticed. Like with laws concerning minors signing contracts
and whatnot. Things do get a bit more complicated.
|4.23.07 @ 11:18AM|#
I'm no ob-gyn, but its my understanding that the process of labor involves a lot of stress and a lot of blood. A high risk pregnancy carries the risk of permanent damage and/or death. The idea is to save the health of the mother by getting the dead tissue out as quickly as possible. Most people don't understand that this is a serious procedure that is done when serious health consequences arise. Anti-abortion folks think it's a license for promiscuity. They're wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time policy was set based on political misconceptions.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#
kohlrabi,
As with any ideology libertarianism creates as many questions and
issues as it resolves.
|4.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Lamar,
I still don't get it, you'd get the tissue out a lot quicker if you
didn't have to hold it there during the procedure.
|4.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Grotius,
How true. Hence the constant bickering on these pages! I might even
bet that it creates more questions than other ideology's,
anecdotally, I rarely see so many internal arguments with other
beliefs. Except maybe with Christians and Utilitarians.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 11:33AM|#
I don't understand why this is such a central issue for feminists. Presumably half of all aborted children are female.
Mona|4.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Mona: The answer is that delivering a baby is dangerous,
especially in high risk pregnancies. The whole purpose of this type
of abortion is to avoid the health problems that arise from going
into labor. FYI.
FYI, Belle Waring wasn't discussing that scenario, nor was I
replying to it. She was speaking of the baby who had an expected
short-term life-span. And if labor is dangerous, just deliver the
baby as per the procedure WITHOUT sucking out its brains, so it
isn't, you know, dead.
Unless, of course, the point is to ensure a dead baby and no live
birth.
|4.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
HoI,
Huh?
"Perhaps the problem with abortion in their eyes that that too many
future soldiers aren't making it to boot camp?"
I mean, Huh?? Someone called you a troll on another thread and I
thought it was an unfair assessment. Perhaps they were
right.
I was just kidding around here, but the idea was that mostly poor
women have abortions and mostly poor men "volunteer" to fight our
wars for us. Not to mention that we drop the "pro-life" concept
pretty quickly when we see the utility in causing death.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 11:44AM|#
mllh,
I suppose in part because controlling reproduction has been a means
by which patriarchy has exercised dominance over women.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 11:53AM|#
100 years ago, I might have bought the "patriarchy exercising dominance over women" meme. Maybe even 50 or even 30 years ago. Now, no way!
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 11:59AM|#
mllh,
Well oft times cultural understandings, etc. have a long
tail.
Yeah, I don't understand the Belle Waring reference either.
Probably some blogger knowledge I ain't privy to.
If I recall correctly the human brain isn't fully developed until
long after birth. Perhaps "abortions" should be allowed up to that
point. ;)
|4.23.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Mona: thank you for your medical opinion about which delivery
options are most suitable in cases of placenta previa or abruption.
There's no doubt that, in some circumstances, inducing labor is not
a safe option. Belle Waring also noted that there are medical
problems that can't be fixed, and tough decisions have to be
made.
The point is the same: you think you should substitute your medical
judgment for that of medical doctors who actually know what they're
talking about. You think you have the moral highground, but in
reality your strong but misguided assertions show that you have
more loyalty to a political cause than actual health issues. That's
not erring on the side of life. That's erring on the side of dead
and infertile mothers.
|4.23.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Poor women have abortions? I thought in general only stupid women had babies out of wedlock, which means most of the smarter women are having abortions.
|4.23.07 @ 12:15PM|#
"Perhaps "abortions" should be allowed up to that
point."
Don't we already do this 60-70 times per year?
mllh|4.23.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Grotius
Speaking as an old fart, I fully support abortion up until age 30.
I still think kids are stupid, and most are deserving of
death.
Seriously, this sort of thing rips me apart. I don't like
government intruding into a human body (ie, the mother), even
late-term. That's my head speaking.
There is no way abortion can be justified once the child has
fingers and toes and a brain and heart. That's my GUT speaking.
|4.23.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Can we at least agree to call them "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" and "pro-choice"?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Lamar,
The Romans would just tie their unwanted kids up to tree in the
woods. Sometimes a slave merchant would happen by and collect them
so as to be sold as slaves.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Marcvs,
The thing is that most people aren't entirely for or against
abortion; their position shifts based on the facts.
|4.23.07 @ 12:41PM|#
I'm honestly asking because I don't know: is it really safer
to leave the head in the womb while you perform the procedure? Why?
I would think it'd be easier to get the scissors in the head when
it's on the table, not in the womb, as the bulk of it is already
out anyway.
kohlrabi,
The head is by far the most difficult thing to pass, its the
biggest part of the fetus, so the procedure is done to allow the
braincase to collapse thereby allowing the fetus to be removed with
out putting undue stress on vaginal walls (tears etc...). Thats the
way I understand it, am not an OBGYN though.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 12:57PM|#
val, OMG, OMG!
It's language like that which really churns my gut. Incidentally, I
watched Chris Matthews this weekend, and s/he managed to make an
interesting point, fwiw: women always say "the baby kicked
me."
They never say "the fetus moved." Interesting, from a psychological
point of view, isn't it?
|4.23.07 @ 1:00PM|#
mllh: people who want to have the baby say the baby kicked them because, duh, they want a baby. People who don't might say "get this worm out of me."
mllh|4.23.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Lamar
I'm making a ref to CM. But, they don't say "get this worm out of
me" with any frequency, do they?
mllh|4.23.07 @ 1:16PM|#
I think the point was that when the "worm" kicks, there seems to
be a tendency--probably demanded by the oppressive patriarchy whose
only intent is the enslavement of women--to refer to the "worm" as
a "baby."
This is possibly a social construct. Tapeworms cause similar
feelings, as do gas pains. I know I frequently feel like I need an
abortion after eating Arthur's chili, but a really good fart in the
elevator normally solves the problem.
|4.23.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Are y'all being serious about the patriarchy/dominance over
women idea? Please. It's a ten dollar way of saying 'you'd feel
differently if you were a woman.' FWIW, it doesn't matter either
way. There just isn't room in a logical argument for personal
motivations or gender. The debaters on both sides would do well to
eschew the emotional crap and focus on the real issue, how to
determine at what point in development does a fetus become a human
deserving of individual rights.
Sorry for the tangent, but this is a big pet peeve of mine. I'm not
going to believe the world is flat because Capt. X, who says it's
round, might be out to get me.
|4.23.07 @ 1:25PM|#
But, they don't say "get this worm out of me" with any
frequency, do they?
They dont have late term abortions with any frequency either, do
they?
|4.23.07 @ 1:31PM|#
how to determine at what point in development does a fetus
become a human deserving of individual rights.
Thats a fair question. However, you must also consider the rights
of the mother in this context. Like I asked in an earlier thread
regarding this topic; Once you recognize that the fetus is a human
and has all rights associated with that, how do you reconcile the
rights of the mother? Is it still morally and legaly allowable to
remove the fetus/baby thereby killing it, in order to save the
mother? Legaly speaking, if the mother attempts suicide, is she
also attempting murder? Is the mother still allowed to drink?
smoke? etc?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 1:40PM|#
...how to determine at what point in development does a
fetus become a human deserving of individual rights.
Part of determining that question includes dealing with the rights
of the woman in which the fetus resides.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 1:44PM|#
kohlrabi & val
excellent points.
k, I think you are right about the first principles question. We've
got to answer that question before anything else.
v, interesting, and shall we dare expand? Is suicide murder? I had
a teacher tell me once that the reason suicide should be illegal is
that it is the same thing as murder, only turned inward instead of
outward. Another thread, perhaps.
2B serious,
like I said, my head tells me one thing while my gut tells me
another. I prefer to hold up logic and reason and respect for
individualism (head things) as my best virtues. But, the gut cannot
be ignored, and the gross stuff mentioned herein--I can't
repeat--makes my gut turn somersaults.
I don't want women to be mere wombs, but isn't there some value to
be accorded a gut-wrenching, instinctive, reaction?
|4.23.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I just meant that people will call the thing inside a woman's womb whatever fits their ultimate intent. Most women who have this type of abortion probably say that the baby kicked them, because they want a baby, not a horrorific medical procedure.
|4.23.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Val,
I totally agree, but first things first. Without some idea of what
the thing really is, asserting that killing "babies" is icky, or
that it's icky for mom's to not have a "choice" is just stating
idiosyncratic feelings about fuzzy premises. This whole debate
seems to be framed by people's personal intuitions. Ugh. It's very
frustrating.
Observer|4.23.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Actually,
I'm quite happy that Steve Chapman wrote this short article.
It seems to me that many libertarians, including many on this
website, are altogether too squeamish about a forthright defense of
a baby's life (outside of Charles Murray, that is), as they see it
as a quasi-part of conservatism's "control" over part of their
individual autonomy.
They wouldn't phrase it quite that bluntly, though, which is why
they largely remain silent, and they shouldn't.
|4.23.07 @ 1:52PM|#
mllh,
FWIW, I sympathize.
Grotius,
It's important to deal with those issues. I agree. However, they
should have no part in determining what the thing is. I really
believe it's a scientific question to be answered. I know you
disagree, but that's why I think one thing needs to be answered
before you address anything else.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Observer,
...are altogether too squeamish about a forthright defense of a
baby's life...
When does a fetus become a baby?
kohlrabi,
I really believe it's a scientific question to be
answered.
How? One would have to create some sort of typology or criteria for
determining when this changes occur, and it seems to me that the
criteria will have some arbitrariness to it.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Ugh, indeed!
This is too difficult for my head. Next up is euthanasia for old
people. My mom and dad are getting on in years and my dad has to
walk with a cane. At least 30 more years to go, with increasing
pain. More and more inconvenience and expense to me. Isn't it great
to think about the flip side now and then? They had the chance to
abort me, so now I'm stuck with them. Screw us both.
|4.23.07 @ 1:59PM|#
I totally agree, but first things first.
See, thats exactly what I see as the problem. There is no first
things first as far I can see on this issue. To me the two
questions are indivisable, you cannot hope to legally recognize a
fetus as human and give it all rights without simultaneously
addressing the issue of mother's rights. I mean you can try, but
you cant hope to do it with out a pro-choice reaction. That exactly
what causes the so called 'all-or-nothing' approach described in
the article. Its the fear, of the very very slipery slope in this
case. But when you ask the question of why is this procedure (which
is illegal) is any different then another late term procedure
(which are still legal), you get the nazi and baby killer
replies.
|4.23.07 @ 2:02PM|#
The death penalty and hawkish politics are hurdles the pro-life movement will have to address before the pro-life moniker has any credibility. Euthanasia is never a fun topic, but if you want to start a Terry Schiavo flame war, do you have to do it here?
mllh|4.23.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Lamar,
I did not try to do so. I am sorry my ruminations gave you that
impression, but you should control your imagination.
mllh|4.23.07 @ 2:11PM|#
FWIW, I oppose abortion from the moment of conception. I think. I'm not sure. But I am sure that anything which grosses me out like these late-term abortions should be banned. I give into the gut. Instinct is worth something.
|4.23.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Grotius,
Perhaps, though at least there would be something tangible to
debate. I'm no scientist (could you tell?) so far be it from to set
the criteria, but I would wager that debating the criteria would be
a bit more productive and illuminating than years of debating "nazi
and baby killer". (nice, val!)
Anyway, wouldn't the maternal rights issues involved be a variable
not relevant to personhood? Just like other environmental
variables?
|4.23.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I give into the gut. Instinct is worth something.
Instinct and gut feels are most definetly worth something, when it
comes to snap decissions, when it comes to figuiring out wether you
like a person or not, etc... However your gut feeling and instinct
should have as small as possilbe of a role to play when it comes to
considering legal/legistlative matters, especialy when they
can/will be used cooercively against others, and especialy when you
are give sufficient time to consider and discuss them.
|4.23.07 @ 2:18PM|#
OK, that doesn't make much sense. What I mean is, how does a woman's rights change what something is? Biology would have to be contingent upon law? It doesn't make any sense to me. It either has the essential qualities of being human or it does not. What are those qualities? Now we can debate!
|4.23.07 @ 2:32PM|#
kohlrabi, you're right, if you are going only after qualities to
define a transition where a fetus becomes something more, then you
dont need to consider the mother. However the second you wish to
define that something as human and bestow rights upon it, you must
immediately consider the mother's rights.
As far what those qualities are, I dont know. I dont think we
currently posses the technology or know-how to determine that. But,
other things that were brought up in other threads on H&R were
presense of organs and basic brain stem activity. However the
argument against that has always been we are not trying to define
when life starts but when a human starts.
|4.23.07 @ 2:44PM|#
val,
That's just it, though. How I consider the mother would entirely
depend on that first answer. So much so that talking about it
before that seems useless. For the sake of argument, if it were
nothing but a wart until the doctor slaps it, then the woman would
have the same right to choose it's fate as she would of a wart. If
it were a full blown thinking/feeling earns a living and donates to
charity human at conception, then the mother's rights would extend
as far as they would for her child at 5 years, ie, some provisions
would have to be made for it's survival in the same way that mom
can't put Junior out in the cold, just because he's dependant on
her house.
|4.23.07 @ 2:46PM|#
val,
"However the argument against that has always been we are not
trying to define when life starts but when a human starts."
I'm think that that is what Grotius was getting at. It's valid for
sure.
TROLL|4.23.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I'm pro-choice.
The woman had a choice when she spread her legs. I'm all in favor
of that choice.
|4.23.07 @ 2:53PM|#
clarification:* then you dont need to consider the
mother
By that I meant you dont need to consider the mother's rights. But
since mother and fetus are so dependantly linked, you might very
well have to consider the mother in terms of
physiological/checmical/psychological effects in order to arrive at
your definition.
That's just it, though. How I consider the mother would
entirely depend on that first answer.
I agree with you, if we are speaking strictly from a scientific or
taxonomical perspective then we can try to define when a fetus
stops being a just-a-fetus without considering mothers' rights.
See, I hesitate to use 'when a fetus becomes human', because being
human (at least to me) immediately means having certain rights.
However any moral, philosophical and legal consideration must
include both parties.
|4.23.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Val,
The mother and child are just as dependantly linked after birth
though. Sure, you can give away your kid then, but there's
limitations on how. I would think that because of this, that
variable negates itself as it doesn't help define the difference
between pre-post birth. Saying that the nature of an individual is
contingent upon it's dependancy on other individuals doesn't have
particular relevancy to abortion.
That's why I think there must be some biological hard point. It's
the only thing I can think of that would be uniquely relevant.
|4.23.07 @ 3:14PM|#
The mother and child are just as dependantly linked after
birth though. Sure, you can give away your kid then, but there's
limitations on how.
Sure he mother and child are linked after birth, but they are no
more linked then a father and a child, or any other legaly defined
dependant-guarian relationship, which could be numerous (adoptive
parents, aunts, cousins, older siblings, even friends of the
family). While in utero the mother and child share a completely
unique relationship under completely unque circumstances. What do
you mean there are limitations on how she can give a child
away?
|4.23.07 @ 3:21PM|#
mllh: my instinct is to leave the decision to have an abortion, especially a late termer that disgusts people, to people who know the specifics of the medical situation.
Paul|4.23.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Side note: is it just happenstance that the "pro-life"
movement is usually also pro-war?
And that pro-choice movement tends to be anti-death penalty.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Congratulations to all for avoiding or neutralizing the more divisive statements.
|4.23.07 @ 4:54PM|#
I do agree with Observer, a lot of libertarians are afraid to argue against abortion rights because of broad cultural reasons ...they fear being too close to the religious right on an issue, fear that they are too close to "regulating the bedroom", and at least for DC types fear getting banned from Adams Morgan
|4.23.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Ah, the one topic that libertarians are thoroughly divided on
...
If you believe in the libertarian principle of non-initiation of
force upon one's fellow human beings, then the only way to be
pro-choice is to believe that a fetus is a lump of flesh and not a
human being, and has no rights, but upon delivery it suddenly
inherits the full array of rights. I agree that at some point there
might be some ambiguity about a fetus' humanness, but certainly not
when a viable fetus is almost entirely outside the mother.
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Jim Henshaw,
Well consider that the only reason that it might be 'viable' is due
to technological intervention. So does technological development
set the standard?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Jim Henshaw,
And if so doesn't that mean that the individual can abort up to
"viability" and then has the right to induce labor and then abandon
the child to that technology?
|4.23.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Paul: You're not quite right.
51% of
Americans favor abortion rights to 46% opposed
While 80% favor
the death penalty
Clearly your perceptions don't line up with the reality of it.
|4.23.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Grotius,
Since you have a problem with "viable", for the sake of
clarification let's remove that ambiguity -- do you think that one
complies with the principle of non-initiation of force if one sucks
the brains out of a nearly delivered fetus that has been in the
womb for nine months, is perfectly healthy, and could live on its
own outside the mother's body without any modern medical technology
at all? Is it infanticide only if 100% of the baby's body is
outside the womb instead of 80% outside?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Jim Henshew,
I don't have a problem with the term "viable." I'd just like to
spell out what I think are some of the implications of that
argument. Namely that if viability is the cut off then technology
is going to be involved in that equation and at said time of
viability it would be only fair to allow the woman to induce labor
and thus end the pregnancy. Surely if the fetus at viability has a
"right to life" then it has no right to live in the womb if it can
be removed and cared for elsewhere.
Robert|4.23.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Do any of you have any objection to killing a living entity that is nobody else's property but the killer's (or nobody's) and which does not itself mind being killed? If so, why?
|4.23.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Grotius,
You still haven't answered the question -- do you believe that
there are any circumstances whatsoever where killing a fetus would
involve the initiation of force, and would thus be wrong from a
libertarian perspective? Is there any circumstance where you would
consider a fetus to be a human being?
Grotius|4.23.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Jim Henshaw,
(a) It seems possible. It certainly can't be ruled out.
(b) It would depend on the criteria being used. Some criteria are
more credible than others I would guess.
|4.23.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Grotius,
In response to your earlier question about whether it is right to
take a viable fetus out of the womb -- that would depend on both
your assumptions about the rights of a fetus, and what constitutes
initiation of force. My wife induced labor at all her births, when
the fetuses were fully developed and inducing labor posed no health
risks to them, because the fetuses were getting huge -- she didn't
much care for delivering a 11-12 pound child. From my perspective,
I'd say what she did was unambiguously OK. If you think that
fetuses are never human beings and can always be killed, then it
follows that the lesser harm of removing them from the womb when
they are barely viable would be consistent with that philosophical
viewpoint. If, however, you believe that at least some fetuses are
human beings, then you get into the thorny question of what
constitutes initiation of force, since it can be argued that
allowing a barely viable fetus to stay in the womb imposes risks
upon the mother's life or health, but it can also be argued that
removing that barely viable fetus imposes risks upon the fetus'
survival chances or health. I'd say in that situation, the mother
would be way better at judging the right course of action than some
politicians.
|4.23.07 @ 8:10PM|#
They never say "the fetus moved." Interesting, from a
psychological point of view, isn't it?
I dropped something on my toe the other day and shouted "Jesus
fucking shit!" What do you think that means?
I think that I would be careful to interpolate anything from common
phrases, or to put it another way, I think I would stop listening
to Chris Matthews.
|4.23.07 @ 8:44PM|#
mllh: I have to question the use of disgust as an ethical
arbitrator. Certainly many things that disgust us (like the Vtech
massacre) are also profoundly immoral by other measures. But
disgust also gave us lynchings and anti-miscegenation laws, among
other things. Disgust has more to do with how a person is
socialized than any absolute (or even consistent) standard of right
and wrong, and extends to many acts that are by all measures
ethically neutral - drinking your own urine, for example, would be
disgusting to most people - but has nothing unethical about it,
even to people who find it revolting.
kohlrabi: Personhood is more of a common law convention, not
something that is really defined rigorously or scientifically, so
it is difficult to approach from a scientific perspective. That
being said, a lot of research and thought has been poured into the
idea of conciousness (see Dennett, Hofstadter for approachable
reading on the subject) and it is likely that conciousness is not a
binary, have-it-or-you-don't state so much as a continuum. Dogs,
then, are concious beings - less so than adult humans, but more so
than mostquitos. The ethical implications for this don't do much to
clarify the abortion debate. After all, intrauterine development is
a time when the human body transitions gradually from something
rather less aware than a protozoa to something capable of
communicating with others and being (somewhat) understood. Any
point in development that you draw a line is going to be
controversial to someone. Complicating all this is the fact that as
adults, we have hardwired instincts to attribute a property called
"cuteness" to babies, and respond in a protective manner,
independent of any cognitive attribute possessed by the young
mammal. It's the opposite of disgust (previous paragraph) but
rational only in the sense that it has helped, in a crude way, our
species to survive. Like disgust, though, it can be misplaced -
onto kittens, chicks, puppies, etc. - with ludicrous results.
These two irrational responses explain a lot of the conflict over
abortion, whether it be disgust with the various procedures
involved or the urge to protect "babies" that extrapolates the
cuteness of a newborn back to the morula stage.
|4.23.07 @ 9:19PM|#
I do so wish that someone would develop a uterine
replicator....
Plus may I point out that if the fetus is endangering the woman,
she has a perfect right from the viewpoint of self-defense to get
rid of it, no matter what point of development it is at.
(Certain Catholics may disagree and say the woman's life should be
sacrificed. One reason why I believe that certain Catholics are
morally full of it.)
|4.23.07 @ 10:27PM|#
Once the egg is fertilized, Unless it is forcibly removed, it
will continue developing as a human being. This growth and life
continues right up to the second we die.
I dont think we can argue viability as a lone organism as there are
many things we as adults cant live without. But from the moent of
conception, we humans are a viable organism.
What rights should be afforded to the sperm donor?
|4.24.07 @ 8:01AM|#
The decision for an abortion or what type of abortion belongs to the woman seeking the abortion and the providing doctor. D&E's are rarely sought and are used in rare circumstances where either there is a significant defect found in the fetus or the mothers life would be in danger if she continued with the pregnancy. There simply isn't a line of women in the third trimester finally deciding that motherhood isn't for them. If anything they've finally made it past the red tape that prevented them from having a first trimester abortion. The entire thing is offensive. We aren't breeding stock, we're human beings. That the government believes itself more competent than I or any other woman who happens to have a body and does or does not want certain things to happen to it is disgusting. It is a disgusting violation of my right to privacy, my right to think and act upon my thoughts, (nothing has a right to be inside of my body), it is a violation of the doctors right to think and act. What is most heinous is that these violations are not the result of any rational study that have deduced that there is some way that a fetus exists only if provided access to residence inside of a woman and be an individual, because no such conclusion is possible. This is entirely based on crude religious ideology which we are guaranteed by the first amendment that we may choose to acknowledge or disregard.
|4.24.07 @ 10:57AM|#
"Once the egg is fertilized, Unless it is forcibly removed,
it will continue developing as a human being."
Miscarriages, infant mortality rates and complications leading to
the death of the fetus (and the mother if a certain type of
abortion isn't performed) all refute your claim.
Robert|4.24.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I notice people here arguing lots of finer points, but not interested in addressing the basic question I asked.
puzzled|4.24.07 @ 12:56PM|#
I could question your premise: how do you know a fetus does not
mind being killed? Have you ever asked one?
On that slightly absurd note, I will ask a question of my own,
about the ban specifically on partial birth abortions.
If an abortion requires terminating and extracting the fetus, why
does anyone care what order it is done in? Why does anyone care if
the termination comes before extraction, afterwards, or part way
through?
I cannot find anyone who is both clearly pro-abortion, and willing
to answer this question. The only people who will give me a
straight answer are the ones who think we are given souls at
conception because the Vatican tells them so.
|4.24.07 @ 2:55PM|#
All I will say is that I celebrate this ruling. It's about time that the Death Dealers get dealt a blow. I hope all of the narcissistic supporters choke on it. Pro Death just lost a key component....here's to hoping that more of this barbaric act will get rolled back as well.
TJ|4.24.07 @ 7:22PM|#
"Once the egg is fertilized, Unless it is forcibly removed, it
will continue developing as a human being."
A common fertility problem is that the fertilized egg fails to
implant in the uterine wall.
Assuming she is trying to get pregnant, the woman so afflected
murders baby after baby after itty bitty teensy weensy baby. Damn,
there oughta be a law.
Robert|4.24.07 @ 8:21PM|#
"I could question your premise: how do you know a fetus does not
mind being killed?"
Simple: They couldn't possibly have enough knowledge to care. Like
the vast majority of living things.
TJ|4.24.07 @ 9:04PM|#
"If an abortion requires terminating and extracting the fetus,
why does anyone care what order it is done in? Why does anyone care
if the termination comes before extraction, afterwards, or part way
through?"
I don't care. The doc's do. The suction will collapse the fetus'
head, allowing for less trauma to the patient. This is quite
important if the fetus has hydrocephalus.
Robert|4.24.07 @ 10:05PM|#
No, I think the question was, why not allow babies to be born,
and then kill them? Same results, just in a different order.
One of the funniest things I ever saw & heard in med school was
when a would-be mom delivered a fetus at 4-5 months' gestation,
looked at it (it died immedately) and said, "Looks just like its
father."
|4.25.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Robert - You are quite right, that is the question that
interests me. I have asked it at other websites and got no
answer.
To take your own argument - if you can be sure that the fetus does
not have enough knowledge to object to death while it is inside the
womb, how can it have gained that knowledge during its entry into
the world?
You could look for defects much more easily when it was outside
and, if it seemed OK, spare it. If not, all you need is a brick and
a waste bin.
TJ|4.25.07 @ 1:52PM|#
"No, I think the question was, why not allow babies to be born,
and then kill them? Same results, just in a different order."
No, not the same results. In some cases it can injure the women if
the head is not collapsed.
Robert|4.25.07 @ 9:09PM|#
"if you can be sure that the fetus does not have enough
knowledge to object to death while it is inside the womb, how can
it have gained that knowledge during its entry into the
world?"
Who said it did? I think it takes probably a few years. During that
time, if you die, you don't mind. It's only when you start making
plans, thinking about the future, and learn about death, that you
start to care. All values (and hence all harms) are subjective. So
I don't think death harms an infant. No harm, no foul.
puzzled|4.26.07 @ 1:48PM|#
TJ - That is not a reason to ban "total birth abortion", we
allow live births of human infants all the time.
The thing is that I have asked this question before, and Robert is
the first explicitly pro-abortion person to give a sensible
answer.
Typical answers are:
"You can't kill it after birth because then I call it a baby, and
killing babies is wrong."
or:
"This argument is an attack on womens rights!"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245