New at Reason
Steve Chapman explains what the partial-birth abortion decision means to the debate over abortion at large.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Ultima Ratio | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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?
Fat Man At the buffet Line | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 9:11am | #
JohnD,As to "blind eyes," I'm not ignoring the "facts" entailed in this procedure.
Marc | April 23, 2007, 9:16am | #
Wait, I'm confused. I should start lobbying to legalize infanticide?I think I'm slipping UP the slippery slope.
Grotius | April 23, 2007, 9:19am | #
Marc,Well, most of this does come down to competing typologies, there is also probably something else undergirding those.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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)Guy Montag: if we're going to make one method of murder illegal, why don't we start with the electric chair?
Grotius | April 23, 2007, 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.
Jake Boone | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
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 | April 23, 2007, 9:59am | #
Brian,Now, according to these folks women are forced to have abortions in the PRC.
| April 23, 2007, 10:14am | #
No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety) in the U.S.Except the child.
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.
You'd first have to establish that the "child" has a "right" not to be aborted.
Goldstandard | April 23, 2007, 10:36am | #
I believe the Nazis simply blew away a good number of people when they came by...Wow. Color me surprised that a thread on abortion turned almost completely unintelligible after only four or five posts...
mcgcruiser | April 23, 2007, 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....
belle waring | April 23, 2007, 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.kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
Goldstandard | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 10:52am | #
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.No one is forced to have an abortion (of any variety) in the U.S.Except the child.
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.
It only took six posts to get a Godwin violation. That's got to be a record.
Lamar | April 23, 2007, 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.
Goldstandard | April 23, 2007, 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..Eric | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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?
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 | April 23, 2007, 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?
Mojotron3000 | April 23, 2007, 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.
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?
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 11:15am | #
Grotius,I have noticed. Like with laws concerning minors signing contracts and whatnot. Things do get a bit more complicated.
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 | April 23, 2007, 11:23am | #
kohlrabi,As with any ideology libertarianism creates as many questions and issues as it resolves.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
Mona | April 23, 2007, 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.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 11:44am | #
mllh,I suppose in part because controlling reproduction has been a means by which patriarchy has exercised dominance over women.
Grotius | April 23, 2007, 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. ;)
Lamar | April 23, 2007, 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.
Nasty Nate | April 23, 2007, 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.Lamar | April 23, 2007, 12:15pm | #
"Perhaps "abortions" should be allowed up to that point."Don't we already do this 60-70 times per year?
Can we at least agree to call them "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" and "pro-choice"?
Grotius | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 12:20pm | #
Marcvs,The thing is that most people aren't entirely for or against abortion; their position shifts based on the facts.
val | April 23, 2007, 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: 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."
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
val | April 23, 2007, 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?
val | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
val | April 23, 2007, 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.
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?
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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?
val | April 23, 2007, 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.
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!
val | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
val | April 23, 2007, 2:53pm | #
clarification:* then you dont need to consider the motherBy 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.
kohlrabi | April 23, 2007, 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.
val | April 23, 2007, 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?
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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
Congratulations to all for avoiding or neutralizing the more divisive statements.
Goldstandard | April 23, 2007, 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 MorganJim Henshaw | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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?
Lamar | April 23, 2007, 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.
Jim Henshaw | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
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?
Jim Henshaw | April 23, 2007, 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 | April 23, 2007, 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.
Jim Henshaw | April 23, 2007, 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.
Tacos mmm | April 23, 2007, 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.
Tacos mmm | April 23, 2007, 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.
grumpy realist | April 23, 2007, 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.)
brotherben | April 23, 2007, 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?
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.
Lamar | April 24, 2007, 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.
I notice people here arguing lots of finer points, but not interested in addressing the basic question I asked.
puzzled | April 24, 2007, 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.
Not A Murdering Woman | April 24, 2007, 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 | April 24, 2007, 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 | April 24, 2007, 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 | April 24, 2007, 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 | April 24, 2007, 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."
puzzled | April 25, 2007, 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 | April 25, 2007, 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 | April 25, 2007, 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 | April 26, 2007, 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!"