Are you really ready to argue that women have the right to defend themselves from nutrient robbing human life forms they produced? There is an obvious answer to that argument. I think most people would agree with it when describing the woman as the victim of her in utero child. Edit: Regardless, It is a totally separate matter to argue what rights and protections under the law should be applied to an in utero child.
If we accept the premise that our human DNA is what makes us individual persons, then several unfortunate things happen: (1) Every part of our body has human DNA... do we need permission from a wart before we can remove it? (2) Many twins have identical DNA... but they diverge because each mind is unique and inevitably incorporates unique experiences. (2) If a baby has the wrong number of chromosomes we cannot consider it a person (which would be unfortunate for some actual persons). I agree that the unborn organism is driven entirely by biological programming (absolutely no thought/intent/morality/ethics involved until it has an active mind). That means it has no moral relevance to anybody except the pregnant woman. Those who claim the zygote has some kind of moral relevance... that it *wants* to attach to a host and be formed... must allow the law to balance its "desires" against the desires of the host and it is only ethical to allow it to use the host if the host consents. A woman does not have direct control over the timing of her ovulation, or whether a given sperm will fertilize a given egg, or whether that egg will implant. The most you could say is that she took a risk, and we take risks every day we drive a car or step into the shower (especially if we drive a car into the shower). You could argue that a woman who goes to a fertility clinic to intentionally become pregnant has given consent to the fetus, but would you deny her an abortion if the fetus turned out to have Tay Sachs or something worse... or if she learned that there was a 50 percent chance the pregnancy might kill her and leave her first child without a mother? People do sometimes change their minds and remove consent. The pro-life position reminds me of guys I have met who think a girl who goes on a date with them has given implied consent for sex... so how dare she change her mind and revoke that consent later.
1.It's fairly clear that each individual part of the individual, while still attached, is simply one part of the individual. 2.Identical twins don't have identical DNA structures, variations in specific regions do exist. I'd have to track down articles if you'd like more info. Likely scientific american. Regardless, DNA structure changes after birth anyway. Edit: and quite possibly in utero. 3.I'll leave that unaddressed.
I have no problem with someone changing their mind. I do not think one could argue that a woman is a victim of her in utero child. Keep in mind 'innocence' is a fairly important concept here. Who would be more likely to be viewed as the innocent party?
Good point (the changing DNA)... I forgot to mention that DNA can change, so those who believe it is our DNA (instead of the mind) that makes us individuals would have to explain why Joe does not change identity when his DNA is affected by a virus. The nature of the body may change... a defective heart might be replaced... a limb might be amputated (or even transplanted in modern times) but that does not change the nature of the person. It is the mind that defines our identity as persons... not the body. If the body is the important part, every animal on the earth has a body and we have no right to kill them to satisfy our needs. Another issue I forgot to mention is cloning. When an artificial womb is functional, there will certainly be cloning of humans (even if it is underground). If we find a lab with 100 identical clones at 34 weeks gestation, can we just turn off the power and let them all die because they are not unique DNA individuals? Or even if they have identical DNA will they each have a right to life when their minds are activated?
Innocence has no relevance unless there is a person involved. Is the snow guilty or innocent when I slip on the sidewalk? Neither, because the snow is just a part of nature acting based on natural laws with no moral or ethical intent or standing. If I put an awning over my sidewalk so I don't slip, I have thwarted nature but nature does not care because it had no innocence or guilt about the matter. The same is true of the fetus until it has an active mind.
it wasn't against their will they gave consent when the gave consent for sex when you give consent for an action you are also giving consent of the possible consequences of that action if you are informed of those consequences
Ha! That second one is great! I think either nurture them in to adulthood, or keep them sedated and unconscious to prevent experience so we can experiment on them. I think it is up to society to decide the ethics on that issue. On the first part, I think it is fairly clear about those already born. It is the unborn that is in question.
I think potential has a lot to do with arguing whether the unborn have any protections or rights. Neither the snow or the sidewalk have the potential to have a right to do anything at all. I do not think the concept of consciousness and an active mind is important to whether something should be protected. A fetus is unique in that it will have an inherent set of rights, gaining each with further development.
Those of us who are already born have active minds. They happen to reside in bodies that started to form about 9 months earlier. It is clear that a virus that changes Joe's DNA does not, physically, turn Joe into a different person because Joe's body is not his identity and we have plenty of experience at recognizing that the individual goes on regardless of what happens to the body. Consider Steven Hawking... Is he unique and significant because of his body or his mind? The unborn can ONLY be defined by the body, and the body is driven by the same natural forces that create the snow and algae and cause birds to fly south for the winter. There is no evidence that they can support the complexity of the mind (until the wiring is complete in the very last weeks of gestation and you turn on the power by changing the physical status at birth). It would be like claiming your PC is a person because the lights flash when you press certain buttons. Your PC does not have the physical structure to support a human mind... and neither does the unborn fetus (until, arguably, the last 4 weeks or so of gestation).
Yes, we do. Just like the smoker has the right to have his/her tumour caused by his/her smoking removed.
Incorrect. Consent to sex is NOT agreement to gestate and give birth. Quite frankly, I have sex to cum, not conceive.
A tumor never has the potential to be a unique individual human person. Be prepared to hear either gasps or giggles if you use this argument.
The human fetus body will develop complexity of the mind at some point in development. Potential stacks on itself in this case. Each day of development moves a fetus closer to being a viable human person with rights. Medical ethics has already mostly decided on the immorality and ethicacy of terminating a fetal life: If it is possible to save a human life, even if it is prior to the last 4 weeks or so of gestation, it makes its darnedest effort to do so. Should there be exceptions for the health of the mother late in pregnancy? Yes, of course. It would be medically unethical to not. As medical advancements improve (and if society has an interest), viability (ie, likelihood of survival including artificial means) may change. Viability being 22-24 weeks or so, currently. Not much effort is placed on preemie deliveries earlier than 22-24 weeks. Medical ethics will change with medical advancements (as they always do) and when efforts are more successful (as they always are). How could I, as a human, deny another innocent human their potential rights? (keep in mind I am not using the word potential to mean possibility) Fetal potential is unique because it will be a human person with a right to life. And innocent, mind you. Abortion earlier in term is best. This is what obviously happens most often, about 92% of the time. The current political debates pit women vs babies and babies vs women. I certainly appreciate your input on the matter.
The snow, the bees, the birds migrating in winter... these are all driven by nature. They do not have the potential to be persons, but they don't have rights because we (society) do not typically give them rights. You could argue that there are some exceptions (e.g. an endangered bird). Society does not want the bald eagle to become extinct, so we make it illegal to destroy the nest or the eggs of the bald eagle (as a way of keeping the species alive). Some would claim that gives the bald eagle special rights, but it is really just a way for society to accomplish a specific goal (i.e. to keep that species alive). Twenty years from now if we had so many bald eagles they were causing jets to crash and breaking power lines when flocks of eagles sit along the road... that law would be changed (because the bald eagle is NOT a moral or ethical entity). If society has a legitimate goal to increase the human population, then we should not only outlaw abortion, but require that every woman must give birth at least once every two years (for example). I see no justification for society or government to intervene in that way. Yes, I should have said the activated mind (not active mind) because there are certainly times after birth when the mind is not active or conscious (perhaps in a deep coma), but the point is that there is a significant difference between a mind that has been activated and a brain that is sitting there waiting for somebody to press the power button (i.e. the moment when the wiring is in place, the sedatives are eliminated, and oxygen is increased). Before that point, the organism developing in the womb has no more moral or ethical standing than any other living organism. It acts based entirely on instinct and biological programming. After that point, the mind is active and begins incorporating experience. The newborn begins to learn from its environment. It is that stream of experience and thought that we would lose if this person died after birth. That is the part of a human being that has moral and ethical relevance. It is true that a fetus, or embryo, or zygote, or even a sperm cell, has the potential to become a person and inherit the rights of a person... but none of them are actually a person yet.
I'm considering the issue mostly within the context of how to apply it to society as we are today. I don't think that science is fully aware of what consciousness is, or what its origin is, or whether there is more than one conscious reality at one time. So I can't really speak on the subject of consciousness. I do take seriously the idea that a fetus is not born and therefore not a citizen of the US, so it doesn't have any rights as a citizen might. I do think it is problematic for a human fetus life or an nonactivated mind human life to not have any protections. Why would it be unethical to perform any experiement or abort any fetus at any point in gestation?
Each day does bring the fetus closer to being able to function at birth, but how does that justify pretending that it has already crossed that line? The fetus is unaware, the pregnant woman has an absolute right to decide how her body is used, and the rest of us are acting on our own selfish motives (it makes us sad to think of a potential person whose development is halted so close to birth). If the fetus could experience pain, we would be justified in demanding that it should be sedated. If the fetus could actually be in there thinking about anything, we would be justified in acting in the interests of that fetus. Otherwise we are acting on selfish motives to make ourselves feel better (because we don't want to see that potential go to waste). I fully support the doctor's right to decide if he (or she) is willing to perform an abortion in the last few weeks of gestation. I personally would hope that this fictitious woman who runs to the abortion clinic at week 38 would be convinced by the doctors (NOT by the pencil pushers at the state capital) to give birth and give the child up for adoption. In the last four weeks or so, I believe the brain can be activated with little or no damage (just eliminate the sedatives and increase the oxygen). Earlier activation forces the brain to function before it is physically prepared, so every additional week results in higher risk of brain hemorrhage, cognitive disabilities, and other problems. Viability (22-24 weeks) is really just potential viability. There is no guarantee that every infant born at 21 weeks will die and no guarantee that every infant born at 25 weeks will live. It is an approximation based primarily on heart and lung development. If (as the Bible suggests) the heart contains our essence, then it makes sense to consider the fetus a person when the heart can support person-hood. We know that it is the brain, not the heart, that supports our essence, so there is no justification for placing demands on the pregnant woman before the brain is supporting a new mind. You ask "How could I, as a human, deny another innocent human their potential rights?" I ask, how can I, as a human, force an actual human to give up her right to control what happens to her body on behalf of a theoretical/potential person? If I am willing to do that, I might as well be willing to force her to undergo fertility treatments to create a child (if creating a new person is more important than her rights as an actual person).
Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate responses. I rushed some of my response in that last one. I could make a few clarifications on what I wrote or how I wrote it. I will admit there are many things I don't know and always enjoy others offering more input on all of these subjects. I'll respond a little more thoroughly when time allows. One quick point I'm sure you'll enjoy : While "potential" President Trump isn't "actual" President Trump, he most certainly has rights he didn't have when he was only a "possible" President Trump. lol
I would preface by saying that what I’ve typically noticed is that when a person thinks of the morality and ethics of abortion, they usually have in their mind a specific event on one end of the spectrum of the situation. For example, if a person argues abortion is wrong, they tend to think they are saving a nearly born baby from being terminated. On the other hand, if a person argues women’s rights to choose, they tend to think of an abortion as saving her life from a septic causing infected placenta. I think there is another group of people who consider a broader spectrum of situations when considering the issue of abortion. I’m not always a big proponent of metaphors as I’ve mentioned to you before but I’ll give it a shot... A farmer goes into a chicken coop and grabs an egg laying under the hen. As he turns, the egg slips out of his hand and breaks against the ground. The loss is minimal, the consequence is small. So he returns to the hen house with a basket to reduce the chance he drops an egg. He gathers several eggs from several chickens and brings them in to the house. He puts a pot of water on to boil. As he takes each egg to drop in to the boiling pot, he notices one has a partly developed chick inside. He decides to go lay that egg back under then hen where he found it. Why? Empathy? Is it a consideration that it is more closely to an actual chick and the killing of a living being has greater moral consequences? Who knows? I think most people would behave similarly. I am certain that there is a value decision that is given based on the amount of time, development, investment, and its potential. Potential is important because if the egg contained a diseased or malformed partially developed chick, there is no potential to be an actual chick. The malformed chick will be discarded with no consideration of any moral consequence. If a chemical was used to aid in the growth of the chicken feed that caused the malformity, then the farmer would feel there was a moral consequence and disapprove of the use of chemicals. If the farmer caught the mother hens out back smoking and drinking and shooting up meth, the farmer would feel there is a moral consequence to the mother’s behavior that cause malformity. I do understand that in this example, the choice of the mother was not discussed. Nor did I consider whether a malformed fetus is ever unjustifiably defined as faulty. I simply offer the example as an explanation as to why there could be concern in the minds of some to consider the protections of the unborn. Current ethical practice inscribes these values. A physician would not fulfill a woman’s desire to abort a healthy fetus at 38 weeks. It would be unethical to do so. It has nothing to do with consciousness or lack of experience or whether he felt the fetus had a right to life or not. Likewise, a physician would be ethically required to report a woman who was engaged in activity that could be of consequence to the well being of a fetus. The protection of the life and health of the mother should be primary. There can be no more chicks without the hen. Where I might be able to offer insight on my view on the mother’s right to choose is by offering where the woman currently chooses. There are 700,000 abortions a year (2013 statistics). To continue with our analogy 92% of those were eggs dropped. 8% were eggs with partially formed chicks. A woman controlling her body is more than acceptable to me. In fact, it is thoroughly encouraged. It will lead to the use of birth control and early term abortions. I think its a stretch for someone to believe that an offer of genuine concern that a fetus might need a certain level of protections would lead to forcing women to go to fertility clinics. For example, without the ethics of protections for a fetus, a physician or social worker would not be able to even counsel a woman on the effects her illegal drug use is having on her potential child.
I think the attempt to draw parallels that human life in any stage of its development, wanted or unwanted, is similar to a cancerous tumor inside a woman's body will elicit gasps from some people and giggles from others. I will stand by that as being relevant.
Indeed... we all tend to focus our arguments on the clearest examples we can find and that usually leads to one extreme or the other. It does make for a good thought experiment to ask ourselves what would we do in a given situation. What is our natural instinct (and why)? I think you are right - most people would instinctively want to put the egg back in the nest. Why? We want *all* life to have a chance (unless there are extenuating circumstances). My grandparents kept chickens, and usually there was room enough for a few more chicks, so I think they would have put the egg back. A farmer who has no more room in the hen house might just discard the egg. If the farmer caught the hens with moonshine (or some other harmful substance) he would take action... but that might be more self-interest than altruism. I do believe most people would instinctively want to return the egg to the nest so it could grow (and that is the instinct that drives us, as observers, to try to save the human fetus). I suspect, however, that most people who find a cluster of copperhead eggs in a corner of the basement (even if a few are moving and almost ready to hatch) would be more inclined to destroy all of the eggs (while a few might be inclined to collect the eggs and take them to a wilderness area that already has a population of copperheads). I would say potential for life is an important factor, but the potential impact that life might have on a person is also significant. Does an outsider really have the right to tell me that I have to allow copperheads to hatch in my basement because they (the outsider) would feel bad about the loss of those potential lives if I destroyed the eggs? I agree that we should consider the potential impact of a woman's actions on the fetus *IF* she is not planning an abortion. When an artificial womb is functional perhaps the government could take custody of the fetus (just like they would take custody of a child after birth) and place it in a healthy environment. At present, I think our best option is to present her with the choice of (a) get an abortion and take your time recovering from the addiction, or (b) stop immediately if you want to give birth. If she continues the harmful activity AND gives birth to a damaged newborn, several options are possible: taking the child for adoption and/or jail time and/or voluntary sterilization (perhaps as a way to avoid jail time). Indeed, the ethics of the physician also suggest a fundamental urge to protect the unborn (especially in those last few weeks). I believe we should trust the physicians to do what is ethical instead of placing restrictions on them that might distract them from their primary duty to care for the actual person who came to them for help. The law (in my opinion) should not force a doctor to perform an abortion he (or she) believes is unethical, but it also should not restrict a doctor from performing an abortion he (or she) believes is appropriate and ethical. Your statistics do help emphasize the fact that most women who do not want to give birth will, naturally, try to get an abortion as early as possible. A ratio of 92% suggests that everybody who wanted an abortion, got one as soon as possible. It further suggests that the other 8% wanted to give birth, but learned something that made them decide that an abortion was necessary. If her doctor agrees that an abortion is necessary, none of us really deserve the right to interfere (no matter how much we, instinctively, want to save the baby chick). I would be happy to revise my opinion if I learned that there are documented cases of women who seriously want an abortion at week 38 for some inappropriate reason. So far I have found no such documentation and none of our pro-life friends have provided real-world examples, so the point stands that a law against frivolous abortion in the last few weeks of pregnancy will only have the effect of delaying and distracting the doctor who should have the pregnant woman as his (or her) primary concern. The pro-life camp uses the fictitious last-minute abortion to drum up support for restrictions ("How could you let a woman get an abortion the day before the due date?")... when there ARE no women flocking to the abortion clinics the day before the baby is due (not even in Canada which has no laws against it). Regarding: "I think its a stretch for someone to believe that an offer of genuine concern that a fetus might need a certain level of protections would lead to forcing women to go to fertility clinics." I did not mean to imply that this would lead to forcing a woman to go to a fertility clinic. I was pointing out that we pretend we are protecting the fetus, when actually we are trying to protect the future interests of the child. Fetal alcohol syndrome, for example, is moot if the woman gets an abortion. She might as well drink as much as she wants because there will be no future child. That is why it is inaccurate to refer to this as "protecting the fetus." If we protect the fetus, we might as well protect the zygote and demand that it has every opportunity to create a newborn (e.g. fertility clinic). If we protect the zygote, we might as well protect the sperm and demand that it has every opportunity to create a newborn (e.g. legally required sex for propagation of the species?). Pro-lifers stop at the sex part because that would be inconvenient (or might lead to dancing). I say we should stop at the birth part and anything that happens before birth is a private matter between the woman and her doctor - UNLESS (as you pointed out) it might impact the future health of the child. When we have laws in place to prevent abortion, we are not protecting the fetus. We are selfishly protecting our own feelings (and another, actual person, pays the price). It makes us sad to know that a potential person will not get a chance to reach its potential. Our sadness, however, does not give us the right to force a woman to give birth to her child. If we pretend that it does, then Bill (who is sad because Mary wants to break up with him instead of having his baby) has just as much right to lock Mary up in the basement until she gets pregnant and gives birth to his child. I completely agree that most of us have a natural instinct to protect the potential child (or chick) instead of destroying it, but the simplistic answer is not always the right answer in every case. If your chickens are getting sick because you cannot afford enough feed for them, would it really be the right answer to put that egg back in the nest? (Hint: under stress, chickens will turn on each other).
I typically dont like parables or metaphors. I tried to keep my little chick story specific to describe one particular example of how potential is important with considering human life. I suppose the snakes are the unwanted life form analogy? Ill leave that unaddressed except to say neither copperheads nor chicks will ever be persons, nor have rights under the Constitution of the US. Nor will sperm, unfertilized human eggs, or a non-implanted fertilized egg. Metaphors can be challenging. As I stated in my previous response, I would absolutely encourage a woman to control what she does with her body. That absolutely includes her sexuality. I didnt intend to begin a discussion on the illogic of requiring consequence for sexual behavior. The complex reasons people do things are their own, selfish or otherwise. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people both have genuine reasons for their positions, agreed with or not. I would never argue with the persons reasons to argue any position. I would, however, argue the points with which I disagree. Your arguments against the Pro-Life camp are arguments against the Pro-Life camp. I wouldnt defend most of their arguments. Also, each camp has different arguments varying slightly or sometimes considerably. I certainly cant offer you incidences of a 36 week abortion. Although the Pro-Life response to the argument of 36 weeks is basically who cares. Ive offered you examples of partial birth abortions and testimony of the physicians who perform them as examples for what may be fueling some Pro-Life positions that there should be restrictions on abortion. My cutesy little chick story was an effort to express to you that for the majority of people the morality of fetal termination is argued using a different method than "actual" person or "consciousness". Every personal behavior a woman engages in that adversely affects a fetus is indeed moot if it is aborted. Its difficult to dispute that. What I would say about that logic is that it feeds a narrative in Pro-Life arguments that Pro-Choice perpetuates a lifestyle to get drunk, stoned, and abort. You may be okay with that due to other positions you take on other issues. Unfortunately, Southwest MO has quite a lot of methamphetamine production and distribution. Ethical considerations on these issues are important when discussing womens choice. A womans choice can also include her using drugs while also not terminating her pregnancy. What duty should a woman have to protect her unborn child? What constitutes personhood? Well, Im unsure. What constitutes Right to LIfe? Im unsure but most ethics would suggest viability and likelihood of life outside the womb, with primary consideration to the life and health of the mother of course. What constitutes rights under the Constitution of the US? Being born a citizen.
I never said it is the same. I was making the point that just because someone's actions cause harm to them doesn't mean they can't have the harmful entity removed from their body. *I* did not bring the issue of actions up, YOU did. So, don't whine when people show how faulty that is.
Okay, you didn't say it is the "same"...so I suppose I'll say that I merely mentioned that you said it was "similar". I suppose the makers of the sperm, men, could be sued for damages, since sperm was the cause of this "cancerous growth", for knowingly distributing something that creates unwanted growths inside the woman's body. Maybe we could search their files and find documents where they admit that they know that their product causes these growths. Or maybe we could attach labels to men's foreheads that warn women that men are a known cause of these cancerous-like growths. It's not quite the same.
