Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

But I don't think it is all controversial, given the overwhelming science, and I think Singer's point on this is inescapable, that given the best case arguments for the criteria of personhood very young children (newborns) are less intellectually developed than cows and pigs. Older children yes, but not younger children - hence my point is that we have a moral duty not to kill domesticated animals for the same reasons that we have a duty not to kill a 1 week old child. Are primate brains more developed - sure - older children - without question are more cognitively developed than animals -but this is not so for younger children (younger than 6 months) - so given the personhood argument, how could we ever ethically justify killing domesticated animals?

 

Well a lot of things could be legally convenient and not be ethically justified. There would be no reason not to allow infanticide for premature children until they reached the equivalent of 40 weeks right. The question of self-consciousness is without question important. But given our lack of understanding of how mind supervenes on neurology - I happen to hold that some form of non-reductive materialism is most-likely true (property dualism), given the limitations of physicalism to give an account of consciousness - so while personhood most likely occurs well after birth - it is conceivable that some earlier development gives rise to cognitive capacities, so the question is how safe should we be in establishing personhood?

As for infanticide, I'm not sure why different laws would be intellectually substantive. Moreover, an encephalitic infant would be really no different morally than a down-syndrome infant or even a developmentally normal child.

 

1. the unborn are already seen as persons, hence why there is a ban on elective abortions after viability and killing one without the females consent is seen as a second murder (if the female dies as well), by any definition this means that the unborn do have a certain amount of rights .. but please tell me when did having rights mean you can impose onto another person without consent.

2. Transfusions etc are dependent on the consent of the person giving, your position of being a person does not give you the right to take those things from someone else without consent .. which in an unwanted pregnancy is exactly what the fetus does.

BTW: you can continue to ignore me, it will not stop me pointing out the obvious flaws in your comments.

 

You are wrong about drugs, it is not illegal to be a drug addict or to take drugs, what is illegal is the possession of certain drugs . .the courts constitute the drugs in a person's system as being in possession.

There is an alternative viewpoint as to why laws are made and enforced that has little if anything to do with morality and that is co-operation where tribal family units found that if they worked together with other tribal family units their ability to survive, defend etc against others increased, therefore it made no sense to kill a member of your extended tribe because it reduced the overall tribes abilities. Same goes for taking something from another tribe member.

So no all claims about what ought to be are not moral claims.

 

As I said before, we would be giving the newborn the benefit of the doubt. We know for a fact that the newborn brain has developed to the point of providing meaningful thought. From birth on we are allowing the newborn time to be programmed. I also pointed out earlier that birth is a legal threshold set for legal legal convenience (and does not address the morality of infanticide in cases like anencephaly). As such it does not represent a moral stance that the newborn has the necessary IQ to qualify as a person. It is an extension based the fact that the newborn has the necessary equipment and has reached a legal threshold (birth) that allows us to apply different rules. We give every newborn the benefit of the doubt that it will reach the potential of that brain, but we do not withdraw personhood if they fail to reach that potential. We know, however, that domesticated animals do not have the potential to reach that cognitive level.

We are not saying it is ethical to kill a pig with moderate intelligence and unethical to kill a newborn with less intelligence. We are saying that the nature of their brains, and thus their potential, is different so we extend protection to the newborn while its functional brain is being programmed. I do believe other primates have similar brains (or souls) and could deserve protection, and I could be convinced that some domesticated animals are capable of sentience, but that would not alter my opinion that birth is the most reasonable legal threshold for abortion.

 

By setting birth as the threshold (which is well before actual personhood) we allow any viable newborn the benefit of the doubt. How would it be unethical to extend the benefit of the doubt to a newborn?

We know for a fact that the brain will not even be able to process a meaningful thought until the last few weeks of pregnancy, so it would be impossible for the fetus to be self-conscious before the middle of the third trimester. Certainly the foundation for cognitive thought is being constructed during those last few weeks, but as other posters have pointed out (1) there is not much happening inside the womb to trigger thought and (2) even pro-lifers claim personhood does not begin until well after birth, so we are extremely safe in setting actual birth as the threshold for personhood.

As for infanticide, the obvious intellectual problem is that one woman may choose to keep her premature 28-week old baby (which is labeled a person at birth) while another woman may choose to abort her 28-week old fetus (which is removed without being labeled a person). That is not infanticide because a law establishing personhood at birth is actually extending personhood (offering the benefit of the doubt) to the newborn in the first place. The law does not require that the newborn must pass an IQ test to prove its personhood, so it does not matter that some persons might be less capable then others when they are born. It only matters to control enthusiasts who want to make the second woman produce a baby instead of getting an abortion.

 

Taking another look at this (specifically at the ethics) it seems like you are looking for a single, ethical, rule to establish the threshold for personhood and/or abortion. Let's assume we have an advanced EEG machine that confirms the moment the newborn has its first self-aware thought is one year after birth. We could say the one-year-old is a person and it would be unethical to kill a one-year-old for that reason.

Why, then, would we extend personhood to the newborn at birth? Because we presume the mother wants to nuture and protect her newborn and it would be unethical (against the interests of the mother) to allow anybody to kill that newborn. If the mother does not want to nurture and protect their newborn, then it would be more ethical for the government to require adoption instead of termination when dealing with a newborn because (1) it is no longer entangled within a host person AND (2) it already has a brain with the capacity to perform meaningful thought (which might be nurtured by some other person without imposing on the rights of the mother.

I believe the situation is too complex for one simple ethical rule to deal with both cases (before and after personhood).

 

Your argument is silly. If the intent of the woman is to have an abortion then drinking doesn't matter. If the intent of the woman is to carry the pregnancy to term then she is reckless and irresponsible for endangering here future offspring.

 

A woman can change her intent. If a pregnant woman drinks heavily, does it become wrong for her not to have the abortion??

If so (and the reason pro-choicers may be hesitant to answer this) then the woman becomes put under a moral obligation because of her past actions (drinking while pregnant). This means a woman can be held culpable in the future for reproductive decisions she made in the past.

 

It becomes irresponsible - as stated in previous post.

This is a complex question. If you have yet to figure out that a single cell at conception is not a living human ... There is really no point in expecting that you would understand more complex issues.

 

So, contrary to the statements made by other pro-choicers in this forum, you believe that, if hypothetically it were a baby, it would be irresponsible for the woman to abort, would that be correct?

(I'm assuming this is the case, otherwise I don't see how the statements you just made could be consistent)

If a woman should be free to have unprotected sex, she should be free to drink all she wants.

 

Of course if some entity is "a baby", by definition it is a living human. It is murder to kill a living human.

This statement has no connection to the above.

 

On most things I agree with you, on the above statement I do not .. whether the unborn are persons from conception or any other point in pregnancy is really irrelevant, in fact being deemed as persons from conception only serves to enhance elective abortion at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it, once the unborn as deemed as persons then they are subject to the same laws and restrictions of all other people, anything else would be a violation of the equal protection clause.

As it currently stands with the unborn not being fully recognised as persons then the female is the deciding factor as to whether she remains pregnant or not and the state can impose some restrictions based on their compelling interest, if the fetus is deemed a person from conception then that raises the Constitutional question of equal protection ie. no person can infringe on the autonomy of another person without consent, if, or when, the unborn are deemed persons then they must also abide by the equal protection clause regardless of whether they have intent or not, and regardless of the circumstances that led to their position, they must gain separate consent from the female to impose and injure them. The consent she gives for sexually intercourse has zero relevance to pregnancy, consent is a non-transferable item, it cannot be assumed that consent given to one person for one action allows another person to perform another action. Implied or informed consent could be said to have occurred, however implied or informed consent is only valid until the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no" from that point onwards implied or informed consent is moot.

Should the female refuse consent then legally the fetus is causing her injury and even though the fetus cannot be charged or prosecuted for causing those injuries that in no way abridges the females right to defend herself and the state having to assist her in doing so.

 

The poster was stating a hypothetical "if it was a baby".

The fact of the matter is that the "unborn" has not been shown to be a baby (and certainly not in the early stages of pregnancy when in fact the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming) "the unborn not being fully recognised as persons"

If it is not a "person" it is not a "baby"

In the case of the Joel Feinberg's argument "right to occupancy in the mother's womb" it is accepted (for the purposes of a hypothetical argument) that the fetus has a right to life.

It is argued that even in the case where the fetus has a right to life, that this does not necessarily outweigh the rights of a woman to ownership over her own body. The right to life does not necessarily give the fetus the right to occupancy in the womb.

There are interesting arguments on both sides of this one.

Given that it is fallacious to assume that a zygote is a living human. I do not spend to much time on this one although I realize that this is a mainstay of pro-choice. I firmly believe that over focusing on this argument has been to the detriment of the pro choice side though.

There are good/ valid arguments that can be made form the anti-choice side against the "right to occupancy in the womb" question.

There are no good arguments that can be put forward from the anti choice side showing that the single cell at conception is "defacto" a living human/Person.

 

Yes, the abortion debate has numerous layers of reasoning, with the logical possibilities branching off in a myriad of directions. The first question is whether it is a significant human life at stake, it is not necessarily a simple yes or no question though. The second question is, if this life does have significance, does the woman have the right to abort it. And on top of all this, there is an additional layer of arguments that try to argue about what the legal status should be, that are not dependant on whether abortion is right or wrong. So it's complicated. Several categorical layers of argument.

Some pro-choicers believe it's not a baby, but that if it was a baby, abortion would be wrong.

Some pro-choicers believe it is a baby, but that the woman still has the right to abort the pregnancy.

Some pro-choicers believe abortion is wrong, but do not believe it should be made illegal.

So there are all different reasons pro-choicers have for being pro-choice. Not all this different opinions are consistent though.

Then you have the radical pro-choice position that will hold to any argument to try to defend abortion. These hardliners might actually be doing more harm than good for the pro-choice position though.

 

You still seem confused...abortion is legal. What are you talking about with crap about the "first question, the second question...

...doesn't matter what Pro-Choicers think or Anti-Choicers think , abortion is legal...no debate on gestation, 23 weeks is legal...after that an abortion can be performed based on the life/health of the woman and/or fetus..

In other words it's BEEN decided




You: """Then you have the radical pro-choice position that will hold to any argument to try to defend abortion. These hardliners might actually be doing more harm than good for the pro-choice position though. """"

wrong as usual, Pro-Choicers defend the right of women to choose. Abortion doesn't need defending, it's legal.

"doing more harm than good" ???? What? Abortion is legal...

 

There is overwhelming agreement on both sides that a newborn baby is entitled to life (even right-wingers who don't believe anybody else is entitled to anything). That is why the government has a mandate to prevent one person from killing another person.

There is no agreement that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a person (or has a spirit or soul) before birth. It is a matter of religious belief so it should be left as a matter of individual conscience. If you are pregnant and you believe you have a responsibility to the soul inhabiting that zygote, then you should be free to grow it into a newborn baby. If you are pregnant and believe that it would be irresponsible, or even cruel, to bring a new soul into the world right now, then you should be free to terminate that pregnancy before it becomes a person (according to your beliefs). The government has no mandate to determine when a zef becomes a person, or whether baptism should be performed by immersion versus sprinkling. These are religious issues.

 

I understand the argument you are making . .however .. it really isn't that relevant, whether the unborn are persons or not doesn't have any effect on the legality of abortion, all it does is move the argument from what the fetis is to what it does.

 

Nope, wrong in all instances .. whatever the "people" think about abortion isn't really relevant, what is relevant is whether abortion violates any rights unjustly. The last I heard the US is not subject to mob rule so in reality the opinions of the population have little to no effect .. unless they go through the correct procedures to amend the Constitution, which by the way has never been done via the people, in order for the people to propose amendments it requires two-thirds of the states to apply for an amendment and even then there are limitations as to what can be called for eg. even if two thirds of the states called for slavery to be reintroduced it cannot happen, same goes for body autonomy, ie even if the states wanted to propose an amendment concerning abortion it could not because it would require the constitution to be amended in such a way that ALL people would lose their autonomy based on the whims of the state, anything other that that would mean a violation of the equal protection clause .. unless you are suggesting that the equal protection clause is amended to?

 

How the personhood -or lack thereof- of the fetus is defined affects the law with respect to abortion ?!

I also agree that there are arguments in which the personhood of the fetus does not legally negate the rights of the woman. (so personhood is not such a factor in this respect)

In general though, if the fetus was deemed by the court to not be a person, there would be no legal argument.

 

I agree. Even if the court would declare that it is a point of religious belief which cannot be imposed by one person upon another, it should block any attempts by states to enforce one religious belief over another. That would be like allowing the Baptists to demand that Catholics must perform baptism by immersion on the grounds that sprinkling is not sufficient to protect the immortal soul.

 

The main problem with the debate (IMO), is that most on the anti abort side are on that side for religious reasons. It would not be a problem if they would state this but, they won't. They realize that this is a null legal argument so they deny it is a religious argument and engage in all kinds of disingenuous tactics, obfuscative language and fallacy knowing that the raging masses in general do not know any better.

I believe that all this nonsense can be dispelled by simply acknowledgement of the fact that there is no consensus. "Experts disagree" (even though the vast majority of experts do not disagree - it is an absurdity for example to claim that a single human cell is a human)

Proof of the above claim - "Experts disagree" - is given as follows.

There are 5 main perspectives on "when human life begins"; Genetic, Neurological, Metabolic, Embryonic, Ecological.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

Only one (Genetic) puts the beginning at conception. As you can see this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists for reasons given.

Regardless. The bottom line is that "Experts Disagree" when human life begins.

Keep in mind that claiming "human life begins here" is not the same as the claim "a living human exists". Human is used as a descriptive adjective.

OK .. since it is a fact that "Experts Disagree" this is the same as saying "we don't know".

How then do we make a legal argument ? On one side we have the highly valued rights of the woman. These rights are enshrined as per the principle on which this nation was founded. Individual rights and freedoms "Life Liberty Pursuit of happiness".

The declaration goes even further and put these rights "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't/Law.

This is a heavy weight on one side of the scales of justice in favor of the rights of the women.

How then do we value "I don't know" such that we can give "I do not know" a weight to put on the other side.

It is a legal absurdity to suggest that the weight/value of "I don't know" outweighs the rights of a woman.

 

I have noticed that!

I joined this site a few months ago expecting to discuss the religious aspects of the issue. If the soul existed before conception and persists after death, how do we really know when it binds to the body? Very few pro-life advocates were willing to comment on the issue. I suspect they have learned to distance themselves from religion to avoid making it so obvious that their position is really a battle over forcing their religious beliefs onto the rest of the public.

 

I don't believe it does, it moves the focus from what the unborn are to what they do .. that is all.

 

If the entity at some stage through pregnancy is not a person/living human, terminating the life of this entity is not murder.