Now you’re asking ME to justify a position I have never once put forth. You should really stop doing that.
The answer is: I do not think that a fetus five minutes before birth has any less right to life than one five minutes after. Yet I am pro-choice. If you want that rationalized, you’re going to have to ask less confrontational questions. And maybe consider that this isn’t a black and white issue to everyone.
I can answer why it makes a difference to me, if you’re interested in knowing.
I don’t believe any being should legally be able to force another into caring for it. I don’t believe the 80 year old husband should be able to force the wife to wipe his butt, if she wishes to move out with a 20 year old in her waning years. I don’t believe the two year old toddler (yes, that damn toddler again… always needing a body part!
) can force the mother, father, a stranger, etc to provide a piece of liver, or bone marrow, or a kidney. I don’t believe a fetus can force a woman to provide a womb, even temporarily. I’m sure we all have differing opinions on what is the “right” or “proper” or “moral” thing to do, but that’s each individual’s choice, IMO, not something to be legislated.
If there was a way to remove the fetus from the woman’s body (without causing more physical damage to the woman than an abortion does) then I would not support it being killed. There is no need for it to be killed.
IMO, as long as the fetus requires another human to support it, then that support is at the discretion of the one providing it.
I hope that explains at least one train of thought on the matter. It’s by no means “the pro-choice answer” as there are hundreds of different points of view in the pro-choice camp, just like is in the pro-life camp.
No need. According to your claim that humans don’t have a right to be free from pain, torture is perfectly okay. Therefore, according to your stance, while aborting a fetus is wrong, torturing it is perfectly okay, since it doesn’t have a right to be free from pain.
Unlike many pro-choice people, I believe that a fetus does fit the criteria . . . after about the 20[sup]th[/sup] week. My criteria is coherent brain activity. No organized brain activity = no thought processes = no possible sense of self = no actual person exists yet
Exactly. My point was that abortion is not a “get out of consequences free” card. It carries its own risks.
No, we’re dealing with knowledge of the human consciousness’s existence after physical death not possessed by anyone. For all anyone knows, there may exists an afterlife where one’s happiness is inversely proportional to the age that they died at, resulting in aborted fetuses experiencing absolute bliss for eternity, and people who die of old age being tortured for all of eternity.
The point being that no one knows, so making decisions based on the possibility of an afterlife make no sense, including decisions not to abort because you don’t want to send a fetus into the unknown, since sending it into the unknown could be better than letting it live.
And this is why I, personally, place the development of organized brain activity as the upper limit that I feel people should be able to have abortion for any arbitrary reason (or no reason at all). After that point, I use a sort of sliding scale that is a bit subjective.
Yes, there is. There is evidence that a functioning brain is needed for any type of awareness beyond simple stimulus-response.
Okay, then I’ll presume that plants are conscious and that you just can’t detect it. I guess vegetarians need to stop eating altogether now.
Seriously, are you implying that consciousness is not a function of the brain? If so, then what are you reasons for reaching that conclusion?
Cite? The scientific evidence is favor of consciousness being a result of brain activity. Brain activity which is not present in a fetus prior to the the 3[sup]rd[/sup] trimester.
The difference is that people have a right to not be killed, but humans do not. At least, that’s how I assign rights. The two usually overlap, but not always. To look at the other end, I would assign a sentient alien species the label of “person”, but not “human”. Thus, they would have a right to life.
Goo:
I suppose I may now consider my question answered although only because the same line of thought independently occurred to Goo. (I really must be invisible on this thread or something. Maybe I’m a popular component of folks’ “ignore” lists?)
So, those of you who oppose abortion because it means killing the fetus which is human or alive or a person or whatever:
Assume for the sake of argument that you do not succeed in making abortion illegal, but that this technology comes into being. May we assume that you will cheerfully support the bill that uses your tax dollars to keep fetuses alive after they are removed from the wombs of people who do not wish to carry them?
you’re stepping into the realm of invisible pink unicorns with this one. if you want to make claims about science, you better make sure they make predictions which are falsifiable.
do you presume it is wrong to eat plants because they have a right to life and might be conscious, even though we can’t detect that consciousness?
to add, i don’t think a child one second after birth has all the makings of what we would call a “person”. what it has is a different implicit worth than a fetus. an adult woman, whose personhood we can’t deny, has the right to make medical decisions about her body. a fetus is part of a pregnant woman’s body. any worth other members of society place on that fetus are trumped by that fact. after the child is born, society may meaningfully place worth on that child and not override the mother’s right to make decisions about her body.
the line at which something becomes a “person” is indeed blurry. the line at which something gains human rights need not be, and certainly should not be. there are many wonderful reasons (and many have been laid out) for giving those rights to a born child, and very few reasons to give them to a fetus.
yguy, so far it seems that all you’ve done is ask questions about the pro-choice position. could you clarify your position? why do you think a fetus is deserving of human rights? should it have all the rights a typical child does? do you support abortion rights before say, the 20th week? if not, what makes a conceptus a person that does not make a sperm or an egg a person?
I don’t agree with your terminology here. The first part of that should read “a woman’s right not to give birth”. I also would say a fetus is more of a developing human life, rather than a human being.
Anyway, the right to life of every humanesque creature is not recognised as absolute by anyone except pacifists. The rest of us all recognise exceptions and in my view this is one of them. In this case the two rights are in competition and wholly irreconciliable, and one of them is going to have to supersede the other. It simply makes no sense to me to say that that of the fetus, which hasn’t even been born yet, should take precedence over that of an actual, born, person.
Everything! The fact that it’s a part of her body is what makes this an issue to begin with. If it weren’t, she could simply walk away from it.
That’s a rather daft question if you think about it. Children don’t have sovereignty over their own bodies either, do they?
Then may I assume you think the mother’s “right not to be pregnant” supercedes the child’s right to life? If so, why?
I don’t see the problem. I believe I’m getting a semantical runaround, and I’m asking for straight answers. Sue me.
Gosh, there’s an original thought.
By this reasoning, it appears that the mother is no more obligated to care for the child after birth than before, in which case it appears she is perfectly justified in taking it into the wilderness, leaving it there, and going on an ocean cruise. If you object that others would care for the child if she didn’t want to, why would others be obligated to care for a child they did not bring into the world?
Rather than treat this with the insolence it deserves, I believe I’ll just note that it is a preposterous non-sequitur which isn’t worth the time it took to read it.
Indeed, just as killing my wife does. 
Thanks. I’ll remember that next time my trigger finger gives me that familiar itch when I encounter somebody the world would be better without.
Stimulus-response is not indicative of human awareness, nor is lack of it evidence of the lack of human awareness.
I don’t care whether they’re conscious or not. Cattle have a sort of consciousness, but they don’t have human consciousness.
I’m not implying anything. I’m saying we don’t understand it well enough to say what it is a function of.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/earlymem.html
The documentation of learning and memory months before birth is surprising. Some of this has been made possible by direct ultrasound observations of fetal behavior. Twins can be seen developing certain gestures and habits at twenty weeks gestational age which persist into their postnatal years. In one case, a brother and sister were seen playing cheek-to-cheek on either side of the dividing membrane. At one year of age, their favorite game was to take positions on opposite sides of a curtain, and begin to laugh and giggle as they touched each other and played through the curtain. Parents interested in prenatal communication have taught their prenates the “Kick Game.” When babies kick, the parents touch the abdomen and say, “Kick, baby, kick!” When the baby kicks, they move to a different location and repeat the invitation. Babies soon oblige by kicking anywhere on cue.
So fetuses don’t have the right to life because they’re not people…and they’re not people because they don’t have the right to life.
Have I got that right?
You lost me. How am I supposed to prevent anyone from making unfalsifiable claims?
if you accept science as your epistemology (and you’ve given hints that you do) you ought to prevent yourself from making unfalsifiable claims. “fetuses might be conscious, but we can’t detect it,” is an unfalsifiable claim. you might as well claim the existence of the proverbial “invisible pink unicorn”.
if we can’t detect it, there is no reason to suppose it.
100% no to any abortion. It’s murder.
The whole “it’s my body” thing. It is anatomically wrong ( a foetus is not an organ) and how come 9 months later it magically becomes a person and Dad has to support it. I mean, I had sex 9 months ago, then I have no real say on the child, and then BOOM pay for the critter. If women want to get the “it’s part of my body”, stop asking Dad for money.
What if a baby is born and then put back into the womean’s body, is it OK to abort?
Be careful with conciousness and brain activity as indicators, they might get you killed prematurely in the future.
No matter how you cut it pro-choice IS pro-abortion.
Having an abortion is at least 4 times as dangerous as having a child. Post-abortion syndrome, higher rates of infertility, drug use, suicide, drinking and breast cancer should be part of the pro-choice position.
I repeat 1000000% no, ever.
If by that you mean that I accept the scientific consensus as the arbiter of truth, that would be a no.
Indeed, but of course I made no such claim. You or someone claimed fetuses are NOT conscious, a claim without basis in scientific fact. I merely pointed that out.
You are a bulldozer operator under contract to demolish a building. You have a deadline to meet. The building is too dangerous to enter. As you head toward it, someone tells you a child is inside, unconscious, making it “undetectable” from your perspective. Is there any reason to suppose this interloper may be correct, seeing that all you have is his word for it? If you forbear to move forward, your contract stipulates that you will pay a penalty. Do you engage the clutch, or do you verify that the interloper is lying?
Why can the same not be said of infants?
To the degree that they have the right not to be killed, they do.
Why?
You think a child’s worth is determined by society? If it is society’s option to place worth on that child, it is also its option not to. Right?
You think a child’s right to life is a gift from society? If so, why may we not take away what we have given?
Because an infant is deserving of such rights, and a fetus is not substantively different.
Since I don’t know what rights you think the typical child has, I can’t answer the question.
I don’t claim positively that a conceptus is a person, only that it may be. As for a sperm and egg, neither can, by itself, develop into a human being if placed in a womb.
Actually, there was a purpose to my saying that. Mr2001 said that a mother’s rights must be weighed against the fetus’ rights, to which you responded Only if you consider the right to be free of discomfort, pain and the like inherent rights. They aren’t. . . ."
Thus, you are arguing that, because we don’t have a right to be free from pain, a woman’s rights do not have to be weighed against those of their fetus.
I pointed out that assuming that freedom from pain was not a right logically leads to torture being okay. Or at least to people having no right to not be tortured.
The whole point being that your claim – that the right to be free of pain is not an inherent right – results in an absurdity, and thus it is faulty. Therefore, your claim that a woman’s rights need not be weighed against a fetus’ rights is an invalid statement, as it relies on the aforementioned faulty claim.
The difference being that the person probably doesn’t want to die, while the fetus doesn’t care one way or the other, nor is is capable of caring. In fact, before the neurons in its still-forming brain begin to connect at around the 20[sup]th[/sup] week, the fetus doesn’t even have a working mind.
Which is not what I was saying. I was saying that, lacking a (working) complex brain, and organism can only react at the stimulus-response level.
And neither does a pre-20[sup]th[/sup]-week fetus.
Sure we do. People with brain activity exhibit all other signs of consciousness, while people without brain activity do not. Even if you aren’t convinced that brain activity causes consciousness, they are still positively correlated, and the lack of one is indicative of a lack of the other.
Notice the mention of the 20[sup]th[/sup] week again. Your cite correlates well with what I’m saying.
Not in the least. Pre-brain-activity fetuses don’t have the right to life because they’re not people, and they’re not people because they have no mind, and no “self”.
nope, that’s not what i meant. i meant “science” in the philosophical popperian sense, that claims are made that make predictions that are falsifiable, and the verity of the claim is dependent on the verity of the predictions it makes.
in that sense, with a complete lack of evidence for something, it is safe to conclude a lack of that something.
more later…
That, of course, is nonsense. I may cause myself pain by my own stupidity. Do I have a right not to feel that pain? Obviously not. If you torture me, the pain I feel presumably has nothing to do with any action of mine, but is entirely the result of you wanting to get your jollies at my expense.
Now, if you would be so kind, do not bother me with any more such fatuous drivel.
Your repetition of this utterly unsubstantiated assertion is entirely uncompelling.
This, of course, presupposes that the fetus’ consciousness cannot exist without neurons firing. Again, utterly unsubstantiated.
And just how is that relevant to the question of human awareness?
And because they do not exhibit other signs of consciousness, no consciousness exists? IOW, if we can’t see it, it ain’t there?
This, of course, is only true if absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.
Only superficially. Prenatal memories, obviously, are evidence only of what the fetus remembers. I can remember about 5 minutes of my life up to age 5 or so. Does that mean I only had 5 minutes of consciousness in those five years?
Safe for whom?
In any case, there is evidence for the idea that fetuses possess consciousness, which I have posted above.