Abortion Question - Defining Human Life

Great Debates
1

Here’s something I’ve wondered about the abortion debate: why don’t people define the issue?

First, what we all (hopefully) agree on: a mom can’t just up and kill her two year old son, or for that matter her newborn. If you think newborns can be killed you are probably among about 1% of people who think so, and while you’re entitled to respond… well anyway.

And probably most of us agree that letting sperm and eggs die is no problem whatsoever. If you disagree, see above statement.

So the question is, “When do the gametes become a human life, and how do we define/determine this?”

Other questions are irrelevent. If the fetus is nothing but tissue, there should be no restrictions on abortion at all. It is no different from having a tooth pulled. It isn’t “a woman’s right,” it’s just not an issue. Do whatever.

If it IS a human life, a child, then a woman should be physically restrained by the police for trying to kill it, and any considerations about money, lifestyle, fatherhood, even rape, make no difference. They aren’t grounds to kill a toddler, and if an unborn baby has the same status as human life, that’s that.

SO… all that to say, “What’s the logical way to determine if it’s a human life?”

There are basically two approaches that I’ve heard: 1) the “presence of” approach, which means, “When individuals have X set of characteristics, they are human.” (Keep in mind whatever applies to the unborn applies to the rest of us too.) 2) TO WHATEVER EXTENT individuals have X set of characteristics, they are human."

My problem with the #2 approach is mainly that the author of this arguement where I saw it defined the characteristics as things like intelligence, independence, etc, which says to me “retarded kids and senile old people are less human, and smart people more human than dummies, so we can distribute rights to life accordingly.” The problem with #1 is deciding which characteristics count.

Any ideas?

2

Please no rants for either side, by the way, and no flaming. Just logical proposals and arguements. I’m really interested in what you think, not how rabid you can be. :slight_smile: Thanks.

3

That is indeed the question. The problem is that there is no objectively correct answer.

For instance: I don’t think life has anything to do with having a heartbeat, or having electrical activity in the brain, or being shaped like a human, or being able to wiggle. Life, to me, is made up of our thoughts, emotions, relationships, experiences, and memories. Before I can have those things, I am not yet alive. When I can no longer have those, I am no longer alive, whether or not blood is pumping through my vessels.

It’s tough to say when that point comes, but I am willing to say that it isn’t before birth. (Do you remember being born? I sure don’t.) Thus, I really don’t think of a fetus as “alive”, but as having the potential for life–the blank paper where the story will be written, if you will.

I therefore don’t think of abortion as the taking away of life, since by my definition, there is no “life” to take away. You could say that abortion takes away the fetus’s “chance at life”, but to me you could just as easily say that masturbation takes away the sperm’s chance at life.

All of this, however, is my opinion, which derives from my atheistic, utilitarian point of view. (If it sounds particularly cold, forgive me–it’s late.) I don’t claim that my definition of “life” is the correct one, or that it should make sense to anyone else. I’d say that a hundred different people would have at least a hundred different ideas as to what it means to be alive, and that’s why abortion debates rarely go anywhere. It’s the ultimate equivocation of terms.

Dr. J

4

First, a quick comment on the OP:

While I would agree that “most” do say this, don’t put the minority in the same small group that would say killing a newborn is OK. Remember, the official line from the Roman Catholic religion (and probably others) is still that every sperm is sacred.

Anyway, this is, as DoctorJ says, not an easy question to answer. The pro-life crowd says that as soon as the sperm and the egg merge, they have created a new genetic pattern and thus a new life. The pro-choice crowd says nope.

But within the pro-choice crowd, I don’t think you could get an answer that everybody would agree with. Some people think third-trimester abortions are okay; others don’t. Some think the fetus is “alive” when it has brain waves; others when it’s born; others when it could survive without excessive aid if it were born; others probably something else.

All in all, it’s enough to leave a person completely :confused:

5

As a Catholic, I thought I’d comment on the comment. The “every sperm is sacred” bit from the Church is really a prohibition on masturbation (and other orgasms that aren’t centered on a procreative act within marriage). It’s not a corrollary of the Church’s teachings against abortion. In the abortion sense, “every sperm is sacred” only when it has already set up shop with an accommodating ovum. Prior to that they are simply wonderful pals…

Dr. J’s defintion was interesting, but I believe it’s probably in a very small minority–i.e., most folks, regardless of what camp they’re in, believe that at some point prior to birth the “entity” becomes human (or at least should be afforded human rights). You’re correct, deciding where that point is would resolve a lot.

Let’s assume that we can’t decide this (a reasonable assumption, based on most of the abortion threads I’ve seen). I would answer that at the very least, if there is some question as to whether or not human life exists, we must assume it does. Why? Because if there is such a thing as an absolute right, it’s the right of an innocent not to be killed. Given the supremacy of that right, in my mind the proper question is not “how do you know it’s life?”; it’s “how do you know it’s not?”…

6

Bob said:

I don’t think it is a reasonable assumption. I think that most people can decide – for themselves. Just because everybody can’t reach agreement doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a number of independent decisions.

You are trying to say that because 100% of people cannot agree, we should side with one extreme?

What about those who would say it exactly the opposite?

At the very least, if there is some question as to whether human life exists, we must assume it does not. Why? Because if there is such a thing as an absolute right, it is the right of a woman not to have the government tell her what to do with her own body. Etc.

I’m sure there are people who feel just as strongly in favor of what I’ve written above as you do in favor of what you’ve written. So we still come back to the same questions. That’s why I am pro-choice. It is up to the individual, not the government, to decide. I would not personally choose for my wife to have an abortion, except perhaps in extreme circumstances. But I will not try to extend my personal feelings to others.

7

Oh, come off it. I’m so tired of this same straw man every time the subject comes up!

NO, that is NOT the question. It is the question for SOME of the people in the debate but NOT for others of us.

Consider the applicability of the following questions:

  1. IN GENERAL (not just for pregnancy and abortion), when is the taking of a human life murder? When is the taking of a human life a pardonable non-murderous act? A socially responsible act? An act of admirable heroism?

  2. IN GENERAL (not just for pregnancy and abortion), under what circumstances is living tissue within a person’s own body and sharing bloodstream and nutrients part of one’s body? Under what circumstances is living tissue considered a separate and parasitic organism? Under what circumstances is it a legal entity with its own right to survive? Under what circumstances, if any, would its right to survive supercede the human host organism’s right not to have it there?

  3. Does the state of being pregnant fall into any meaningful larger category, or is it a category unto itself? SHOULD it be treated (and argued) as a unique situation, or as a subset of one or more larger life-situation categories?

8

I’ve seen this posted in several threads now and would suggest that said right is not absolute.

Not to delve into cliches, but if you have one lifevest on a sinking ship, you’re going to give it to the mother, not her helpless babe. If a life-or-death choice needs to be made during childbirth, most people are going to choose the mother. If you have the chance to save someone from certain death, you’re likely to save your 16-yr-old nephew before the 85-yr-old neighbor, or your 60-year-old mother before the 25-yr-old punk down the street. As harsh as it seems, people DO assign relative worths to their fellow humans whenever the situation gets dire enough that they have to choose.

Of course, abortion is usually not a simple choice between the mother’s life and the child’s, but rather a weighing of the mother’s well-being vs. the child’s life. If you hold that a human life is infinitely more important than all other concerns, then there’s little question.

However, if you recognize relative worths, you may have to decide whether the potential of the unborn baby is worth more than the difference in potential of the mother before and after birth. It’s kind of like asking whether a 30-year-old should spend 15 years taking care of a completely unresponsive stroke-afflicted parent at the expense of her own life and family. Is the potential of the 60-year-old stroke victim worth more than the lost potential of the 30-year-old daughter (not to mention the effects on her husband and children)?

I once started this thread to discuss this dilemma, but it got a bit jumbled by the software upgrades. Scroll down until you see a long list of people and the question of whether their relative worths could be ranked.

9

Some good points being made…

DoctorJ
>>Life, to me, is made up of our thoughts, emotions, relationships, experiences, and memories. Before I can have those things, I am not yet alive. When I can no longer have those, I am no longer alive, whether or not blood is pumping through my vessels…It’s tough to say when that point comes, but I am willing to say that it isn’t before birth. (Do you remember being born? I sure don’t.) <<

That is a reasonable assertation. But how can we determine whether someone has thoughts and emotions, memories, etc? For instance, you say you don’t remember being born. I don’t either.

My family moved from out of state to our present location in Georgia when I was almost 6. I have only a few vague memories before that move. Does this mean I was not alive, or only marginally so, before the age of 6? Maybe I was alive, say, from 4 years on.

It’s possible, of course, (probable rather) that other people can remember experiences from earlier in life than I can. How can you tell until many years hence?

On the flip side, if someone is very old and can no longer remember much, or has emotional problems, or is mentally retarded, how does that affect this definition of life?

AHunter3, I still think this is the question pertinent to abortion. Your assertation of question #1 (when is murder different from killing in war, etc) is important (and one I have a lot of trouble with, too!), but outside the current topic.

Under #2, I think it’s a little harsh to call a baby a parasite… but when you said this:
>>Under what circumstances, if any, would its right to survive supercede the human host organism’s right not to have it there?<<

I think this is exactly the question. If, for instance, we grant that baby at X stage of life has a legal right to life, that would naturally supecede the host’s right to freedom, at least for the remainder of pregnancy. If it has no legal right to life, the host’s rights would prevail. As with any laws, “Your rights end where mine begin.” You have a right to buy guns, but I have a right to be safe from you, therefore we have gun laws, trespassing laws, etc.

Again though this comes back to “is it a life?” Because the law demands that a toddler can’t be killed or abandoned because a woman has a right to independance from caring for it. If an unborn has equal status to a toddler, the same rule should apply, though the situation is admittedly difficult.

As to #3, I don’t see why it is a unique situation, morally or logically that is, unless you have good reason to state otherwise.

Meara, I see your point about the relative value of different lives TO INDIVIDUALS (like stroke victim vs. adult children of victim) but this kind of thinking could get dangerous. If someone is less “useful” than someone else, should they have less right to life? Say, a cripple vs. a healthy person, or a doctor vs. a high school dropout? And though I may value my grandmother’s life more than a stranger’s, society as a whole certainly shouldn’t play favorites. Add to that danger, if the government decides whose life has more value than others, what prevents that from being defined racially, economically, politically, or with other prejudices? It happened in Germany.

All this is to say I think we need a clearer standard than that, so we can tell when it’s being violated.

10

David B

Forgot to respond to this:

>>You are trying to say that because 100% of people cannot agree, we should side with one extreme?<<

This is a common principle. Consider juries: if they can’t all agree someone is guilty, then he’s innocent. The idea is that it’s “better to err on the side of mercy.” Everyone isn’t going to agree about any issue you can think of, but laws are made anyway.

Put it this way: if a building were about to be demolished, and a rumor arose that someone might be inside, would it be worth the large amounts of time and money wasted to search the building and delay the demolition? In other words, does life take precedence over all other concerns? I think the answer here would be, yes, search the building.

Here is a trickier question: suppose the building was demolished anyway without a search. Suppose nobody was inside. Would those who made the decision be guilty of taking a life, becuase they WOULD have? If I point a gun at someone’s head and play “Russian roulette,” will your opinion of me change based on whether or not I happen to get a bullet in the chamber?

11

Back to David’s point about the right of a Woman to choose what to do with her own body being absolute.
That is a complete myth in the legal sence. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution giving you an explicit right to your own body (man or woman. And there are plenty of obvious cases where you don’t have the right to decide. Illegal drugs and prostitution being the two most often cited examples. I know this gets said alot, but trying to defend abortion based on a non-existant right just doesn’t hold much water.

12

tripoverbiff,
You aren’t going to find many people to play with you. As you can imagine, this subject has come up many times. The majority of pro-choicers believe (as AHunter3 alluded) that a fetus should not be considered alive until it no longer requires its mother to act as its biological host. Note that there is a signicant difference between acting as a biological host and providing care and support to an infant.

In fact, I am the only pro-choicer I know of who would be willing to play. My opinions are based in AHunter3’s first point, namely, that abortion should be classified as justifiable homicide. In a previous thread I outlined several factors I believe should be considered when determining when abortion is justifiable homicide.

Harms if allowed:
To Society:

  • Human life is cheapened
  • One less potentially productive member of society

To the unborn baby:

  • death. Note: this harm may become greater as time goes on and the baby begins to develop brain functions and the ability to react to external stimuli.

To the Father:

  • Losing the opportunity to become a father (in cases where the father is opposed to the abortion).

Benefits if allowed:
To Society:

  • preventing the government from intruding into our most personal affairs
  • not creating a situation where dangerous and illegal abortions are performed.

To the Mother only:

  • emotional, physical and financial benefits of not being forced to go though pregnancy (This factor will, of course, change depending upon how far the woman is into her pregnancy)

To both the Mother and Father:

  • emotional and financial benefit of not being forced to support and be parents to an unwanted child.
13

tripoverbiff said:

Sure, but I was responding specifically to the previous statement. I could just as easily say, using that “logic,” that juries should convict and send the criminal to the chair if they can’t decide. After all, better to err on the side of protecting the public, right?

See, that’s the problem with an all-or-nothing proposition like the one I was responding to – it can go both ways.

Large amounts of time and money to search a building? C’mon.

It depends on how “true” the rumor looks. In general, I’m thinking they don’t demolish buildings without checking for people inside anyway.

No, because you don’t know what went into their decision. Maybe it had been searched previously. Maybe they knew that a group was opposed to the demolition of this building and was spreading false rumors. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Will my opinion of you change? Well, first I’d have to have an opinion of you. :wink: But, yes, it would. But the problem here is that you’re talking about a definite life that you are possibly taking, not a possible life.

Wolfman said:

Um, you might want to try rereading what I said. It was an obvious hypothetical in retort to somebody else’s claim of an “absolute right.” And I even started it with, “If there is such a thing as an absolute right…” So that’s two points that should have made it obvious what I was talking about.

Which is ridiculous. We could get into the discussion about whether the Constitution gives rights vs. recognizes rights, but that’d be a big tangent, especially since you responded to a claim that I wasn’t making at the time.

That said, just because it doesn’t appear in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Yes, and I think both of those are wrong.

Trying to respond to points that were never made except as a hypothetical response doesn’t hold any water.

14

**
Sorry my wording led you to believe I thought no one on this board or elsewhere had arrived at a decision regarding the morality of abortion or where life begins. I should have been more specific. What I meant was, I don’t believe we’ll collectively arrive at any sort of an agreement by the close of this thread.

**
I’m not sure how to answer your question. People who say that the right of an innocent not to be killed is as far from an absolute right as exists, is that the notion I should consider? Not sure what “exactly the opposite” means, unless you’re just asserting that there are those who don’t agree with my position on abortion. Again, I’m already aware of that circumstance. I was just trying to explain my position and the logic behind it. There is probably no issue that you could find 100% agreement on, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to attempt to find the ethically proper path. If I’m misunderstanding your question, please let me know.

**
The right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body is a very important right, but I’m not certain what logic leads you to assert that this is as close to an absolute right as exists. Again, while this right is real, a woman cannot legally decide she wants her body filled with heroin. She can’t decide to hurl her body from the World Trade Center. She can’t decide that her body best belongs on someone else’s property in the middle of the night, therefore she’s justified in breaking into your house. She can’t decide that the medicine you own would best serve her body, so she’s justified in stealing it.

I mention these only to point out that there’s all kinds of legitimate prohibitions that render the right of a woman (or man) to decide the destiny of her (or his) body less than absolute. When exercising that right infringes on another’s right, that’s where the pro-life camp believes there’s fair game for discussion.

No, just because someone feels strongly about his or her right to kill his or her toddler (just as an example), the strength of that conviction does not make the act ethical. (Yes, the strength of my conviction that abortion is immoral does not, by itself, render it so.)

15

David B,

to review a bit…

>>>>Here is a trickier question: suppose the building was demolished anyway without a search. Suppose nobody was inside. Would those who made the decision be guilty of taking a life, becuase they WOULD have?

>>No, because you don’t know what went into their decision. Maybe it had been searched previously. Maybe they knew that a group was opposed to the demolition of this building and was spreading false rumors. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

quote:

If I point a gun at someone’s head and play “Russian roulette,” will your opinion of me change based on whether or not I happen to get a bullet in the chamber?

But the problem here is that you’re talking about a definite life that you are possibly taking, not a possible life.<<<<

You’re not taking my point seriously. The example I’m giving assumes that you don’t know for sure whether someone is inside and that it would be costly or time consuming to search (say, for instance, it’s a skyscraper) to illustrate that in some cases, other considerations would have to come behind the possibility that a life is at risk.

You point out that in my Russian roulette example, it’s a definite life that I’m possibly taking. How is that different from a possible life I’m definitely taking? Either way, my actions could possibly end in ending someone’s life. I’m asking if you think it’s morally okay to take that risk for other concerns.

MORGAN,

What you have given, though well thought-out, is something that makes me uneasy, and sort of why I raised this issue in the first place. You call abortion “justifiable homicide,” and give reasons why it is justified. But would these same reasons apply to a child of two? Logically all the same harms and benefits would ensue from killing a two year old. If it wouldn’t apply, how is an unborn baby different? That is the issue I’m asking about. What defines a life as human and therefore worth protecting?

Another issue: you say that the mother recieves the emotional benefit of not having to carry the pregnancy. I have little knowledge about this, and this is where being male betrays me, but I do know that an entire phenomenon of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has now been classified: Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome. Symptoms include sleeplessness, nightmares, nervous agitation, difficulty in trusting others, etc. It has been described as being similar to the shell shock veterans experience; some victims have compared it to the trauma of rape. According to an article at http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000230.html

“One study found that at least 19 percent of women who have had abortions suffer from some form of PASS. In all likelihood, the rate is actually higher, because these studies have high drop-out rates — and generally from the women who suffer the most intensely.”

Some people also point out that a factor in many abortions is not the woman’s choice, but her partner’s desire to not have to take responsibility for the child. This has been said to be one way for victims of date rape or incest to be silenced.

16

I seem to recall someone else coming in here not to long ago and diving right into an abortion debate in this same exact manner.

While it is admirable, tripoverbiff, that you attempt to use some logical construct in your views, you starting and entering into a debate without revealing what side you are on is somewhat disingenuous of you.

This would be, of course, assuming you were not just asking a question. But if you were just asking a question, why did you suddenly bring up a whole new issue after only a few volleys back and forth on your OP?

That seems to also be somewhat intellectually dishonest of you, tripoverbiff. I mean, you wouldn’t want to clutter things up with a slew of different ideas so as to confuse all of the issues, huh? Nah, you’d NEVER do that…

Tell you what - Let’s save EVERYONE a whole lot of time and energy.

You are tripoverbiff, and you feel that abortion is wrong. You are religious and feel that this is nothing but “killing babies,” and you wish to have no part in it, even if your part is simply being ina society where others partake in this.

If I am wrong, please do correct me.

Now then, I think abortion is horrible. However, I am not one to tell people what they should do with their lives and bodies, and since most all abortions (outside of ones where complications endanger the woman and/or the potential child)take place whebn the critter is far from being human, and is not anywhere near viable without being latched into the womb of someone who will have to deal with that for a lot longer than nine months.

Now, to answer both of your ahem questions, a zygote and fetus are as alive as sperm, or a cancer cell is. We kill all of the time, and we don’t call it homicide.

For every story about the Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome you could dig up, I could dig up a ton of stores from people who were totally relieved at getting an abortion. Not happy, but aware they made the best decision they could… FOR THEM.

Now, are we goiong to be a bit more honest with our motives now, tripoverbiff, or will there be more games played, eh?

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two months, three weeks, five days, 3 hours, 41 minutes and 3 seconds.
3486 cigarettes not smoked, saving $435.77.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 2 hours, 30 minutes.

17

OK, a few clarifications: First, it is indisputable that a zygote or fetus is human: What else would it be? It sure isn’t a turtle, or a frog, or a zebra, or anything else other than human. Secondly, it’s indisputable that a zygote is alive: It’s metabolizing, and its cells are dividing, etc. Neither of these questions is relevant: My appendix is human and alive, but there’s no moral problem with removing it. The relevant question is, when does a collection of cells become a person? It’s a fine distinction, but an important one.

Secondly, if I’m to believe what I here from some folks, I have, or should have, the right to do whatever I want with my own body. OK, so I choose to move my arm in just such a way that my hand is resting on the handle of a loaded gun. Now, I choose to close the fingers of my hand, and pick it up. I then choose to move my arm again, such that the gun is pointed at my next-door-neighbor’s head. Finally, I choose to tense my index finger. Somewhere along here, I think that most folks would agree that I’ve exceeded my rights. When? When my rights interfered with those of another person. If a fetus is a person, then I am exceeding my rights when I interfere with the rights of that other person. If, on the other hand, a fetus is not a person, it has no more rights than my appendix, and I’m therefore morally justified in procuring an abortion.
Satan, I know you’re going to reply to this, but when you do, please point out where the error is in my reasoning here, rather than just accusing me of being a biased pro-lifer. If it makes you feel any better, yes, I personally feel that abortion is immoral and ought not to be allowed, and like everyone on this planet, I’m not free from bias. However, to the best of my knowledge, I have kept that bias out of the above line of reasoning.

18

Chronos, I would not have replied to this one, but since you invoked me…

My complaint was about that one poster and the way he was going about things. Mainly because we had seen this before. And that was another thing - Since the poster was new, I was assuming that he had not seen the exact same scenerio play itself out only a short time ago.

I addressed my post to him personally, not you. Why did you think it had anything to do with you?

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, three weeks, five days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 41 seconds.
3501 cigarettes not smoked, saving $437.65.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 45 minutes.

19

tripoverbiff sez:

re Question 1, I didn’t ask “when is murder different from killing in war”, I asked

and later asked if pregnancy is a unique situation or is subsumed into existing categories, which is important for the purpose of this question.

My own musings:

The taking of human life is usually not murder if the motivation is self-defense. [I say usually because one might say that a death-row inmate killing a guard en route to the gas chamber and thereby escaping has commited a murder in doing so]. The taking of human life is often not murder if the motivation is the preservation of one’s own life. The taking of human life is often not murder if the motivation is escape from oppression or imprisonment. [The particulars are always much more debatable, but there is widespread agreement on the principle]. The taking of human life is quite often not murder if the motivation is to save the lives of others FROM that individual. The taking of human life may not be murder if the motivation is to save the lives of others, even if the human life in question is not the reason for the threat to the lives of others. In all of these cases, the act of taking another human life is assumed to be deliberate and not a side effect of something else that one has chosen to do. War, commomly tossed into arguments such as these, actually relies on several different situation-specific arguments depending on the context of the killing, and when none apply killing is NOT okay and legal simply “because it is war”.

The taking of human life is sometimes and sometimes not an illegal homicide [even if not “murder” per se] if the act itself only kills another human through the commission of an act actually committed for another purpose. If you kill a pedestrian with your car because you are in a hurry and they are in the way, that’s usually an illegal homicide. If you turn off the electricity at your summer home in midwinter despite uninvited/unwelcome homeless people living your basement and they die in the cold, that may be legal on your part. If you kill a pedestrian with your car because the pedestrian is one of several militant right-to-life activists hurling themselves in front of cars attempting to drive into the abortion center, and you are trying to get to where you are going, that is not an illegal homicide on your part. If you drop the person who clung to you when the ship sank in order to grab a life preserver for yourself, that isn’t illegal.

So now we turn to pregnancy and abortion:

  1. Is the pregnant person acting in order to save her own life? (sometimes)
  2. Can the pregnant person achieve her immediate purpose (being unpregnant) without killing the embryo? (hardly ever)
  3. Is the pregnant person’s immediate purpose consistent with reasonable freedom-preserving behavior? (usually)
  4. Is the pregnant person’s prior behavior consistent with being liable for the current situation’s existence? (sometimes, sometimes not; depends on awareness of and availability of birth control and other factors)

Meanwhile, I would say that there ARE some things unique to the circumstances of pregnancy, ways in which there are no comparable situations to which to compare it. To illustrate, I’ll invent one:

Vampires, of the cheap-Dracula movie variety, turn themselves into blood-sucking vampire bats during the evenings and attach themselves to young women’s necks to drink of their blood. In bat-mode, the vampires act on instinct, not from conscious intent. They are inconveniently heavy beasties, perhaps 7 pounds or thereabouts, and once attached they feast for 9 months. They also dump various bat waste products into the gal’s bloodstream, which her metabolism must then process and eliminate. Each woman so afflicted ended up with a bat attached by going outdoors in the evenings. Most of them knew that there exist such things as parasitic vampire bats, although many were unclear on the details of risk and safe walking practices. Many ended up with an attached bat despite logical precautions such as a wire mesh scarf around the neck that somehow slipped or had unknown holes in the mesh. Quite a few, to be honest, had trouble resisting the bat’s attachment because vampire bites feel really good during the initial attachment phase and the bats emit chemicals that cloud the human mind to an extent during the attachment attempt. Vampire bats, if forcibly removed, turn to dust; vampire bats allowed to remain in place for 9 months detach of their own accord. The detachment process poses something of a health risk to the female host, and is generally unpleasant. After detachment, the vampire and host are physically separate. Meanwhile, due no doubt to effective civil liberties legislation, vampires, in bat form or otherwise, are legally people with full citizen’s rights.

Does a person to whom a bat has attached itself have the right to have it removed if she doesn’t want it there, even if by doing so she causes the death of the bat?

Obviously of course she does. Even though the bat did not act with conscious intent. Even though she went out in the evening despite knowing something of the existence and risk of bat attachments occurring. Even though the bat will die if she does. Even though the bat has human status and will exist as a cognizant, fully aware vampire citizen if allowed to feast until detachment.

tripoverbiff says it is harsh to consider an embryo a parasite; no doubt it is harsher yet to cast the embryo as a vampire bat! But while using such negative imagery to bolster a point is fallacious, it is equally irrelevant to the argument to think of the embryo as “cuter”, more “innocent”, or more intrinsically likable than any other parasitic attachment. The point is, being the host of such an attachment is to experience a severe and unreasonable hardship, a ridiculous infringement on human freedom, unless one chooses to remain in such a state.

20

Wow… Invoking Satan and then Vampire bats! This is turning into one of the more unusual abortion threads around here.