Unborn children and brain dead people are not the same, obviously, though. Brain dead people will not recover. Unborn children are extremely likely to grow and develop into a newborn child if they are not killed by an abortion.
If a person had no brain activity but was most likely to recover fully in 9 months with supportive care, would it be OK to break her up for parts?
No: it’s the arbitrary nature of law. In law, we make definitions that don’t always match up. We call 19 year olds “adults” and send them to war…but don’t let them buy beer because they’re still “minors.” Having it both ways isn’t always hypcrisy. It’s just the way law works.
The woman has the first call on whether or not the fetus is wanted. If it is wanted, the state has the power and duty to protect it, and to punish someone who harmed it. If it isn’t wanted, the state has the power and duty to protect her when she goes to a doctor to have it removed.
Not hypocrisy. Different definitions.
We can call them parasitic pod creatures, doesn’t matter, it’s a Political issue that gets imbued with convenient terms, chosen for their effect on the polarized voters. Right wing religious extremists will say “child” and “baby” to establish sympathy for the hatchling … the liberal left winger will use words like “mass of tissue” or “fertilized egg”, or “group of viable cells”, whatever the buzz-word of the week is. I don’t believe these terms are ever chosen for clarity or accuracy (nevermind that one term may be more technical than another), they are picked for the effect they’ll have on one or another group of voters.
My point is, I’m sick of letting the definition guide the debate. These pre-natal people are persons, with or without a mind or a consciousness. If an adult was injured and their brain damage allowed respiration, growth, elimination of wastes but no self-conscious thought, it would take a court order and the permission of someone with power of attorney to disconnect their life support … if they weren’t on life support, there may be no way to euthanize them. A person like that may have no potential to get better, but they can’t be summarily terminated the way a fetus can.
I have no problem with abortion, none whatsoever. I do have a problem with political debates that are about manipulating voters, jockeying for position in an “us vs them” game. I find it phony. Call little humans what they are, admit to the realistic desirability of terminating them if the mother so chooses, and quit with the maudlin doubletalk and stubborn denial that permeates both sides of the argument.
Let’s decide that on a case-by-case basis.
I’ve got a little list . . .
Do you not see the disconnect here? 
Say you come across a window looking into a room where a baby is on a table with a scythe (think Pit and the Pendulum) above it. There is a button saying “Start” which tells you that pushing the button will cause the knife to swing and eventually kill the baby. You obviously don’t push the button.
Now, consider another room with a baby and a knife already swinging. Here a button says “Stop.” Are you excused from pushing that button?
The state of our technology in no way alters the morality of the situation. I can imagine a nanobot which could with minimal invasiveness harvest the fertilized egg, and an automated artificial womb which would bring the child to term. I know women who have had multiple miscarriages who would kill for such an ability. If we had it, would you support pulling out all tiny fetuses, or maybe only those at risk? Is it that different from requiring parents to actively strap their children into car seats?
So, you think it is just dandy if a doctor or nurse just stands there when a patient is in the process of dying a preventable death?
The way the law works is hypocritical in many cases. Your example of “minor” vs “adult” is just one way. I think you can call it a double standard, or a conflicting set of definitions. In all, I agree the mother should choose, but the Government only goes along with this equitable position until the political winds shift, then suddenly it’s the Government that tells her what she can’t do. That’s hypocrisy. It’s the same Government you describes, the “game” is just favoring a different party with a different agenda.
Exactly. If a man uses a woman’s reproductive organs without her permission, it’s rape. If an embryo/fetus does it, it’s excusable? I don’t think so.
And where do all you “pro-life” people stand on the idea of gay adoption? I know a lesbian who was pregnant by rape and decided to keep the child and raise it with her partner. When she questioned the anti-abortion people about her decision, she was told that she should have the baby, but give it to a real family.
You skipped this part:
If an adult was injured and their brain damage allowed respiration, growth, elimination of wastes but no self-conscious thought, it would take a court order and the permission of someone with power of attorney to disconnect their life support … if they weren’t on life support, there may be no way to euthanize them. A person like that may have no potential to get better, but they can’t be summarily terminated the way a fetus can.
Here’s a poor guy who got conked on the head by an anvil or a grand piano, and now he’s a “vegetable”. Do you sgree with me that if he were not on any kind of life-support … just no mind, no personality … just breathing and swallowing food, that it would be a major legal battle, probably a futile one, to terminate his life?
An adult with no mind:
a person?
A fetus with no mind, as you define mind (perhaps with a normally developing mind, going through the expected stages of development):
a person?
Where’s the disconnect now? Are they both persons, or are neither? Should be be able to euthanize the injured man as readily as the growing fetus?
Doesn’t matter, it’s a word game … who can think of the words and phrases that will convince politicians, activists and mainly voters, to do the dance a particular way.
I’m 100% in favor of anyone who is able and fit and wants to adopt a child doing so. So much so that I represented a lesbian couple who adopted their foster child pro bono. I still hear from them every once in a while and that little family is doing beautifully.
I know you will be skeptical, but “anti-abortion people” are not all the same. If she had asked me, I would have done whatever I could to help her.
Calling them “babies” is a propaganda ploy designed to excuse the demonization and abuse of women and the murder of doctors.
Nonsense. If they have no mind or consciousness, they are not people; that’s what a person is. That’s all a person is.
No, because the person is there; just unconscious. In a fetus there’s no one home, unconscious or otherwise.
Ethically of course I am not excused from pushing the button in the second scenario. It’s only pushing a button and by pushing it I undoubtedly save the baby from certain death.
But your imaginary technology still doesn’t represent an apposite hypothetical. Harvesting an egg and incubating the egg outside the uterus (and if the egg is likely to be miscarried it is also statistically likely to be genetically abnormal based on our current state of knowledge) is just not the same as continuing a healthy pregnancy until the child is old enough to be born. Again, no one has suggested that extraordinary measures are required to protect the unborn from miscarriage–just that routinely killing those children is wrong.
Although technology like that would indeed be a boon–no need for abortion if it were available. At least in the eyes of those who favor legal abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy alone.
Not unconscious. No brain activity, but in my hypothetical (which is mine) brain activity will resume in 9 months. Can we cut her up and use her for salvage or not?
And I assume that your position is that once an unborn child has brain activity, she cannot be aborted?
“Calling them “babies” is a propaganda ploy designed to excuse the demonization and abuse of women and the murder of doctors.”
This I agree with.
The intentions flow from the source. I’m not an anti-abortion activist, so I can use any term I like, because the term, while arguably vague or even inaccurate, is not loaded.
"Nonsense. If they have no mind or consciousness, they are not people; that’s what a person is. That’s all a person is.
No, because the person is there; just unconscious. In a fetus there’s no one home, unconscious or otherwise. "
This is not correct. The size or age of an organism is irrelevant, if there is no mind, just a permanent vegetative state, I’m not going to give that person points for being more alert or alive than a fetus that may already be moving on it’s own power. I believe abortions are generally performed up to 24 weeks, is that right? Fetal movement starts as early as 13 weeks.
None of this matters, these terms are chosen, by both sides, for the effect they’ll have on the intended audience, not for scientific accuracy.
Embryos do not grow into babies in petri dishes, they only do so by use of another person’s body. No born person’s ‘right to life’ entitles them access to another person’s body in order to survive. You are trying to bestow rights on fertilized egg that no born person even has.
If the ‘supportive care’ is being provided by another person’s body against their will - that person has a right to ‘pull the plug’ and unattach themselves.
As to the issue of fetal ‘personhood’, I believe that is more a matter of personal philosophy. Each side will never convince the other side of their definition so legally viability and birth is the best line to draw. The ‘personhood’ of the fetus is a moot point, since no born person is entitled to access another person’s body in order to survive. Ergo, a woman has the right to refuse to share her body to sustain the life of another person - whether it is defined as an embryo/zygote/fetus/born person. Her consent is required. She can not be reduced to an involuntary biological incubator against her will, anymore than you mandate her to donate a kidney to save the life of another, whether a minor biological child or random stranger, who will die without it.
Nonsense, it has always been legal and acceptable to kill someone that is drinking your blood.
“The ‘personhood’ of the fetus is a moot point, since no born person is entitled to access another person’s body in order to survive. Ergo, a woman has the right to refuse to share her body to sustain the life of another person - whether it is defined as an embryo/zygote/fetus/born person. Her consent is required.”
This is correct. Well stated.
Well stated, indeed, but quite pointless.
No born person* needs* to reside in the body of another person in order to survive.
So proclaiming that because born people don’t have this right settles nothing.
It’s like saying that no man has the right to an abortion so no women should.
The right at issue on the side of the child isn’t the right to insinuate yourself into another body to live, it’s the right to live in the only possible way you can live until you are old enough to leave that body–having been placed there by biology and the actions of at least two other people who knew you might be the result.
Here’s something to ponder:
A friend of mine had a niece who gave birth to a girl that had no brain, just a bit of brain stem, just enough for autonomic functions. With no brain, she had no senses. With no cerebral cortex, there is no consciousness or meaning. No “you.”
My friend said he would look into her doll-eyes and there was nobody home. She existed for about a year and a half and then died.
Would it have been so very tragic if she had been aborted as soon as they found out she was anencephalic? They don’t grow brains later.