Clarifying a Pro-choice argument

Great Debates
1

In previous abortion debates I have heard the argument that human beings (by the legal definition) are, for want of a better word, superior to fetuses because they have the neurological equipment needed to be sentient beings, whereas fetuses do not (at least not before the 7th month of gestation).

The pro-life retort to this argument as I understand it is to point out that deep coma victims aren’t sentient either. Therefore human beings are ‘superior’ to them. If this is the case then why do we as a society condemn fetuses as inferior due to their lack of sentience while at the same time doing everything in our power to keep the coma victims alive? Shouldn’t they be regarded on precisely the same level if the logic is to be carried through properly, and without contradiction?

Now, maybe I’m misunderstanding one or several aspects of this argument and retort but it seems to me like this pro-life counter argument is pretty unassailable. I cannot recall any instance where it has been successfully refuted on this or any other board. Therefore, should the pro-choice camp disregard any arguments which center around sentience as being a marker for what constitutes a human person altogether?

On the other hand, maybe there’s more to this than I realise. If so I would appreciate some clarification of the issue (hence the thread title).

Thanks.

2

The logic does indeed carry through to these other situations. Fully sentient human beings are superior to both human fetuses and coma victims. For that matter, it should also be evident that humans of higher intellect are superior to humans of inferior intellect assuming that sentience is merely a by-product of a large intellectual capacity. This logic is not restricted to humans but also works well for comparisons across species.

3

Well, I can’t speak for all pro-choice folks, but for me, here goes:

I don’t personally buy into the idea that fetuses aren’t human, or that they aren’t sentient, or that they’re just tissue. For me, I don’t think that I would personally be able to have an abortion (I would say absolutely not, but it’s easier to say you’ll do a thing than to actually do it). My pro-choice views apply to society, not to me personally. As we all know, idealism doesn’t always work in society. As an ideal, it would be nice if there simply wasn’t a need for abortion. Unfortunately, there is, and I simply find that supporting outlawing abortion would be more unethical than supporting it for a number of reasons:

Outlawing abortion would not eliminate it: Like prohibition and the war on drugs, outlawing something for which there is great demand does not make it go away. I would much rather that if a person believes an abortion is their best choice that they go to a clinic to do so rather than potentially injuring or killing themselves by attempting to do it alone or through some underground quack.

My ethics aren’t global: I don’t feel I have the right to apply my ethics to everyone. There is sufficient debate on the abortion issue to lend credence to the fact that people have very different views of it. In so long as there is such a moral divide, I feel very uncomfortable trying to push my sense of what is right and wrong on other people through law.

Resources are limited: I believe overpopulation is a serious issue. Social programs are already taxed, and those who are supporting an abortion ban are also supporting decreasing social programs.

Most importantly, there is no way for the fetus to have human rights while still maintaining the human rights of the mother. You can talk about people in comas all you like, but the fact of the matter is that pregnancy is unique in that two human persons are intertwined in a parasitic relationship (I do not mean this negatively, simply in the true sense of the word) and that there is no way to give the fetus human rights without challenging the mother’s. As pro-choicers often say, “my body, my choice”. Not being able to control your own body is a violation of our most basic right as humans. Pregnancy is a big deal – sometimes lifethreatening, and certainly often threatening to livelihood, career, etc. I can’t make pregnant women prisoners – think of all the things a pregnant woman can’t do. And should we stop there? After all, pregnant women don’t always know right away – should potentially pregnant women also not be able to drink, smoke, go horseback riding, or whatever? What should happen to women who do, if anything (after all, couldn’t inducing miscarriage be considered murder, or manslaughter, if fetuses are fully persons? Will miscarriages be investigated? Will pregnant women be monitored?).

Simply put, pro-life individuals have not answered all of these concerns. Practically speaking, it is simply not a good idea to outlaw abortion – abortion, it seems, beats the alternative.

4

I can’t help you with any “official” pro-choice position on this particular argument, however, I think it is worth noting that the OP’s use of the term “fetus” tends to bias the discussion.

Over 88% of abortions performed in the United States are performed on embryos or at least prior to fetal development (within the first twelve weeks of gestation).

If you asked the OP about embryos and not fetuses, would your argument still apply? Or are you simply asking about the remaining 12% of abortions?

5

I’m not able to do an in-depth search, but Gaudere and Bob Cos (among others) have explored this part of the abortion debate in some depth in the past…it’s worth searching out if you’re interested in the “sentience” criteria for abortion decisions.

6

If a coma victim is indeed brain-dead (no activity in the cerebral cortex), they are generally considered “dead”. As I understand it, coma victims are only preserved when there is complex cerebral cortex activity indicitive of the possibilty of them regaining full consciousness (and even then they may be allowed to expire if the possibility is deemed too slim). A human prior to the development of the complex cerebral cortex (which happend in approximately the 5th-6th month of gestation) is generally considered to have no chance of being able to think; whereas a coma victim will have a fully developed cerebral cortex and some activity in it. A fetus develops roughly commesurate brain activity in about the sixth month, IIRC.

7

My personal response would be that the rules for deciding on “personhood” are somewhat arbitrary. A fetus that will be a sentient person in 2 months is not yet a person. A human in a coma who will be sentient in 2 months is a person.

I guess we give more leeway to the organism that had already been considered a person. Personhood is “grandfathered” in as it were.

8

Ummmm…

Even if you leave it alone to reach full term?

You are comparing apples to oranges. A person in a coma who will certainly recover fully in 9 months is a far better comparison.

You were comparing that which could be to that which is - not a legitimate comparison.

9

Neither would outlawing murder eliminate murder. If its wrong then we ought to outlaw it (I am not demonstrating whether it is wrong, I am simply showing why this argument is not relevant until one can show why abortion is ethical)

Well, someones ethics need to be enforced on society. Believe it or not there are folks who believe that it ought ot be ok to kill gays, or Jews, or whomever. We ban that behavior and impose our ethical code because we believe it to be correct. One way or another, law-making involves making the ethics of some the rule for all.

Not relevant until abortion is shown to be ethical. This argument could be applied to murder just as well.

This last bit is intriguing but it never fleshes out what is necessary to finish the point. Practical concerns cannot make murder ethical. If we presume that the debat here is whether abortion is murder or not then all of these arguments are not relevant. The first thing that must be addressed is : Is it murder or not? Now the problem we face is that in a secular society this definition is often arbitrary or reached by consensus. There doesnt seem to be a way to define the issue in an objective manner.

Lets say for example someone in Germany in the 1940s gave you many reasons why it is good for society to kill off the Jews - improved economy, purer society, prevents overpopulation, less herring in the stores…Etc… Whether or not you agree with these ‘practical concerns’ they never address the issue: Is it murder?

You are right that pregnancy creates a unique situation but so does having a ten-year old. You cant go out as often, you have to carpool alot, you cant neglect them or you will be thrown in jail, but no-one would say that therefore it ought to be ok for a mom to kill their child in order to protect their freedom.

My point here is not to ‘prove’ one side, but to show that the arguments above do not mean anything until we establish the ethical realities behind the nature of the fetus and its own rights (if any).

10

It is very rare for abortions to occur in the 7[sup]th[/sup] month (or anytime after the fourth month with the majority in the first three months).

As fluiddruid already mentioned the difference between a coma patient and a mother/unborn child question is the distinct conflict of two people as opposed to one. The issue arises when you subsume the mother’s rights as an individual in favor of the unborn’s rights as a potential individual.

For the sake of argument assume the mother’s life is in peril due to her pregnancy…she will die bringing the baby to term. Whose rights should prevail?

So far our government as supported the mother’s rights over the baby’s and I think that is the correct decision. The alternatives just become too creepy.

Our coma patient on the other hand doesn’t have this inherrent conflict of rights. They are free to lie on a table as long as necessary till they get better…if ever.

11

Well, of course the fetus can become sentient. Did you think I was arguing that it couldn’t? :confused: However, I do think that a, let’s say, three-month fetus will not have complex cerebral cortex development and activity corresponding to that of a coma patient who is expected to recover. A three-month old fetus will not have brainwaves indicative of thought, nor will the complex cerbral cortex be developed to the point where scientists even believe thought is possible.

12

My question would then be - so why is that relevant? Your point about the coma patient was that the determining factor was whether said patient could possibly recover. Obviously in terms of the fetus it will almost certainly “recover” e.g. that it will be fully functional if left alone.

What would you say if science advanced to the point where a coma patient with absolutely no thought could be revived to be fully functional - would killing that patient in his earlier state not be murder?

13

TQ the issue you seem to be dodging is

Person in coma at one point wassensient, and may reclaim it in the future.

embryo has yet to attain that status.

Some day, one of the unfertalized eggs in my ovum may attain sensient status, but in the meantime, I won’t worry about them leaving my body w/my mentrual cycle, ok?

14

So, what reason can you give that a pro-life person’s ethics have to be the ones that are enforced?

Further, is it ethically sound to tell a woman that because your ethics say ‘don’t terminate embryos’ she has to carry around an unwanted foreign body which leeches off of her blood supply and causes her pain (both physical and mental)?

On what logic does one decide that their pro-life ethics must be enforced on someone else, regardless of all detriment to that someone else, because of an embryo or a fetus that cannot breathe air, ingest nutrition or excrete waste?

What is it that makes the embryo or fetus come first and the woman come second?

15

**

And therefore what? First you need to assess whether the being that you are terminating is a human. You have clearly implied that you do not consider a fetus a human though you give no objective standard to define why. What we all can see however, is that if this object were left alone for a few months it would develop into a fully functional human.

Since when is it relevant whether this being once was a functional being? If your definition of a human is one who functions at certain level, then the vegetative patient is not functioning on the level which you determine as legitimately human. The argument that since this being once was sentient makes them more human is arbitrary and entirely meaningless.

**

The obvious difference between the two is that one if left alone will never become anything – one if left alone will.
**

At this point I have not advanced that. I was simply refuting the idea that laws cannot enforce a certain ethical code. In this society it seems that the determinant is the democratic process, no? So don’t tell me that I have no right within the democratic process to legislate something based on an ethical standard not shared by all.

**

You can employ whatever nasty rhetoric you wish in defining a gestating human, in the end what is crucial here is whether terminating the life of this being is murder or not.

Who are you to say that a mother must spend her days caring for and feeding and carpooling her 10 year old? Shouldn’t she be allowed to terminate it?

The argument is the same, but it avoids the central issue – is it murder?

**

Um, on what logic does someone vote for or against affirmative action? Gun control? Drug laws? Etc… Who are you to enforce your views in these things on others?

It’s the nature of a democracy ma’am.

**

Who said that this is the case? Are you implying that giving them equal rights would be a valid approach? Of course not.

I am not saying that abortion should be outlawed in all cases – I am simply pointing out that the societal arguments are not relevant until one has determined that abortion is not murder. Once we determine what the nature of destroying this fetus is – we can then determine in what situations it would be appropriate…

16

Wow, TQMshirt, that was quite a hit-and-run on fluiddruid’s post. You effectively argued every bullet item while ignoring her position.

Can’t we agree that everyone has different ethical standards? How can one show you why abortion is ethical?

OK. Whose? How will we decide? fluiddruid’s argument recognized the “moral divide” in society. She also recognized the cost to society of outlawing abortion. With which part do you disagree?

Who, exactly, is we? fluiddruid’s argument recognized that she has no justification to impose her ethics on others. Do you disagree?

Who are the some that decide for all?

Why? When considering the costs and benefits to society, why wouldn’t consideration of resources be relevent?

Oh! We’re talking about murder here, I thought it was abortion!. It is pretty clear that you see no distinction. No problem. But can you accept that someone else may have a valid ethical system that disagrees?

Whether it is murder or not may be a question posed to an individual, and answered on their ethics.

We face a problem in secular society? As a society we use laws. Laws have the adantage of being man made and repealed by man, which nicely qualifies them to reflect the general consensus of society over time. Is that a problem? They are not arbitrary, and they certainly are objective. Do you have a better basis for laws then the general consensus of society? Please, do share…

But your most repeated argument is:

Sure it can. But murder is against the law. Abortion is not. See the difference?

Well, fluiddruid posted a thoughtful discussion of her position on the topic, supported it with solid arguments, and clearly recognized it was an ethical question. You tore through it without even addressing her arguments.

And on preview, I see your last post, which advances no new arguments.

17

Interesting point but I definately stick by the same argument whether we’re referring to fetuses or embryo’s (I should have drawn the distinction but when I used the word ‘fetuses’ in my OP I was also talking about embryo’s).

However, since there are, on average 1,200,000 abortions performed per year, 12% would still be 144,000 abortions (according to the Alan Guttmacher institute), which is a high enough proportion to be discussed separately from embryo’s. With that in mind, I think it might be more productive to stick to discussing fetuses.

That is certainly true, can’t argue with that. Prior to the fifth month of gestation a coma victim is more ‘sentient’ than a fetus. However, is there any reason why we shouldn’t take the fact of the fetuses impending develoment into account? After all, the vast amount of time and care we invest in barely sentient coma victims is predicated on the probability of their recovery and return to a fully sentient state. If we are going to use sentience as a marker by which to decide what is a human person and what isn’t, shouldn’t impending development be taken into account as well?

This is something that I have trouble understanding. Why should it matter that a person was sentient? Surely all that matter is his current state. That is, after all, the logic that we seem to be applying to the fetuses. Also, there seems to be a contradiction. You said (italicising mine) "Person in coma at one point was sensient, *and may reclaim it in the future. * But surely we can’t take that into account. After all, the likelihood that a fetus will gain sentience is 100% (barring accidents and abortions) whereas the same cannot possibly be said for any coma victim. This contradiction seems to me to invalidate the latter half of your argument. Therefore we only have the one distinction; that a coma victim was, at one time sentient. Since it is by no means certain that he will regain that sentience, I don’t understand why that should be taken into account either.

However, at that point they are not full human entities. Therefore, you’re right not to bother about them.

18

How true is this? If you have no insurance, will the government pick up the tab to leave you “on a table as long as necessary?”
Does someone need to decide to provide the resources to maintain this life?

19

Precisely. This is the crux of the matter. However, it seems that most folks avoid the central issue. What is truly behind the abortion debate is whether it is a murder or a form of murder. To cite societal ramifications as justification is not relevant until the murder issue is solved.

You are incorrect. Fluiddruid was taking issue with my response to an earlier poster who seemed to make the claim that we have no right to create laws based on ethical standards not shared by all. All I did was show that to be incorrect. In a democratic society, it is the ethics of the majority that become the law. (At least in an ideal democracy).

Of course people have a right (in certain contexts) to impose their ethics. The US imposed their ethics on Germany in WWII - they imposed it on Iraq in the Gulf War. Every single law that is not unanimously supported is a case of a group imposing its ethics on others - affirmative action, gun control, assisted suicide, drug law, the prohibition of beating gays to death, etc… The majority imposes its ethics in a democracy.

Because if abortion is a form of murder then societal costs are not relevant. Would you allow me to murder a neighbor if in the final analysis it would benefit society financially?

You completely misread my post. I was not taking a position. What I was saying was that before one gets into cost benfit analysis of abortion, one must first determine whether the act itself is murder. Of course there are those who do not believe it to be murder. Therefore, the first step in a pro-abortion argument would of necessity be the method by which one determines that abortion is not murder - then we can move forward with the cost benefit analysis. The OP brought up the specific issue of determining the distinction (if there is one) between abortion and murder. Therefore, one cannot answer the OP by saying ‘yeah, but it saves us money’.

They are arbitrary in the sense that they reflect the opinions of people. The laws are not based on objective standards. For example - the laws which allowed slavery were based on the opinion of the majority that it was fine to steal a fellow from his family and make him your slave. Now if I came along and argued that this was unethical you cannot simply respond that since its the law its ethical. The argument here is that the law is permitting something that is unethical. Therefore the argument needs to be how one can show abortion to be ethical before showing the benefits or detriments to society.

That is is legal does not make it ethical.

It seems that it was you who was avoiding the central point.

20

I’m not positive but I do not think any medical institution can just pull the plug because no one is paying them. If the patient is brain dead then I believe they could seek a court order to terminate the patient (by default by refusing care…I do not think they ever actively kill a person; rather they just let them die by refusing care). If the patient still has higher brain functions then I think the hospital is stuck with them (they’d probably try to dump the patient off to a state run hospital).

In short, even for a brain dead patient, a hospital cannot terminate the patient at their own whim. At the very least they need a court order and have to bear the costs till a court determines what should be done.

There have been cases where families have gone to court to unplug a relative because they are too much of a financial burden for the family to bear. Karen Ann Quinlan’s family fought for the right to have her ‘unplugged’ because she was in a permanent vegetative state. Ultimately the family won and had the respirator turned off but Karen managed to keep breathing on her own. The family could not ask the state to outright kill her so she sat in a nursing home for some 10 years till she died on her own. I’m not sure who had to bear the costs of Karen’s care for those 10 years.

TQMShirt seems to continuously dodge one of the issues at the heart of fluiddruid’s post. In the case of a pregnant woman we have TWO ‘people’s’ (I use the term loosely) rights to consider. The mother’s rights and the unborn child’s rights. These rights easily come into conflict. On what basis do you decide whose rights take precedence? Our coma patient does not have this inherrent conflict nor does the ethical arguments equate to abortion that you shouldn’t kill Jews or blacks or whoever because it is inherrently wrong to kill.