Clarifying a Pro-choice argument

Great Debates
61

One of the best papers arguing for the pro-choice position I have ever read was “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thompson, which was used to represent the pro-choice argument on the abortion question in my introductory ethics class. It comes close to the position that catsix seems to hold, and having read through many of the posts in this thread, I thought I would bring some of Thompson’s main points to the table.

She argues first of all in defense of abortion due to rape by using this analogy: suppose you woke up one morning in a hospital bed, with tubes attached to your kidneys and running to a machine that filters your blood into a person’s body lying next to you, who happens to be a famous violinist. Someone informs you that he suffers from a serious illness and requires this filtration to survive, and only your blood is compatible. Assuming you had been placed in this position against your will, and that in order to complete the procedure you would be required to lie there and allow your blood to be shared with his system for nine months, would you be ethically required to do so?

Obviously, you wouldn’t, and it’s pretty clear how this would apply to a pregnancy situation caused by rape—it’s not the embryo’s/fetus’s fault it’s there, any more than it was the violinist’s fault he was there, but in neither situation have you given either one a right to your body, and therefore you would have a right to separate yourself from them, even if they were to die.

But that argument only works clearly for abortion due to rape, which most people don’t object to anyway (at least, not to the point that they believe it should be legally forbidden). What about in a case where you knowingly had sex, but don’t want children? In a case where a contraceptive failed or a condom broke, it seems to me like it’s not that far removed from a rape case—there may not be a person forcing herself or himself on you, but you’ve still done everything in your power to protect yourself while engaging in something that you have a legal right to do. Thus, the resulting embryo/fetus would not, it seems to me, have a legal right to your body.

Essentially, I believe that abortion should be, at least legally, permissible in any situation in which the mother did not give the fetus a right to her body (in other words, in any situation in which she did not want it). It follows as a practical consideration that abortion cannot feasibly be prohibited at all, then, because there’s no way to know—outside of asking a mother directly—whether or not she ever, in effect, gave a fetus permission to use her body.

Ethically, the point of contention for me is whether or not it would be immoral for a woman to abort a child she conceived through consensual, unprotected sex. As I see it, what makes this morally different from a case in which preventative measures failed is that both men and women know that there is a significant likelihood that pregnancy will result from unprotected sex, and thus doing so with knowledge of the risks is equivalent to accepting the risks. I’m not aware of an argument that conclusively defends this, and while I would not condone legal prohibition of abortion under these circumstances, it seems like abortion would be morally wrong (and irresponsible) in this case.

62

Originally posted by TMQshirt

While I think it’s true that if the majority did not add its collective moral conscience into its legislation we would have a very different society, that in itself does not mean that we all have a right—at least, a moral right—to do the same. Take any case where the morality of the majority comes into conflict with the civil rights of the minority. While the majority is free to hold whatever moral opinion it wants, the whole concept of rights revolves around that majority’s not being able to prevent the minority from exercising its version of morality through legislation. I would actually consider it immoral for someone to vote for laws—like the recent Prop. 22 in California, where I live—solely on the basis of moral conviction if that conviction disregarded the rights of those it judged. Prop. 22 was the law adding to the California constitution the distinction that marriage was between a man and a woman, and I’m sure we probably all know people (or may BE people) who would vote for that sort of thing solely based on our moral beliefs about homosexuality, assuming we hold any, without regard for the rights of those who would be affected by laws such as this.

(Actually, on a side note, I’m a little unclear on why it was even necessary to propose that law… to my understanding, California already didn’t recognize homosexual marriages, although admittedly that wasn’t part of the actual constitution. Does passing this law somehow get them around having to recognize full faith and credit if another state allows gay marriage?)

Anyway, I guess there’s still the problem of who defines what rights people have—in the example above, I consider marriage a right, both for heterosexual and homosexual couples. That’s certainly controversial, though, so maybe one can’t get past entwining his own morality with his legal and political decisions.

63

Consider a situation that is more closely analogous to abortion than that of an ordinary comatose patient. Imagine that some man suffers severe brain damage. Furthermore, imagine that there exists a medical technique which could, at great expense, be used to restore him to health over a period of several months. However, the brain damage was so severe that, were he ever to recover, he would have no memories of his previous life and would develop a completely different personality.

This highlights a fundamental dissimilarity between a fetus and a comatose patient. If a fetus is allowed the resources to come to term, it will develop into a completely new person who has never lived before. If a coma patient is allowed the resources to heal, he or she will continue a life that already existed before whatever condition caused the coma.

In the example that I gave above, however, the patient would not continue a life that had existed before. Were he to be healed, he would in every important sense be a completely new person. I don’t believe that it would be immoral to actively or passively cause the death of his body, as the person who once existed in that body would no longer exist.

It is not necessary to consider that past state of a being to determine whether killing it is morally justified but only the present state. A coma patient may not presently be manifesting the various trappings of consciousness: the memories and beliefs, the hopes and dreams, that define him or her as an individual, but these attributes still exist, lying dormant within his or her brain. As long as they exist there is a chance, however small, of a meaningful recovery. A fetus does not posses those characteristics because it has never enjoyed the active awareness necessary to form them (except, debatably, very late in gestation).

In my opinion, this dissimilarity between a fetus and a comatose patient is so fundamental that it is never reasonable to commensure the two. Killing a fetus may end a human life, but it does not destroy a human mind. Killing a coma patient does.

64

Women’s reproductive rights are more threatened by state laws than the Constitution. Murder and abortion laws are almost always state laws, not federal laws. And both have to withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

I previously suggested that laws reflect the ethics of the general consensus of soceity, which is quite different than to say a majority. Constitutional protections apply to everyone. The majority doesn’t decide - its not up for vote.

Roe v Wade challenged (and overturned) a Texas law. That set a precedent upon which all states are bound (not in an absolute sense, but practically so). The Constitution was not explicit about abortion, the Supreme Court was.

Note that the Court did not even proscribe abortion after viability, it left that to the states.

While I will agree that “legistlating by morals is silly”, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. And if it cannot be overturned in the courts or repealed in the legistlature, your stuck with it. I mean, please, I can’t buy beer on Sunday here (and apparently the 21st amendment doesn’t protect my rights!).

Like, which ones? If laws are created by elected representatives in a political process, and not afoul the Constitution, what makes you beleive societal arguments are not relevent? Must it be rational? Many of the posts on here are calling for reasoned thought (pardon the pun, that is not a reference to “alpha waves”) to prevail. That’s noble. I agree with beagledave here. But,

The simple explanation for this phenomenon is that pro-life supporters, being disenfranchised, are more likely to attempt to impose their morals on pro-choice supporters. And not vice-versa. If the pro-life view became the general consensus of society, the pro-choice folks would likely try to “impose their morals”. BTW, in SDMB GD, that’s fine.

The pro-lifers would be much more successful in swaying the general consensus by showing late-term aborted fetus pictures than attempting moral indignation or appealing to reasoned thought.

I think the proposition was defeated with only these posts by Gaudere and Whack-a-Mole. Another first for the SDMB!

Why? Are pro-choice expectant mothers suggesting you can shoot them in the stomach?

No, he wouldn’t. Changed, yes, but a completely new person? Really?

65

I heartily disagree. All just laws are ultimately based on some moral principle; if they weren’t, they would be merely capricious and pointless. In fact, the preamble to the US Constitution specifically says that was establiished to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.” These are all ethical and moral goals. Few people would contest their validity, but that does not make them any less ethical or moral in nature.

The fallacy of saying “You can’t legislate morality!” is discussed more thoroughly at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/abhmnrts.htm and http://www.str.org/free/reflections/apologetics/relativism/legislat.htm

According to your morality and mine. But what if someone has a different ethical or moral perspective. Like it or not, that statement is STILL based on ethics and morality.

That is a false dichotomy. Moreover, who is to say that these rights ARE fundamental? Again, like it or not, that statement alone betrays an ethical and moral worldview.

66

I’m familiar with that argument. Frankly, I’m not impressed.

Dr. Francis Beckwith wrote a a series of comprehensive rebuttals to her arguments in his book, Politically Correct Death. The gist of his arguments can be found at http://www.cbhd.org/resources/aps/beckwith-personhood.htm and various other places on the web.

A shorter but likewise readable rebuttal by radio show host Greg Koukl can be found at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/treswomb.htm

67

Sorry; I accidentally posted the wrong link. Beckwith discusses (and IMO, tears apart) Judith Jarvis Thompson’s argument in the article at http://www.archindy.org/prolife/beckwithviolinist.htm. As you can see, his discussion of this subject is quite comprehensive.

68

You think that piece of nonsense constitutes a rebuttal? Better take logic again dude.

He claims 9 flaws, and generates prose for each, but all of his arguments are a form of begging the question. He never actually argues any of his flaws, instead he just assumes the flaw he wished to find and then talks about what it would look like if existed.

[ul]
[li]*Thompson Assumes Volonteerism. *[/li]Yep, and he never shows why that is isn’t a valid assumption. He merely assumes that is is and proceeds.
[li]Thomson’s argument is fatal to family morality [/li]Yep. So? He never even tries to prove fatality to family morality is disallowed, he just assumes that it is and that this somehow represents a problem for Thompson. It doesn’t.
[li]A case can be made that the unborn does have a prima facie right to her mother’s body [/li]I doubt it, but he doesn’t even try, but then proceeds to lecture as if he had already made that case.
[li]Thomson ignores the fact that abortion is indeed killing and not merely the withholding of treatment [/li]Another question begged. Thompson denies that abortion is morally different from withholding support, and he does not demonstrate otherwise. (Though there certainly are some methods of abortion where loss of cell viablity preceeds withholding sustenance, not all, or even the most common methods have this feature).
[li]Thomson’s argument ignores tort law [/li]A single case , that any libertarian would scorn, does not make for a refutation of a general point.
[li]Thomson’s argument ignores family law[/li]Only if you assume that a fetus has all of the same rights of as a living child. which is exactly the point in question
[li]Inconsistent use of the burden of pregnancy [/li]Here he makes a purely emotion and completely irrelevant argument. Whether pregnancy is moderate or major burden doesn’t affect Thompsons argument at all.
[li]The libertarian principles underlying Thomson’s case are inconsistent with the state-mandated agenda of radical feminism [/li]Uh, right… :rolleyes:
[li]Thomson’s argument implies a macho view of bodily control, a view inconsistent with true feminism [/li]Another head scratcher. Does he really expect us to take him seriously about this shit?
[/ul]

Lots of fuzzy thinking and preaching to the converted. But nothing that will convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him. I give it a 3.

69

Beckwith also uses the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of argument.

His whole article is built on the logic that because a fetus should have human rights, a fetus is a human being, therefore it deserves human rights.

All in all, I’m sure this lecture works well at pro-life conventions, but it certainly doesn’t pass logical muster.

70

JasonFin seems to be the only one here who addresses the point of the OP.

The essential question is whether there is a double standard in terms of defining life and defining justifiable killing.

Jason is at least open enough to inform us that he believes it ought to be ok to kill a coma patient who will recover as long as that patient will lack memory.

How Jason has determined memory of a past life as a necessary component of justifiable killing is to me a mystery - but at least he did not avoid the question.

So, we are back to square one. Is there a different standard for coma patients than for fetuses? And if there is a definition of life that we use for coma patients - do we use the same definition for fetuses, and if not, why not?

Let us pose the scenario. A woman enters a hospital room where her husband lies in a coma. The doctor informs her that he is in a vegetative state but that he will certainly recover (In a few months) if he is provided basic medical care. For good measure let us throw is that he will have no memory of his life. Assume now that the wife informs us that she actually cant stand her husband (who has no known relatives) and has no wish to have him around anymore so she gets up and kills him…Is this murder? If not, why not? If it is then why is abortion different? Would it be different if she did want him around and I got up and killed him? Why?

I believe that this was the basic question of the OP.

71

OK, TQMshirt, I think I see where the disconnect might be.

When you pose your hypothetical, are you asking whether or not it is or should be “murder” from a legal (societal) perspective? Or from an ethical (personal) perspective?

If you wish to debate the legal merits, I think that issue has been clearly resolved in this thread. If you feel it has not, point out why not.

If you wish to debate that it is unethical, then the only purpose is the attempt to sway opinion of others to your point of view. And that’s fine. But I am not willing to debate your ethics.

Legally, YES! And you need to look no further than the application of the laws, which has been clearly established already.

If you are asking whether it should be, I feel no need to further sway you to my side, as it is quite obviously futile.

So which is it?

72

**

That there ought to be a double standard in the legal sense has been resolved? I havent seen that. I have seen people differentiate between a fetus at an earlier stage and a coma patient due to metabolic and biological realities. I have yet to see anyone state that there is a double standard and that legally there ought to be one.

**

Futile because you cant defend the obvious double standard.

AZ - give yourself more credit. I am sure that you do not consider yourself a hypocrite. So why would it be ethical to kill a fetus, but not a coma patient?

If your answer is that for personal or psychological reasons you choose to maintain a double standard and that you do not need to answer to me - that is quite alright. But if you wish to engage in the discussion (which is the point of this board) you’re gonna have to do better than that.

73

I find this arguement to be solely a potentiality arguement.
On that basis, I conclude for pro-life (though I am not pro-life; lol you gotta love the way that sounds =)

By potentiality arguement, I simply mean:

What potential does said human posess?

The first point of relevence to the issue of abortion is that of conception. What is the definiton of human-life conception?

For me, the answer is rock-brain simple:

When someone engages in an act that can bring about the existence of a being, whether or not they know that such an act can or will bring about the existence of a being, then conception for that being has transpired.

The most fundamental conception is thinking. IMO, abortion is just as valid when you pass by someone on the street who is ugly and decide not to pursue further communication.
A rapist de-selecting a victim is commiting abortion IMO.
A life-long celibate is committing abortion IMO.
A super-model who sits on the couch watching T.V. istead of dressing up and going for a stroll in the must scanalous area of town at the most scandalous hour is committing abortion IMO.
Two people who clearly show attraction for each-other, who have no compelling reason to not mate (thus potentiality of pregnancy and birth of a human being) and yet don’t, for undetermined reasons of acasual circumstance, are both complicit in an act of abortion IMO.
Not following a course of action which can provide the conditions for pregnancy at any-time is an act of abortion; as is selecting one partner over another an act of abortion IMO.
De-selecting/Supressing the urge to mate is an act of abortion IMO.
Two twelve year olds having unprotected sex, who are unknowledgable about the possibility and/or profundity of having a child are engaging in an act of conception IMO.
In this case, the act of conception was innitiated by the parents for not informing and/or monitoring their children. It would be like a parent watching their small child chug a gallon of pine-sol, and then writing the official cause of death as suicide, or the pumping of the childs stomach as being against the will of the unconcious child. Maybe they did know what the Pine-Sol would do.

In potentiality, these bizarre scenario’s are as relevant to the topic of conception as a zygote; for the odds of that zygote coming into being and living a life of substantial endurance are not statstically different than any of these cognitively simulated abortions that behaviorally take place all the time.

While conception refers to the potential of whether a life will even be here that could potentially be here were different actions taken; the decision of whether to keep that life before it can sustain itself relies upon the notion of potentiality for the desire of that life.

This life has one of four potentialities:

1.) It never wanted to be born and wished it had been aborted, and hopes that by commiting to a certain act, it will be given the choice/chance of returning back to nothingness.

2.) It always wanted to live and detests the very thought that it lives in a reality where its own abortion is even a possibility. By committing to certain acts it hopes to be given the choice/opportunity to have everlasting life.

3.) It is ambivilent about whether to live or die, eat or starve, and really doesn’t see the point of anything at all.

4.) It does not process self or time, and cannot formulate these desires to even have an opinion.

Numbers one and two are believer potentialities (polar in form)and number three is a nihilistic potentiality, and number four is nihilistic default from cognitive dementia. The first two are associated with religion and belief in meaning, the third and fourth are the defaults; by necessity non-religious. Numbers one, three and four do not care one way or the other about number two having its desire fulfilled. Number two is typically against having numbers 1,3 and 4 from having their desires fulfilled or their potentialities expressed. Number two has the only potentiality for motivation in life (barring numer 1’s desire to get oblivion right for itself while it has the chance), and the only opinions for the life of others.

Life crime has been expressed on potentialities 1, 3 and 4.
Life 2 thrives from this condition.
1,3 and 4 have no desire to tinker with life, and life 2 is dependant upon the resource and complicity of lives 1,3 and 4 to give itself purpose for existence.
Since lives 1,3 and 4 already have their purposes (non-purpose) selected and life 2 has yet to resolve a non-hypocritical purpose - live’s 1,3 and 4 would find no rational reason to extinguish the species of life 2.
They would, by default, exist as a resource for life two to exploit for its own meaning. They would thus, not abort a single child; because the possibility that such a child would be immoral or require a resource to exploit to find meaning in itself; would be exceedingly high. They would not bear children themselves, but do not delete the opportunity for immorality and illogicallity to express itself as a species in reality. For such an act would be illogical, and unnatural to logically derived or cognitively deficient ambivilence.

Pro-Life would thus be the moral, logical and just choice IMO.

Thinking of life simply as good, evil or neutral also solves this solution in a pro-life sense.

The good will by nature posess qualities of:
Compassion
Understanding
Benevolence
Patience
Tolorance
Self-Sacrifice
Forgiveness
Faith

Let’s just say that this person is not going to be put off by being aborted.

One must not forget the potentiality of those who will wish they were never born.
People tend not to concieve of the overwhelming immorality of plucking such a soul from oblivion; the fundamental rape and murder transpiring in the act; absolute in selfishness, irreconcilable in damages.
They get to be the unappreciated martyrs and resource for the third quality:

that leaves only one type of life that is fundamentally being protected by a pro-life stance. The immoral one.

This being has absolute protection for it’s right to life, for it is the very definition of that which seeks right to life.

-Justhink

74

It most certainly is not a “potentiality” argument, despite the attempt to frame it that way.

The coma patient IS a human being, even without current sentience. The coma patient has a developed brain, with neurological connections which may again function normally, but it would never make a “new” person.

The fetus has the potential to become a human being, but has not yet achieved that status. Until it does (and in this case, to her great surprise, I generally agree with CatSix’s persepctive on where the line is drawn, which is mainly between a patient and their doctor, and generally near viability), it does not have the rights of either the mother or the coma patient.

A sleeping person is temporarily without sentience, but that doesn’t remove their rights or make them less human. It isn’t that a sleeping person has the potential to become human. Come on! Can folks really not see the difference?

But let’s say I didn’t see the difference, and I felt that a fetus and the coma patient were analogous. In some cases, coma patients are allowed to die, with active removal of life support systems. And its not murder. You end up back in the same place!

I don’t believe a double standard exists (see above). But so what if it did? The real clue here is the use of the verb “ought”, which implies, as I suspected, that your only intent is to sway opinions over to the pro-life side. And you are absolutely correct that this board is a fine place to do it. But I will have no more part as I have no compelling need to convince you - I’m just fine with the status quo, thank you.

You just don’t get it, do you? Neither is killing. Let’s say hypothetically that the coma patient is in a coma after having been in a car accident. The doctor, in consultation with the family, removes life support. Did the doctor “kill” or “murder” the coma patient? NO! The car accident did. And the fetus was never killed - it never even attained life status!

So how can anyone attempt to draw this parallel, without injecting some personal ethics, which we already agreed could validly differ?

Do you see it yet? It is a valid comparison to you, but not to me.

75

*Originally posted by TQMshirt *
I am dealing in the actual and you are dealing in the theoretical. Obviously the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my approach at the present so for the time being it seems that you [sic]approach to constitutionality is flawed.

Oh, well then. If we’re speaking strictly of the actual, abortion is actually legal. And that’s that.

But we both know that’s not what you mean. Your point is that the many are free to try to enforce their morality on the few via legislation. My point is that they are not. My later statements concerning the gyrations about supposed “negative societal impacts” legislators have to go through are indicative that pure legislation of morality will not fly. Imagine trying to pass a bill dictating the color of clothing people are allowed to wear. Unlikely that it will pass, and certainly unconstitutional. No link the same law to “gang violence,” and suddenly the more gullible are much more willing to buy it. “Well, I guess. I certainly don’t like gang violence.” In short, the Supreme Court does not agree with your assertion that it’s fine to legislate morality; they simply choose to buy into the fictions that are created to smoke screen the practice, which I will grant you happens all too often.

I am intrigued by an earlier statement you made that it is unavoidable that the law of the land is based on the morality and ethics of the majority, and that certainly we should expect the Constitution to “protect” us from “occasional abuses” of this. What exactly would you consider and abuse of such a form of government to be, if it’s all right for the majority to enforce their morals on the minority? How do you differentiate what is fine for the the many to criminalize simply because they don’t like it, and what is an “abuse?” Are abuses only those instances where you happen to be in the minority?

The central issue of the morality of abortion is the deprivation of life of a (according to one side of the debate) living being. Do you not realize that?

Sigh. The morality of abortion is irrelevant. We’ve been through this. We shouldn’t make things illegal because we think they’re “immoral.” What happens when they come for you, because something you’ve done they consider “immoral?” The theocracies of the world make things illegal because they’re “immoral.” Is that what you want?

Given that doing so completely avoids the strength of my question. (regarding changing “coma” to “brain death”)

Go back and address it as Ive asked it.

Ok. Probably a bad move, the issues are different. But the situation is still not analogous (coma to fetus). Again, it must be demonstrated that it is, and this has not been done. With a coma patient, something was lost which might be regained. Sentience, self-awareness, free will, etc. A fetus has never had any of these, and certainly won’t “miss” them if they are not granted. How could it?

You claim that the natural state of every act is legal and that unless we can objectively show something to be illegal that it remains legal.

More or less; unless we can objectively show why it should be made illegal we cannot make it illegal.

Now go show me objectively why I cannot shoot a coma patient in the head. And remember that whatever definition you use to define ‘life’ for this coma patient – go and apply it to a fetus with the same criteria.

Again, the coma patient already has something locked away in his head that is fundamentally his, his sentience, self awareness, free will. He may wake up and reclaim those. In which case you would be depriving him of something he has a right to.

A fetus? An early term embryo/fetus has none of these attributes, and thus can’t “lose” them.

And just for the record, I am not in favor of abortions beyond around the 10th week. The vast majority of women know they’re pregnant by this time and can make a reasoned decision about whether they are financially and emotionally ready to have a child. If they choose not to, none invasion medications could induce miscarriage. Unfortunately. as is always the case, restrictive legislation by those who oppose abortions prevent women from choosing this route, instead forcing them to have invasive abortions at later stages of development.

A 10 week human embryo is indistinguishable from a dog or cat embryo. Just for my edification, what is your position on early term medications such as RU486, or so called “day after” medications? What about IUDs, which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting?

76

AZCOWBOY:

**

Would you agree with Jason that if that person could never regain their former life due to a loss of memory that it would be ok to kill them? Remember, I added that component to my scenario.

Also, just for arguments sake, how would you respond to a statement that “a fetus IS a human being”. See the point here is not to assert, but to define. If you are defining this coma patient as a human due to memory then you presumably would agree that if he cannot regain memory that we can kill him. And what then of someone who has no memory whatsoever? Can we kill them outright or is there another factor?

If you are saying that we must show definitively why something ought to be illegal then I think you need to be more clear in connecting your assertions (which may be valid – but also need to be shown to be objectively valid) to the conclusion of why that means we can or cannot kill the individual.

**

This may be true, but by what standard are you making the assertion? If it’s the standard above then you need to show why that is a valid standard and why it would lead to me conclusion that killing the coma patient ought to be illegal.

**

Here you befuddle me. Do you really mean that it truly ought to be up to a doctor and the patient? I sense an ambivalence here. On the one hand you seem to imply that viability would be the right place to distinguish between an embryo and a human, but are you still saying that even so a patient and doctor ought to be able to terminate the fetus after viability? And if so, is there no limit?

**

Well, I think then that you prove the point of the pro-life side. The pro-life argument is that an honest analysis will conclude that killing a fetus is unjustified and that this can be proven by the fact that there seems to be a consensus regarding the coma patient. The pro-life argument is that the legalization of abortion was the result of political and self-centered motives and that the only way to sustain it is to maintain a double standard about the legitimacy of killing a human.

I believe that this is what the OP tried to prove and if you intend to concur I wont stop you.

**

This again is an assertion. It may be true, but you need to show what your definition of life is why it is valid.

**

You have yet to show why.
BORODOG

**

A very good and intriguing question. I guess it is hard to say. I suppose it depends upon the definitions that we give to ‘life, liberty, and property’ for starters.

I would ask you, do you believe that no law is justified unless it is specifically related to the protection of ‘life, liberty, and property’? If that is the case we are dealing in the purely theoretical (Speak to the FDA, FCC, EPA, and every other regulatory body that does not deal with life, liberty, and property). May I presume that you are a libertarian?

It is very, very hard to define because any law (even a justifiable one) is an inherent limitation on someone’s liberty. We may outlaw it due to the fact that we need to protect the liberty or life of another and the government decides which is the more pressing factor.

Thus, since we are dealing in the theoretical and in the arena of law, I am going to pass on a full exposition in this area, but as we shall see below, the question does not relate directly to abortion.

**

I think you misunderstood me here. What I was saying was that when I use the term ‘moral’ in reference to abortion I am specifically relating it to the issue of depriving a fetus of life. You may be correct that morality alone is not sufficient cause for a law, but in this particular instance the ‘morality’ of the issue hinges on a very concrete constitutional issue of deprivation of life and/or liberty.

**

You haven’t addressed the fact that I intentionally made my scenario one in which the coma patient has no memory of his life when he recovers.

**

This is an excellent question as well.

I think that I draw the line at a system which does not inherently have the potential to become human (however we define it) if left alone. In other words, if we prevent implantation we are not actively undoing a closed system which if left alone will become human, or is already human. The question only begins for me when we have a closed system which may already be legitimately defined as human.

To be perfectly honest, I agree 100% that abortion is a sticky wicket. Defining the status of a fetus independently is very difficult due to the fact that there doesn’t seem to be an objective standard by which we can determine the humanity of the fetus. I believe that people make a great error when they think that a medical professional can define the humanity of a fetus. The professional can only provide categories of biological reality. The definition of ‘human’ and ‘life’ is not something that a doctor can determine any more than anyone else.

I think that the arena of debate here, which is far more tangible, is the issue of a seeming double standard and the pre-existing definition which we give to human life and its application to similar scenarios.

77

One of the reasons I am pro-choice is I want my right to die respected at the other end of life.

I have a living will. It instructs my family to “pull the plug” after a week. After a month, they are instructed to pull the feeding tube. They will probably need a court order to do the second one.

My husband is of the same mind.

Not only do I not think this is killing, I think its a moral obligation I have to my family - not to live under those circumstances.

78

When my grandfather got cancer he decided it would be terminal.

He refused any medical treatment other than pain killers, which he took only in the last month of his life. He signed papers that specifically stated he would not be hospitalized, ever. He wanted no life support, no feeding tube, no hospital, no nursing home. He told us all that he was 76 years old, and if that was all his natural life was slated to be, it had been a good one.

We accepted his decisions as they were: things that only he had the right to decide. We believed that he and he alone could decide what life was worth living.

When it’s my turn, my family will respect my decisions regarding the natural end of my life. They know it’s up to me to decide what quality of life I’m willing to live with. If I am ever comatose, they are specifically to deny life support and/or a feeding tube. It’s not ‘killing’. It’s allowing me to die.

As for abortion, it’s a separate issue but also tied to quality of life. My desire to not be pregnant and not have children is such that it would seriously decimate my quality of life to be forced to bear the result of a birth control accident. An embryo or a fetus doesn’t have ‘a life’ and therefore has no ‘quality of life’ to preserve unless it can live without being in my uterus attached by umbilical cord. Because of that, my decisions regarding the quality of my life and my doctor’s sound medical advice are all that should be considered.

79

The word “coma” is hazy one. The boundaries that surround this state are fuzzy at best. It has been stated several times that Gomez’s “unassailable argument” is specious until one can show that a fetus’s and a comatose adult’s respective mental states are analogous with regard to sentience. Using “comatose” to define one of the subsets probably won’t get the job done. The very fact that a word like “semi-comatose” exists is enough to make this evident.

See if this gets the discussion back on the OP’s track: Use a flat EEG as the defining boundary, which is a good bit less ambiguous than a term like “comatose.” Now, there are rare cases of flat-lined EEG patients who recover. Here’s one cite that references “600 comatose patients with flat EEG reported in a preliminary study by the American EEG Society, supplied to Henry K. Beecher by Robert Schwab” for anyone who supposes this is hypothetical. This also refers to hypothermia as a condition that could create a flat-line–i.e., non-sentience–without creating irreversible brain death, just to provide a specific example. It is, apparently, incumbent upon doctors to ensure with all due diligence that a flat EEG is, in fact, irreversible. It may not be.

What a flat EEG does show, however, is the absence of any brain activity. If one’s position is that a fetus has no brain activity, regardless of the reason for this lack of activity (e.g., the requisite parts have yet to be developed), it seems to me that makes the fetus’s state of sentience analogous to the “brain dead” patient who will ultimately recover. Do any of our medical experts have an opinion on this? (I am not a doctor, and I don’t even play one on TV.) Gomez’s question is good one, and we’re all over the place, I think.

Use a severely hypothermic patient as your point of reference. The patient’s EEG is flat lined. While the patient is in that state, would putting a bullet in his brain amount to something other than murder? If it is murder, why, if sentience is absent and that is a condition that permits us to perform abortions with impunity?

If it is because the patient formerly had sentience (unlike a fetus), explain why a former condition carries any weight whatsoever in this situation. If prior sentience is the trump card, why do we permit brain dead patients whom we are certain won’t recover to die “naturally,” so to speak, without intervening to keep the patient alive?

Has the “unassailabilty” been restored?

80

I disagree. The decision whether or not to pull the plug relies on potentiality arguements. How much does it cost, what are the odds of the patient emerging, if they do emerge will it cost as much if not more to care for their deteriorated state, will their life suffer as a result of either decision, will my life suffer as a result of either decision, will my belief systems be compromised if I make one decision over another (i.e. I don’t go to heaven if I let them pull the plug, so I must battle with my eternal soul to make sure they don’t)? The decision to pull the plug or disturb someone when they’re sleeping relies upon value, potentiality of expense and desire fulfillment in relation to belief systems. I understand that this is a real person; that however does not negate to me the potentiality arguement when it comes to life termination. As a whole, I submitted above that I believe the logical answer to be Pro-Life. You did not address my argument, you did however address how I framed it as a potentiality argument. I do not see this process as a sincere process or debate or debunking.

-Justhink