What…, no one can give me a simple definition of what a ‘human being’ is?
Morgan:
Admitting there is a harm is not enough. Are you saying that this is the intentional killing of a separate, living human being?
Your points are all obviously relevant. However, they seem to take for granted society’s business intruding to begin with. I would say that unless you are saying that this is in fact the killing of a separate human being, endowed with right to life, liberty, etc., then society doesn’t really have any business intruding at all.
Also, I am still curious at what point the life being taken is considered to be a separate human being. To my way of thinking, once you have decided, from society’s standpoint, that this is a human with a right to life, then this right suddenly takes center stage. Unless the mother’s right to life is threatened, then the child’s right to life supercedes any lesser rights of the mother. Whatever cost it is placing on her, a greater cost is being born by the person who loses its life.
This is why I keep trying to nail you down on whether you are saying this is a separate human being, with the attendant rights of a U.S. citizen.
I think I mentioned that, from my standpoint, there is no way of rationally establishing a time before birth to determine that a separate life (with rights, etc.) has begun, and that is why I think the government should stay out of it.
-VM
sqweels:
I think you and I are making the same point, but you are doing it with far more economy of words.
-VM
Smartass’s comments are in bold quotation marks
"Are you saying that this is the intentional"
yes, it is intentional
"killing"
yep
"of a separate,"
yep. From the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a separate organism. Any alternative interpretation would be silly because then the definition of separate organisms would depend on the existing technology and ability to grow a fetus outside of the mother’s womb. Today a separate organism would be defined as a 5 month old fetus, tomorrow it would be a 3 month old fetus. I like more stability than that for my moral compass.
"living human being?"
see below
"However, they seem to take for granted society’s business intruding to begin with."
First, see my point #3 a couple of posts up. Now, yes, it is the government’s job to govern.
"I would say that unless you are saying that this is in fact the killing of a separate human being, endowed with right to life, liberty, etc., then society doesn’t really have any business intruding at all."
I wouldn’t. Society also has an interest in pets. There are animal cruelty laws in this country. Yet, Fluffy was never mentioned in the constitution. Similarly, the US is a participant to the Geneva Convention. U.S. citizens owe a duty to citizens of another country, even though they aren’t granted any rights under the constitution. Anyway, to what factor # are you referring to? #2?
"Also, I am still curious at what point the life being taken is considered to be a separate human being. To my way of thinking, once you have decided, from society’s standpoint, that this is a human with a right to life, then this right suddenly takes center stage."
That’s not my way of thinking. My way of thinking was outlined above.
"This is why I keep trying to nail you down on whether you are saying this is a separate human being, with the attendant rights of a U.S. citizen."
Such a question has no place in my analysis. You might as well ask me to state my opinion on extraterrestrial life. The only way this is even remotely relevant is with reference to #2 and #5 (plus its accompanying note).
"I think I mentioned that, from my standpoint, there is no way of rationally establishing a time before birth to determine that a separate life (with rights, etc.) has begun, and that is why I think the government should stay out of it."
And I have mentioned that I believe that by merely stating that an unborn baby is not a living human being and therefore #1,2,5 and 8 do not apply is merely an attempt to avoid a difficult decision.
Morgan:
I’ll admit to having trouble following all the number references; however, it seems you are making good points that there may be little point in debating. I’ll pick out what I think is the key quote:
You have missed my point entirely. Every person who considers having an abortion must make this difficult decision. I am merely refraining from making judgments–which tend to be very personal and unique in every situation–in advance. And, obviously, I am against society making that decision for them.
I tend to lean toward allowing people to make their own moral judgments where possible. Not because I refuse to consider tough issues but because I think it isn’t my business. If it were my wife or girlfriend, I would probably think it was my business.
Obviously, to your way of thinking, it is appropriate to go ahead and make the proclamation that it is killing a human but is a justified killing. I noticed that you mentioned the pain and inconvenience visited on the mother. Did I understand you correctly to say that this outweighed the right to life that this infant has?
As to the bit about pets, etc.–while not disputing your point–I think it doesn’t apply here because the human mother’s right to privacy and control of her own body would outweigh the rights of a pet or a non-human organism. I assume your not positing an example where a woman is pregnant with a poodle, right?
-VM
Should every egg fertilized in a petri-dish
have to be implanted into someone’s womb
and carried for nine months"? If life
begins at conception, they are human beings.
One anti-abortionist I know was totally
stumped on that one. Finally he said,
“Well, life starts when it’s in the womb.”
As I mentioned before, I believe it is intellectually corrupt to simply write off half of the equation by dismissing an unborn baby as “not a living human being.”
Why?
Exactly what is wrong with believing that personhood does not begin at conception?
** robodude asked:**
Nothing, as long as it is not used as a device to dismiss the other important concerns that should be addressed.
Annie-Xmas asked:
Please don’t jump into the discussion without reading the previous posts. If you did read the previous posts and don’t understand a line of reasoning, then ask for clarification.
It appears that you are having trouble with the concept of using a balancing test to determine a result. This is a very common device used in U.S. law. Usually, what happens is the different elemements are first identified as being important to a particular matter. Then, over the span of several years, many different cases begin to apply various facts to the elements. Once enought courts apply the balancing test the outcomes becomes fairly consistent. It should be noted that even bright line rules require some interpretation (e.g., if a misdemeanor is a theft of less than $1000, and a felony is a theft of more than $1000, what is the value of the theft of an option to bid on a contract? The option does not guarentee a winning bid, so the option could be worth nothing or it could be worth millions)
Anarchy is not an obvious philosophy. Don’t get me wrong, having anarchists participate in society (is that an oxymoron?) is a great balance to those who want to overregulate society. However, I like the fact that it is against the law to steal. I enjoy the stability of knowing that a contract is enforceable in court. It is a good idea that people get tickets for going over the speed limit (I say this even though I have gotten several tickets in the past few months). As I mentioned before, it is the government’s job to govern.
I was very careful not to say anything of the kind. All I was doing was laying out what I considered to be the fundamental elements that would be necessary in making a decision of whether to abort a child. Only once in this thread did I attempt to apply the elements to any circumstances (my response to Jeff_42). I am purposefully trying to refrain from applying the various factors and giving them weights until other issues are resolved.
I think this is where we are in fundamental disagreement. You believe the ONLY relevant factor is the mother’s right to privacy and control of her own body. The other eight elements I identified are not relevant. The folowing circumstances would, apparently, not matter:
(1) The woman is only three days from her due date
(2) The woman’s husband wants the baby to live, but is willing to give it up for adoption to a pre-selected family that can provide total emotional and financial support to the child.
(3) A charitable foundation has offered to pay all necessary expenses that would be incurred by her giving birth and any necessary recouperation.
I, however, would be very comfortable in describing a woman in the above sitation as being guilty of criminal homicide.
Well Morgan, I have read the previous posts, and I think Annie Xmas has a valid question for anti-abortion hardliners. Not everyone approaches the issue with the balancing test you describe, you know.
And frankly your response sounds an awful lot like you’re using the balancing test “as a device to dismiss the other important concerns that should be addressed”.
Morgan:
Like many people, you are apparently unable to distinguish the difference between anarchy and Libertarianism. Libertarians do not like the idea of having people who are
-in the majority
-in the minority
-intellectuals, like yourself
making decisions for others. We think that in an ideal society, people would be free to make decisions as they see fit. Unfortunately, some of these decisions overlap. As a result, we need government to handle these situations. We do not want government deciding right and wrong for the rest of us. Therefore, we believe the government’s sole purpose is to protect rights to life, liberty, and property. In this case, the humanity of the fetus is key because it determines whether or not the fetus has rights that it is the government’s business to protect.
As do I.
And your arrogance is in thinking that, once you and other reasonable people have defined these elements, that it is just to impose this thinking on others. Obviously, I disagree with you about what the crucial elements are. However, if you and the other people on this board get together, you can outvote me. This, in and of itself, will not make you right. In fact, we may not even define “right” in the same way.
Well, since you obviously feel qualified to draw these conclusions on my behalf, I certainly appreciate your being so thorough.
Nope, I believe that the father can make an arguable case for his rights, but the mother’s rights predominate. Also, if were possible to establish a rational rule that determines when a fetus becomes a human being with rights, then that person’s rights become a key issue.
I, on the other hand, wouldn’t feel comfortable describing someone that way unless there were a law defining this “crime” in this way. You, my friend, are making a moral judgment and describing its results in legal terms.
-VM
Smartass,
You have done an excellent job at defining your first principle (“The government’s sole purpose is to protect rights to life, liberty, and property.”). My first principle is somewhat different (see sig line). Now, there are only two places we can really go with this discussion: (1) try to argue and defend our first principles, or (2) discuss how we apply our first principles to the facts at hand.
To keep in the spirt of the topic at hand, I think it would be more appropriate to discuss (2).
You already stated: “I believe that the father can make an arguable case for his rights, but the mother’s rights predominate. Also, if were possible to establish a rational rule that determines when a fetus becomes a human being with rights, then that person’s rights become a key issue.” This is consistent with your first principle.
Some questions come to mind:
What is it about the mother that gives her rights predominance over the father? There are really two types of hardships being visited on the mother (1) those connected with the pregnancy, and (2) those connected with the child. Is it that the father can only experience one of these two factors which makes his rights second to the mothers? If technology was able to somehow eradicate the first factor, would the mother’s rights still outweigh the fathers?
Why cut it off at the father? Do the parents of the mother and parents of the father have any rights here? (It is their DNA too).
What if the mother was a minor? (Unemancipated minors are generally presumed incompetent to make their own decisions).
What if the mother was otherwise incompetent? (e.g., brain damage, in a coma, etc.) Would the mother’s legal representative be able to step in the shoes of the mother? What if the legal representative and the father differed? Would it matter if it was the father who wanted the abortion and the legal representative who wanted to keep it?
At what point does a baby have rights? Is this a bright line, or does the baby gain rights incrementally? At what point will the baby’s rights outweight the rights of the mother and/or the father? (I assume there is a point where this will happen. I assume Libertarians belive that if two people want to kill someone their desire does not outweigh the rights of the victim. Life is somehow sacrosanct enough that if 2 people, 10 people or even 1000 people wanted to kill someone, that would not, in and of itself, justify homicide.)
Morgan:
We can certainly discuss this in this way and I will be happy to give my opinion wrt your questions. wrt to your sig line, I think it sounds like an excellent personal philosophy but would be damn near impossible to implement at a government level, particularly since it is so hard to calculate effects on “net happiness” for any person or group of persons other than oneself.
It is her body that is serving as the incubator. Ignoring the weight gain often experienced by the father during pregnancy (which I can attest to), it is the mother’s body which is subject to the risks and strains of pregnancy. I think most people agree, in principle, that a person’s body is one of their most personal positions. I would contend that control over one’s body is one of the more fundamental rights.
I don’t favor the mother’s rights because of hardship per se, any more than I would favor her rights because she gets the most pleasure. I don’t know of any “right to avoid hardship” as such. Since we all may have our own definitions of what is a hardship, it would tend to be arbitrary. Instead, it makes more sense to focus on rights that are more easy to get a handle on: Life, Liberty, Privacy, Ability to Control One’s Own Body, etc.
If technology made it possible for the father to gestate the child and give birth, then I would say that his rights predominate. Generally, abortion discussions assume the fetus to be in place in the womb. If technology allowed this, then, assuming that a potential father has a fetus gestating inside him, then his rights would prevail over those of the mother during this time.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Upholding a right has no meaning unless it is in comparison to someone else’s right. Therefore, while the grandparents have rights, they do not prevail over those of the parents. Similarly, interested community members would not have rights that would prevail over those of the grandparents.
Admittedly, a sticky subject. While we assume a certain level of “incompetence” in minors, we do not assume away their rights. So, you have a minor’s right to control her body (which does involve decision-making) versus society’s belief that she is not qualified to make this kind of judgment. I don’t know what the right answer here is. What I do know is that, particularly in the case of young girls, it is not actually possible to prevent them from having abortions. All you can effectively accomplish is requiring them to be self-administered, with horrifying consequences. For that reason, I would hesitate to categorically deny safe abortions to minors. On the other hand, I would also hesitate to categorically restrict the minor’s parents from participating in the decision.
Some situations, I feel, don’t offer up obvious correct answers that can be applied to every case. This is one of them. Which is why I oppose government involvement. Government solutions tend to be categorical.
I would say that you have no right that you are incapable of exercising. Obviously, someone should be legally endowed to speak for the mother. However, this person can only hope to make the same decisions the mother herself would have made.
I would hesitate to say that the legal representative should always prevail or that the father would always prevail. The goal is to best execute the wishes of the mother, who cannot speak for herself. It may be that, in one case, the father can provide convincing evidence that his views are more in line with the mother’s. It may be that, in another case, the legal representative can better make this case. These kinds of cases, in my opinion, must be settled on a case-by-case basis.
This is, indeed, a key issue. Philosophically speaking, the baby has rights at the point that it is a separate, living, human being–whatever that means. Legally speaking, the baby has rights when the state begins to recognize them. I do not know, right off-hand, what the “official” Libertarian position would be, even if there is one.
I think that most Libertarians would say that these sorts of conclusions rely on one’s personal moral/religious beliefs, and therefore cannot be legislated. However, most other rights seem to be based on the event of birth. It is place and time of birth that conveys citizenship. It is also what determines calculations of age (for distinguishing adulthood, etc.). Based on all this, I don’t think that society has an interest in protecting the baby’s rights, or even recognizing them, until the baby is actually born. That is to say, killing an unborn child may be immoral, depending on your beliefs. However, it is not legally murder, as it is not depriving any recognized rights.
-VM