Apos wrote:
Forgive me, but that is a remarkable thing for you to say, given your thread on the identity of Lot’s wife. An attempt to identify whether a fetus is human is as substantial as you can get toward an ethical consideration of the issue.
Bob Cos:
Well, genocide is not an act. Killing one person under one circumstance is an act. Genocide is a phenomenon, not an act. My initial temptation here is to try to repair your allegory and then respond to the repaired version, but that’s too close to putting words in your mouth. Would it be fair to say, though, that you’re saying the fact that I could come up with people who would say that this or that hypothetical late-term abortion would not be immoral is largely irrelevant?
I think it would be plenty relevant if a majority (or even sizeable majority) of people were inclined to agree with a great many hypothetical late-term abortion scenarios. And, indeed, if I could get enough people to consider a few such scenarios and realize the wrongness of authorizing the state to interfere, I could change the laws to more adequately reflect my moral beliefs.
In a contrary fashion, if the Right to Life movement were able to convince enough people that they would not agree that any likely late-term abortion scenarios could result in an abortion that was not morally deplorable, they could change the laws to more adequately reflect their moral beliefs, which is exactly what they have been trying to do. Their attempt to ban “dilation and evacuation” abortions altogether (or “except to save the life of the mother”) is a prime example.
So to get back to what I was originally saying, I can certainly visualize some late-term abortion scenarios in which I do not think abortion would be an immoral decision, and for that reason and for the other reasons delineated above about why I think the decision should rest with the pregnant person if we aren’t going to proceed from an “all late term abortions are immoral” absolute, I don’t think there should be any laws restricting the right of women to have abortions if and when they determine them to be necessary.
That much of the argument I’m making should be internally consistent and coherent, but so far it is just me and my moral assessment that I am speaking of.
So I make the stronger case that there are other people who could alsoexamine such late-term abortion scenarios and reach the same conclusion about abortion under those described circumstances not being immoral. The relevance here is political, not moral. The Raving Atheist wrote:
So since if it were me and only me who existed as an exception, it would still not be very debate-worthy, but I don’t think I’m at all unique in finding it possible to look at some late-abortion scenarios and say “Oh, well in this case it would not be the wrong thing to do”, and since that is the case I think TRA’s attempt to dismiss such political perspectives is without sufficient foundation.
To each his own. I find it idiotic to refer to a lump of cells as a ‘baby’. Your unwillingness to use the proper names for things is either propaganda or sloppy thinking. Neither of which deserves any respect
Actually, your “proper names” are entirely arbitrary. It is a lump of cells two minutes before it is born. It is a lump of cells two seconds before it breathes. It is a lump of cells sleeping in its mother’s arms. It is a lump of cells when it grows up. And it is a lump of cells until it decays into a skeleton.
If His4ever’s position deserves no respect, then neither does yours.
I know others have commented on the validity of this statement, but I have to chime in and say that this really doesn’t make any sense. Or rather, it makes a whole lot more sense to reverse it and say that the status of the fetus is irrelevant until we determine the extent of a woman’s right to control her body. I always thought that was actually what the abortion issue is about.
Raving Atheist: I agree that the religious left’s treatment of the abortion issue is irresponsible, but that alone is not an argument against abortion – this would be akin to my saying that Christianity is an evil religion because Hitler was born a Christian, or that Islam is an evil religion because Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, etc. Besides, I also consider the religious right’s treatment to be irresponsible.
Personally, I’m in favor of abortion for the first two trimesters, and am opposed to abortion in the third trimester. Ethically (the biology is not as important) I consider somebody to be “human” when they are sentient, or (since “sentience” is something of a fudge term) when they are capable of thought. For example, I see nothing ethically wrong with taking a brain-dead patient off of life support (thereby killing the patient) – for all intents and purposes, the “person” is dead, and only the soulless lump of flesh remains. Similarly, I see nothing ethically wrong with removing a zygote or embryo or fetus in the first or second trimester, since brain activity does not begin until the third trimester. Biologically, an embryo is a human, just as a brain-dead patient on life support is still biologically a human. Ethically, the former has never existed, while the latter has passed on – i.e., ethically they are both lumps of flesh and nothing more.
**No, I was asking why you thought the existence of such a belief, by itself, was relevant. And I’m not sure the allegory requires any repair. The distinction you draw for genocide isn’t germane. If genocide is a phenomenon, it is still a deliberate process.
**Can you share with us the circumstances that make this moral, rather than offering as a given the fact that it can be so? That others may reach the same conclusion is not compelling if in each instance it is a faulty decision.
And I’m still interested in a response to this question:
**
—Actually, your “proper names” are entirely arbitrary. It is a lump of cells two minutes before it is born. It is a lump of cells two seconds before it breathes. It is a lump of cells sleeping in its mother’s arms. It is a lump of cells when it grows up. And it is a lump of cells until it decays into a skeleton.—
This is probably unfair, especially if you suspected what s/he means and chose to stall discussion instead of suggesting modifications to make things clearer. The point here seems not that it’s wrong to kill things that are lumps of cells period, but rather that other lumps of cells (two minutes prior to birth, adults, etc.) are more than just lumps of cells: they have additional capacities which lumps of cells alone do not. It IS disingeuous to refer to a zygote as a baby, because it has none of the characteristics we think of when we think of babies, and it is far closer in it’s capacities to any other small chunk of cells in your body that, alone, we do not consider to have any moral stature, than it is to a baby.
—Forgive me, but that is a remarkable thing for you to say, given your thread on the identity of Lot’s wife. An attempt to identify whether a fetus is human is as substantial as you can get toward an ethical consideration of the issue.—
No, it’s not. It’s vacuous and slimy, when either side tries to do it. That’s acting as if classifications like “human” or “person” are THEMSELVES the source of moral consideration, and not some actual argument that explains why particular beings are worthy of moral consideration due to their characteristics, not simply their label (which can be broader than the relevant characteristics).
There is no empirical “identifying” whether a fetus is human. It can be or can not be depending on what you mean by “human” (obviously there are many senses of the word) By most common uses of the word, it is human. Likewise, by most uses of the word “person” is it not a person. But in neither case does that legitimately help decide the issue.
The issue is: should we have moral concerns about killing THIS being, whatever we happen to call it? It doesn’t matter what broader category we use to describe it: the question is about the being itself, not the description.
Example: we, as shorthand, can say that people should not be killed. We mean a certain thing by it, because IN deciding that “people” should not be killed in the first place, we had a certain understanding of what “people” are. That is, to have any sort of appeal as a moral argument, we had some sort of case built off a particular set of beings.
So it’s not enough to simply then declare that fetuses are people too, however more accurate that might be in some understanding, and to then think that the moral argument applies transitively to to fetuses are well. It’s doesn’t: it was based on particular beings, and fetuses are very different in many relevant ways. To get the moral argument back upand running, you have to re-think IT so that it actually addresses the characteristics of fetuses as well.
I, for instance, DO think most fetuses have moral interests… but not too many as of yet, certainly not more than other beings that can feel pain, react, and not much else. I donot think zygotes have any interests.
(A)
Sue and Tom are in a good and stable situation, she employed at a good salary & with good benefits that include nice long maternity leave and he with his own company doing well. Good time for a second child, so she gets pregnant. Then the economy sours and only after (as per mutual agreement) Tom dumps a lot of their own transferrable assets into his dying company does he give up and file bankruptcy. Sue’s own company goes on a downsizing binge and she is among those cut. Two months later, that company is bought out by another which tosses her medical COBRA into the hands of a different medical company that hikes monthly payments by more than 200%, probably illegal but the matter isn’t settled ninety days later when their other child gets sick with an unknown ailment and the same medical company won’t cover a specialist’s visit. Sue’s friend Aaron knows a company that would hire Sue in a heartbeat if she’s able to dive in and work for them full-time. All in all, what looked like a good time to be pregnant suddenly just isn’t. She’s 7 months. She’d like to abort.
(B)
Cheryl and Dave were informed after an early second-trimester ultrasound that their baby would be born with some birth defects, but probably nothing all that serious–some deformities that might require surgery, most of it plastic. Ninety days later a combination of x-rays and additional ultrasound studies are painting a much grimmer picture: the baby would have a spine shaped like a corkscrew, badly misshapen rib cage, severe damage to the left side of the heart, vestigial left lung, only one functioning kidney, probably brain damage of unknown severity, and might live anywhere from a few hours to a few years but would be unlikely to live a full life. If the baby did live for any length of time, perpetual and expensive routine care would be necessary as well as a never-ending sequence of very invasive and life-threatening operations. After talking it over, Cheryl and Dave agree that this is not something they want for the baby or for each other, and they ask about obtaining an abortion even though it is Cheryl’s third trimester.
©
Lenoir, in her ignorance, thought that Jerry would come around and become more affectionate and supportive once it sank in upon him that he was going to be a father. Instead, his brooding anger turned to aggressive violence and he punched her on two occasions, once directly to her swollen abdomen. Lenoir realizes that it is time to get out and not look back. Unfortunately, since Jerry is a jealous and possessive husband who has threatened to kill her if she ever tries to leave him, and since being a state police officer makes it frighteningly easy for him to track her down if she leaves a trail of medical services records-- and since she needs all the unimpeded mobility she can get for the time being – this is turning out to be a really bad time to be pregnant, so she wants an abortion. By the time Jerry sees the medical bill, she will be long gone.
That you may not reach the same conclusion does not determine that anyone else’s is “faulty”.
Bob Cos:
And I’m still interested in a response to this question:
As I said in the paragraph where I brought it up, sexual equality is of importance because of what goes with it. The social world that exists coterminously with the sexual double standard is a morally depraved world, not merely because sexual equality is not a fact there, but because the latter is a sort of keystone that shifts the entire structure when you modify it. (Which is why it is important to the Right to Life people who have observed the same things, except that, as I said, they have indicated a moral preference for the old world).
Are there more important things nonetheless? Sure, I’d put the overall survival of the species on a higher priority.
I’m still not sure exactly what your rationale is. Are you stating that in another circumstance it could be immoral to have a third trimester abortion (though I understand that you would not hold others to this moral standard)? If so, what makes the situations you describe moral as opposed to the other situations?
Do the unborn’s rights factor in at all in situations where you personally would deem an abortion immoral? If so, then at what point are these rights subjugated by another right? Or is there some other factor that renders an abortion immoral in a given situation? Or do you hold that any reason for a third trimester abortion is adequate (I don’t believe that’s your point)?
My point was that I could not determine the validity of your point at all if it was not stated.
Please clarify why the survival of the species is dependent on the unencumbered right to abortions. This seems like quite a leap.
By the way, do you really want to continue to hold that you understand the preferences and philosophies of everyone who identifies as pro-life?
Apos wrote:
One of the capacities that a zygote has is its potential to be someone like you. There is no other lump of cells with that potential.
I’m sorry to disappoint you if you’re already poised to type a rebuttal, but here we agree. And frankly, that was my point both here and in the Lot’s wife thread. The label is irrelevant. What matters is what the label identifies.
I misread your post, and I understand that was not your point. Sorry for the confusion.
In a given circumstance, is a woman’s right to equality ever less important than another’s right to live? In instances where it is more important, what makes it so?
You’re still misreading my post. If an individual woman is denied equality on the basis of sex, that’s a bummer, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
A complex social system in which the sexual double standard is key, and which has many deplorable aspects of which sexual inequality is only the opening chapter, is a very different thing. (To put it in perspective, some Right to Life people believe that abortion in some fashion sets the stage for acceptance of killing and the spread of callousness everywhere in life, so for them it isn’t just killing embryos and babies and whatnot, either).
For sake of space I’m not going to quote your examples. Would you also agree that this is ok, too, though?
D
Steve tells Meg that he doesn’t want a baby, but Meg doesn’t believe he really means it, so she doesn’t have an abortion like he requests. She sincerely believes that Steve will come around when the baby is born. Little Ryan by some chance of fate is born eight weeks premature. Meg is heartbroken that Steve doesn’t change his mind upon seeing the baby, and in fact declares that she knew he didn’t want a baby, so he’s going to leave her. Meg decides that it’d be worse to lose her husband than her son, so she smothers the baby with a pillow.
If it’s not ok in your book, what’s the difference? Baby Ryan is about the same age as the babies in your examples.
“So since if it were me and only me who existed as an exception, it would still not be very debate-worthy, but I don’t think I’m at all unique in finding it possible to look at some late-abortion scenarios and say “Oh, well in this case it would not be the wrong thing to do”, and since that is the case I think TRA’s attempt to dismiss such political perspectives is without sufficient foundation.”
As I indicated before, I support abortions at any stage if the mother’s life or health is seriously endangered. What I oppose at any stage is an abortion merely to relieve the mother of child raising responsibilities. And I was only focussed on abortions at the early stages, since it is indeed a “unique” position to assert that it is permissible at eight or nine months merely to avert motherhood duties. Not any of the articles or churches listed at the far-left Coalition for Reproduction Choice (http://www.rcrc.org) supports abortion at the late stages for any scenario not involving death or serious injury to the mother. Personhood at that stage is essentially assumed and it’s just a question of saving one life or the other. If you’re going to allow it that late, there’s no reason to stop at birth either, at the mother would be equally inconvenience by the child-raising duties.
Interesting, AHunter3. Let me ask you to clarify your position with the following questions.
What about one month after delivery? Does a woman have a right to terminate the baby at that time if she finds it ncessary to do so?
What if a baby is delivered one month prematurely? Is it OK to terminate the baby during the first month after its birth since it hasn’t made it to 9 total months yet?
What about an extremely premature baby supported in an incubator? Does the doctor in charge of the incubation facility have the unalienable and universal right to terminate the incubation at any time that she finds it necessary to do so?
Finally, please define “necessary”? Would that include reasons of convenience or personal whim?
Please explain.
-mok