I don’t buy it. I’m okay with calling a fetus a baby - it’s just a baby in a particular location where it doesn’t get the same legal protections it would elsewhere. I don’t see why I logically must either support infanticide or specifically say “fetus” != “baby”. I don’t support the former and I’m indifferent to the latter.
Well, I’ve actually been touching on this point multiple times-
Third possibility- you can believe the fetus is a baby and be pro-choice if you recognize that other people can come to their own conclusions based on the best information. That you can imagine someone seeing the facts that you used to come to the conclusion it is a baby and coming to a different conclusion.
Which I why I would never force a pro-life person (or anyone for that matter) to have an abortion even if there was compelling reasons to do so. I respect their conclusion that the fetus has human rights. I would fight just as hard against any laws requiring abortions (or forced use of birth control for some who is opposed to it) as the right to have an abortion.
Or, for that matter, you can believe that it’s a baby and just not care. I’d kill the hell out of any person who wanted to hijack my body, I don’t get gooey over babies.
But, don’t you see? This is close to the opinion stated by the first dozen or so people to respond to this thread.
Skipping some *nuance, I’ll summarize the opinion like this:
- Fetus is a baby
- Killing fetuses is bad
- We don’t presume to impose our moral code on other people
Classyladyhp, does this describe your opinion? Does it surprise you that it matches so closely a pro-choice position?
- please review page one for nuance
Fourth option: a fetus is morally equivalent to a newborn, and in both cases, the woman can give up custody of the fetus/baby if she chooses. Of course, giving up custody of a pre-viable fetus necessitates its death, and giving up custody of a post-birth baby doesn’t.
I do believe that, post-viability, a woman should have a c-section rather than an abortion and adopt out the child if she doesn’t want custody of it. I’m not in this for dead fetuses, I’m in this for preventing unwanted children. And, yes, that means that once a 1 day old zygote is “viable” with modern technology, then abortion will be effectively banished - but the adoptive party better be prepared to pay those medical bills for artificial incubation for 9+ months.
But besides that, no I’m not entirely opposed to infanticide in all cases. I think an terminal infant who is in pain (as assessed by one of the many excellent neonatal pain scales) can and should ethically be given a nice overdose of morphine and allowed to die peacefully and painlessly if that’s what her parents want for her. I think that babies in wartime, subject to abuse and child rape, or a squalling infant putting bystanders at risk of being discovered and tortured or killed, can and should be - as painlessly as possible - put to a quick death rather than suffer. I think if a society is facing widespread starvation and cannot feed it’s people, it makes more sense to kill the infants than those who might be able to combat the problem.
Again, I love babies. I do think of fetuses as babies. But they’re also human, they’re not sacred. Sometimes people have to die, and that includes babies.
And who gets to define that, and possibly override her best interests in the process? I’m not comfortable with letting the state do that, personally. Call it my wacky respect for personal liberty and the rights of the individual against the oppressive machinations of socialist government control.
“Socialist” is the generic label for “bad”, right?
If you say you’re okay with calling it a baby, but that the location (inside or outside its mothers uterus, I presume) should make a difference regarding its legal rights, aren’t you then really saying that there is in fact a difference between an unborn and a newborn child? The location is the only thing that seperates a viable foetus from an infant, and if that distinction carries moral implications then you’re only equating the two in a nominal sense.
But that third option is not quite sound, ethically speaking. Surely, you believe that premeditated killing of an adult human being is morally wrong, and even if you thought that some people believed otherwise you wouldn’t simply, on that basis alone, grant them the right to go around murdering people. The whole point of having laws is to force everyone within a society to abide by the same moral code. What you’re really saying (I think) is that there are some ethical decisions which shouldn’t be dictated by laws because they are essentially a private matter.
Well… yes? One of them inside the body of another person and the other is not. That’s is the critical difference, I guess. There’s certainly no significant biological or genetic difference.
…so? The whole “fetus = baby” thing is “in a nominal sense”.
Perhaps you’re making some subtle point that I’m unable to see. I request a clarification.
It occurs to me that many people on the “Pro Life” side, either consciously or unconsciously, remove the word “Choice” for the “Pro Choice” position. They seem to equate Pro Choice with Pro Abortion. I can’t speak for others - but for me, that isn’t an accurate portrayal. I am most definitely Pro Choice, in that I want people to be able to make their own decisions about it. But simultaneously - I am also anti abortion. I want it to be safe, legal and exceedingly rare.
When my wife and I were faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I’m sure glad we had the opportunity to make a choice. For both of us - it was easy - we chose life. But I’m sure glad we had the chance to make the choice ourselves. And I would like to assure the Pro Lifers that at least some of us Pro Choicers choose Life as well.
Very true. But if you just don’t care, then you aren’t really making your decision based on moral considerations.
Sure I am. I think it’s perfectly moral to kill anyone who’s hijacking my body.
I think you just managed to prove that all men are Socrates but, even accepting your flawed logic, perhaps you could address the various responses you received?
I’ll summarize them briefly:
- (You chose the wrong framing). Foetus = baby (= infant???) is not the main concern. It’s foetus inside another person that’s important. Does the other person not concern you at all?
- (arguendo, you framed it right, but). It’s still a complex moral decision and we are reluctant to let an all-powerful state make that kind of decision for us. We’d rather the decision be made by the woman and her doctor.
- Your decision is correct for you but not correct for everyone in every situation. You have a right to argue for your position but not to impose it on someone else.
ETA I took too long to hit SUBMIT and the discussion moved on.
WhyNot said it best, I think.
The moral distinction between a baby in utero and a baby outside and gurgling at you is not based on a difference in the baby itself but in the baby’s actions with regard to the mother. It is the mother’s absolute right (to her own bodily autonomy) that gives her the right to remove her support from the baby while in utero.
A thought experiment, and I intend this especially for classyladyhp and OMG:
We allow babies to be given up for adoption now–that is, legally, a mother can relinquish both parental rights to a child and the duty of care for that child.
In the future, don’t fight the hypothetical, we develop a uterine replicator device. For the same amount of surgical effort as an abortion, the fetus can instead be removed from the mother and placed into one of these devices, gestated, and born. Babies born from the uterine replicator have the same or lower rates of birth defects, and develop equivalently to in-womb babies.
In the case where this technology exists, does the mother have a moral right to remove the fetus from her uterus and give it up for adoption while it is still unborn?
As long as you think that the aborted fetus was a baby, I don’t think you can reconcile being pro-choice in those situations with infanticide. You are simply looking the other way.
I am semi pro-choice and I think of near term fetuses as babies.
I don’t think of zygotes and blastocysts as babies and more than I think of a petri dish full of sperm and ova as a nursery and at that point in time I think that the woman’s right to choice and privacy are far more important.
At the other end of the spectrum you have a viable fetus (Preterm birth - Wikipedia) These are extreme examples but it shows that birth as early as 22 weeks can result in healthy adults. Once you cross the 26 week mark (third trimester), I think we are talking about homocide that can only be justified if the life or physical health of the mother is at stake. For personal reasons, I personally have an immoral stance that permits the abortion of viable fetuses that have been diagnosed with severe disabilities but I recognize that it is infanticide
I think personhood might start before viability but I have no problem telling women that its too late to get an abortion in her third trimester unless continuing the pregnancy would kill or disable her.
In the middle (the second trimester), I am conflicted but I would probably err on the side of choice (although I would be OK with higher information requirements for these abortions).
So despite the fact that Roe v Wade was horribly reasoned and created rights out of whole cloth, I think they got close to the correct result (Roe leaves it up to the states to limit abortions in the third trimester, I think this should have been done at the federal level on a civil rights basis)
The point I’m trying to make (not quite as articulately as I wish I could) is that to many people who take the “pro-life” position, a foetus isn’t just nominally equivalent to a baby, because they don’t think it makes any difference to the moral priviledges of the foetus/baby whether it has been born or not. Because they believe it is already a fully fledged human being during gestation, they accord it the same human rights within the uterus as without, and can’t tolerate that it should be killed simply because it causes inconvenience to some one else. Thus they find abortions, or foeticide, exactly as morally appalling as I imagine you find infanticide.
Sure there are worse things than death but we usually give the choice to the person whose death we are talking about. I think its reasonable to prescribe the parameters for when this choice can be put in the hands of the mother and doctor.
You had a major role in putting it there except in the case of rape.
You are correct.
I think most of us assume that’s the argument and the position. Your post is no revelation to most of us. I, for one, just think your conclusion is wrong, but you are entitled to it. You seemed to have overlooked my posts in which I explain that being pro-choice doesn’t mean you cannot have this view too. You can just agree that someone else can come to a different conclusion.