# Is there a way to effectively attack the idea of fetal personhood? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2014, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195 "2014-01-19T07:28:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/41 "2014-01-19T17:50:37Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > When it comes to an issue of, literally, life and death, I think differently. Protection of innocent human life is a _more important_ and more crucial good than treating all religious views equally. I agree completely … except that I believe “protection of innocent human life” needs to be carried to their 18th birthday. We need improvements in our foster care system, better adaption services and by all means we MUST fully enforce child support laws. Perhaps then we can address “Roe vs. Wade” with more clarity. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/42 "2014-01-19T18:06:27Z")
Re: We need improvements in our foster care system, better adaption services and by all means we MUST fully enforce child support laws. Perhaps then we can address “Roe vs. Wade” with more clarity. I agree, I’m not optimistic that the laws are going to change anytime soon. Opinion about abortion has mostly been at a stalemate for 25 years, though who knows what the future may bring. I think increasing working class wages and expanding the welfare state (free child care, financial support for mothers, improving the job market, etc.) might do a lot to lower the abortion rate, though. Economics is a powerful effect on people’s reproductive decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/43 "2014-01-19T18:25:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Who says anything about compelling physicians? Women and their doctors should be making this decision. If the doctor doesn’t want to do it, or doesn’t feel it’s necessary, the patient can seek the opinion of another doctor. The [American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology](http://www.acog.org/~/media/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Ethics/co385.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130324T0852143453) count? (PDF link) > [@](#): > > 1. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively affect a patient’s physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care regardless of the provider’s personal moral objections. If a physician’s refusal to perform an abortion would negatively impact the woman’s mental health, the physician should be compelled to provide the abortion. There is no weighing of interests. There is no waiting for a referral. No second opinion. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/44 "2014-01-19T18:40:05Z")
I do not need to negate the idea of fetal personhood in order to be absolutely pro-choice. I think the thing to “attack” is the idea that IF the fetus is a person then, gee, abortion is therefore wrong and should be illegal. Yeah, it’s alive, it’s human, and the act of aborting it can be reasonably described as “killing”. That doesn’t make it murder. Not all intentional killing of human life is murder. We have identified and acknowledged several categories of such killing that we accept are occasionally necessary. We don’t designate all of our soldiers as “murderers”. (In fact we often celebrate them as heroes). So here’s another special category wherein killing human life isn’t murder. Admittedly, we don’t have many such situations or categories. And each one is a bit different from the others. Killing in war isn’t the same as killing in self-defense which is yet different from capital punishment. Abortion isn’t “just like” war, or self-defense, or capital punishment. It is its own thing. But first and foremost, yeah, it is “like” them in the sense that it is sometimes necessary and it isn’t murder, but instead is another exception to the general rule that we consider killing other people to be murder. You know the specifics: a person is pregnant and deems it necessary to end that pregnancy. That’s far from random killing, it’s a situation as circumscribed as war or any of the others, and it is indeed a special circumstance. And if we were to ask who, of all people, would be least cavalier about deciding whether or not the act is necessary, well of _course_ is is she, herself, the pregnant person. If she’s of sound mind you would not consider forcing her to abort against her will, that would be horrifyingly intrusive and coercive and cruel. Well, she gets to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/45 "2014-01-19T18:50:38Z")
Re: And if we were to ask who, of all people, would be least cavalier about deciding whether or not the act is necessary, well of course is is she, herself, the pregnant person Why would I agree with that? People make bad decisions about their own lives all the time. And what we have here involves two lives. Specifically, in some cases the mother would have strong reasons of self-interest to have an abortion (because she wants to maintain her personal freedom, because she doesn’t want a kid, because she wants to finish college) that would weigh against the interest of the child. That makes her much _less_ reliable and objective a judge about whether an abortion is ‘necessary’, not _more_ so, and I absolutely wouldn’t trust her to make the right decision. Re: It works if you think people should be allowed to choose their religions. Our constitution specifically forbids the government from taking a religious position ‘Personhood starts at conception’ is a philosophical position, not a religious one. The government is supposed to be neutral between different religious views (and between religion and atheism) but the problem here is there is _no_ neutral position on when life and personhood begins. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/46 "2014-01-19T18:51:36Z")
I’ve talked with a lot of radical anti-abortion people, and I’ve heard things that just make me wonder. In my last talk, I was told “The woman accepts responsibility for the person using her body when she lies down and has sex.” Okay, so do you support abortion in cases of rape? “Why should the baby suffer?” I actually heard one say in front of a woman going into the clinic with her two toddler daughters “Don’t go in there. They murder children in there.” I consider that child abuse. Nobody should have the right to use your body without your permission. The anti-abortion people want to give a fetus rights that no other person has. Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/47 "2014-01-19T19:11:57Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The [American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology](http://www.acog.org/~/media/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Ethics/co385.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130324T0852143453) count? (PDF link) > > If a physician’s refusal to perform an abortion would negatively impact the woman’s mental health, the physician should be compelled to provide the abortion. There is no weighing of interests. There is no waiting for a referral. No second opinion. Why are you arguing this point with me? I made my opinion clear. I have no interest in compelling doctors to perform abortions. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/48 "2014-01-19T19:13:47Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Re: And if we were to ask who, of all people, would be least cavalier about deciding whether or not the act is necessary, well of course is is she, herself, the pregnant person > > Why would I agree with that? People make bad decisions about their own lives all the time. And what we have here involves two lives. Specifically, in some cases the mother would have strong reasons of self-interest to have an abortion (because she wants to maintain her personal freedom, because she doesn’t want a kid, because she wants to finish college) that would weigh against the interest of the child. That makes her much _less_ reliable and objective a judge about whether an abortion is ‘necessary’, not _more_ so, and I absolutely wouldn’t trust her to make the right decision. Got it – you think the government can make a better decision for some people. I don’t. I think the individual patient and her doctor _always_ are better equipped to make decisions about the patient’s health and medical situation than the government and/or other strangers. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/49 "2014-01-19T20:23:34Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > BrightNShiny (bolding mine): > > We do? Intentionally and legally? Please explain. I listed several examples in the post you are quoting. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/50 "2014-01-19T20:30:31Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I’d be fine with broadening protection for the fetus beyond just protecting their life. For example, I’d be fine with laws banning pregnant women from drinking, etc. Sorry, to me that is just begging to be a slippery slope to forcing women to stay pregnant no matter what, like the incident in Ireland - or me the third time I was pregnant and knowing it was a matter of time before my kidneys would shut down [after the second time they shut down in my second pregnancy I was informed that I will die, not might die if I try to go through with a third pregnancy.] If I was effectively locked in prego prison to force me to carry, I would die. That simply is not fair to any female. It is also not fair to force a pregnancy to term when there are kids needing to be adopted and this would be yet another kid dumped into the foster system for not being wanted by the woman. If the infant was the result of rape or incest, it is not fair to the woman who didn’t want the pregnancy int he first place to be forced to carry [especially if birth control becomes forbidden for religious reasons, either on the part of the government or some fuckass of a pharmacist who refuses to dispense and there is no other local source.] Nope, I among others will fight to the death to prevent the making of laws to forbid pregnant women from any personal and legal choice available to any nonpregnant woman. That idea can die in a fiery hell. Why do you think people are fighting so hard to prevent the whole abortion law changes that are trying to slide shit back to the hellish past. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/51 "2014-01-19T20:57:42Z")
Re: I think the individual patient and her doctor always are better equipped to make decisions about the patient’s health and medical situation than the government and/or other strangers. I don’t. So we’re at a stalemate, like before. This is why I’m not optimistic about the contours of the debate changing any time soon. People on the pro-choice side consider arguments about fetal personhood to be missing the point, and people on my side consider the arguments about ‘autonomy’, ‘it’s my body’, etc. to be trivial compared to preserving the life of the embryo/fetus/zygote. Re: Nope, I among others will fight to the death to prevent the making of laws to forbid pregnant women from any personal and legal choice available to any nonpregnant woman. That idea can die in a fiery hell. Why do you think people are fighting so hard to prevent the whole abortion law changes that are trying to slide shit back to the hellish past. I’d equally fight to the death to bring back restrictive abortion laws, if I thought there was any chance of success. I don’t really think there is, though. Re: I actually heard one say in front of a woman going into the clinic with her two toddler daughters “Don’t go in there. They murder children in there.” I consider that child abuse. I wouldn’t call it ‘murder’, that requires the element of intent, and I think (hope?) that most people who have or perform abortions don’t really think what they are killing is a human being. I do hope to raise my future kids to be the kind of people who would not have an abortion, though, unless in a medical emergency. So yea, I expect to tell them that ‘they kill children in an abortion clinic’. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/52 "2014-01-19T21:19:42Z")
**Hector\_St\_Clare** , when you use the term “revealed truth”, what exactly do you mean? ---
**Author:** ![citizenzen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a8b319/32.png) [@citizenzen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/citizenzen)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/53 "2014-01-19T21:28:27Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > … If a physician’s refusal to perform an abortion would negatively impact the woman’s mental health, the physician should be compelled to provide the abortion. There is no weighing of interests. There is no waiting for a referral. No second opinion. The key words in your quoted text were, “in an emergency”. An elective abortion is not an emergency. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/54 "2014-01-19T22:03:54Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I can _infer_ its existence, from philosophical considerations (e.g. without an immaterial soul, is free will meaningful?) That’s not an inference. I also don’t quite get the association of free will and immaterial soul, or why one needs the other to be “meaningful”, but that’s another issue. > [@](#): > > Re: if the foetus is a person, they aren’t campaigning for it to be treated as such in all other contexts and not just abortion > > I’d be fine with broadening protection for the fetus beyond just protecting their life. For example, I’d be fine with laws banning pregnant women from drinking, etc. Does this protection extend post-partum ? I mean, if protecting Life™ is the most important thing, maybe you should campaign to ban everything even mildly dangerous, to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/55 "2014-01-19T22:16:48Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > At what point, in the rather complex and lengthy process, which takes several hours? S’not all that complex, mate, unless the concept of tabs and slots angers and confuses you 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/56 "2014-01-19T22:46:43Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > What possible ‘discovered fact’ could prove when ensoulment happens, or whether the soul even exists or not? By definition, the soul isn’t observable. Nonsense. The soul isn’t observable because it isn’t real. If it _was_ real there’s no reason to think that it wouldn’t be observable; in fact, it should be observable if it was real. A real soul should produce some effect on the brain, it should result in different effects from brain damage than what we see. And again; souls are irrelevant to the question of whether or not something is a person. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I can _infer_ its existence, from philosophical considerations (e.g. without an immaterial soul, is free will meaningful?) but you can’t observe when it comes to be associated with the body. If it doesn’t affect the body then even if it exists it doesn’t matter, it isn’t us; we are our brains. You are describing a supernatural parasite, something that just sticks to us and contributes nothing. And, “free will” as commonly conceived of (something that is neither random nor determined) isn’t meaningful with or without a soul; the concept itself is incoherent. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Re: And if we were to ask who, of all people, would be least cavalier about deciding whether or not the act is necessary, well of course is is she, herself, the pregnant person > > Why would I agree with that? People make bad decisions about their own lives all the time. And what we have here involves two lives. Specifically, in some cases the mother would have strong reasons of self-interest to have an abortion (because she wants to maintain her personal freedom, because she doesn’t want a kid, because she wants to finish college) that would weigh against the interest of the child. That makes her much _less_ reliable and objective a judge about whether an abortion is ‘necessary’, not _more_ so, and I absolutely wouldn’t trust her to make the right decision. The “right” decision according to you in this case being to be a walking womb, a brood mare. You are outright acknowledging in this argument that you care _nothing_ for the welfare of the woman; if her life is ruined, too bad for her. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > ‘Personhood starts at conception’ is a philosophical position, not a religious one. No, it’s based purely on religion. It goes against everything we know about the human mind, and goes against the fundamental way we define “person” in law. There’s simply no reason to believe it except as part of the religious crusade against abortion. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/57 "2014-01-19T23:01:18Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Re: I think the individual patient and her doctor always are better equipped to make decisions about the patient’s health and medical situation than the government and/or other strangers. > > I don’t. So we’re at a stalemate, like before. This is why I’m not optimistic about the contours of the debate changing any time soon. People on the pro-choice side consider arguments about fetal personhood to be missing the point, and people on my side consider the arguments about ‘autonomy’, ‘it’s my body’, etc. to be trivial compared to preserving the life of the embryo/fetus/zygote. I’m going to use your quoted post here to make my point, but my point is really a larger one and not specifically directed at you. The question of fetal personhood is ultimately philosophical and/or religious and therefore a very personal one not subject to either scientific or objective ethical definition. The only reason this is an oft-raised topic is because of the question of how it should treated in law, and I would think that the very fact of its elusiveness to any kind of objective resolution provides the obvious answer for how it should be treated in law: it shouldn’t. I’ve always found it supremely ironic that the same politically conservative factions who are always railing against “government overreach” in regulatory and financial matters have no problem at all with that same government reaching right in to a woman’s uterus. The basis of law should always be objectively rational. We know why we have laws against theft and murder; society would cease to exist if these activities ran rampant. But no one has ever been able to provide a rational basis for ideologically inspired dogmatic abortion laws. I live in Canada where there are no abortion laws at all (though you would be hard-pressed to find any physician willing to perform a late-term abortion without medical justification). I haven’t seen any signs yet of the end of civilization. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/58 "2014-01-19T23:12:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > S’not all that complex, mate, unless the concept of tabs and slots angers and confuses you 🙂 I don’t think “conception” means what you think it means, then. It is indeed pretty complex, and does take hours, and sometimes happens days after intercourse is done. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/59 "2014-01-19T23:16:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … have no problem at all with that same government reaching right in to a woman’s uterus. I completely agree … I really don’t want government fiddling with a woman’s uterus. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195/60 "2014-01-19T23:41:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You could cite Biblical authority. The Bible has several passages which equate living with breathing. So something which hasn’t drawn its first breath is not yet alive. Countered, and used to support personhood of fetuses: > [@](#): > > Leviticus 17:11 > For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. So life is in the breath and life is in the blood - both biblical. Woman breaths in breath, that is transferred to her blood, then to the fetus via the placenta. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-effectively-attack-the-idea-of-fetal-personhood/679195.md?page=4)