You keep saying this, but
So, we are not only talking about fetuses that would die when removed from the mother. Why do you keep on mentioning only these cases?
If the fetus is viable, would you rather kill it than have the mother go through a C-section?
Given the choice between
#1 is preferable.
The post-viable cases (which are approximately 1/25 of 1% of all abortions) are only done for medical reasons. Elective abortions in the 3rd trimester are illegal in most states and even where it’s legal, it’s all but impossible to find a doctor who will perform one. 99.96% of all abortions are performed in the first two trimesters. 90% are performed in the first trimester. 3rd trimester abortions are extremely rare and there is no evidence that any of them are ever performed for non-medical reasons (usually the fetus is already dead or dying).
That’s not my decision to make. If an abortion is performed in the 3rd trimester, that’s usually an indication that the fetus is already toast.
A fetus is not a human being.
Diogenes, given the particular “hypothetical” in question, this response seems a bit disingenuous. Is the viable child, once delivered, a human being? Then he is the moment before as well. The moment before delivery may in your mind create a circumstance that makes him a human being without certain rights. But it seems tortuous to use this position to conclude the fetus is not a human being, again given the hypothetical. It smacks of the unyielding fanaticism that makes PBA bans a reality when most others hear it. It defies common sense.
Or do I misunderstand you?
Once a fetus is alive outside the body, I’ll call it a human, as long as it is dependent on living inside the mother, I will not. That might sound arbitrary but so are 18th birthdays. We need a line somewhere.
We are mostly talking about pre-viable cases anyway and like I said, I think the attempts to steer the conversation towards a discussion of post-viable or 3rd trimester abortions are a red herring, because those are extremely rare and are not performed for elective reasons.
Dio: Although you and I are still sort of going after this in the GQ thread, I’m going to basically back you up on that assertion here. While I think you overstate the case a bit, I absolutely agree that the whole “elective abortions of viable fetuses” is a red herring. It might have some interest as an intellectual exercise, but I just don’t see that we should use it to inform ourselves on how we set public policy. States can ban elective abortion of viable fetuses and almost all do. Few, if any doctors would even think of performing one, so this is not some rampant problem. In the end, we need to generally trust doctors and women to make ethical decisions about the woman’s pregnancy. Clouding the debate with this topic does nothing more than, well, cloud the debate.
No. First you scoffed that the idea that such a proceedure could be used for saving the life of the mother. But then when given an example in the very next paragraph, you apparently forgot to go back and clean up the scoff, because then in response to the example, you basically admitted it but then, typically, tried to subtly change the subject to avoid the issue of whether or not the proceedure is safer for women or not.
Just because a proceedure is relatively safe does not mean that it bears no risk of injury or death over and above D&E. You can try to get all huffy about the piercing and crushing of skulls, but this is just mindless emotionalism. As you yourself must admit, there are cases in which the baby is already braindead or non-viable outside the womb in which this proceedure is used. What you are asking in these cases is little more than asking a woman to undergo surgery all because you find one way of killing a baby and removing it from the womb more icky than another. No way is particularly more cruel than any other.
Well, since you go on to do exactly the same dance, perhaps, like JThunder, you should go back and edit the snark about me accusing you of doing it?
Ah, but that’s a separate issue from whether or not the proceedure is safer. B telling people that it isn’t “necessary,” you play into the false impression that D&Es are simply medically superfluous. All this about YOU thinking that other procedures are morally superior is a different issue. You’ve slipped one inside the other. Sneaky! A victory for snide PR!
I think the difference between us is that I view the human “soul” as a matter of software. You view it as a matter of “hardware.”
Imagine, if you will, an Artificial Intelligence program on a computer. For future reference, I will call this program Human.Exe.
The program is extremely simple and sophisticated at the same time. Human.Exe can be very easily installed into any standard home computer. The program starts off slowly… it can’t speak. It doesn’t know how to. In fact, it starts out knowing absolutely nothing and is the epitome of a “blank slate.” It takes at least a couple years of interaction with its owners to learn how to speak and realize itself as a separate and unique entity. Very similar to how “real” humans work.
You gain a certain fondness for a particular incarnation of the program. Human123. It becomes your best friend. It shuts itself off at night but the core programming is still there when it comes back on in the morning. Then one day a burglar enters your house, steals your computer and decides to terminate the Human123 program to make room for porn.
After a long period of grieving, you decide to install another Human.Exe program on another computer. But then suddenly you get a fantastic new job offer that involves a lot of travel. Human124 is still in its early stages, with the rough intelligence level of a rat. You decide that you can’t properly care for Human124 and delete the program.
Are you on the same moral level as the burglar (setting aside the moral issues with burglary of course)? What makes you different? Are you the same? Why or why not?
So, stipulating that the parent in question is immoral and worthy of derision, does that justify making his inaction illegal? What legal punishment did you have in mind? Fine? Jail term?
If by “inaction,” you mean the parent standing idly by and letting his or her own child die… in some cases, that is already illegal, as governed by tort law. (Tort law specifically governs harm that results from both deliberate action and inaction.)
Moreover, that is ultimately a side issue, worthy of a separate thread. So-called" partial birth abortion" is anything BUT “inaction.” Rather, it is the deliberate and willful taking of an innocent human life. Such a deed should most certainly be deemed illegal.
Again, “inaction” is already illegal in some situations, as illustrated in tort law. As for the specific penalty required, that is a separate issue, one that merits a separate discussion. The issue at hand is whether so-called “partial birth abortion” should be legal or not. The question of specific penalties is simply a red herring.
Why? If one wants to argue that it should be illegal, shouldn’t some effort be made to analyze the probable results of the decision, including what to do with the criminals that have now been created? The rhetoric is often that this procedure is comparable to the willful murder of a baby. Should it be punished as such for all parties involved, including all medical practitioners and the pregnant woman?
And the motivation for such a ghastly deed? Conflict with a hair appointment? The sheer, giddy rush of committing a horrendous act? Instructions from their Dark Lord?
We are offered the suggestion that such an action is taken with grave reluctance, impelled by medical necessity. Clearly, you have undeniable evidence to the contrary, but have neglected to offer it.
Here is another opportunity.
I think I’m ready for Soul 2.0-- my 1.0 version keeps crashing on me.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. I have already pointed out that the unborn can be delivered via C-section, if necessary. In other words, partial-birth abortion is NOT medically necessary, regardless of what you may say.
“But a C-section isn’t as safe!” some insist. Even if we were to grant that claim though, the point remains – a course of action is not justified simply because it is “safer.” If that were the case, then we should be applauding those parents who choose to let their children drown instead of diving in to save them. After all, surely their own safety outweighs any other considerations, right?
Possibly, but that is ultimately a side issue, worthy of a separate thread.
I’m cheerfully prepared to let a trained medical professional make the determination of what approach is the safest while respecting the wishes of a fully informed patient. There are many medical procedures that are not necessary in the sense that alternatives exist, but the reason those alternatives aren’t used is that by some criteria they’re not the best available (in the doctor’s opinion). Did you assume doctors came up with the D&X just for the heck of it? Because the good ol’ C-section was boring and passé?
Anyhoo… convicted first-offender partial-birth abortion-seeker… five years in prison and a $50,000 fine? Too high, too low…? What if she agrees to sterilization?
What, exactly, are you talking about? I’m not going to defend myself against something if I don’t even know what it is. What is it you’re accusing me of?
Or it could be, and I know this is an enormous stretch, simply an assertion that it isn’t a medically necessary procedure. I realize that deprives you of a demon to rail against, but there ya go. Whether or not it’s safer is not, I repeat not, inconsistent with it being unnecessary. (That last sentence was a rare quintuple negative, by the way, for those of you taking notes. No extra charge.)
In your hypothetical, if I understand it, yes. You have eliminated the future of a human being. The fact that the future is different for the two–that one has already developed an “advanced” consciousness–does not change the fact that both would have advanced beyond the rudimentary. You rob from both the only things they possess, their identities in the future, the selves they would have become. The burglar may have taken something more complex, something richer, from the acquaintances of Human123. But he has taken the same thing I do from Human 124. Their futures. Once both are “dead,” nothing matters to either, eh?
Saying that implies that what you are saying is that there is never a medical reason why one would use D&E instead of a C-section. But there clearly are such a reason, so that usage is false.
The “necessary” pro-lifers are using is “there are alternatives, period, and we find some of the alternatives morally preferable” which is technically true, but not what most people think of when they are told that something isn’t necessary.
If I tell you that a cancer treatment isn’t medically necessary, what are you going to think I mean? That actually what I really mean is that I don’t like that particular cancer treatment, utterly regardless of its efficacy in a particular case? Or rather that I am saying there is never any reason to prefer it to any other.
Hence, the misleading people, and I guess, the glee in doing so.
There’s no need to be arbitrary, though. Set the line right where you do, but call him a human that does not have certain rights. You’re twisting the language around to make it more palatable to the average person, ISTM. Apos, I’m sure, is typing up an irate counterpoint as we speak, since his is a principled opposition to such meaningless nuance. Not carrying water for his position of choice, nosiree. Speak precisely so as not to create a false impression, if you please.
It’s an answer that was raised in response to your objection… which, as I pointed out earlier, was a side-issue. You can’t raise a tangential point and then complain that the response isn’t central to the thread itself.
No, I don’t… but whatever their reasons may be, the point remains that D&X is NOT “medically necessary.” As I’ve pointed out twice now, C-section is still a viable option. D&X is only necessary if we content that live birth is not an acceptable option… in other words, if we firs assume that an abortion MUST take place.
Could there be other reasons? Certainly. For example, some insiders claim that the clinics they worked for performed “partial birth” abortions in order to harvest live organs and fetal tissue. Now, one might choose to disbelieve these testimonies, but even so, the point remains… The mere usage of this procedure does NOT automatically imply that it is “medically necessary.”
As I already pointed out earlier, that’s an irrelevant side issue. For example, we could argue all day long about the suitable penalties for drunk drivers, but that would not negate the question of whether drunk driving should be illegal or not.