We’ve been over this, but I would set it at five months gestation.
Brain wave data indicates that a fetus has uniquely human brain waves at about six months. Accounting for variability in this number among fetuses, and to set it conservatively, I would deduct a month to get to five months.
You are mistaken. I am pro-life: a fetus is human; is alive. But no one has the right to have their life prolonged at another’s expense; no one has the right to use another’s body without permission.
If peaceful choice was freely offered, few or none would feel the need to kill. The need for elective late-term abortions exists only because anti-choice fan~s do not understand the difference between death and murder.
r~
In states whose laws are written around viability, it is determined on a case-by-case basis. In Illinois, where I live, two physicians must both agree that an invidual fetus is not likely viable before an abortion may be performed. If they disagree, or think that there’s a chance the baby could live, an abortion is not legal.
I think that’s acceptable.
For reference’s sake, that’s almost six months from the missed menstrual cycle, or about 27 weeks of pregnancy, generally speaking. By the end of the 24th week, a subspecialty NICU (formerly known as Level III NICU) can save 70% of the babies, by the 27th week, about 98%.
I am quite clear on the definition of murder. If I die through natural causes or an accident, that is death. If I die due to the willful action of another, it is murder.
I see that you are not willing to consider another point of view…this is too bad, I think…your kind of thinking is what shuts down reasonable debate in our society.
Are you hedging your bets here? If a doctor were willing to, would that be an ethical decision (however likely it might be)? And when you say, “Of course she can,” do you mean she has the right to have this procedure, provided she can procure a provider?
You lost me. What free speech issue is in play here?
Why is it a screwball request? Suppose it’s a member of the deaf community who feels it profoundly important that her children participate fully in that community. Medical science doesn’t currently accommodate this, but I posit–just speculation, I’ll allow–that there are absolutely members of the deaf community who would avail themselves of this alternative were it a practical possibility. The question is, do they have the ethical right to do so, to treat the fetus as they please while he’s in utero, regardless of the outcome, regardless of the stage of development of the fetus.
In such a scenario, with a willing doctor, does the mother have the right to morally pursue this option? Do you draw the line here? (I’m gonna keep trying.)
You seem very much to want to discuss the effectiveness of potential legislation, and I’m game for that, but that’s not what I’m asking you. I’m asking you what is ethically supportable, regardless of how rare, or regardless of how likely it would be that legislation could control it. If you want to focus on the legislative and the legislative only, you may have picked the wrong thread (check the title).
Do you see any reasonable prohibition that can be placed on abortion? Or are you a member of the “abortion on demand, any time, and never, ever, ever, ever tread on the slippery slope that prohibits abortion in any way” crowd? Do you simply hold that this serves the greatest overall good, even if in individual, rare instances, a certain right of a sufficiently developed fetus might be unjustly dispensed with? If that’s the case, we needn’t test individual hypotheticals for you. If that’s not the case, that’s where it can illuminating to see where a line is drawn–is it up the point where the mother has health concerns, etc.?
WhyNot, thanks for the cite. IMO, this is evidence enough that there would be at least some members of the deaf community (and I am NOT asserting this would be a common position) who would have an in utero operation to have the fetus rendered deaf, were that option available. And I am quite sure someday it will be possible.
I support the right of people to change their minds.
Yes.
I understand this argument, but do not agree that it trumps the woman’s right to choose.
My Bolding.
Did you mean “hesitate” to call it that? Otherwise that sentence sounds funny to me. I have no problem with you calling it “right to life”. I just don’t agree that it exists as a supreme right or trumps the right to choose.
I don’t support capping the right to choose at any point, because any such point, whatever the scientific or religous reasons, is essentially arbitrary. The decision to choose 5 months over conception or birth is only justified in your mind because you view the scientific method as supreme, over say the Catholic view, or my view. My way, there’s no grey area. The woman has the right to choose to abort, as long as the choice to abort is available to her. Once the baby is born, she can no longer abort it. Simple.
And it’s only a baby when it’s born.
Yes, it eliminates all gray area in the way that all circular belief systems do, or so it would appear. Eliminating “gray area” is the most beneficial necessarily, why?
All it says is the daughter was “designed to be deaf”, which could simply mean Duchesneau was inseminated by a man with a family history of deafness. This doesn’t prove a doctor was involved, that there was an “engineering” involved, or that it approached the original hypothetical of a surgical procedure on a developing fetus.
At some point, I think, we have to rely on the ethical standards established by the professions rather than create useless legislation. It’s not currently illegal for a lawyer to have sex with a client, for example, but the lawyer would face professional repercussions.
You asked if she can make the request. Of course she can. She can also request that the Air Force drop napalm on every city on the west coast. The Air Force is under no obligation to act on that request. Similarly, a pregnant woman (indeed, any patient) is free to request any variety of nutty procedure. No doctor is obliged to act.
There are nutcases in every segment of humanity. Unfortunately, legislating against their nuttiness tend to trap people who are not nutty and merely unlucky. Medical science does accommodate pre-natal surgery, done to correct defects detected during gestation. I can picture such a procedure done to correct a heart defect that inadvertently causes other damage (conceivably deafness, why not). Does the legislation you hint will restrict those who willfully deafen their children touch on this in any way? Can you give me a draft of the legislation you have in mind that will clearly separate selfish people from unlucky people?
I remain confident that no doctor would do so, and if he or she did, loss of medical license and civil action on behalf of the baby would follow.
Regardless of what you’re asking me, the idea of useful legislation is what I’m asking you. My sense of ethics is that forcing a woman to stay pregnant when she doesn’t want to be is unacceptable. As for the thread question specifically, medical technology should be the key factor, using the safest means possible to protect the life of the mother.
I feel myself pushed into that position by the “no abortion, any time, and never, ever, ever, ever give an inch to those who would allow abortion in any way” crowd.
Yes, that sounds fair except that I don’t grant rights to fetuses. I defend the rights of women.
Bryan, I won’t ask the same question again for the third or fourth time. I’ll assume you’re simply not willing to engage that argument for whatever reason. Thanks for the effort that was expended.
First of all, we can ignore the Catholic church’s view on the subject, and frankly all religious views; our laws are not supposed to be influenced by the church. So, the scientific method is, and should be, supreme in deciding an issue of what defines life because it can dispassionately come to a decision based on data. Who better to decide such a thing? As long as data isn’t being manipulated to further a religious or political purpose, basing something on data should always be preferable to basing something on, well, anything else.
Second, the decision to choose birth as the capping point is considerably more arbitrary than five months. There is a reason that Sagan (did you read the article linked earlier) picked six months. It was anything but arbitrary. There are decided differences between a six month fetus and an eight month gestated baby. However, there are essentially no differences between an eight month gestated baby and a ten minute old baby. So, then why stop at birth?
I ask that not as a slippery slope trap, but to ask what is so special about birth that all of a sudden makes it such a horrible thing to kill the infant, that didn’t exist an hour or a week prior to birth?
Which is why I said that I agreed more with conception as a break point. At least there is a decided difference about a fertilized egg than there was when it was just sperm and unfertilized egg. I disagree with the conclusion that this is where life begins, but at least it pinpoints an exact moment based on something that didn’t exist a week earlier. Birth denotes nothing, from a developmental standpoint, but the location of the baby versus a week earlier.
I can’t believe that I’m actually on the pro-life side of an abortion debate! To reiterate, I am pro-choice! I just don’t think that gray areas are something to fear and avoid. They are almost always where the true answer lies, and it is only with dispassionate parsing of the data that we can come to a consensus.
And you’d be wrong. Your asking where I’d draw the “line” doesn’t constitute an argument, merely a challenge. Were you expecting me to be repelled by the stated goals of some pro-deafness nutcases? Congratulations, I am, but not enough to make me ignore the larger issue at hand.
I’m confident that any doctor who deliberately surgically deafened or otherwise needlessly injured a fetus will face the loss of his/her license and one truly massive lawsuit. I see no need for legislation to cover this incredibly unlikely occurrence, and I suspect people who seek such legislation of having a larger goal in mind.
No, once again I’d be right, because you refuse to answer the question asked and instead answer the one you’d prefer to (“Can this be effectively legislated”), a question that wasn’t asked. I asked this:
To which you responded:
Whatever you are or aren’t repelled by, you are more than implying that the mother has the unfettered liberty to do as she pleases with the fetus, period. Hence my question, since clarified more than once: Assuming a doctor could be procured to safely conduct the procedure–no repercussions–can a mother ethically have her fetus rendered deaf?
I’m not asking you if you think this is likely, and I’m not asking you if you think currently accepted medical ethics would prevent this from occurring, and I’m not asking if you think she can ask for this procedure and be rebuffed, and I’m not asking if you think that it would be possible to effectively control this with precise legislation. I am asking you if you really do hold that the mother can do anything she pleases with regard to the fetus. I am asking you if you draw the line anywhere from an ethical perspective, regardless of what may or may not be practical.
So, if you answer yet again with a variation of, “Sheesh, how likely is that, and everyone can be damn sure no sane doctor would do this, and how often does this occur that you’re trying to install legislation to control this, etc., etc.?” then I will be absolutely certain that you’d just prefer not to answer the question posed. You seem like a bright guy, so I’m not sure what else to conclude.
It seems to be a natural law; it is virtually impossible to have a reasonable debate with those that would give unequal rights to one group at the expense of another.
It is quite clear you are willful. The question is: are you are also malicious? Murder requires malicious intent. The responsibility and choice of removal from life support justly falls to the caretaker. Even a willful killing to protect another can be considered just. Police and soldiers make that very difficult moral decision every day.
It is your choice whether this discussion remains reasonable. The question is not about the morality of terminating a pregnancy; the question is who has rights to your body? If you wish to give that right away; so be it. But it is not reasonable to require that others do the same as you.
Peace
r~
Apparently, your idea of reasonable debate is for me to say that I am wrong, and you are right…great way to debate.
You do realize this is the Great Debates forum, right?
As far as who has rights to my body, I do. And I am more than happy for everyone to have the full right to use their body as they wish…they can choose to become pregnant and have a baby, or they can choose not to.
(bold was my own edit)
Bryan, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. What we’re struggling with here is the question of what is needlessly injuring a fetus. I’m sure you would agree that deafening a fetus is less injurous than eliminating it altogether. And, clearly, the elimination (needless?) of fetuses is not as unlikely as some would like it to be.
Even if we don’t compare deafening a fetus to aborting (terminating the pregnancy, making a choice, eliminating the parasite)… if the fetus hasn’t any rights (or at least any that are not trumped by the woman’s right to choose), then who’d win the lawsuit you speak of above?
Your naivete is charming. Do you contend there’d be any need for this discussion if there was no religious influence on lawmaking?
No. Data is unbiased, but choosing which data to use is not. Why brainwaves rather than heartbeat, for instance? Arbitrary, that’s why.
The decision to use Sagan’s pick over “at conception” or “at birth” certainly is arbitrary. You attach more weight to Sagan’s opinion than I do.
I understand this point, and I read the article. I just don’t agree that the “distinctive humaness of the brainwaves” of the foetus should be the deciding factor. I know that the foetus is human. It’s been human from conception, IMHO. This still doesn’t convince me that its “right to life” trumps the mother’s right to choose.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? After the baby is born, it can’t be aborted, end of story. It’s no longer inside the mother, so her right to choose what happens to her body is no longer impeded by its continued existence. It can’t be that hard to see. And before you ask, I believe that once a baby is born, killing it is wrong. Just so we get that potential strawman out of the way.
No less or more horrible than late-term abortion, but no longer overidden by the woman’s choice. We do not make axolotl tanks out of our women.
That you choose to skip over this point so dismissively is why you don’t get me. That mere “location” is inside a human being. It’s her choice what happens to her body. Simple.
I think late-term abortion is sad, and to be avoided at great length, but not at all costs. That’s the sum of it for me.
Women are not scientific experiments, and dispassionate scientific evaluation of the situation makes you sound like an android:
“We - Must - Not - Let - Feelings - Intrude. We - Must - Be - Logical. We - Have - Determined - The - Optimal - Time - For - You - To - Give - Control - Of - Your - Puny - Human - Shell - To - The - State! The - God- Sagan - Demands - It! Exterminate - The - Humanity!”. *
That is repellant. This is something to feel passion about, damnit. I’d not like my fate to be decided by some technocrat. You’re talking about depriving a human being of the right to choose what to do with their own body. Can’t imagine anything more dystopian. Orwell would be proud.
I’m not against “grey areas”, but when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, there is no grey area. She either has the right always, or at some point, you take that right away. So she no longer has a right to choose. Which I find abhorrent.
*sounds best when read aloud in a Dalek voice
This has been an altogether congenial debate to now, so cut out the condescention.
You know damn well that I never said that religion doesn’t influence lawmaking, merely that it shouldn’t. I can argue what I would like to see instituted if I were, say, a dictator.
Again, feel free to disagree, bit it is NOT arbitrary. It has been explained before. But, once more using your example. A heartbeat is NOT uniquely human. My cat has a heartbeat and society allows me to put the cat to sleep for any reason that I see fit. We’re not just talking about brainwaves. We’re talking about uniquely human brainwaves. When those brainwaves become unique from a chimp, that is a human being.
A heartbeat will never be uniquely human. If you are going to try to come up with another example, please try to find one that is uniquely human. I’d like to see one other than brain waves, and would be happy to consider another threshhold.
You are simply using birth to delineate abortion versus murder. It’s a cyclical argument because since you consider birth the threshhold for human life, then anything that occurs before birth is abortion and after is murder. If I set it at five months, we get the same differentiation at a different time point.
I skip over your point because it falls into the category of an extremist view. I don’t think that the vast majority of pro-choice people would agree that an 8.9 month fetus can be aborted without it being murder. Can someone correct me if I’m wrong? Are there a lot of people here or elsewhere that hold that view? You allusions to Handmaid’s Tale aside, I’m not taking away a woman’s right to choose. I am pro-choice. She can choose up until that fetus becomes a baby. You and I agree on that, as you consider killing a newborn murder. I consider killing an eight month fetus murder.
I believe that women, always* have the right not to become pregnant…the state does not put the baby there, or determine what you have to do with it after it is born (well, ok, it says someone has to feed, clothe, and educate it, but it does not say WHO has to do those things.)
Probably more than anything, my stance on this has to do with personal reponsibility. I have not really been talking about abortion from a legal standpoint. I think a strong case can be made for OR against drawing the line at conception, viability, brainwaves, etc. etc. But there are 2 issues at hand here: 1) When should our society ALLOW abortions, and 2) When is it personally ETHICAL to have an abortion? My answer to these questions would be 1) I am not sure, but certainly before the 3rd trimester, and 2) Never, once implantation has taken place.
*None of my argument here regarding ethics of abortion includes cases of rape or incest.
I think all but the extremist pro-choice would agree with your number 1 (again, unless I’m mistaken. I would like to hear from other people who feel that an 8.9 month fetus should be allowed to be aborted), and your number 2 being a personal decision is obviously fine.
I think your argument falls apart a bit when it comes to rape/incest. It certainly wasn’t the woman’s choice to have that baby, but that shouldn’t make it any less murder if you consider conception the start of life.
Though, I’m sure that you have recognized this problem in your argument and that I’m not pointing out anything new.