A blastocyst is no more a person than the mole on my arm.
I found Cecil Adams’ first column on “where does life begins” overall worthwhile. It should be noted that the Roe line is earlier than his line. States can ban abortion at viability, even using a buffer, meaning more like 20-23wks.
CA talks about abortion ending a life when it (his pronoun) “inconveniences the mother.” This is underwhelming; wearing uncomfortable shoes “inconveniences” people. Having a child at 15 or whatever might warrant another word. Even when rape is referenced, Cecil says “may impose some hardship on her.” You think? Where are these women who have not had “some” hardships after being raped? I think this might have, unfairly or not, influenced some of the emotions of the negative responses that led him to put up a follow-up.
He also noted that “merely because the child is a product of rape or incest or is defective” abortion is not acceptable once “personhood” is reached. Under Roe, a state can ban abortions after viability, which isn’t even “personhood” under the Constitution. Women who are raped don’t wait that long to have abortions. OTOH, certain women have abortions when there are serious defects, some meaning the fetus might not survive birth.
And, clearly, those who oppose abortion long before your line except for rape/incest, don’t quite think full “persons” ('children") are in place. This is why they aren’t willing to kill babies in cribs for such reasons. As you might say, so what? We oppose killing for many reasons, even of dogs. A growing person very well might be enough, even if (for some) incomplete development might justify it is extreme (and rape etc. fits the bill; e.g., one parent is the enemy, making the family unit poisonous from birth) cases. So, the abortion is not just done in such cases for the mother’s hardship alone either.
In the follow-up, the talk of “absolutists” – a bit ironic given his line was later than Roe – starts the ball rolling. And, how such absolutists want to allow abortions up to birth without “a pang.” Where are these people? Many “pangs” are felt even in early abortions. The question is if we want to criminalize it.
Likewise, the AMA might have set the rape/incest/birth defect as some policy in 1967, but it was not like it was invented or put in place then. In practice, it was in place, along with a vague “health of the mother” stand for years. It also is not just “a sop” … and, btw, it is also an exception to laws against public financing. So, even if early abortions are available, if a poor woman is raped, it is important.
Anyway, Cecil thinks he set a “middle ground” … he wants to draw the line long after nearly every abortion (90% by 12wk, 99% by 20) occurs, and even there sets up a life of the woman exception (so even the ‘partial birth abortion’ debate still stands), as he needs too. This line is strongly opposed by the antis and even many who support the *legal *right (legal personhood not the same as personhood under personal religious and moral beliefs, just ask Joe Biden) of abortion. So, him bashing an “extremist” in his follow-up is a bit much.
Cecil thinks he has taken a middle ground, but he hs not. It is clear this hot button issue and arguments from either side or the other will not convince those holding other beliefs. What is most unfortuneate is that while the pro choice understand beliefs held by others. They just do not accept those beliefs for themselves., as opposed to the Anti abortion camps who either seem to ignore beliefs of others or pretend not to understad them .
The momenet you accept the bootstrap self validatiting rhetoric of the anti abortion group, you have bought into their beliefs.
Cecil has done this wholescale by adopting the oxymoron of “unborn Child” using it 4 times in the articel and seeking to vsalidate it’s use through citation to a Supreme Court Opinion.
The Supreme court, as cited in the article wanted to protect the “Potentiality of Human life” . As such it acknowledged that the parasitic organism which was never born and had never taken a breath of air was not a human life. Soemthing cecil conveniently ignores.
The lack of consistency in the terminology Cecil uses only reinforces the confusion. At times using “Unborn Child” “Fetus” “Viable fetus” “Life of the unborn Child”.
The claim that a fetus is a person at some point between conception and birth having been accepted for 2000 years may be true for some culture somewhere, but there are no specifics given. I submit the opposite is true. People have names. Few cultures seem to name the fetus or even one still born . Few also have funerals or mourning rituals for a still born fetus.
So while cecil feels the religious right is driven to new zeal, by those who believe life begins aster birth and a breath of air is taken, I can only say “Who cares”. When we let the bible thumpers control our laws, we really need to start worrying.
This is not question-begging at all. If you cannot agree on the following points:
>>That consciousness exists
>>That humans have it
>>That obviously inanimate objects such as toothbrushes don’t have it.
Then there is no point discussing any practical issue with you.
As for the other points, the question of whether animals are conscious or whether an advanced machine could be conscious are not relevant to the topic being discussed and Irishman did not address them.
Bolding mine.
This statement is why Cecil is right about this type of attitude helping to elect GWB. You say that the pro-choice side truly understands the other side, but you don’t seem to. The problem is that the two sides are fighting for different things, and looking at things from different perspectives. Let me frame it in a different way:
Would you react differently to these two scenarios:
- A rich nation going to Africa and setting up sweatshops where the workers are for all intents and purposes slaves, or
- The same nation going to Africa and killing all the natives in oil rich regions.
Let me say that I object to both. I would protest against both. But, I would not go to war for both. Only one of those two scenarios is worth killing for.
Please note, that I am not going to argue about whether abortion is murder or not. I am trying to help you understand why those that adamantly oppose abortion seem so unreasonable.
Let me ask it another way, suppose tomorrow it became law that instead of dropping unwanted minors off at hospitals or fire stations to be made wards of the state, parents had to drop them of at “population reduction stations” to be disposed of. Would you accept that the argument that until majority these were not “real people” and had no rights as just as valid as the argument that 2, 8, and 17 year-olds should have the right to life? Would you be content to only argue politely if the majority felt that this policy was correct?
The point is that many pro-choice have, from whatever chain of reasoning, come to the conclusion that their is no moral difference between abortion and killing children. Whether you agree with them or not, can you understand why they are less than reasonable on the subject? Reproductive rights of women are important, but they are more abstract than actual human beings dying.
So before you talk about how much more understanding and reasonable the pro-choice side is, think how reasonable you would be if I was arguing that I should have the right to kill anyone under the age of 18, and I, and others like me, were actually doing that on a daily basis. In the minds of many who oppose abortion, that is what is happening right now, not the removal of cells, or a medical procedure, but the death of child. You may find that unreasonable, you may be right to think it is unreasonable, but if you treat it as a silly concern, or that they are fools for thinking that way, then you basically leave them no choice but to oppose however they can. What would you be willing to do to save the lives of millions of children?
Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I personally think abortion needs to remain legal, but that we should work to make it unnecessary. But the attitude that everyone who opposes abortion is loony tune and should be ignored bugs the crap out of me because it makes it much harder to actually reach a workable compromise. I am not going to argue the pros and cons of abortion, I am just arguing that the attitude is counter productive and slightly hypocritical.
Jonathan
The Second Stone said:
You seemed to accept the existence of consciousness when replying to CurtC.
But the point is irrelevant. What I was pointing out was the error in the assertion that brain activity in animals equals brain activity in humans, so animals deserve the same moral status as humans. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, that’s a different moral argument. But you can’t assume that all brain activity is equivalent.
As for the logical fallacy, do I have to state the name for it to be true? Try looking up Equivocation.
Brother Woody said:
My point was there is a disagreement over the status of an “unborn baby”.
Fear Itself said:
I didn’t say otherwise. I think we are arguing over the use of words. Cells are living, thus they are life. They are human cells, thus they are human life. Quite separate from whether they are a person yet.
Strassia said:
I believe you meant “pro-life” in that statement. You are saying what I have been thinking for some time.
Frankly, the “Pro-Choice” position is inherently weaker than the “Pro-Life” position. It’s like arguing for the Choice to decide whether to terminate your five-year-old’s life because he is a spoiled brat. “Choice” says let the individual decide what is right for them. But if the situation is murder, then you’re arguing to let the individual decide whether to commit murder or not.
No, I don’t agree with some Pro-Life people putting the point of personhood at conception, or implantation. But I find the argument to let the individual decide to be weaker in principle.
I certainly support the Rights of women to have access to reproductive education, birth control, and the ability to get safe, legal abortions in early stages of pregnancy.
Currently, law is based upon viability rather than a determination of personhood. As medical progress advances, this may remove much of the need to make a determination. The creation of artificial wombs and/or advances in premature birth care could push viability back to the point of detection of the pregnancy. But the issue of when personhood should apply will still have some relevance. For instance, at what point do the parents have the right to choose to dispose of fertilized eggs/blastocysts/and fetuses vs. at what point are they legally required to transfer to an artificial womb or deliver early?
I applaud Cecil for trying to provide the scientific understanding of where we might draw the line, even if the line is more of a smudge.
>>>So before you talk about how much more understanding and reasonable the pro-choice side is, think how reasonable you would be if I was arguing that I should have the right to kill anyone under the age of 18, and I, and others like me, were actually doing that on a daily basis. In the minds of many who oppose abortion, that is what is happening right now, not the removal of cells, or a medical procedure, but the death of child. <<<
It is clear, my meaning was not clear.
I did not mean to imply that either side could convince the other that they had reason or logic on their side. In fact I intended to state neither would ever convince the other.
What I tried to communicate is that the pro -choice group understands that the anti abortion group would like to have everyone accept their premise that human life begins at conception and therefore abortion equals murder.
The Anti abortion group does not seem to understand or chooses to ignore is that the pro choice group does not accept the premise, and therefore, as far as they are concerned all arguments flowing from it are faulty as well.
As stated above the premise that human life begins after birth and the first breath of air is something the anti abortion group either seems to ignore, or apparently doies not understand, which is far diferent than acknowledging a position and rejecting or disagreeing with it.
Did this pro choice position help put GWB in the white house. In part, along with the some anti gay and hawkish sentiment.
I think the pro-life side does understand that the pro-choice side doesn’t accept the premise. They’re just hung up on the point that the premise, to them, is so obviously true. And the pro-life side does have a point, that the only disagreement is whether the life is a human life worthy of protection. It’s my opinion that they get a little truth-in-advertising credit for at least correctly framing the debate. To them, the pro-choice arguments never even come up, because you can only get to them once you reject the premise.
Does anyone really take the position that human life worthy of protection begins only at the first breath? I think that would be rejected by almost everyone on both sides of the issue.
See, I can’t buy that. A mole is not a blastocyst. It does not have the potential to differentiate. It does not have major systems of the body that exist for the sole purpose of creating and nurturing it. It will never, never, never become anything other than a mole. An elephant does not cease to be an elephant because you call it a duck; neither does a fetus cease to be a human because you call it a fetus/blastocyte/gob of cells.
I don’t doubt your sincerity because I have been on this board long enough to know you, but, frankly, most of the time I hear people saying, “It’s not human!” it comes off as sounding like the flimsiest, most inane rationalization in the world.
I think most of the anti-abortion folks understand it quite well – they just don’t see it as valid. There have historically been groups of people who insisted that blacks/Jews/whites/whatever were subhuman. I can intellectualize that argument perfectly well; that does not stop said argument from being a crock.
And here we reach the fundamental divide between pro-life people and pro-choice people, as has already been mentioned in at least one of these threads. For every Cecil or Irishman who can examine and at least somewhat respect the thinking of the other side, there are 50 others who are only interested in “winning the argument.”
I doubt I will participate in any of these threads any more, as they have wandered far afield from discussing the column at hand and will probably be moved to GD, but it has been interesting reading, at least.
RR
Just so I understand your argument, would you say that if a woman decides she no longer wants a child during childbirth, she should have the right to kill it in the few seconds between birth and it drawing its first breath? The doctor should ask whether he should clear the airway or terminate? I have normally heard the point of demarcation from pro-choice to be birth, not first breath, so I am trying to understand (I do remember one ethics professor getting a lot of media attention for putting forward the idea that the point should actual be at 18 months after birth, but that is even more extreme then the birth control=murder fringe).
I think what you are missing is a hierarchy of objection. For most people it could roughly be something like this*:
Threat to species>Genocide>threat of death to children>threat of death to adults>threat of harm to children>threat of harm to adults>loss of fundamental rights**>loss of secondary rights**
The higher up the chain, the less willing to make compromises. The prochoice group at most can claim threat of death to adults, but the idea of abortion on demand for any reason moves it down the list to rights area. I believe strongly that U.S. should take military action to stop genocide, but I do not think it should go to war to protect the freedom of assembly or to enforce food safety laws in another country.
Since you mentioned the gay issue, let me ask you this, would you expect those who support gay rights to reasonably acknowledge the position of a government that enforced stoning for all homosexuals on religious grounds? Would you be willing to accept a position that gays, or Jews, or blacks are not human and undeserving of legal protections? For those who believe that abortion kills real human beings, that is what the issue comes down to, the death of real, innocent human beings. What exactly do you expect from them?
Jonathan
*I am leaving threats to your own person or family because it would be needlessly complicated.
**What constitute fundamental and secondary rights and where abortion falls is up for debate, but does not change my argument.
[quote=“Strassia, post:30, topic:471508”]
Since you mentioned the gay issue, let me ask you this, would you expect those who support gay rights to reasonably acknowledge the position of a government that enforced stoning for all homosexuals on religious grounds?
No.
Would you be willing to accept a position that gays, or Jews, or blacks are not human and undeserving of legal protections?
No.
For those who believe that abortion kills real human beings, that is what the issue comes down to, the death of real, innocent human beings. What exactly do you expect from them?
I expect little except perhaps for them to make clear that they understand the opponents position yet firmly reject it, instead of pretending like no other position exists.
<<
It is clear from previous posts that people adhere to this view. I doubt the posters represent some anomoly.
Now, if you want to talk about having laws that protect the "Potential " of human life as did the quoted Supreme court argument you have a different debate altogether.
>>>Just so I understand your argument, would you say that if a woman decides she no longer wants a child during childbirth, she should have the right to kill it in the few seconds between birth and it drawing its first breath? <<<
You have now demonstrated my point which is a failure to grasp the concept. You are not killing anything that has never been alive, and if it has never taken a breath it has never been alive.
Further this scenario does not relate to abortion of a pregnancy since upon birth the preganancy is already over. So your attempt to take a scenario to an illogical extreme. You are now in the scenario of a post birth situation which is subject to a whole different set of laws governing the “Potential” of human life.
>>The doctor should ask whether he should clear the airway or terminate? <<
No, now you are in the realm of what is sometimes called “Live Birth Abortions” which again presents itself to a whole different set of rules, as well it should.
You see, like it or not the human life at conception argument is really unneccesary. You can choose to frame the same protections in terms of protecting the “Potential for human life” which provides the middle ground we now have. However, it is something the anti abortion groups choose to reject (which is theri right) because it does not fit their theocracy.
Then why would you expect those that believe abortion is murder of innocent children to be reasonable?
I guess I am wondering who you are listening to. There are many Pro-life people who acknowledge the arguments of the the other side. I am sure that there is a (possibly vocal) group that thinks the goal of the Pro-Choice movement is to kill babies, just as there is a group in (sometimes vocal) in the Pro-Choice movement who believe the goal of the Pro-Life is enslave women.
I think it would be fair to say that, if you accept the precepts (abortion=killing an infant, no right to abortion=reproductive slavery) that those are consequences, but I know of no one who actually professes those as goals.
[quote=“Earl_W, post:33, topic:471508”]
>>>Just so I understand your argument, would you say that if a woman decides she no longer wants a child during childbirth, she should have the right to kill it in the few seconds between birth and it drawing its first breath? <<<
You have now demonstrated my point which is a failure to grasp the concept. You are not killing anything that has never been alive, and if it has never taken a breath it has never been alive.
[QUOTE]
Of course you are killing something that was alive. When you excise a mole, you are killing cells that were alive. You seem to be arguing that it is not a person deserving legal and moral rights. That is an ethical or philosophical statement that can be argued. That living tissue is not alive is a scientifically incorrect statement.
I am not trying to take anything anywhere. I am trying to point out that using “drawing breath” as the gate for when rights kick in is even more slippery than than birth or brainwaves. Your statement seems to mean that until the baby(and currently it is an infant since it is no longer a fetus) draws air (I am assuming you mean air, since a fetus inhales and exhales amniotic fluid) it is a lifeless lump of tissue that can be incinerated at will. I do not think this is a big jump in reasoning based on your statement. What makes breathing air so special? Does that mean if I go on a heart/lung machine I am no longer a human being? I guess I wonder why you take such a position. I can understand positions that say the woman’s rights trump the fetus’s all the way to removal from her body, or even those that say until sentience (however they define it) infants are not truly human, but what so special about breath?
You seem to be lumping all who oppose abortion into one group. You also seem to be saying that any belief that has a relgious component is not valid for public policy debate. Did the fact that abolitionists claimed support from the Bible meant the 13th amendment imposed a theocracy on the U.S. How about the fact that the civil rights movement was largely pushed by churches? Did that make the Civil Rights Act theocratic? I am an atheist that believes that human rights should start before birth. What does that make me? And do you see why I think you might not really understand the other side as well as you think you do? You want them to say they understand and acknowledge your position, when you only acknowledge a portion of theirs.
Jonathan
>>>And do you see why I think you might not really understand the other side as well as you think you do? You want them to say they understand and acknowledge your position, when you only acknowledge a portion of theirs.
Jonathan
<<<<
Well, AFAIAC the anti abortion group has the most vocal component which wants others to accept that Human life begins at conception. (With apologies to the one poster who took note of my sloppy language where at one point I failed to use the term “Human life” and only referred to something being alive and h noted that the cells were living cells).
You also have various groups whose premise is that “Human Life” begins at some point along the gestational phase be it heartbeat , brain waves, X weeks gestation etc. So, if there is something I don’t understand, please educate me.
I understand and acknowledge the existance of all these points of view, however as someoneonce said, I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Is the “First breath” thing arbitrary sure. But not any more arbitrary than any other position.
This is not the same as saying that Human life begins at the first breath and up until that point you have something with the potential of Human life, and then trying to make analogies to someone who has taken the first breath and later stops breathing for whatever reason but thru medical means can resume breathing.
If someone thinks it is the same, it reinforces my point. All the so called logic to support one position is equaly valid in it’s opposite form to support another. Thsi is not a debate that will ever be decided based upon logic.
What lead me to believe you do not understand or accept my point of view was this statement:
Now, you may have been overgeneralizing to only the most vocal groups, or just some groups, but calling everyone who disagrees with you on this issue a theocrat is equivalent to them calling you a baby killer, it may cover some extremes, but it makes you seem like you are unwilling to acknowledge their position.
I disagree. If you there is a logical argument, it is not arbitrary (although it may not be right, either). Birth is non-arbitrary because at the point a significant change occurred with regard to how the fetus/baby was affecting the mother. Conception is non arbitrary because the embryo begins its existence as a genetically differentiated entity. Quickening was non-arbitrary because at that point both an outside observer and the mover could know that the fetus was developed enough to move (and at the time, they thought that meant it had a soul). Cecil’s point of brain waves is non-arbitrary because we can be sure before that the no feelings or thoughts are present. The first breath would non-arbitrary if it had some significance that differentiated it from the moment before the first breath.
You are probably right that logic alone will not decide this issue. It can help us discuss it in a reasonable manner. I don’t want you to dismiss me as Bible thumping theocrat anymore than you probably want to be dismissed as a baby killing hedonist.
Jonathan
The claim that a baby is not alive until it takes its first breath is jaw-droppingly nonsensical.
There are plenty of living things on this planet that don’t breathe. Fish are alive, they don’t breathe. Plants are alive, they don’t breathe. Insects are alive, they don’t breathe.
Come on.
<<
No, it’s not any more nonsensical than any other position. It is, only because you think it is.
You are correct. Plants don’t breath like humans, neither do fish or insects. That is one of the factors that differentiates them from human life. The same factor that differentiates an unborn organism that hs the potential to become human life.
The plants, insects, and fish all breathe or process a gas in a manner unique to that organism, whcich by naolgy does not exist as that organism unless or until the process which is unique to the organism begins.
I do not expect you to accept this premise. I only wonder if you understand it. (Note, I did not use “Acknowledge” because of what it may imply.)
[QUOTE=Strassia;10499646
You are probably right that logic alone will not decide this issue. It can help us discuss it in a reasonable manner. I don’t want you to dismiss me as Bible thumping theocrat anymore than you probably want to be dismissed as a baby killing hedonist.
Jonathan[/QUOTE]
Point taken.
<<<
Perhaps my meaning is not clear. The points in time which you cite can be definitively ascertained. The choice of one point over another is arbitrary unless of curse it is the point “You” (meaning generic YOU) choose, in which case “You” feel “Your” point is correct and all other choices are arbitrary.