by JivinJ
Planned Parenthood refused our request for an on camera interview and would only release this statement, calling the claims “false and inflammatory.”
“…Planned Parenthood’s standard is to provide honest, medically accurate information. That is what the physician in this case did.”…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Viagra is still a recreational drug. No one will die or be prevented from living their life without sex. I don’t care if a man takes it. I just don’t want to pay for it!
“Planned Parenthood’s standard is to provide honest, medically accurate information”
—————————————-
…EXCEPT when dealing with a potential abortion patient..then everything becomes a clump of fetal cells with heart tones that cannot survive outside the womb, right?
Yeah, right.
actually, that’s not medically false information. abortion (one of the most common medical procedures in the country) is safer for women than giving birth–a statistic used merely to dispel the myth that women “often die from abortions.”
oh, but not safe, of course, for the fetus. duh. a fetus (at least pre-viability) isn’t yet a person–this is codified in federal law (and supported by most leading scientists).
A baby isn’t a baby until birth?
A baby isn’t a baby until 6-7 months in utero?
Even the abortionist and his assistant can’t keep their own lies straight!
Tell me that those are not medically false, Megan.
Megan: “oh, but not safe, of course, for the fetus. duh. a fetus (at least pre-viability) isn’t yet a person–this is codified in federal law (and supported by most leading scientists).”
I’m curious. Where do you get your stats from? What study, or poll has lead you to believe that most “leading” scientists believe a fetus to not be a person pre-viability?
And seriously Megan, can you not figure out how to prevent double posting? Most people do not have this hard of a time with that problem.
I know you think of these witty comments, which are too good to pass up, after already hitting the post button. Just add them in a separate post, for crying out loud.
By the way Megan,
You will be banned soon unless you can use your big girl words and stop inciting others on this blog. Just a heads up.
Aw, don’t ban her Carla. She is a caricature of everything wrong about pro-choicers (emotional, reasonless arguments, smugness, confusion, etc.) She makes us look good.
I hear you, Oliver. Not my call but you don’t get to see some of the stuff I delete. :) Thems the rules.
Posted by: Megan at December 15, 2009 1:49 PM
——
Megan – is it possible for you to be raped?
Given your logic, I would say no, because the rapist would not actually violate your person. He would only be using a body.
So he’d be innocent of rape, unless you could somehow prove that your person and your body were completely unified, and non-detachable.
How would you do that?
Carla, was it the pizza-faced comment? That really was a low blow to my future teeangers. I don’t know how they will recover! ;)
:P
Megan, I still need you to explain to me which organ of the body an embryo is, which bodily system it supports, is connected to, and the exact function it performs within that system. You see, an evil and wicked fetus broke into my uterus as a young adult and was able to magically turn itself into a person before some majestic heroine such as yourself had the opportunity to help me rationalize it away, so I was unable to complete my biology degree. Please help!
Why do proaborts not know how to think? Stupid! I know that a human baby, is growing inside the mother, and not a clump of sells. Megan, Carla is correct, You’re just causing trouble, and if you do not stop, then Jill will ban you. And Even pro-choice news reporters, know when its best to just look at the facts and report on only the facts. Case in point, the intervew with Mr. Renelique, the Abortionist, who high tailed it New York after having his license suspended in Florida. Megan, How would you have covered that case? Get out of jernalism, until you can put aside your agenda, which is apparent to everybody on here.
She won’t be able to explain it to you X. She thinks an embryo changes states, regardless of its inherent construction, but amazingly enough, due to outside conditions.
I’m still waiting to hear an explanation as to how something can become a different entity, with only the surrounding cirumstances have changed.
Good luck with you even more impossible claim.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2009/12/venice-eun-kang-38.html
A very sad article here. And it left me to wonder some things… it states the woman was 2 months pregnant with twins. It notes that one of them was a boy, who was pronounced dead 3 minutes after his mother. The other twin, sex unnamed, was not found until a day later and was then pronounced dead by the coroner.
How do you pronounce an unborn child dead 3 minutes AFTER his mother if he is simply part of his mother’s body and not a person? What about the other twin, pronounced dead a DAY later than his/her mother?
Dang…looks like I missed Megan’s rants…
hey Carla..could you send a copy of thos entries you deleted?? Pls…I need to laugh…*JK*
Then what is on the ultrasound screen, Megan? What is that creature, the one that looks human and has two arms, two legs, a torso and a head and is either male or female? Is it a dog? Nope, dogs have four legs. Is it a cat? Nope, cats have four legs. Is it a fish? Nope, fish hatch from eggs. Is it a chicken? Nope, chickens hatch from eggs and you can only see the growing chicken through a special light, not an ultrasound (in 3rd grade my class did a 4H project where we had a chicken incubator in the classroom and we watched chicken eggs while they got ready to hatch.)
What is it on the ultrasound when a woman is pregnant?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
*TIMES UP SOUND from Jeopardy*
5th grader Susie raises her hand.
Yes Susie?
“Its a baby!”
Good Job Susie.
PP’s defense sounds familiar: “I didn’t do it nobody saw me you can’t prove anything….”
Responses:
1. See: American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Guttmacher Institute. ACOG:
“The risk of death from abortion is lower than 1 in 100,000 women who have suction curettage. For women who have a medical abortion, the risk of death is about 1 in 100,000. The risk of a woman dying from giving birth is at least 10 times greater than the risk from an early abortion.”
http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp043.cfm
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html
Nobody’s arguing that we’re housing fish in our wombs, for chrissakes. A blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, etc. are growing INTO babies, but are not there quite yet: just like a sperm and egg, when separate, represent POTENTIAL human life.
Oliver: “She thinks an embryo changes states, regardless of its inherent construction, but amazingly enough, due to outside conditions.”
-This doesn’t sound too illogical to me. Human beings have different legal status (and sociocultural identities) in different countries, and in different settings. Ex (hypothetical, since I don’t know the exact laws): a 16-year-old might be tried as an adult in the US for a crime, but that same kid might be tried as a minor in another country. A different legal status doesn’t change his age. Similarly, a developing pregnancy is still a developing pregnancy, wherever it occurs, but requires differential treatment under these different circumstances (i.e., as an embryo dependent on a woman’s body, or as a conceptus living off a machine).
Political scientist Cynthia Davis, on ultrasound technology:
“Such images [ultrasound] sought to personify the fetus, to establish visual metaphors and encourage a complete identification between “pre-born life” and the newborn baby or even the full-grown human being. Through such imagery, the anti-abortion movement sought to promote the animation of the fetus as a person…the cultural expectation that fetuses will be able to survive at earlier and earlier stages of development has encouraged the perception of the fetus as an independent ‘person’ from the earliest stages of pregnancy…Despite these optimistic notions, the primary determinant of fetal survival is lung capacity, which typically develops at 21 to 23 weeks…Currently, 1 percent of all abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation and only 10 percent are performed between the thirteenth and nineteenth weeks.”
Megan: “duh. a fetus (at least pre-viability) isn’t yet a person–this is codified in federal law (and supported by most leading scientists).”
As for the first part, a law cannot trump scientific fact. As for the second part, Chris, Bobby, and/or I will be happy to cite numerous secular biology texts that accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being’s life. As has been said well elsewhere, an embryo is not a “potential life” but rather an actual life with great potential.
Megan: “This doesn’t sound too illogical to me. Human beings have different legal status (and sociocultural identities) in different countries, and in different settings. Ex (hypothetical, since I don’t know the exact laws): a 16-year-old might be tried as an adult in the US for a crime, but that same kid might be tried as a minor in another country. A different legal status doesn’t change his age. Similarly, a developing pregnancy is still a developing pregnancy, wherever it occurs, but requires differential treatment under these different circumstances (i.e., as an embryo dependent on a woman’s body, or as a conceptus living off a machine)”
I mean, it is absolutely amazing how you can STILL be this confused!
The 16 year old did not change into something different. It wasn’t as if the was a minor or was a major and then became something different. The only thing that changed is how the two different societies viewed the 16 year old.
Your argument about fetal rights is that the fetus literally becomes a different entity when entered into a world with an artificial uterus.
To draw an analogy to your 16 year old example…
What you say about the fetus is akin to country X viewing that a 16-year old is a minor, and too young to be punished in certain ways, yet then agreeing that that same 16-year old is a major in country Y, and old enough to be punished to the full extent of the law.
I mean, it is so absurd. Do you think that a woman literally changes into something different when they are ruled under Sharia law, simply because those laws view that woman as a lesser being?
Think of it like this too Megan.
Let’s say that I come up with a method of growing an apple tree that does not require direct sunlight. I have come up with a way of introducing the proper qualities that sunlight normally provides. Is my apple tree not an apple? When you eat the apple, that is otherwise identical to an apple, are you actually eating a different thing?
What if I come up with a way to grow apple trees upside down? Is that external change enough to change the apple tree’s state?
I can’t believe I am even having this conversation. Of all the dumb pro-choicers I have debated with in the past 12 years, I have never actually met someone who was confused over such a simple, common sense aspect of existence.
Megan, I still need you to explain to me which organ of the body an embryo is, which bodily system it supports, is connected to, and the exact function it performs within that system. You see, an evil and wicked fetus broke into my uterus as a young adult and was able to magically turn itself into a person before some majestic heroine such as yourself had the opportunity to help me rationalize it away, so I was unable to complete my biology degree. Please help!
Posted by: xalisae at December 15, 2009 3:03 PM
A blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, etc. are growing INTO babies, but are not there quite yet:
Posted by: Megan at December 15, 2009 6:53 PM
———–
Megan, are you a potential human being?
Given your own logic, if your flesh were shredded to bits, then your future “potential” life would not be possible.
If the zygote, blastocyst and embryo are not growing human beings, then why do they exhibit all seven factors associated with life?
Your argument is based on a Level of development. And yet all human beings exhibit these same traits.
Your discussion of legalities in terms of personhood have similarities to those associated with US slavery. Are you suggesting that the nascent human being is property?
Further, given your point regarding dependency on a woman’s body – abortion is not merely the severing of a dependency. It is the violent, active destruction of an innocent human being at a very early stage of human development.
In what other situation do we allow human beings to shred innocent, dependent human beings to death, particularly, their own children?
Is that an acceptably different circumstance?
Oliver:
I was merely pointing out the deficiency our current language has in grasping the hypothetical situation you’ve laid out. With current definitions, a fetus needs a woman’s body to survive. In futuro Oliver land, a machine could sustain this emerging life. I’m not saying the conceptus undergoes any inherent physical, structural changes. But if a fetus is no longer dependent on a woman’s body (meaning a conceptus that, at no point in its growth stage, relies on the mother’s body for survival), then, BY DEFINITION, it is no longer a fetus as we currently conceive it. No pun intended. As with my minor/adult example, under different circumstances, we are classified differently.
Oliver, don’t try to trap me into an argument and then whine when I ask for definitional clarification. Meaning just is use. Love, Wittgenstein.
“What if I come up with a way to grow apple trees upside down? Is that external change enough to change the apple tree’s state?”
Could be, depending on what the current definition of an apple tree is.
Megan,
Semantics are a wonderful thing, and both sides of the abortion debate try to use them to their own advantage. However, call “it” a fetus, a baby, a product of conception, an embryo, a bippity bippity boop, or whatever you choose. Either way, you do not change what “it” is:
1.Life
2.Human
This is true whether in your body, my body, or a hypothetical baby growing chamber.
Megan : “I was merely pointing out the deficiency our current language… ”
Nice try Megan, but I asked you directly if they were the same entities, and you said that they weren’t. In fact, here is the original interchange.
I said originally “But [the embryo dependent on its mother and the same embryo attached to a machine] would be the same entity Megan.”
Megan: “Actually, they wouldn’t be, by definition. A fetus needs a woman’s body to survive, and so in this scenario, we are not talking about a FETUS. I’m insisting on definition because you’re conflating two scenarios here: one in which a mother’s body is necessary, and another in which it isn’t”
I don’t even really know where to start. I’ll guess, I’ll ask the obvious question.
Why do circumstantial definitions matter when discussing the inherent state of a being anyways? I mean, if I grant you that you are not just saving face, and that you “misunderstood” the statement I posed to you, I still don’t understand why the definitions matter? I could make up my own language, and call the humans in both cases “blingies,” but would it change anything?
You were either very confused, and are now lying to save face, or you were acting childishly by making an irelevant stand in order to ignore the point of the question. Which is it?
Megan: “I’m not saying the conceptus undergoes any inherent physical, structural changes.”
So then, you can admit, that in both cases the human in question is, indeed, the same entity, and therefore has the same natural rights?
Chris:
Oh, there’s no question that a fetus isn’t life–it’s just not yet a PERSON. And yes, we’re talking about property–ownership of one’s body.
“So he’d be innocent of rape, unless you could somehow prove that your person and your body were completely unified, and non-detachable.”
What are you talking about, some kind of weird cartesian duality? It doesn’t even make sense.
xalisae:
Why must the fetus or embryo or blastocyst or fertilized egg or what have you need to perform some specific function? We can also develop tumors–they don’t perform any life-sustaining function, but are still composed of our own cells. I’d consider another course in biology for you, but you’re too busy tending to your daughter and spewing self-righteousness across the interweb.
Megan: “I’d consider another course in biology for you”
Please don’t disparage people on their experience in biology when you think an embryo is only an embryo when implanted in a human. Unless, of course, you are fine admiting that you are a hypocrite.
Megan,
Out of curiosity, what gives YOU (or any other person, court, lawyer, judge, scientist, etc.) the right to decide which Human Life is and is not a person?
“Actually, they wouldn’t be, by definition. A fetus needs a woman’s body to survive, and so in this scenario, we are not talking about a FETUS. I’m insisting on definition because you’re conflating two scenarios here: one in which a mother’s body is necessary, and another in which it isn’t.”
…and I was still talking about definitions, not inherent structural changes.
“So then, you can admit, that in both cases the human in question is, indeed, the same entity, and therefore has the same natural rights?”
Thanks again for trying to browbeat me into giving you the answer you want. First of all, I simply refuse to call the conceptus a “fetus” in both scenarios because, as our current language has it, a conceptus growing in a machine could not, by current definition, be considered a fetus (no womb). I didn’t want you making any playful rhetorical leaps and jumps–that’s why I’m insisting on the distinction. It doesn’t matter though, because you would have jumped on me no matter what answer I had given.
fetus in womb vs. conceptus in machine: same fundamental entity, different location, different legal treatment. You can walk around naked in your house, you can’t walk around naked outside. Thus, it’s quite conceivable that a machine-conceptus would have the right to life, whereas an embryo growing in a woman’s body would not.
Megan,
Out of curiosity, what gives YOU (or any other person, court, lawyer, judge, scientist, etc.) the right to decide which Human Life is and is not a person?
I don’t know, Rachel. What stops us from defining a sperm and an egg separately as Human Life? Their purpose is to create Human Life–why not go the extra distance and lump them all into the same category?
I’m curious, Oliver, and LIED about not being curious. What kind of education and experience have you had that elevates you to such a preeminent, scholarly position? I mean, if you’ve only gotten to test your viewpoints on a group of impressionable freshmen, then what makes you think your arguments are so inviolable? I mean, I’d believe your pompousness and condescension are justified, but I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to prove it.
Megan: “…and I was still talking about definitions, not inherent structural changes.”
No, Megan, I stated something simple. The human in both cases would be the same entity. You said that the humans would not be the same entity. You then justified that moronic statement with your appeal to dicitionary.com. I understand exactly what you used for your justification,( albeit still wholly incorrect, as the term embryo is not womb specific,) but what I am questioning is your conclusion that the two humans would be different entities.
Megan: “Thanks again for trying to browbeat me into giving you the answer you want. First of all, I simply refuse to call the conceptus a “fetus” in both scenarios because, as our current language has it, a conceptus growing in a machine could not, by current definition, be considered a fetus (no womb). I didn’t want you making any playful rhetorical leaps and jumps–that’s why I’m insisting on the distinction. It doesn’t matter though, because you would have jumped on me no matter what answer I had given.”
Let us not use the word “fetus” then Megan. If you look carefully at the question, I specifically used the word “human.” There is no need for rhetorical leaps, supposed or actual.
Megan: “fetus in womb vs. conceptus in machine: same fundamental entity, different location, different legal treatment. You can walk around naked in your house, you can’t walk around naked outside. Thus, it’s quite conceivable that a machine-conceptus would have the right to life, whereas an embryo growing in a woman’s body would not. “”
It’s unbelievable how hard it is to explain to you such a basic concept. You are trying to put the two sides of the argument into one argument. Luckily, I still have a few angles with which to come at you.
Okay, let’s start over from the beginning of human rights.
Do you believe that humans have any sort of inherent, natural right, or do you believe that rights are strictly obtained through society. We are not talking about laws, to be clear.
Megan @ 10:55 said:
I’m simply reflecting what you are stating:
Is your definition of “PERSON” some sort of label? How does this label apply to one human life and not another?
You admit a woman has a unique “life” growing inside her body, but it’s not her, and for you, at this stage of development this human life is not a “person”.
Logically, the only possible conclusion is that “PERSON” is a label or attribute, attachable at some point in time to a human life. How is that not two things – a cartesian duality?
And the argument you are making turns on that premise:
A woman has a human flesh and blood body, of which you consider her “PERSON” to be the owner. This body is her “property”.
So who – what “PERSON”, is the owner of the flesh and blood inside that woman’s body? (You know – that conceptus inside her that has unique human DNA and is explosively growing and looks remarkably like you looked at that stage of development.)
How come the label “PERSON” attaches to some and not others who both possess unique human flesh and blood?
If it’s because someone says so, then what’s to stop anyone from declaring other human beings non-PERSONs?
Enforcement of that division comes down to a simple “might makes right” brutality.
After you address my points above, I’d like to read how you think power should be responsibly wielded.
“Why must the fetus or embryo or blastocyst or fertilized egg or what have you need to perform some specific function? We can also develop tumors–they don’t perform any life-sustaining function, but are still composed of our own cells. I’d consider another course in biology for you, but you’re too busy tending to your daughter and spewing self-righteousness across the interweb.”
Posted by: Megan at December 15, 2009 10:55 PM
On second thought, I’ll pass on the tutoring sessions. I shudder to think what my grade would be if partly educated by someone who thinks that a body with a separate genetic code which creates its own various organ-specific cells within it to the point of having its own organs, blood cells, etc. is a part of another body with a different genetic code, organ systems, etc. Did your professor laugh at you when you brought your dictionary to class and called it a biology textbook?
Hi-jack alert! Hi-jack!
New flash! News flash!
This just in:
Appparently stained glass saints (male or female)should not live in glass houses if they want to pretend to be egalitarianly politically correct.
[“Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous lame scream lap dog media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.” I will leave it to your powers of observation and deduction who is the ‘turd’ in this scenario.]
Be careful ‘chucky’ you might find yourself on a ‘no fly list’.
While aboard a commercial aircraft, airline crews have more clout than a United States Senator.
They are ‘omnipotent’ and you ‘chucky’ are a mere sinner in the hands of an angry god.
You see, unlike you, they remember what happened to some of their colleagues on 9/11 and the ‘rules’ are there to protect them as much, if not more, than to protect you.
——————————————————————————–
REPORT: Dem Sen. Schumer Calls Flight Attendent ‘Beyatch’…
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0912/schumer_has_a_flight_to_forget_.html
yor bro ken
Megan,
There is a difference between an unfertilazed egg and a simple sperm.
An unfertilazed egg after A DAY is still an egg.
A sperm after A DAY is still a sperm.
Now replace A DAY with Two DAYS, A MONTH, TWO MONTHS, 9 MONTH, A YEAR, 2 YEARS 20 YEARS ect.
A FERTILIZED EGG is not the same.
A Fertilazed egg with time is a blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, pre-teen, teen, adult, middle age, elderly with time.
The life cycle STARTS at fertilazation and continues on to the next stage.
UNLESS it’s life is terminated.
Megan a tumor, is from YOUR OWN CELLS, a Fetus has IT’S own CELLS. A fetus can grow it’s own tumor on it’s body without affecting your own!
Megan, I’m sorry for your loss.
It is evident by your posts that you are still hurting. If you were not, you would not need to spend hours per day trying to prove to strangers that what you did was not wrong.
I hope that one day you will come to terms with what happened and overcome those feelings of guilt by seeking and finding forgiveness, and ultimately freedom and peace through that forgiveness.
Posted by: Chantal at December 16, 2009 9:21 AM
——
Chantal – just a comment on the use of the term “fertilized egg”
Read this:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/03/fertilized-eggs-vs-zygotic-human-embryos/
Megan said:
actually, that’s not medically false information. abortion (one of the most common medical procedures in the country) is safer for women than giving birth-
AGI, the research arm of PP, is anything but objective and has political biases. Let’s look at a more objective source, which I actually hear cited more often, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). According to pro-choice blog Jezebel, the claim “Abortion is safer than childbirth” comes from 2002 CDC statistics.
In 2002, the CDC recorded 9 deaths out of 845,573 abortions. That’s a little over 1 in 100,000 (which corresponds with emedicine’s statisical conclusion, here. Also in 2002, the CDC recorded 8.9 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births. From there, pro-choicers deduct carrying a child to term was about 9 times more dangerous than having an abortion. However, there are some issues with this approach and deduction, with the comparison of abortion mortality and maternal mortality rates. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report for pregnancy-related mortality rates: “In this report, a woman’s death was classified as pregnancy-related if it occurred during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy and resulted from 1) complications of the pregnancy, 2) a chain of events that was initiated by the pregnancy, or 3) the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of the pregnancy or its management” (source). This means pregnancy-related mortality rates are broadly defined to included the following: aggravation of a maternal pre-existing, non-pregnancy-related medical condition, pregnancy-induced maternal medical condition, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, still birth, post-partum complications, and includes induced abortion. Therfore we are not comparing with the pregnancy mortality rate alone. In addition, regarding the CDC and AGI reports for Induced Abortions, mortalities resulting from induced abortion are typically under-reported as such. One reason is that a medical examiner may code the underlying cause of death on the autopsy report as the complication alone, i.e. embolism, septsis, hemorrhage, or anesthesia complications, rather than correctly as a legally induced abortion with specified complication. A good explination of this can be found here. Therefore it is misleading to compare pregnancy-related mortality rates to abortion mortality rates to obtain the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth.
-a statistic used merely to dispel the myth that women “often die from abortions.”
Tell that to these women’s parents, siblings, husbands, and children. Your denial won’t make them any less dead.
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blnafdeaths.htm
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blanesthesiadeaths.htm
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blembolismdeaths.htm
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blectopicdeaths.htm
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blhemorrhagedeaths.htm
Also, abortion mortality may be under reported because reporting is voluntary and relies upon clinics and doctors (who’d risk their reputation) to report such deaths.
To Megan, whether you’re a human being or not is not all that unlike the dry-cleaning business: location, location, location.
Rachael C., terrific post at 11:20.
Did you guys know that when you walk around naked outside of your house, you are not a person? Just ask Megan! She believes that personhood is wholly dependent on circumstance.
According to Megan, you can be a person in one environment, and in a totally different environment, you are not a person.
oh, but not safe, of course, for the fetus. duh. a fetus (at least pre-viability) isn’t yet a person–this is codified in federal law (and supported by most leading scientists).
Actually, by 12 weeks LMP, all organs and organ systems are present and formed, only needing to mature. With advances in medical science and care, the length of gestation used to determine viability is slowly being moved back. And even then, there have been cases of individual babies having survived being born at 21 or 22 weeks. The survival rate for premies is as follows:
Gestational Age, wk
Survival:
24 wks, 40%
25 wks, 70%
26 wks, 75%
27 wks, 80%
28 wks, 90%
29 wks, 92%
30 wks, 93%
31 wks, 94%
32 wks, 95%
33 wks, 96%
34 wks, 97%
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260998-overview
Good point Rachael. According to Megan though, you only become a person as technology becomes better.
Pregnancy mortality does include all those situations of potential complication. That’s what the statistic means.
Also, death certificates for every type of disease contain misclassification and errors in reporting–this isn’t a phenomenon unique to abortion and pregnancy. This isn’t an indication of abortion provider malfeasance.
Let’s look at ectopic pregnancies: they can’t be carried to term, and are considered medical emergencies. Sometimes the fallopian tubes can expel the pregnancy, and sometimes doctors prescribe methotrexate to induce this process. Surgical intervention is necessary when the fallopian tubes have ruptured–in these cases, hemorrhaging is a definite threat.
You’re acting as if an ectopic pregnancy were a normal pregnancy that could be carried to term, if only for that nasty abortion procedure. Wrong. Surgical abortion is used as a life-saving measure. If the medical examiner classifies cause of death as hemorrhaging, then he/she would be correct.
Also, I find it hilarious that you criticize ACOG for being biased, then reference an old article published by some Baptist church. I’m sure the author’s viewpoints weren’t slanted or anything.
Viability is determined pretty much by fetal lung capacity, and we just haven’t seemed to find that magic iron lung that can liberate the fetus any earlier than 22/23 weeks of pregnancy, though with all this fancy fetal imaging technology that allows us to personify the fetus, we’d like to think technology were more sophisticated.
Most abortions take place early in the first trimester, way before this 22 week mark. Hm.
“According to Megan, you can be a person in one environment, and in a totally different environment, you are not a person.”
Oh hey, Oliver. Nice way of twisting around what’s discussed in a hypothetical situation–real scholarly. I made the analogy to show how laws apply differently in different situations–not that we, as born human beings, aren’t “people” in different situations. Right now, federal law refutes the personhood of a pre-viable fetus because it is an entity wholly dependent on a woman’s body for survival. If we were to find a way to avoid using a woman’s body for gestation, then this pregnancy-in-a-machine could be endowed with different rights.
…but seeing that we’re not there yet, this discussion is moot.
“Good point Rachael. According to Megan though, you only become a person as technology becomes better.”
Hm, isn’t this a crux of the pro-life argument? We didn’t consider a fetus and mother to be separate entities before the rise of sonogram technology. Now we’ve been awakened to the personhood of the fetus! Joy! All thanks to ultrasound.
Megan: “Hm, isn’t this a crux of the pro-life argument?”
Are you kidding?? Do you think that pro-lifers believed that the preborn BECAME a person because of ultrasound!? I don’t even know what to say!!
Okay, pro-lifers are not saying that the fetus actually became a person because of ultrasound technology. Pro-lifers believe that the fetus has always been a person, and that technology aided in discovery what was ALWAYS the case.
Megan: “Oh hey, Oliver. Nice way of twisting around what’s discussed in a hypothetical situation–real scholarly. I made the analogy to show how laws apply differently in different situations–not that we, as born human beings, aren’t “people” in different situations. ”
I honestly didn’t twist your argument. I thought you were making the argument that a naked person “in the house” was analogous to an embryo on artificial life support and that a naked person “out of the house” was analogous to an embryo implanted within the womb.
Since that isn’t the case, I have to assume, then, that either you used the example for no relevant reason OR you used the example because you think that laws governing conflicting rights are analogous to states of being.
In what way is a naked person outside of his/her house relevant to our discussion of personhood? Are you suggesting that a naked person that has left his/her house has changed state in some way?
Megan: “Right now, federal law refutes the personhood of a pre-viable fetus because it is an entity wholly dependent on a woman’s body for survival.”
Why does federal law matter? I thought we were discussing what the federal law SHOULD be, not what it currently is. It seems like a silly argument to appeal to the very thing that we believe is tenuous and subject to change in the first place.
Megan: “If we were to find a way to avoid using a woman’s body for gestation, then this pregnancy-in-a-machine could be endowed with different rights.”
Why? It hasn’t become a different entity Megan, yet it now is a person?
I guess you still need to go back to the beginning. Do you believe that human beings have any inherent natural rights, or do you believe that humans derive rights strictly by the law of the land?
Megan —
We didn’t consider a fetus and mother to be separate entities before the rise of sonogram technology. Now we’ve been awakened to the personhood of the fetus! Joy! All thanks to ultrasound.
Just curious – do you think that ultrasounds are a bad thing since they allegedly awakened pro-lifers to the personhood of the fetus? If, pre-ultrasound, fetus and mother were considered one, and post-ultrasound the fetus is considered its own person, are we better off for having ultrasounds or worse off?
FWIW I believe you completely when you say that you’re not upset about your abortion. I have never been very torn up about my abortion experience either. But I am curious what you meant with the ultrasound comment, and would love if you had time to elaborate.
Alexandra,
You are missing the larger point. Megan believes that the fetus and mother WERE one prior to ultrasound technology. In her belief system, beings literally change inherent states based on current technological levels.
Her specific belief is that currently a human solely dependent physically on its mother is NOT a person, but that if there is a machine that could support that same human, the human would change its inherent state and BECOME a person.
Oliver, let me ask you. What is YOUR definition of personhood?
We should ask what kind of “inherent state” personhood is–where human beings are, yes, endowed with inalienable rights. And before you throw out examples of the Holocaust or apartheid or whatnot, let me ask you this: even when classified as “subhuman,” were Jewish or Black people (post-birth, to clarify) wholly, physically dependent on human beings for survival? Did they require bodies in which to form and grow? I refer to Roe because I don’t think it’s tenuous. To be considered a person, one must be physically autonomous. And yes, this includes people in vegetative states, because–and no matter what kind of sweat and blood caretakers may put into furthering their survival–these individuals are not directly, physically attached and dependent on another human being. Saying we’re all dependent is, yes, categorically true, but irrelevant. We don’t live inside other people’s bodies. And a womb isn’t some kind of fetal holding cell.
Does this look like a person to you? I mean, ignoring the enlarged head and tail, maybe its “personhood” will become resoundingly apparent:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg
Alexandra: It was very thoughtful for Oliver to try and respond to you for me. Perhaps he doesn’t think I’m a person capable of thinking and typing in my own answers.
Sonogram technology has made pregnancy safer. How else would we have detected pregnancy complications beforehand? But ultrasound is a double-edge sword. It allows us to see earlier and earlier into the pregnancy and project “personhood” on fetuses and embryos that are far from viable. The fetal rights discourse arose at the time ultrsound hit the medical scene. Before, women confirmed pregnancy based on knowledge of their own bodies, but now women do so by getting an ultrasound (usually when they KNOW they’re pregnant already), subordinating bodily knowledge to that of the machine. When this happened, the natural fetal-mother unity was broken, allowing for greater state regulation of pregnancy and the assumed ability to bestow rights on an unviable embryo/fetus (and “rights” that conflicted directly with the mother’s).
Do you want my definition of personhood, or did you really mean to ask who I think qualifies for personhood?
I could post pictures of the elephant man and ask you whether or not he looks like a person. What does it have to do with anything? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson once argued that African slaves were not people because they didn’t “look” like people?
Regardless of your views on abortion, your stupidity has been made clear through your arguments about inherent states. The very fact that you think an entity can change places but not inherent qualities and yet change inherent states is amazing. You really don’t get how much of a moron you have made yourself out to be here. Hopefully, if you will answer my questions, I can show that to you.
Now, answer the question Megan. Do you believe that human persons have any sort of inherent natural rights, or do you strictly believe that rights stem from societal whims?
Megan: “subordinating bodily knowledge to that of the machine. When this happened, the natural fetal-mother unity was broken”
Do you see what I mean Alexandra? She literally believes that the introduction of technology changed the pysiological mechanism of pregnancy. I don’t think there is any sort of common ground from which to talk to Megan. Its like debating the ontological ramifications of eyesight with someone who believes eyes function by shooting eye rays out to capture information. How do you even begin?
Thanks for responding in your own words, Megan. ;)
It allows us to see earlier and earlier into the pregnancy and project “personhood” on fetuses and embryos that are far from viable.
Why do you think this is? I know that when I saw my own ultrasound, I wasn’t particularly moved by it – it did not look like anything at all. When I researched images of what my embryo likely looked like (there was debate over the gestational age, due to boring circumstances I won’t rehash here, but it was early regardless) I thought, “What exactly is the big deal?” Nothing in those images inspired me to emotionally project personhood on non-viable embryos.
Before, women confirmed pregnancy based on knowledge of their own bodies, but now women do so by getting an ultrasound (usually when they KNOW they’re pregnant already), subordinating bodily knowledge to that of the machine.
Do you think that there can be two kinds of [accurate] knowledge in direct conflict with each other? Or is all knowledge merely a path towards truth and thus impossible to be in contradiction with itself? By that I mean, can bodily knowledge be subordinated to machine knowledge without implying that one of these two kinds of knowledge is not true?
I have to run so I won’t read your response immediately, but I’m not usually one for the rapid-fire discussions anyway.
Hi Megan,
Women may have wondered if they were pregnant and then it was confirmed by a pregnancy test. The only ultrasounds I ever received were into my 2nd trimester. I only had one during each pregnancy. Not to confirm that pregnancy. To see if my baby was growing!!
Oh and out of curiosity what is the function of your womb?
I’m not talking about individual pregnancy-ultrasound experiences, but rather, the summation of these experiences contributing to what might be called the “social life of the fetus.” Ultrasound technology helped pro-lifers imbue fetuses with personhood and, coextensively, human rights (such as the right to life). Ultrasound didn’t result in any physical differences during pregnancy, but allowed anti-abortionists to establish this mother-fetal separation.
Mother-Fetal separation? What the hell are you talking about, Megan?
You admit “Ultrasound didn’t result in any physical differences during pregnancy” but then claim it “establish this mother-fetal separation.”
Ultrasound didn’t establish a mother-fetal separation. The two are were already seperate individuals. Everyone knew they were alreayd seperate individuals. Do you really think we were all walking around with the assumption that another human being magically sprang forth at birth as some sort of weird clone of its mother? Boys were a bit tricky because of that whole penis thing, but meh…it all totally made sense somehow, until those pesky pro-lifers came in with their voodoo magaic and showed the world that a pregnant woman was in fact carrying a seperate, unique individual and not…I don’t even freaking know what you’re claiming, honestly.
Enlighten me, Megan. What exactly did a pregnant woman prior to ultrasound technology believe was happening inside her?
“You really don’t get how much of a moron you have made yourself out to be here. Hopefully, if you will answer my questions, I can show that to you.”
Hm, that’s not very nice, is it? I thought we were trying to be civil and mature. But please, Arbiter of Truth and Knowledge, thanks for offering to enlighten me. For the record, I think you’re fearful that women might have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies–that’s why we need to keep pretending that a embryo is a fully-formed human being, a person demanding rights.
I WOULD like your definition of personhood, actually. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, OLIVER (whine whine whine): were the elephant man, African slaves and Jews each physically dependent on a sole human being’s body for survival (post-birth)? What issue do you take with Roe’s declaration that personhood is contingent on physical autonomy–that is, NO LONGER DIRECTLY REQUIRING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING’S BODY FOR SURVIVAL?
Let’s have funerals for miscarriages. Let’s create death certificates for them. Let’s start classifying eggs and sperm as human beings–after all, that’s their purpose, isn’t it? To fuse and grow into a human being? Oh wait, we’ve already done that, with workplace laws requiring women to declare no intention to reproduce after working in hazardous conditions.
Um, Lauren, you’re wrong. Read some Rayna Rapp or Cynthia Daniels–anthropologists who have studied the impact ultrasound technology has had on cultural perceptions and beliefs about pregnancy.
Before ultrasound: Fetus + Mother=organic unity. Fetus=direct part of mother’s body, not some separate being that could claim or demand rights for itself.
After ultrasound: Fetus=separate person requiring new legal protection.
Fetal protection laws didn’t come about in the 1800s because this paradigm shift–spurned by new technology–hadn’t yet occurred.
I think Megan’s the only person I’ve ever seen actually bemoan an advancement in medical technology that often saves lives.
Just to remind you, Megan you said “You said “you only become a person as technology becomes better. We didn’t consider a fetus and mother to be separate entities before the rise of sonogram technology. Now we’ve been awakened to the personhood of the fetus! Joy! All thanks to ultrasound.”
Now you admit that “Ultrasound didn’t result in any physical differences during pregnancy.”
It doesn’t matter what society thought (though you’re vastly misrepresenting society’s views. Abortion has been opposed since at least the hippocratic oath). Society’s thoughts on the nature of a being do not actually result in any physical differences of that being.
That’s all you need to say. The mother and child were always seperate entities. Nothing changed about their physical state, and thus nothing has changed about the rights they are entitled to.
Now that you understand that cultural perception does not change the essential essence of a being, let’s go back to child grown in a womb vs. the child grown in an artifical vat.
To quote Oliver “You can admit, that in both cases the human in question is, indeed, the same entity, and therefore has the same natural rights?
“Pregnancy mortality does include all those situations of potential complication. That’s what the statistic means.”
Yes, but even if they’re not directly related to the pregnancy. And since maternal mortality includes induced abortion, this inflates the maternal mortality rate and comparing this total to abortion mortality alone, then gives misleading conclusion.
Also, death certificates for every type of disease contain misclassification and errors in reporting–this isn’t a phenomenon unique to abortion and pregnancy. This isn’t an indication of abortion provider malfeasance.
Evenso, it could explain under reporting in abortion deaths, even if not intentially on the coroner’s part (which I never implied in the first place).
Let’s look at ectopic pregnancies: they can’t be carried to term, and are considered medical emergencies. Sometimes the fallopian tubes can expel the pregnancy, and sometimes doctors prescribe methotrexate to induce this process. Surgical intervention is necessary when the fallopian tubes have ruptured–in these cases, hemorrhaging is a definite threat. You’re acting as if an ectopic pregnancy were a normal pregnancy that could be carried to term, if only for that nasty abortion procedure. Wrong. Surgical abortion is used as a life-saving measure. If the medical examiner classifies cause of death as hemorrhaging, then he/she would be correct.
Yes, and this is called theraputic abortion (not even viewed as the same as elective abortion by medical professionals) and most if not pro-lifers accept this as there are no current alternatives and it endangers both the mother’s and baby’s life. Actually, you’re missing that if prior to the ectopic pregnancy rupturing, an elective surgical abortion was preformed, then it would it not be classified as “ruptured ectopic pregnancy, secondary to elective abortion” And why are abortion providers missing these ectopic pregnancies, when they should be confirming the gestational age of and viability (meaning it’s uterine and not ectopic) of the pregnancy with ultrasound first.
Also, I find it hilarious that you criticize ACOG for being biased, then reference an old article published by some Baptist church. I’m sure the author’s viewpoints weren’t slanted or anything.
Actually if you re-read, I criticized the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), not ACOG and did not make a statement about them, but thanks for putting words in my mouth! Also, besides looking at the source, I also look at the content of the article (which did you look beyond the first paragraph?), which cites and compares statistics and the works cited, which cites sources such as autopsy reports, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York City Department of Health, and the CDC.
Megan: “Hm, that’s not very nice, is it? I thought we were trying to be civil and mature.”
Who said that I wanted to be civil? Besides, calling someone an idiot when they act like one is not really that bad. You can call me a jerk, that’s fine. I have no problem being painted as intolerant to stupidity.
Megan: “I WOULD like your definition of personhood, actually.”
In short, I define personhood as being a living member of the human race.
Megan: “were the elephant man, African slaves and Jews each physically dependent on a sole human being’s body for survival (post-birth)?”
No. I brought up the elephant man and Jefferson’s take on Africans to refute your ‘but it doesn’t LOOK like a person’…uh “argument.”
Megan: “What issue do you take with Roe’s declaration that personhood is contingent on physical autonomy–that is, NO LONGER DIRECTLY REQUIRING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING’S BODY FOR SURVIVAL?”
Personhood is an inherent natural right. Something inherent and natural is not subject to environmental circumstance. Roe claims that dependence on a human is enough to discredit personhood. Here are the problems with that stance.
First of all, an embryo is not dependent on a human. An embryo is dependent on various nutrients, hormones, etc that are currently only able to be supplied by a human. So, to begin with, Roe is asserting that dependence on various nutrients, hormones, etc currently only supplied by a human is an inherent characteristic that denotes non-personhood.
Second of all, Roe assumes that dependence on non-human life support is not enough to knock personhood, yet it fails to establish why a sole dependence on human sourced life-support is exceptional enough to knock personhood.
In short, it conflates the two central issues within the abortion debate; 1) does a fetus have any INHERENT personhood rights and 2) do those rights, even if existant, overwhelm the mother’s right to bodily integrity. It seems that Roe, by claiming independence from a HUMAN life-support system as a criterion for personhood, has confused the existance of INHERENT rights for the failure of those rights within a CONFLICT of rights.
Think of it like this. I do not have the right to not feed my son. Therefore, in the conflict of his right to not be neglected and my right to property, he wins, and I have to give him food. Now, does this conlfict mean that I do not inherently have the right to property? Of course not. It means that my INHERENT right to property takes a backseat to my son’s INHERENT right to not be neglected.
Now of course, this all rests on whether or not you even believe in inherent rights. So, do you believe that there are any inherent rights, or do you believe that they stem from societal whim alone?
Megan: “Let’s start classifying eggs and sperm as human beings–after all, that’s their purpose, isn’t it? To fuse and grow into a human being?”
But they are not human beings. An embryo is a human being.
Megam: “Before ultrasound: Fetus + Mother=organic unity. Fetus=direct part of mother’s body, not some separate being that could claim or demand rights for itself.
After ultrasound: Fetus=separate person requiring new legal protection.”
I’m confused. Are you claiming that it is better that people hold a belief from ignorance? I mean, a mother and her fetus are not, and were not ever the same being. Do you think it is actually better for people to not understand the basic biological function?
Okay, Megan, you don’t seem to want to answer this question, so I am devoted a whole separate post to it. For whatever reason, you are very confused about natural rights, so let’s start from the very beginning.
Do you believe that any human rights are natural and/or inherent, or do you believe that human rights solely stem from society/law?
“So, to begin with, Roe is asserting that dependence on various nutrients, hormones, etc currently only supplied by a human is an inherent characteristic that denotes non-personhood.”
Sounds good to me. You can throw in as many hypotheticals as you want, but artificial wombs don’t exist yet. To use your analogy: your son is dependent on you to make him dinner, but he’s REALLY only dependent on the food he eats, which, at the moment, only you can provide. Nobody’s put a patent on a toddler-feeding mechanism yet. It’s not only the provision of sustenance, but the conditions under which this provision must occur.
Personhood IS bodily autonomy. In the case of a fetus, pregnancy can only occur within a maternal body. Mother-fetus exist as an organic whole–they can’t be separated before a fetus is viable. The fetus is thus a part of the woman’s body, and falls beneath the domain of her bodily sovereignty. The fetus is not physically autonomous and thus does not have the inherent right to personhood, or to life. A patient in a vegetative state does not impose upon another human being’s bodily autonomy. Comatose individuals don’t crawl into other people’s bodies, build nests, and draw from the host’s blood and nutrient supply.
Personhood IS bodily autonomy. In the case of a fetus, pregnancy can only occur within a maternal body. Mother-fetus exist as an organic whole–they can’t be separated before a fetus is viable. The fetus is thus a part of the woman’s body, and falls beneath the domain of her bodily sovereignty. The fetus is not physically autonomous and thus does not have the inherent right to personhood, or to life. A patient in a vegetative state does not impose upon another human being’s bodily autonomy. Comatose individuals don’t crawl into other people’s bodies, build nests, and draw from the host’s blood and nutrient supply.
Posted by: Megan at December 16, 2009 7:56 PM
-Dear God. All that could ever be said. Thank you.
Megan: “Sounds good to me.”
Of it sounds good to you. You think that an inherent quality is defined by outside circumstance.
Megan: “Personhood IS bodily autonomy. In the case of a fetus, pregnancy can only occur within a maternal body.”
Look, Megan, we all know what you THINK autonomy is. The whole point of the debate is WHY, which you have not attempted to answer.
Why does dependence on human life support differ from dependence on artificial life support?
How about this. Before the existance of formula, infants were solely dependent on the use of their mother’s body for milk. In fact, my daughter refused to take a bottle and required the use of my wife’s body. Were those babies and my daughter not persons?
Megan: “Mother-fetus exist as an organic whole–they can’t be separated before a fetus is viable. The fetus is thus a part of the woman’s body, and falls beneath the domain of her bodily sovereignty.”
Let me parse your argument for you.
Premise: a fetus cannot be separated from its mother and live
Conclusion: the fetus is a part of the mothers body
There seems to be a HUGE jump in logic from “cannot be separated and live” to “part of body.” Those ideas are not synomomous. And even if they are, by some bizarre train of thought, you can’t simply assume this. You have to provide justification for such a statement.
Megan: “The fetus is not physically autonomous and thus does not have the inherent right to personhood, or to life. A patient in a vegetative state does not impose upon another human being’s bodily autonomy. Comatose individuals don’t crawl into other people’s bodies, build nests, and draw from the host’s blood and nutrient supply.”
Again, you are making jumps in logic Megan. You are claiming now that physical autonomy is defined as solely not requiring another human’s body for life. Physical autonomy is, in fact, defined as having the capability to make informed decisions about your body. Any significant dependence threatens bodily autonomy, not just dependence on another human body.
Besides, your definition excludes conjoined twins from the personhood argument, even the twins that are mutually dependent.
All this is pointless though, because the part you are missing is that you still haven’t defined INHERENT rights. By the very definition of INHERENT rights, nothing external can alter them. If an embryo, with the same dependence on nutrients and hormones, is INHERENTLY a person when attached to an artificial womb, then that embryo is BY NATURE a person. That means, that if you stick the embryo in outerspace, where it cannot live, that embryo is still a person. It also means that an embryo implanted in a woman is still a person.
Now, if you want to argue that DEPENDENCE, as an inherent characteristic of the embryo, prevents the embryo from attaining personhood, that is a whole other argument. However, you are saying that an embryo, without any INHERENT changes, can flip flop from a person to not a person strictly based on society. This completely flies in the face of all basic logic.
Let me ask you another question. Say that a woman takes an infant on a long cruise, and suddenly, upon reaching a 5 hour distance from any civilization, the boat breaks down. The woman did not bring enough formula to feed the baby, but is capable of nursing. I am not going to ask you whether or not the woman is obligated to nurse her child. I am only asking you this. Since the infant is now SOLELY DEPENDENT on its mother’s body for survival, is that infant a person, regardless of the mother’s choice to nurse?
Dear God, Danielle, please do not tell me that you actually think Megan is making any sort of coherent argument. It is most certainly not “all that could ever be said.”
Megan confuses the central arguments in the debate, and conflates the issues she needs to prove. This is not intelligent thought, and is most certainly not the backbone of any pro-choice philosophy. Don’t follow her down her rabbit hole of absurdity.
Danielle: “Dear God. All that could ever be said. Thank you.”
If that is all that could ever be said, then the philosophy of abortion is already won in the pro-life favor. The confusion of central issues of existance and inherent rights is not an argument. It’s an embarassment.
Let’s use an argument from a famous pro-choicer.
Say I am kidnapped and attached to an ill violinist in need of my kidney. The argument goes that I am the only person in the world who could be used for this medicial procedure. Without my kidney use, the violinist would die.
Now, I am not going to ask you whether or not the violinist could use me in such a way, obviously he could not. I am asking you instead “is the violinist still a person, despite his sole dependence on my body?”
Actually, nothing is confused. Oliver believes that, a priori, a fetus is a PERSON, which colors the rest of his argument. I’ve answered your question: “Why does dependence on human life support differ from dependence on artificial life support?” Because dependence on human life compromises another person’s bodily sovereignty, their right to self-ownership.
And, as I said, rights can change in different settings. “Personhood” might seem like an indisputable, fundamental right, but not when we’re talking about conditions that alter the possibility of personhood (physical independence). In the case of breastfeeding, babies are, technically, not wholly dependent on one individual’s body–midwives, for example, can provide a baby’s necessary sustenance. Also, as far as the pregnant shipwrecked woman: “I am not going to ask you whether or not the woman is obligated to nurse her child.” Well, actually, you are–that’s your point, let’s not kid ourselves that you’ve mastered Socrates’ rhetorical cunning. ANYWAY, the baby would still be a person, because it wouldn’t be solely dependent on the mother’s body for survival. While it would be easiest for her to nurse, she could a) pilfer the boat’s food stores for milk or something else with lots of nutrients B) catch fish. There would still other options, although strained.
So I’ve had enough of playing Oliver’s game of fake deductive logic. I think I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability, and we truly haven’t gotten anywhere, because you still think an emrbyo is a person who deserves rights, and I don’t. It’s unfortunate, though, that I’ve got doctors of the secular variety and federal law on my side, while your justifications for fetal personhood are fueled by misogynists, religious nutbags, and women with misguided senses of duty.
Megan: “Actually, nothing is confused. Oliver believes that, a priori, a fetus is a PERSON, which colors the rest of his argument.”
My argument is THAT a fetus is a person. I am not assuming a fetus is a person, Megan. I don’t think you know what you are talking about here.
Megan: “I’ve answered your question: “Why does dependence on human life support differ from dependence on artificial life support?” Because dependence on human life compromises another person’s bodily sovereignty, their right to self-ownership.”
You haven’t answered the question. You have merely rephrased it. I’ll ask it again, the way you have decided to rephrase it.
“Why a human’s compromising of another human bodily sovereignty determine personhood?”
I also find this rephrasing interesting. Do you not believe that rape compromises bodily sovereignty? Is a rapist not a person?
Megan: “And, as I said, rights can change in different settings.”
So then, you believe that rights are not inherent and are determined by society?
Megan: “”Personhood” might seem like an indisputable, fundamental right, but not when we’re talking about conditions that alter the possibility of personhood (physical independence).”
So mutually dependent conjoined twins are not persons?
You are confusing two concepts. Whether or not rights exist inherently within a being, and whether or not those rights trump other rights in certain circumstances. Nobody loses any rights, they simply have their right overwhelmed by another’s right.
Megan: “In the case of breastfeeding, babies are, technically, not wholly dependent on one individual’s body–midwives, for example, can provide a baby’s necessary sustenance.”
Not in all cases. Some infants will only nurse from their mothers.
Megan: “Also, as far as the pregnant shipwrecked woman: “I am not going to ask you whether or not the woman is obligated to nurse her child.” Well, actually, you are–that’s your point, let’s not kid ourselves that you’ve mastered Socrates’ rhetorical cunning.”
I really am not. You just aren’t listening. I don’t care right now about whether or not a woman is forced to carry an embryo to birth. That is the second portion of the debate. Right now, all I care about is determining the definition of personhood. You can’t seem to separate the two ideas for some fascinating reason.
Megan: “ANYWAY, the baby would still be a person, because it wouldn’t be solely dependent on the mother’s body for survival. While it would be easiest for her to nurse, she could a) pilfer the boat’s food stores for milk or something else with lots of nutrients B) catch fish. There would still other options, although strained.”
Catch fish? LOL! Catch fish, really?? Now tell me, how exactly is a newborn infant going to digest this fish you are talking about? How is the mother going to catch the fish?? LOL! How is the infant going to drink milk?? Do you know nothing of basic newborn physiology? Some infants cannot even stomach formula, let alone milk!!
Now, putting aside the hilarity of your response, you are missing the point. I even specified that the infant would be solely dependent on its mother. Hell, I even put it capitals. Let me clarify.
The infant requires his mother’s milk and cannot survive on anything else. Is the infant a person?
Megan: “So I’ve had enough of playing Oliver’s game of fake deductive logic.”
Sure you have, considering that you have had your ass handed to you in every post. Why else would you specifically not respond to 90% of the points that I have made? Hell, you haven’t even answered the basic question that I asked 3 times. You would of course quit.
Megan: “I think I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability, and we truly haven’t gotten anywhere, because you still think an emrbyo is a person who deserves rights, and I don’t.”
You haven’t answered almost any of my questions Megan. Why is that? Are you afraid to give a response?
Is the violinist a person when dependent on my kidney?
Are human rights inherent, or determined by society?
Would the newborn infant, solely dependent on its mother’s milk, be a person?
How does an entity with inherent rights change its inherent characteristics without any actual change?
In what way is an embryo actually a phsyical part of its mother’s body?
Hell, how about this one. Why haven’t you answered so many questions and arguments?
Really, why can’t you answer a straight question? Why don’t you respond to the bulk of my argument? I think you are worthless scum, but I at least give you the courtesy of answering your posts, line by line. There is no ruder, dirtier tactic than to ignore the incovenient parts of an argument, yet so many pro-choicers use this tactic.
“In what way is an embryo actually a phsyical part of its mother’s body?”
Yeah, I asked that one, and received no answer, but only an insult. I’m waiting.
I pity Megan though…someone who is obviously so ignorant of newborn care must surely have been terrified by the idea of a child. I’m sorry you and your partner found yourself so weak as to let that fear drive you to kill.
Good luck X. Megan doesn’t really believe in giving direct answers, despite the fact that we have answered every single one of her questions. What a crock.
Well Oliver, I just love answering a barrage of questions that are a) explicitly intended to trap and trick b) laden with insults c) mostly leading questions, i.e. “you believe X, DON’T YOU?”
What a true paragon of the pro-life movement: reasonable, rationale, and respectful.
And again, I’m not conflating two concepts. We’re talking about what establishes the right to life. I don’t think a fetus, when dependent on a woman, has any INHERENT right to life. People have human rights. Fetuses are not people. Fetuses are not people because any rights granted to them pre-viability would come at the direct expense of the woman’s right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty trumps any POTENTIAL right to life a fetus might have. Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy could, technically, be classified as slavery prohibited under the 13th amendment–or at least a violation of the 14th.
Am I talking to the same person who envisions a scenario where a fetus could survive inside some simulated womb? I don’t see why it’s inconceivable that a pregnant woman could feed fish to her son/daughter. While certainly not DESIRABLE, it certainly could be feasible. We’re talking about hypotheticals and possibilities, right?
“How does an entity with inherent rights change its inherent characteristics without any actual change?”
Oh, and obviously society mediates and defines human rights–that’s how we’re conferred with them in the first place. And no, a fetus doesn’t have human rights. You act as if fetal personhood is self-evident–if so, then why are you up against a supreme court precedent and scientists doctors around the globe? Even slavery wasn’t codified in the Constitution. I don’t even think there are Supreme Court judges who will agree that personhood begins at conception.
Define a person for me. Tell me why personhood begins at conception, and why being dependent on a woman’s body doesn’t disqualify the fetus as a person.
Megan: “Well Oliver, I just love answering a barrage of questions that are a) explicitly intended to trap and trick b) laden with insults c) mostly leading questions, i.e. “you believe X, DON’T YOU?””
Why does it matter how the questions are phrased? I didn’t pose any questions with strict ultimatums. Just answer them honestly and you will be fine. I’ve done that for your questions so far, Megan.
Megan: “And again, I’m not conflating two concepts. We’re talking about what establishes the right to life. I don’t think a fetus, when dependent on a woman, has any INHERENT right to life.”
Okay. Now do you believe that the very same fetus has an inherent right to life when the same necessary nutrients are provided from an artificial womb?
Megan: “People have human rights. Fetuses are not people. Fetuses are not people because any rights granted to them pre-viability would come at the direct expense of the woman’s right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty trumps any POTENTIAL right to life a fetus might have.”
Which argument are you making? That a fetus does not have rights, or that those rights would be overwhelmed by the mother’s rights? Those are two different questions, and you appealed to both in the same argument. Can you see why I think that you are confused?
Megan: “Forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy could, technically, be classified as slavery prohibited under the 13th amendment–or at least a violation of the 14th.”
You could make the same argument about childcare. Parents cannot abandon their children at will. They are forced to go through certain procedures.
Megan: “I don’t see why it’s inconceivable that a pregnant woman could feed fish to her son/daughter. While certainly not DESIRABLE, it certainly could be feasible. We’re talking about hypotheticals and possibilities, right?”
Look, if you are going to assume that we live on a world within which newborns could consume different types of food, that is fine, let it be known that you are creating this hypothetical. I don’t see why you would WANT to create such a hypothetical, as I don’t see what purpose that argument would serve, but at the very least let it be known. In fact, why would you want to create such a hypothetical world? What purpose would it serve in your argument?
Oh wait! I created the shipwreck argument, and I explicitly stated that the fetus was solely dependent on its mother’s milk! So I guess the better question is, why would you suggest feeding the infant fish, when I set the example up with the express point that the newborn could only derive nourishment from its mother’s milk?
Megan: “Oh, and obviously society mediates and defines human rights–that’s how we’re conferred with them in the first place.”
So you are saying that you do not believe that there are any inherent human rights? You believe that whatever the society determines a right to be, it is just in doing so?
Megan: “Even slavery wasn’t codified in the Constitution.”
Yeah, and neither is abortion. What’s your point?
Megan: “I don’t even think there are Supreme Court judges who will agree that personhood begins at conception.”
Do you have any evidence for that statement, or are you just musing?
Megan: “Define a person for me. Tell me why personhood begins at conception, and why being dependent on a woman’s body doesn’t disqualify the fetus as a person.”
I already defined a person for you, but in keeping with my personal integrity, I will answer your question, again. Hopefully you will answer my questions, and as straightforwardly as I am about to right now.
A person is a living member of the human species.
Therefore, once the blastocyst is formed, the new being has become an unique member of the human species, thus from that point on, the embryo is a person.
Dependence on a woman’s body does not disqualify a fetus as a person, as personhood is strictly an inherent quality, analogous to the terms ‘human’ or ‘living.’ Inherent states cannot be changed by external circumstance.
(This does NOT however, mean that a woman is in any way obligated to carry the fetus, as her rights may overwhelm the fetus’s rights. What it does mean, is that if a fetus, regardless of circumstance, can be said to be a person, its inherent state does not alter based on dependence.)
Here is a simple way of illustrating that last point. The violinist in the question that I posed to you earlier would still be a PERSON after becoming solely dependent on me physically, but the violinist would NOT have the right to use my body in such a way.
Now, can you answer some of my questions?
Do you believe that any human rights are inherent and/or natural, or do you believed that they are decided by society only?
Would the violinist in my previous example no longer be a person when attached to my kidney?
Would an infant, solely dependent on its mother’s milk for survival (say in a shipwreck) no longer be a person?
Notice that all of these questions are about personhood, not about obligations to house a person in your body. See how easy it is to make that distinction? Give it a try, Megan.
Megan said a while back: “What issue do you take with Roe’s declaration that personhood is contingent on physical autonomy”
It’s been a long time since I have read Roe v Wade by the way, so I initially took your word for it. Turns out, as far as I can tell based on a summary of points, your argument that Roe v Wade considers the fetus NOT a person has nothing to do with that the fetus is physically dependent on the mother.
Blackmun actually explicitly said “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer”
I kind of thought what you said was odd, considering no major pro-choice philosopher makes your argument, and that the acceptance of your argument about “bodily autonomy” would prevent mutually dependent conjoined twins from achieving personhood.
I’m curious then, where on Earth did you get that Roe v Wade made your argument?
Also, here’s another question you have yet to answer.
Considering that even mutually dependent conjoined twins are not wholly separated from another human being, are they persons under your definition?
Hats off to you Oliver, Lauren and X!! The word tenacity comes to mind. :)
Megs,
Keep trying. You have so far convinced only yourself.
Megan – you continued to argue regarding personhood, however you’ve left a few loose ends dangling. I asked:
You’re all for bodily sovereignty, however this same basis you claim for your body/person you deny to another body/person who by all scientific evidence is effectively no different than you in substantial form other than having a different stage of development and a different environment, both of which logically can be shown to have no impact upon the morality of violent force being used against them.
I’d take you on in a debate, but to be honest, I think you’re too busy arguing with yourself.
God love you.
The bodily sovereignty argument is implicit. Fetuses are not protected under the 14th amendment–as Blackmun argued, the Constitution wasn’t intended to confer explicit rights on the unborn. Roe confirmed that women have the right to privacy under due clause, implying that women have the right to control their bodies–a right grounded in the principles of personal liberty. Dependence has everything to do with the right to life, personhood; Roe didn’t secure an ultimate right to all types of abortion, only those taking place pre-viability. At the point of viability–when the fetus is NO LONGER DEPENDENT on its mother’s body, the fetus could claim rights of its own–because then it would be a separate entity. The rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother come into conflict later during the pregnancy, post-viability. At this point, Roe only guarantees abortion when the mother’s health and safety are compromised. Here, the mother’s health and safety take precedence over the fetus’ right to life. Blackmun, however, didn’t want to firmly establish when “life” begins, i.e., viability, or personhood. He left this decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, since every pregnancy is different, and viability could be established at different points.
Conjoined twins are people because of their mutual dependence. One twin isn’t wholly dependent on the other, as in pregnancy. A pregnant woman does not need a fetus to survive–its not like symbiosis (and I use this term loosely, since technically it’s defined as inter-species interaction). Anyway, I keep supplying the same answer to this question, so I’m not going to answer it again.
I was thinking about the violinist, and this scenarios raise an important point about the nature of personhood. I think it’s safe to say that personhood is indelible–once conferred with personhood, it can’t be taken away. In these scenarios, the dependent entity’s right to life would be balanced against the other person’s right to bodily sovereignty. In the case of the violinist, tragic as it might be, nobody could be forced to offer up his/her kidneys. This is a case of direct, physical attachment–different from the baby scenario. The baby (fine, a child that couldn’t yet metabolize fish), before this moment, was considered a person, so it doesn’t stop being a person. Now the baby’s right to life is weighed against the mother’s right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty doesn’t have to be considered an absolute–unlike with the violinist case, the mother wouldn’t be compromising her own health or drastically changing her physical personhood (unless, having no food for herself [say there were no fish], she intended on drinking her own milk). Thus, the baby’s right to life might be upheld.
Chris, I believe I answered your question in there. And I don’t care if your version of God loves me or not, thanks.
It’s important to reemphasize the fact that most abortions take place in the first trimester, well before a fetus is even considered potentially viable. If you believe that killing is killing, well, so be it. But say a fetus, pre-viability, WERE considered a person: even if so, the mother’s right to bodily sovereignty could be said to trump the fetus’ right to life. In the majority of abortion cases, the fetus hasn’t even developed to the point where it could be considered a separate, independent entity.
Megan: “The bodily sovereignty argument is implicit. Fetuses are not protected under the 14th amendment–as Blackmun argued, the Constitution wasn’t intended to confer explicit rights on the unborn. Roe confirmed that women have the right to privacy under due clause, implying that women have the right to control their bodies–a right grounded in the principles of personal liberty. Dependence has everything to do with the right to life, personhood; Roe didn’t secure an ultimate right to all types of abortion, only those taking place pre-viability. At the point of viability–when the fetus is NO LONGER DEPENDENT on its mother’s body, the fetus could claim rights of its own–because then it would be a separate entity. The rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother come into conflict later during the pregnancy, post-viability. At this point, Roe only guarantees abortion when the mother’s health and safety are compromised. Here, the mother’s health and safety take precedence over the fetus’ right to life. Blackmun, however, didn’t want to firmly establish when “life” begins, i.e., viability, or personhood. He left this decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, since every pregnancy is different, and viability could be established at different points.”
I think you have misread Roe v Wade. Blackmun never stated that a fetus gains rights when post-viable. He only established that state’s may regulate abortion in those cases as they see fit. The only argument for bodily autonomy that is presented is presented in favor of the mother’s autonomy. This makes sense, seeing that autonomy has to do with the ability to make decisions for your body, not whether you are physically dependent on another human. Menatally ill are not autonomous, nor are infants or many other classes of humans.
Megan: “Conjoined twins are people because of their mutual dependence. One twin isn’t wholly dependent on the other, as in pregnancy.”
What do you mean that one twin is not wholly dependent on the other? They are both wholly dependent on each other. If you have mutually conjoined twins Ted and Bill, you could simply ask yourself the same question about each of them as you do of a fetus.
Is a fetus wholly, and physically dependent on another human for life? Yes.
Is Ted wholly, and physically dependent on another human for life? Yes.
Is Bill wholly, and physically dependent on another human for life? Yes.
Now if you are to respond that a conjoined twin has its own organs and does not necessarily derive all functions of life from the other, I can make the same claim about a fetus. A fetus also has its own organs, in fact, in a more separated fashion than most conjoined twins.
So how is it that a fetus is “wholly” dependent, but that one member of a mutually dependent conjoined twin set is not?
Megan: “I was thinking about the violinist, and this scenarios raise an important point about the nature of personhood. I think it’s safe to say that personhood is indelible–once conferred with personhood, it can’t be taken away.”
I find this response fascinating. Does this mean that dead humans also are persons?
You also have created a paradox here. How can a right be condition based, but also indeliable?
But, the best point of all….a human blastocyst actually forms PRIOR to attachment to the mother. It is in no way dependent on its mother for roughly the first five days. If it is not dependent on its mother, then it is a person, according to your argument, and if it is established to be a person prior to implantation, then, also according to your argument, it can never lose personhood.
Megan: “In these scenarios, the dependent entity’s right to life would be balanced against the other person’s right to bodily sovereignty. In the case of the violinist, tragic as it might be, nobody could be forced to offer up his/her kidneys. This is a case of direct, physical attachment–different from the baby scenario.”
I didn’t ask you this question, so I am not going to respond (although I agree, but for different reasons.)
Megan: “The baby (fine, a child that couldn’t yet metabolize fish), before this moment, was considered a person, so it doesn’t stop being a person.”
A human embryo is initially not dependent on its mother, so then, using your logic (which is still flawed by the way) an embryo cannot lose that personhood, once dependent on its mother.
Megan: “Now the baby’s right to life is weighed against the mother’s right to bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty doesn’t have to be considered an absolute–unlike with the violinist case, the mother wouldn’t be compromising her own health or drastically changing her physical personhood (unless, having no food for herself [say there were no fish], she intended on drinking her own milk). Thus, the baby’s right to life might be upheld.”
Again, I didn’t ask this question, although hold that thought. I find your argument of “not changing her physical personhood” odd.
So, to summarize.
In the blastocyst state, a human is not in any way physically dependent on its mother. According to Megan, this physical separation grants the human personhood. And, according to Megan, once personhood has been established, it cannot be lost. Thus, an embryo is a person.
I’m interested to see you spin this Megan. Maybe you will start making the ol’ “self realization” claim about personhood?
Megan, thanks for taking the time to answer.
The logic in Roe is completely circular and invalid (yes). Also, historically SCOTUS has been completely wrong in their thinking – Dred Scott being the most relevant when it comes to personhood. If you wish to rely upon legal precedent for enforcement, then you are merely making the case that a state power ultimately controls you. Abortion as it currently stands is merely complicit with the state. It may not always be so free.
Setting aside your question-begging regarding non-personhood of the nascent human being, your argument relies upon sovereign “rights” which are manifested in a physical body.
You contend “bodily rights” trump the right to life of the child, however life is the primary “bodily right”. If the mother were denied life, the sovereign control of her body would be of no importance. Life precedes liberty – which is really what you are discussing when it comes to abortion. These two cannot be swapped.
You appear to have little understanding when it comes to the responsibilities of human rights, and what is meant by liberties.
You contend you have a right to life, and that you are not physically dependent upon anyone else (you’re independent). This is completely false for two reasons:
1) You live completely at the mercy of others. At any moment violent physical force may take your life. You are not immune to this. All the legal code in the world cannot stop this. The only safeguard is that every person uphold their responsibility not to harm other innocent human beings.
2) You’re completely dependent upon others for relationships, food, clothing, shelter, warmth and security. That is, you’re completely dependent others for nutrition and a secure, hospitable environment.
If your security were removed, mercy towards you eliminated, if you were made an object of discrimination, if your life were taken by viscous violent shredding force, you might think it unjust, unfair and that you were wrongly suffering. However, you’d only be suffering from your own contention that “might makes right”.
The primary basis for your argument is that of the flesh and blood, the substance of the mother’s life. Deny that on any point and it’s moot.
Your argument turns on itself, because the same uniqueness that identifies the mother as eminently human, is expressly presented in her very own child within her own womb.
1. “He only established that state’s may regulate abortion in those cases as they see fit”
…and abortion at this point can be regulated because the fetus could, potentially, survive independent of direct attachment to its mother’s body, and thus could be entitled to the right to life.
2, “I see dead people.”
3. The twin scenario: I meant unilaterally dependent, oops (go ahead, jump).
4. “A human embryo is initially not dependent on its mother”…”in the blastocyst state, a human is not in any way physically dependent on its mother.”
-despite the fact that she used her body to create it and houses it in her body?
5. Altering physical personhood, meaning the pregnancy process. Call me out again for preempting your attacks.
6. “life of the child”–again, taking for granted that a fetus is a child…
If a fetus DID have the right to life, the mother wouldn’t necessarily have the obligation to house it in her body. Develop some other method to make gestation possible.
7. I don’t care whether you asked the question or not (Oliver)
8. I’m just curious–why such a vested interest in fetal rights? Do you believe that denying a fetus the right to life will somehow enable the devaluation of living human beings (those who have been born)? I’m not talking correctness, or rightness here, but the fact that women have been having abortions forever. Does abortion correlate directly with other kinds of violence? If we stop the practice of abortion, will there be less gun violence, fewer wars, less interest in nuclear power as a force with which to kill?
9. If the United States took on a completely pro-natalist agenda, what would we do with the extra thousands (perhaps million) “extra” children a year? If we undermine women’s ability to decide whether it is appropriate to introduce another person into the world, then how could our system possibly support and sustain so much new life? Do you think we could try to outlaw sex? That would extend to marriage, though, since many women who get abortions are married. Do we restrict marital sex? Designate certain hours of the week when couples may procreate? I’m curious about the logistics.
Megan: “…you still think an emrbyo is a person who deserves rights, and I don’t. It’s unfortunate, though, that I’ve got doctors of the secular variety and federal law on my side, while your justifications for fetal personhood are fueled by misogynists, religious nutbags, and women with misguided senses of duty.”
While engaging in your smear tactics, you neglected to mention that scientific fact is on OUR side, Megan. Let us know when you locate a biology textbook.
“I’m just curious–why such a vested interest in fetal rights?”
Megan, some people simply find it themselves to seek protection of other human beings, even if there is no benefit to themselves. You could just as easily ask why anyone in the U.S. should care about Darfur. Because we should.
I’m just curious–why such a vested interest in slaves’ rights? Do you believe that denying a slave the right to freedom and full personhood will somehow enable the devaluation of non-African human beings? I’m not talking correctness, or rightness here, but the fact that slavery has been occurring forever. Does slavery correlate directly with other kinds of violence? If we stop the practice of slavery, will there be less violence overall?
If the United States took on a completely anti-slavery agenda, what would we do with the extra thousands (perhaps million) “extra” people entering the workforce and reproducing freely? If we undermine a slaveowner’s ability to decide whether it is appropriate to introduce another person into the free world, then how could our system possibly support and sustain so much new life, so many new persons? I’m curious about the logistics.
(Sorry, I just thought I’d try some terminology changes for my own amusement.)
Megan: “…and abortion at this point can be regulated because the fetus could, potentially, survive independent of direct attachment to its mother’s body, and thus could be entitled to the right to life.”
No, abortion can be regulated because the SCOTUS believes a fetus is clearly a person at this point, not BECAUSE of this point.
Megan: “2, “I see dead people.””
I have no idea what this means.
Megan: “3. The twin scenario: I meant unilaterally dependent, oops (go ahead, jump).”
In what way are conjoined twins not unilaterally dependent in the way that a fetus is unilaterally dependent, exactly? A dependent coinjoined twin will die without the use of the other twin’s body, and visa versa. Explain the exact characteristics that alter the state of each individual conjoined twin.
Megan: “4. despite the fact that she used her body to create it and houses it in her body?”
The man also uses his body to create the embryo, but it doesn’t make the emrbyo dependent on his body. Blastocysts by the way do not need to be housed within the mother. They can be created and housed in test tubes up to the point they need implantation, hence the whole unimplanted embryo thing.
Blastocysts are physically independent of their mother’s bodies. Are they then persons?
Megan: “5. Altering physical personhood, meaning the pregnancy process. Call me out again for preempting your attacks.”
I have no idea what you are saying here. Care to give a little more context?
Megan: “6. “life of the child”–again, taking for granted that a fetus is a child…”
A fetus is a child, as child is defined as progeny, but what is your point? You can call it whatever you want. How about we make it simple and call it a human?
Megan: “If a fetus DID have the right to life, the mother wouldn’t necessarily have the obligation to house it in her body. Develop some other method to make gestation possible.”
That is another argument, which we can get to, as soon as you address the personhood of the embryo. By your own argument, an embryo is a person. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why is it not a person? You have to drop one of your principles at this point.
Megan: “7. I don’t care whether you asked the question or not (Oliver)”
Okay.
Megan: “8. I’m just curious–why such a vested interest in fetal rights?”
I can’t stand injustice, and abortion is currently the greatest injustice. What makes it worse is that people laud abortion as a positive thing. Most other attrocities are at the very least accepted as such.
Megan: “Do you believe that denying a fetus the right to life will somehow enable the devaluation of living human beings (those who have been born)?”
No, I think it is actually more the opposite.
Megan: “I’m not talking correctness, or rightness here, but the fact that women have been having abortions forever.”
Again, I am not sure what you mean by this statement. You didn’t ask a question that has to do with “correctness” or “rightness” or about the “fact that women have been having abortions.” What does this totally random sentence mean? People have had abortions, so it’s okay to keep having them?
Megan: “Does abortion correlate directly with other kinds of violence? If we stop the practice of abortion, will there be less gun violence, fewer wars, less interest in nuclear power as a force with which to kill?”
Probably not. Who cares? Abortion is itself the worst affront to human rights ever seen in the history of the world. It is enough to stop it in a vacuum.
Megan: “9. If the United States took on a completely pro-natalist agenda, what would we do with the extra thousands (perhaps million) “extra” children a year? If we undermine women’s ability to decide whether it is appropriate to introduce another person into the world, then how could our system possibly support and sustain so much new life? Do you think we could try to outlaw sex? That would extend to marriage, though, since many women who get abortions are married. Do we restrict marital sex? Designate certain hours of the week when couples may procreate? I’m curious about the logistics.”
The logistics are a whole other interesting discussion. I for one am for setting up an infrastructure of some sort to deal with the abolition of abortion. Exactly HOW it should be done, is something that I am not as passionate about. I also do not have nearly enough facts and zero experience in public policy to suggest solutions with any sort of credibility.
I do know that there would need to be some additional radical changes. Nothing of the sort you suggested, but then again, you were just trying to divert the topic from your epic failure a few posts ago (claiming that personhood is indeliable once established.) I also know that not eveyr abortion would be turned into a birth. The relationship between stopped abortions and actual population bump is much more complicated.
But of course, that is not what we are talking about here. When we first started, I pointed out to you that there is the ethical discussion of abortion and the practical discussion. I am much more interested in establishing the ethical argument for the pro-life movement. Which brings me back to your claim about personhood being indeliable.
A blastocyst is not solely dependent on its mother, in that it can just as easily be grown in a test tube and recieves no necessary nutrients from the mother. According to your argument (which is still flawed by the way, but I’ll assume it for this point), the blastocyst would be a person. In addition to that, you claimed that personhood is indeliable, and therefore the blastocyst maintains personhood once established at conception. Sound about right?
Well, if the intent of IVF were only to grow embryos consisting of 4-6 cells in a petri dish, then sure, classify them as people if you must. But that isn’t the point of IVF, obviously, and a human womb is still necessary for its continued growth and survival. How long could an embryo grow and divide in a petri dish before growth and development became static, or it outgrew this environment? Does a person’s cell growth ever just halt, except during death? Even patients in vegetative states would still experience some cell renewal.
But Oliver, I AM interested in the logistics. Unlike in the 1800s, we’re experiencing a state of rapid climate fluctuation that threatens the health of people across the globe–in thanks due to rapid population growth and industrialization. Now, if abortion were banned, we’d have many more people in the world to deal with. Not just a few hundred, but thousands, even millions. We can barely ensure food security and health for the people who are living. How do you propose we accommodate so many extra bodies with a dwindling supply of resources? Do you want the people who exist to compete extra hard (potentially at the risk of their health and security) for this limited supply of resources? Wouldn’t another massive population boom contribute to more violence and injustice?
Like it or not, abortion is a necessary kind of population control, where each woman decides the feasibility of introducing new people into the world.
Megan: “Well, if the intent of IVF were only to grow embryos consisting of 4-6 cells in a petri dish, then sure, classify them as people if you must. But that isn’t the point of IVF, obviously, and a human womb is still necessary for its continued growth and survival.”
Where did you suddenly get “intent” into the argument? The simple matter of the fact is that a blastocyst first exists wholly independent of its mother. Is it a person by your definition?
Megan: “How long could an embryo grow and divide in a petri dish before growth and development became static, or it outgrew this environment? Does a person’s cell growth ever just halt, except during death? Even patients in vegetative states would still experience some cell renewal.”
How long could the violinist live without my kidney? How long could a newborn survive without its mother milk when nothing else is available? Your original requirement for personhood was based on dependence. You then said that once personhood has been attained, it cannot be lost. Does not a blastocyst exist as a living human independent of its mother first, and therefore obtain an indeliable personhood?
But Oliver, I AM interested in the logistics. Unlike in the 1800s, we’re experiencing a state of rapid climate fluctuation that threatens the health of people across the globe–in thanks due to rapid population growth and industrialization.
nice assumption, but wrong.
you might be interested in logistics but not in logic and facts.
The scientific data does not support global warming. In fact, meteorologists have the exact opposite data which is that over the last 100 years, our climate is cooling.
The warmest summer was exactly 10 years ago. No summer since that time has been warmer.
Secondly, while it’s true global population is increasing, in fact, Western population as bottomed out spectacularly. This is true of certain southeast Asian nations too – Japan and Korea. Most of these countries do not have replacement levels of population and will not EVER recover. In fact, there is NO historical record of ANY civilization EVER recovering from such low birth rates.
As for food and resources, the problem is not amount but the fact that a few very rich countries use up all the resources on the earth. So we need to consume less and share more.
And of course your last statement, Megan is utter nonsense.
Diane Francis certainly agrees with you that abortion is necessary population control – but she like many population/global warming scaremongers believes that women no longer have the right even to determine the “feasibility of introducing new people into the world.”
Maybe you are willing to take that next step, Megan?
Thanks for the backup Angel. You made some good points, but Megan is simply truing to bring in irelevant issues to the discussion. She is trying to distract us from her paradox. Let’s keep it on point, and keep hammering her as to why a blastocyst is not a person, despite her own definition that supports that a blastocyst is a person.
“while your justifications for fetal personhood are fueled by misogynists, religious nutbags, and women with misguided senses of duty.”
ummm, no.
science proves that the moment of conception creates a new and unique human being, with it’s own DNA and whom almost immediately begins to direct it’s own development
every human being must be considered a person
because their human nature demands that they be a person
They can be nothing else but a human person.
the only reason why this is no longer considered so, is not because the nature of the human being has changed but because it is now inconvenient in our promiscuous culture to be so
can’t have all those inconveniently pregnant women getting rid of persons now can we?
“The scientific data does not support global warming.”
Hilarious. So dramatic rises in sea level have nothing at all to do with anthropogenic contributions to climate change. Hm. That’s fine, though, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Oh, except for that 1/3 of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. No biggie.
No, I’m not trying to distract from my argument. I’m asking my own questions. Are you a moderator for this blog? Do you control the conversation that happens here? I can ask my own questions.
A blastocyst isn’t a person. It CAN exist temporarily in the culture medium of a petri dish, probably at a maximum of three-four days. Without being implanted in a woman’s body, though, it will cease to exist after a certain period of time. It doesn’t matter if the embryo can temporarily exist outside the mother–ripping a fifteen-week old fetus outside a mother’s body might not kill it instantaneously, either. Intent is everything, though. We don’t intend for IVF embryos to remain at the embryo stage. Their continued growth and survival is contingent upon the availability of a womb within a female body. For it to be considered physically autonomous, researchers must be content with keeping the blastocyst at the blastocyst stage (I’m not even sure it’s possible). Needing to climb back into the womb to continue surviving and growing negates this “apparent” autonomy. Personhood can’t be granted at the embryonic stage unless we don’t intend for embryos to mature at all–to remain as embryos (which would render them…dead).
I miss nerd–he/she bit you guys to the quick, pointing out that most of you would grieve much less for a miscarriage than for the death of an infant or a child. Shouldn’t these deaths all demand the same degree of gravitas, considering, in your eyes, they’re all people? But…they typically don’t. Hmmm.
Send me your address, Oliver. I’ll air mail you a tube full of culture medium and some blastocysts. I’m abandoning my children on your doorstep, so to speak. Bad, promiscuous me–I’ll probably go to jail for child neglect and abuse! Now though they’re your responsibility, because they’re PEOPLE. Could you bring them to the local OB/GYN lab and make sure nobody flushes them down the drain? K thanks.
Oliver, angel, forgive me for interrupting…
Megan,
IVF is not natural and a blastocyst was never intended to exist in nature outside of the womb. This doesn’t negate the fact that it’s a human person in the womb.
* * * *
“Personhood can’t be granted at the embryonic stage unless we don’t intend for embryos to mature at all–to remain as embryos (which would render them…dead).”
I think I’ve heard this argument before at Jill’s. Maybe from you. This doesn’t make sense.
“I miss nerd–he/she bit you guys to the quick, pointing out that most of you would grieve much less for a miscarriage than for the death of an infant or a child.”
Not much less. I think some people would grieve less for the miscarriage, just as some would grieve less for a newborn than for an eight-year-old, since we have more memories, and have had more time to become emotionally attached to the eight-year-old. It certainly doesn’t follow, though, that an eight-year-old is more of a human being than a newborn or a human embryo. Just like the law, Megan, “how we feel” about an embryonic human being doesn’t trump the scientific fact that that’s precisely what/who she is.
By the way, those with plenty of time can check out http://www.climateaudit.org, http://www.climate-skeptic.org, and http://www.wattsupwithtthat.com to see thorough, comprehensive summary of climate data, and of how the global-warming alarmists sound the bell and do what they can to hide the data that refutes their ideology.
Sure. But doesn’t this make you worse people?
By the way, those with plenty of time can check out http://www.climateaudit.org, http://www.climate-skeptic.com, and http://www.wattsupwithtthat.com to see thorough, comprehensive summary of climate data, and of how the global-warming alarmists sound the bell and do what they can to hide the data that refutes their ideology.
I don’t have time to read McIntyre’s entire blog, but it seems that he has a legitimate vested interest in temperature collection methodology, arguing that some environmental agency didn’t properly account for a minute error in data collection. Okay, that’s fine, and he probably has a valid point–to a certain extent. But his findings don’t negate the entire phenomenon of global climate change, since this evidence is corroborated by policymakers and environmental agencies across the globe. Even if you don’t believe in climate change, there is no doubt that serious natural disasters are taking place, and they must be dealt with accordingly. Disasters–natural, anthropomorphic, etc–are public health issues. People will die unless we study these issues.
I’m not really sure why conservatives believe climate change is a huge conspiracy theory. What would be the intended goal of all this scaremongering? To make cuts in the automobile industry? To institute sweeping population control measures? I don’t get it. The goals people are working on HERE seem undeniably useful for the betterment of the human race:
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sections/view/9
“Sure. But doesn’t this make you worse people?”
Pardon?
…unless, of course, you’re all a band of roving millenial dispensationalists. In that case, herald Christ’s return. Save the fetuses and leave the equitable allocation of resources and promotion of sustainable development to the dumb scientists.
“Even if you don’t believe in climate change, there is no doubt that serious natural disasters are taking place, and they must be dealt with accordingly.”
Sure, natural disasters should always be dealt with, and, whether anthropogenic global warming is a real occurrence or not, we should be using fewer resources, polluting less, and starting to take the word “alternative” out of the phrase “alternative energy.” All well and good. But Chicken Little had better have rock-solid evidence before she tells the Third World it’s not allowed to industrialize.
“I’m not really sure why conservatives believe climate change is a huge conspiracy theory. What would be the intended goal of all this scaremongering?”
One oft-presented scenario is $$$, including the sale of carbon credits and Al Gore’s speaking engagements.
“…unless, of course, you’re all a band of roving millenial dispensationalists. In that case, herald Christ’s return. Save the fetuses and leave the equitable allocation of resources and promotion of sustainable development to the dumb scientists.”
Who’s scaremongering, hyperbolizing, and misrepresenting now?
…only if you’re a millenial dispensationalist.
There are more environmentally sustainable ways of development than industrialization (i.e., “sustainable development). Researchers who advocate for reduced global carbon emissions aren’t selective in who they target for reform–it’s not like they’re turning their knives on China to distract from GM spewing pollution everywhere.
Also, I think it’s really funny to think of Al Gore organizing global climate change summits (Copenhagen) to amp his public exposure. Al Gore, the most boring mad scientist, ever.
Megan: “A blastocyst isn’t a person. It CAN exist temporarily in the culture medium of a petri dish, probably at a maximum of three-four days.”
Forget the petri dish Megan. The blastocyst exists in every woman wholly independent from that woman. They are no more dependent on the mother’s body than I am dependent on the body of my boss when I shake his hand. Don’t change the subject.
Megan: “Without being implanted in a woman’s body, though, it will cease to exist after a certain period of time.”
Without attaching my body to the violinist, he will cease existing after a period of time. Is he a person? Given that time is a variable, we could even say that from his conception, the violinist would necessarily require my body, say 30 years into the future. Does this future requirement for my body negate his personhood from the start?
Megan: “Intent is everything, though. We don’t intend for IVF embryos to remain at the embryo stage. Their continued growth and survival is contingent upon the availability of a womb within a female body. For it to be considered physically autonomous, researchers must be content with keeping the blastocyst at the blastocyst stage (I’m not even sure it’s possible). Needing to climb back into the womb to continue surviving and growing negates this “apparent” autonomy. Personhood can’t be granted at the embryonic stage unless we don’t intend for embryos to mature at all–to remain as embryos (which would render them…dead).”
So, you’ve changed your definition to require intent? Gotcha. Let’s role with that one for a while, since you have abandoned your original argument.
So, if a mother never intends her embryo to be born, and in fact attempts to abort it but fails, does that child upon birth obtain personhood, even though the mother did not even intend for that to happen?
If so, then explain what you mean by positing “intent” as a requirement for personhood. Intent by who? The mother that supplied the egg for the blastocyst? The father that supplied the sperm?
If the violinist has intent to live past his current illness, is not a person because to do so he requires my body? Was he not a person from birth because of this future requirement? Keep in mind that the first few days of every human’s life exists independently of its mother’s body.
Megan: “Al Gore, the most boring mad scientist, ever.”
Except he isn’t a scientist, just boring and mad.
Megan: “I miss nerd–he/she bit you guys to the quick, pointing out that most of you would grieve much less for a miscarriage than for the death of an infant or a child. Shouldn’t these deaths all demand the same degree of gravitas, considering, in your eyes, they’re all people? But…they typically don’t. Hmmm.”
Why do you think that most people grieve less for a still-birth than for the death of a 4 year old? Why do we grieve less for a 90 year old than for a 20 year old? Why is it less traumatic to lose someone, say in an accident overseas, than it is to watch someone die in your arms?
Grief is a very complex emotion. There really doesn’t go a few days that I don’t think of my wife’s miscarriage. Would I have liked to hold a funeral? Absolutely. Is it socially unacceptable to do so? Unfortunately, yes. It doesn’t change the level of grief that I feel. Few things make me cry Megan. That is one that still gets me from time to time. I wonder how many other sufferers of miscarriages simply feel obliged to “put it away” because there is no physical remains and society expects you to?
It’s one thing to lie, shift your arguments, ignore sticky points to which you cannot respond, and to call people childish names like “pizza-faced” and so forth. It is another to mock someone’s grief in some attempt to gain leverage in your sinking argument. Then again, I should expect nothing less from the tolerant and compassionate liberal that you are, right Megan?
“Wrong. A blastocyst inside a woman’s body is dependent on her body for survival at that moment, even if it does have the capacity to live inside a petri dish with culture medium for a few days. The blastocyst is using the mother’s nutrients to grow. If not, then explain how progression to the embryonic state happens.”
big hairy deal!
a newborn baby and a 3 month old baby depend upon their mother for nourishment, especially if breast feeding.
so are you now advocating they are not persons either?
this IS the logical extension of your argument and Peter Singer (also brilliant and mad) argues so and says that liberal “thinkers” ( a misnomer to be sure!) like yourself are being disingenuous to not say so.
the problem with the proaborts definition of personhood is that it keeps changing and is dependent upon utilitarian ethics
but by virtue of being a human being created from two other human beings, that new human must always be a person
there can never be a subset of human beings who are not persons….
this is what the Nazis did? Are you a Nazis or maybe Megan, you favor eugenics? hmmmmm
you work in a lab Megan? Seems to me you’ve lost a little of your humanity and feminine genius in those petri dishes….. :(
I’m dropping any sort of civility from here on out when dealing with you, because you don’t deserve it. I mean, you never really did-you killed your own child-but you’ve crossed the line when you start mocking other people over the deaths of their family members. I lost a sibling to miscarriage when I was 10, and you better believe my whole family wept long and hard over him. We still keep his ashes because deluded, selfish, cold-blooded harpies like you have done everything in your power to maintain your illusion and strip the youngest members of our human community of all dignity, so a funeral and death certificate was not an option.
“Also, I’m not mocking your grief, Oliver.” and then a little later IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH: “Oh, the potential life! Oh, the life! Oh, the humanity!”
You can’t win a debate with someone who will a.) lie, and b.) continually change the rules of the debate to suit their agenda. She will ignore the points made the she does not want to hear, lie to make new point, constantly shift her argument (which I’m certain must be easy with no ideals. I’m sure she can rationalize doing all kinds of things since her morality appears to be non-existent and has instead substituted the legal system for a conscience).
And now abortion is great because of overpopulation? Wow…how many more things are you going to tell yourself to try and legitimize the murder of your child? The money was going to the doctor’s sick mother, so it was actually a great thing that you did? You don’t have to worry about gaining weight, so now you can wear your favorite dress to the New Year’s party? (oh, wait, you already cited “weight gain” as a reason you killed your baby.)
I am done with you. Your willful ignorance of biology crafted into a cover you attempt to use as justification of a truly heinous deed is pathetic. Grow up, Megan.
Ha, you might as well have said “eat glass and die.” What debate? Oliver throws out far-fetched hypotheticals, I respond. What can I say, I don’t believe an embryo is a person. Pregnancy means different things to different people, depending on whether they’re wanted or not. I’m sorry you lost a sibling–your family must have had lots of built-up expectations for a new baby. As Oliver says, “grief is complex.” TYPICALLY people grieve less for embryos than five-year-olds. Just saying.
Oh, I’m sorry, was I being insensitive? This little diatribe of yours is actually hilarious. My “willful ignorance of biology?” I’m sorry, but nowhere in the annals of medicine does it say that embryo=person entitled to life. And too bad I had the same beliefs about abortion…before my abortion. Nobody’s saying abortion is “great”–simply pointing out that if abortion were banned right now, there would be millions of extra mouths to feed this year. Hmmm.
Oh, and I think I listed a host of reasons why I didn’t want to have a kid right now–weight gain being just one factor. I wasn’t too thrilled, to tell you the truth, about having a good chance of developing a walloping post-partum depression AND a new size fifteen waistline. Oh, and that whole bit about raising a kid on a crappy income in a bad neighborhood–that wasn’t a consideration at all.
Question: were you grieving because you valued that embryo in and of itself? Did you like hanging out with it in the ultrasound room, trying to discern humanlike features amidst the tail and oversized head? Or were you grieving for all the thwarted hopes and expectations you had for it?
Megan, I think you are crossing a line and you need to know that you are close to being banned.
When I grieved the loss of my baby who died at 6 weeks in the womb, I grieved the loss of my baby, not a potential, but the baby. Just as I would have had the baby been stillborn.
You can see pictures of my baby here:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/bethanys_baby.html
Not just a clump of cells.
Megan says “were you grieving because you valued that embryo in and of itself?”
Yes.
Megan says “Oliver throws out far-fetched hypotheticals, I respond.”
Ignoring the fact that Socrates is rolling in his grave over your derision of hypotheticals, may I ask where exactly you responded to Oliver’s last posts? All I see is some snarky bull* about miscarriage, not a substanative response to the points he made on the 18th at 1:06 AM.
Wanting strings-free sex to the point you’re willing to kill to get it is slutty behavior. Congratulations, you’re a slut. You see, it’s not so much about the sex itself as it is about having sex responsibly, and I’m afraid killing your kid in order to get it disqualifies you for being considered responsible. If I was ever in the same boat as you, I’d jump out.
It says in the annals of medicine that a developing embryonic/fetal human is a human, just as I am a human and would like to be given the appropriate consideration, so should they. Period. You’re obfuscating a very very simple situation to suit your rationalization of what you have done, and of course a biology text doesn’t say “This is a human, this is an animal. Oh, and by the by, please don’t kill other humans, m’kay?” Because it’s a BIOLOGY book. Sorry, but it will not pick up slack where your parents have obviously failed you, it’s only there to teach science, not basic human decency, but you should probably read up on that too.
When you are even weighing in the same category “eewww…I might get FAT!” with other things on the scale of WHY YOU SHOULD F-ING KILL YOUR CHILD, you can’t sink much lower.
And we were sad because my little brother’s heart had stopped beating. I was sad about that just as I would’ve been sad about any of my OTHER brothers’ hearts stopping beating. WHERE my brother was located had no bearing whatsoever on my feelings toward him. And, I don’t value people based solely on what they can do for me, or how they entertain me.
Also, eat glass and die plz, kkthx.
Megan: “Oliver throws out far-fetched hypotheticals, I respond. What can I say, I don’t believe an embryo is a person.”
You haven’t responded to 90% of my questions. The only questions you respond to are the ones for which you think you have a snappy comeback, and even then, you change the terms of the question and answer vaguely.
Answer this question Megan. Why exactly is a blastocyst not a person, when by your very own definition about independence the blastocyst should be deemed one. Here are the facts.
A blastocyst is a unique human.
It is physically independent of its mother for the first 3-5 days.
(According to your response to the violinist) Personhood cannot be lost based on future physical dependence, as long as it is first established.
So tell me, by your own (still very very flawed) reasoning, why is an embryo not a person?
Don’t ban her Bethany. Let her make a fool of herself for a little longer. I want her to answer my damn questions.
For the interest of integrity, I will still answer EVERY question you pose Megan.
“were you grieving because you valued that embryo in and of itself?”
Yes.
Megan: “Did you like hanging out with it in the ultrasound room, trying to discern humanlike features amidst the tail and oversized head?”
Tail? You have never seen an ultrasound have you? Hmm.
No, I did not try to discern “human-like” figures from any tails, as once the embryo is visible in an ultrasound, there is no visible tail. You would know that of course.
Megan: “Or were you grieving for all the thwarted hopes and expectations you had for it?”
I also grieved for this Megan. Grief is complex. Do you not think parents grieve for their still-borns for the very same reason?
My apologies to the others here who have a low tolerance for swearing and things of that nature. But, Megan crossed the line with her remarks about miscarriage, so I figured since we were taking a trip across the line, I’d like to go as well. The weather’s nice, and I’d like to make sure the door doesn’t hit dear Megan in the rear on the way out, heaven forbid.
Megan is just looking for an easy out. She can’t handle the questions, and is starting to wear down trying so hard to dodge everything we ask her. She is trying to rile everyone up with her acidic, ignorant remarks about miscarriage grief in hopes of being banned so she can save face. She would love nothing more than to say “well they just banned me because my arguments were too good,” despite the fact that she has avoided nearly everything sent her way.
Hokum, this type of flimsy argumentation and ignorance of other peoples’ points might go over really well at the facebook group page, but it doesn’t work here. Please wait for the backpats until AFTER some sort of victory has been made on your part.
Megan: “I’m sorry, but nowhere in the annals of medicine does it say that embryo=person entitled to life.”
It says in biology textbooks that fertilization is the beginning of a new human being’s life.
Then there’s that little matter of the Hippocratic Oath.
And not just that. Biology textbooks also point out that the human life is physically independent from its mother’s body for the first few days.
Megan says “Oliver throws out far-fetched hypotheticals, I respond.”
Ignoring the fact that Socrates is rolling in his grave over your derision of hypotheticals, may I ask where exactly you responded to Oliver’s last posts? All I see is some snarky bull* about miscarriage, not a substanative response to the points he made on the 18th at 1:06 AM.
Posted by: Lauren at December 18, 2009 10:36 AM
Lauren,
You’ve probably read this book, but I thought I’d mention it here. It’s very good! Megan might find it interesting.
“The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion”
by Peter Kreeft
Merry Christmas, y’all!
“And not just that. Biology textbooks also point out that the human life is physically independent from its mother’s body for the first few days.”
-Well, no. What do you think that blastocyst is doing inside a woman’s body? Bunking for the night? It’s siphoning nutrients from her body–her body is essential for its continued survival. Even culture medium inside a Petri dish is designed to simulate the environment inside the womb. Who cares if a blastocyst can be kept alive inside a laboratory for a few hours? At this stage, self-sustainment isn’t possible–the blastocyst still needs to be implanted in a woman’s body. The continued use of her body is a tacit agreement.
And sure, length of time could be considered an important factor to establish personhood. This isn’t changing the definition–it’s expanding it (Say you pull the plug on someone on life support…the individual might be able to survive, but probably only for a few seconds at most). It’s ridiculous, then, to universalize the “physical independence” principle. The blastocyst situation isn’t applicable to the violinist’s because of the time factor. Even if it’s anticipated that person A will need to play kidney host to person B, person A has still developed beyond the embryonic stage, been born, released from dependence on its mother’s body, etc. etc.