Pro-life vid of day: The central issue in the abortion debate
by Kelli
Ratio Christi-Wilmington shares a YouTube video of Dr. Mike Adams, a former liberal pro-choicer and current Townhall columnist and UNCW professor, giving his defense of the pro-life position:
Dr. Mike Adams… makes the case that most arguments for abortion beg the question on the central issue in the debate, which is: What are the unborn? He argues that there is no essential difference between the adults present in the room and the unborn babies they once were, which would justify terminating their lives at any earlier stage of development.
In his talk, he shows a 1-minute clip of the victims of abortion. The video is lengthy but engaging and well worth watching:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/1pQblj3arB0?t=2m54s[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
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.
most arguments for abortion beg the question on the central issue in the debate, which is: What are the unborn?
No, that’s not the central issue. “What the unborn are,” is really far from the main issues. We will have some disagreements, for example, about when conscious pain perception is present during gestation, but the physical reality of the unborn is really not the issue.
He argues that there is no essential difference between the adults present in the room and the unborn babies they once were, which would justify terminating their lives at any earlier stage of development.
While of course there are many things in common, there are still essential differences between the born and the unborn, gaining in number and scope as we consider earlier and earlier times in gestation. One is that the unborn are inside the body of a thinking, feeling person. If we could wave a magic wand and put an “unborn baby” inside Dr. Mike, I’d say there’s a very good chance that he would have an epiphany. ; )
Wow, I thought pro-choicers around here were past the whole “if he were a woman, he’d think differently” types of comments.
Guess I was wrong. Maybe I got lost and I’m actually reading the tripe at RH Reality Check…?
I’m a woman and I’ve had three children, and I found his speech to be informative and engaging. The whole hour and a half, including the questions following (which I’m certain pro-choicers commenting here will watch as well before they comment). And I’m “thinking and feeling” as well, so that qualifies me to speak (since we all know that individuals who can’t think or feel in the way pro-choicers believe is significant must therefore be less human or less important than those who have more capabilities).
Yeah, Doug, would you say that a temporary coma patient would not qualify for human rights? I mean, if thinking and feeling are what make one eligible for human rights.
What about an infant born in a temporarily comatose state? Should it not have the right to life?
“If we could wave a magic wand and put an “unborn baby” inside Dr. Mike, I’d say there’s a very good chance that he would have an epiphany.” I’d say if we waved a magic wand to transport you inside Dr. Mike, you’d be thankful he is prolife.
Kel: Wow, I thought pro-choicers around here were past the whole “if he were a woman, he’d think differently” types of comments.
I thought pro-lifers around here were past thinking they know better than the pregnant woman herself.
More seriously, Kel, I grant you that many women feel as you do, and – were men able to get pregnant – Dr. Mike might feel that way too. I didn’t say he would definitely have a change of heart, I said there was a good chance that he would.
Rebecca: Yeah, Doug, would you say that a temporary coma patient would not qualify for human rights? I mean, if thinking and feeling are what make one eligible for human rights.
Rebecca, that is quite a leap, first of all. The temporary coma patient already has had rights attributed, for one thing, and there’s no debate over that, really, as there is with the abortion argument, due to the differences at hand. In general, people are somewhere close to 50/50 as far as “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” When it comes to people in comas, there’s nothing like that. If anything, there is indeed the debate over when to “pull the plug,” but still – quite a different deal.
I didn’t say that being “thinking and feeling” is the end-all for human rights. I mentioned it with respect to pregnant women, and were they not thinking and feeling, then things would be greatly different. Morality, to begin with, is thoughts and feelings.
I most certainly say the temporary coma patient qualifies for human rights. What would be the counter-argument, in the first place? There’s nothing there that’s similar to the baby being inside the body of a person.
What about an infant born in a temporarily comatose state? Should it not have the right to life?
No, there, “born” is the deal, the whole thing of the mother’s autonomy, wishes, rights, freedom, etc. is then either gone or relegated to a much lesser position – this is true whether we are pro-life or pro-choice.
Chris: I’d say if we waved a magic wand to transport you inside Dr. Mike, you’d be thankful he is prolife.
Chris, this made me laugh. Okay, point taken. : )
If we are then to talk about the later-term fetuses that are aware, I do see more and more rights accruing to them, and if we say that the restrictions on later-term abortions (going clear back to the Roe decision itself) are a limited form of personhood, I am good with that.
For truly “elective” abortions later in gestation, I am not for them, not at full-term, nor 8 months, nor 7, nor 6. Earlier than that and I see it as a weighing of both sides of the debate, if you will. If I have a real “not sure” zone, it’s 22 to 26 weeks. My opinion.
Okay, back to what you said about Dr. Mike. If the wand transports me into Dr. Mike, he’s not going to be pro-life. He’s not going to be much of anything but a mess. He’s going to be *exploded.* ; )
I thought pro-lifers around here were past thinking they know better than the pregnant woman herself.
Know better about what, Doug?
Mike Adams is absolutely correct. This all boils down to one thing – what are the unborn? What people believe they are (or are not) is what’s at issue. Because when you believe they’re lesser beings than other beings, you’re proving his point.
More seriously, Kel, I grant you that many women feel as you do, and – were men able to get pregnant – Dr. Mike might feel that way too. I didn’t say he would definitely have a change of heart, I said there was a good chance that he would.
What is this supposed to mean? You’ve basically said the same exact thing you said earlier, except now you’re admitting that maybe a lot of the women who DO carry the children are actually pro-life, after all! I am a woman, I am able to get pregnant, and I’m pro-life. So why is it less likely that a man (if men were able to get pregnant) could possibly feel as I do?
Why do you believe that there’s a good chance he would suddenly change his position and become pro-choice, when there are plenty of women who are NOT pro-choice?
Basically, you just wanted to take a cheap shot at the guy – most likely without even watching his speech – and you did.
What is this supposed to mean? You’ve basically said the same exact thing you said earlier, except now you’re admitting that maybe a lot of the women who DO carry the children are actually pro-life, after all! I am a woman, I am able to get pregnant, and I’m pro-life. So why is it less likely that a man (if men were able to get pregnant) could possibly feel as I do?
Kel, I never said or implied anything about those women not being pro-life. It’s a given and it’s obvious.
It’s different for Dr. Mike, having been a man to this point – and I meant it with humor, as well. It wasn’t a cheap shot. Maybe he would feel the same way as you, and maybe not. It’s quite easy to say things when you won’t ever be at risk yourself, and were he able to get pregnant then who knows? It’s no different than it often being easier for the “men in charge” to send people off to war, versus them going themselves, or their own kids.
This all boils down to one thing – what are the unborn? What people believe they are (or are not) is what’s at issue. Because when you believe they’re lesser beings than other beings, you’re proving his point.
No, not so. Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the question. Other than perhaps slight disagreements about some things at some gestational stages, you and I will not disagree, there (and the disagreements would be about things which, at least for now, are not provable either way).
“What the unborn are” is pretty much a given. All the right/wrong/good/bad/should/should nots of the abortion debate remain.
On “lesser beings” – well of course the unborn are lesser beings, especially earlier in gestation. Not sentient, not viable, no thoughts or feelings present, etc. And 20 times as many of them die, almost entirely without notice, due to genetic deficiencies and/or failure to implant, as die from abortion. It is not the nature of the unborn that is the abortion debate, it is the thoughts and feelings of born people, some of whom focus on the vastly-lesser number of abortions. It is not the reality of things that is their concern – that reality is almost never directly known to them in the first place, i.e. just as they almost never know if somebody down the block or across town or across the world has the natural loss of a zygote or embryo, so do they not know if someone has an abortion. What is operative is how they think, and what they choose to think about.
It wasn’t a cheap shot. Maybe he would feel the same way as you, and maybe not. It’s quite easy to say things when you won’t ever be at risk yourself, and were he able to get pregnant then who knows?
And this, again, is exactly what I stated. You said, “If we could wave a magic wand and put an ‘unborn baby’ inside Dr. Mike, I’d say there’s a very good chance that he would have an epiphany,” meaning that he’d likely suddenly become pro-choice if he could get pregnant.
And what I’m telling you is that this was a cheap shot, and it’s actually quite stupid, because there are plenty of us who are pro-life despite the fact that we ARE “at risk” of pregnancy.
Again, the physical reality of the unborn is really not the question.
I never stated that the “physical reality” of the unborn was the question, and I don’t think Mike Adams did, either. Obviously, the unborn is a “physical reality” or there would be no pregnancy.
“Other than perhaps slight disagreements about some things at some gestational stages, you and I will not disagree”
Well, I think you’re wrong about that.
What the unborn are is pretty much a given. AND well of course the unborn are lesser beings do not go together.
It is not the nature of the unborn that is the abortion debate, it is the thoughts and feelings of born people
But it IS the nature of the unborn that is the debate, because when those “thoughts and feelings” of those who actually made it to draw their first breaths (with the lungs which were already formed in utero) don’t match up with the facts of the humanity of the preborn, we end up with not merely the oppression of a group of humans (“lesser beings” as you call them), but the extermination of them. To the count of 2000-3000 daily in the U.S. alone.
Not sentient, not viable, no thoughts or feelings present, etc.
So these qualities make the preborn human a “lesser being” in your opinion, because the distinct human DNA does not count?
And 20 times as many of them die, almost entirely without notice, due to genetic deficiencies and/or failure to implant, as die from abortion
Well, hey, if they’re prone to death and/or genetically deficient, they must be lesser beings as well.
What a wonderful worldview you have there, Doug.
Perhaps if you were in a different place in this debate – perhaps if you were the “lesser being” at risk in the womb – you’d have an epiphany. (See what I did there?)
If only preborn humans could have epiphanies. (Well, there are certain things they can do, which are appropriate to their human developmental stage, but I don’t think epiphanies are among them.) Even then, I don’t think it would matter to people like you. Because you believe is ok to kill “lesser beings” who are deemed lesser due to certain arbitrary factors imposed upon them (which aren’t even reasonable for their stage of human development or age), because the grown-ups’ feelings are just more important than a “lesser being’s” right to survive.
And this, again, is exactly what I stated. You said, “If we could wave a magic wand and put an ‘unborn baby’ inside Dr. Mike, I’d say there’s a very good chance that he would have an epiphany,” meaning that he’d likely suddenly become pro-choice if he could get pregnant.
And what I’m telling you is that this was a cheap shot, and it’s actually quite stupid, because there are plenty of us who are pro-life despite the fact that we ARE “at risk” of pregnancy.
I am sorry if you felt it was a cheap shot. I really did not mean he would necessarily become pro-choice, though I can see how it sounds that way to you, Kel. I meant that he might feel, “Whoa – things are not quite so simple as I thought, before….”
I’m not ruling out that he would feel the same as you, but I disagree with you equating him with you and pro-life women who have been able to get pregnant all along. He’s a guy, and around 50 years old, and he’s already demonstrated mutability on the abortion issue.
(Obviously) it would be one heck of a change for him to suddenly be pregnant. Even aside from such a far-fetched example, sometimes people *do feel differently* when it’s them in the situation – witness the large numbers of women who, with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, elect to have abortions even though to that point in time they self-identify as “pro-life” and “fundamentalist Christian” and/or “born again.”
I never stated that the “physical reality” of the unborn was the question, and I don’t think Mike Adams did, either. Obviously, the unborn is a “physical reality” or there would be no pregnancy.
Then sounds to me like “What are the unborn?” is not the central issue in the abortion debate, which is what I’ve been saying all along.
But it IS the nature of the unborn that is the debate, because when those “thoughts and feelings” of those who actually made it to draw their first breaths (with the lungs which were already formed in utero) don’t match up with the facts of the humanity of the preborn, we end up with not merely the oppression of a group of humans (“lesser beings” as you call them), but the extermination of them. To the count of 2000-3000 daily in the U.S. alone.
I think that’s both contradictory and actually supportive of what I’ve been saying. The “facts of the humanity of the unborn” are not in doubt. Where the debate lies is between people who feel differently about the unborn. “What the unborn are” isn’t the argument. Were somebody to say, “the unborn are not human,” then I would disagree with them as strongly as you would.
So these qualities make the preborn human a “lesser being” in your opinion, because the distinct human DNA does not count?
No. The human DNA is there, without question. As for it “counting,” I think you are implying that it means more than it does. It is physical fact, physical reality, it’s a given, and I grant you that it’s there. All the “shoulds” and “should nots” are a different deal.
To a greater extent earlier in gestation, yeah, I definitely say a lesser being. “Distinct human DNA” – sure, and you mentioned a few thousand elective abortions per day. Well, there are tens of thousands of conceptuses, zygotes, blastocysts and embryos that die everyday “on their own.” There is nothing in nature that says they can’t, or won’t, or shouldn’t, even while they are just as human as anything else. Is there anything that says we really need them? Our world and our race are as they are, and those many deaths are part and parcel of it, and always have been. So just how bad is it?
Thus, when a given woman has an unwanted pregnancy, I don’t see it as that bad when she chooses to have an abortion, especially earlier in gestation. Again – just how bad is it? I don’t see it as bad enough that we need try and legally force the woman to not have an abortion.
Well, hey, if they’re prone to death and/or genetically deficient, they must be lesser beings as well.
I realize your tone is somewhat sarcastic here, but yes – they certainly are as much lesser as are the more “normal” ones. On what you mentioned – being unable to survive and/or genetically deficient, then in that respect they are lesser than the “normal” ones, as well.
you believe it’s ok to kill “lesser beings” who are deemed lesser due to certain arbitrary factors imposed upon them (which aren’t even reasonable for their stage of human development or age), because the grown-ups’ feelings are just more important than a “lesser being’s” right to survive.
There is no necessary “right to survive,” like that. Rights, first of all, are concepts of the mind. The majority of embryos die (again, due to being defective or failure to implant). No amount of feelings on our part changes that. I’m not saying it’s “right” or “wrong,” it just is. I’m not saying it’s “good” or “bad,” again – it just is, it’s nature, and our world is what it is. So, how bad is it, really?
I don’t think it’s all that bad, and when a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, I don’t think it’s bad enough to tell her no.
So basically your argument seems to boil down to, if it’s considered a “lesser” human (because you admit to their humanity, just a “lesser” form of it – which is extremely dangerous, IMO) then it’s expendable at the decision of the “greater” human.
And that because embryos/fetuses sometimes die anyway in utero, that taking actions to purposely deprive those “lesser humans” of their lives is somehow equivalent and not really “all that bad.”
The intent on the part of the oppressor is not taken into consideration. If someone’s death is accidental, it’s essentially the same as if that person were deliberately murdered?
But you’re going to tell me that of course, born people are actual people… so we don’t look at things like that once people are born.
And we’re back once again to the debate – what is the nature of the preborn child? Your view is that the child who *might* die in utero or who *might* be genetically deficient is worth less than his mother, simply because of size, level of development, location, and so forth… yes?
I believe they both have rights. And I believe that the child in utero loses much more if his rights are trampled. He loses his existence. And as for the person who purposely takes that human life – the mother – personally, I don’t believe that taking a human life (and certainly not the life of one’s offspring) is without consequence on some level.
Kel: So basically your argument seems to boil down to, if it’s considered a “lesser” human (because you admit to their humanity, just a “lesser” form of it – which is extremely dangerous, IMO) then it’s expendable at the decision of the “greater” human.
That’s way, way oversimplifying it. As you stated it, I agree that would be dangerous for born people, too. I’m saying that in the case of a pregnant woman, as a society we don’t have sufficient need to prevent the death of a embryo, to the extent that we tell the woman she can’t have an abortion, the same as we don’t need the death of the embryo to the extent that we’d force abortions on women with wanted pregnancies.
At conception, before there can be any conscious input on the part of the woman or society, the odds are that there’s going to be a death, soon – that no embryo will survive. Sounds odd since we don’t talk about that much, but it’s there.
For society’s part, I don’t see it as a big deal whether that one embryo survives, or if it will be the next one that does. Society doesn’t know anything about it at that point, and neither does the woman. For the woman, it will become meaningful and apparent, before it does so for society. I am also not saying that an elective abortion is the exact same in all respects as a spontaneous one (as you mention below) – there is the matter of intent, and the woman’s feelings, among other things, there.
And that because embryos/fetuses sometimes die anyway in utero, that taking actions to purposely deprive those “lesser humans” of their lives is somehow equivalent and not really “all that bad.”
Yes, I don’t see it as all that bad. We don’t need the woman to have a baby, and we don’t need her to have an abortion. What she wants is more important. My opinion. As far as equivalency, an intentional abortion is of course the same in some respects as a spontaneous one, and different in others.
The intent on the part of the oppressor is not taken into consideration. If someone’s death is accidental, it’s essentially the same as if that person were deliberately murdered?
No, of course not, and there’s no big debate about it, as far as born people. The differences in the situations are immense – for one thing you don’t see 70% or 80% of born people dropping dead in the next couple weeks.
This is not to say that intent isn’t a big player here. *Many* women are conflicted about remaining pregnant or having an abortion, and of course some end up regretting their decision, on balance, and for many who are glad of what they did, on balance, there will still be some element of regret. Not the same as spontaneous abortion, there.
But you’re going to tell me that of course, born people are actual people… so we don’t look at things like that once people are born.
Well, we treat the born differently, a fact whether you or I think it the ideal way to go or not. This whole argument is about caring – people caring about different things to different extents. The born person has his own caring, and whose should overrule his? I don’t think anybody’s should. For the pregnant woman, to a point in gestation the unborn have no caring at all, and I don’t think anybody’s views on things should overrule the woman’s; she is the one who is pregnant.
And we’re back once again to the debate – what is the nature of the preborn child? Your view is that the child who *might* die in utero or who *might* be genetically deficient is worth less than his mother, simply because of size, level of development, location, and so forth… yes?
Kel, I am really not saying “worth less.” It is not up to me. How would my opinion take precedence over over the mother’s, for example, in the first place? I don’t think it would.
“The nature” of the unborn is a given. An individual embryo will live, or not, on its own, and may or may not be part of a wanted pregnancy. The nature of that embryo is the same in all cases. Really not the issue.
As for the worth of that embryo – if the woman wants to have an abortion, I don’t think anybody should be overruling her. If – let’s say the very unusual situation is at hand where it’s a case of either the mother lives or the baby lives – then I still don’t think she should be overruled if she chooses to die so the baby lives.
I believe they both have rights. And I believe that the child in utero loses much more if his rights are trampled. He loses his existence. And as for the person who purposely takes that human life – the mother – personally, I don’t believe that taking a human life (and certainly not the life of one’s offspring) is without consequence on some level.
I think you are right for most women – though the level of perceived “consequence” will vary widely. And no doubt that the life ends in an abortion. Only way to make everybody happy here, I reckon, is to have no more unwanted pregnancies.
What’s weird to me is the failure to acknowledge that parents have a natural obligation to provide an ordinary level of care to their children. If we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, our society would have no problem making that a legal parental obligation, because we understand that a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care necessary for life from their parents outweighs the right to bodily integrity. Bodily integrity is a very important right, but so is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, yet freedom of speech cannot be used as a defense for threats of violence, and freedom of religion cannot be used even as a defense against charges of discrimination. To say that bodily autonomy justifies abortion is to literally make it the only unlimited right, which is irrational.
Also, all abortion methods, with the exception of RU 486 and pure labor induction abortion (without lethal injection) have the potential to dismember, mangle, tear apart, and poison the fetus or embryo.
Well, when we do a suction curettage abortion, you know, roughly one of three things is going to happen during the abortion. One would be is that the catheter as it approaches the fetus, you know, tears it and kills it at that instant inside the uterus. The second would be that the fetus is small enough and the catheter is large enough that the fetus passes through the catheter and either dies in transit as it’s passing through the catheter or dies in the suction bottle after it’s actually all the way out. (Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist. He describes legal activity.) Suction Curettage (suction aspiration) is the most common type of 1st trimester abortion in the US, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Since when does bodily integrity give you the right to mangle, dismember, tear apart, or poison someone else’s body?
Rebecca: If we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, our society would have no problem making that a legal parental obligation
An interesting proposition, Rebecca. I’d say it would matter how many kids they already had, and how fast these kids were appearing.
because we understand that a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care necessary for life from their parents outweighs the right to bodily integrity.
You are extending the meaning of “child” to include even before birth, and that changes things. Aside from the pro-life/pro-choice arguments, how do we enforce that, before birth? What if the woman chews cotton root, drinks tansy tea, ginger tea, ruda tea, takes a cohosh/pennyroyal mixture, or high doses of vitamin C, etc., and an abortion results? Or if there is no abortion but the baby gets messed up? Likewise, what if the woman drinks booze or does drugs?
I also don’t see the parents bodily integrity being subservient to kids’ rights. The parents are not forced to do anything. They can have their kids taken away by Child Protective Services, for example, and the parents’ bodily integrity was never breached nor really factored into it.
Bodily integrity is a very important right, but so is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, yet freedom of speech cannot be used as a defense for threats of violence, and freedom of religion cannot be used even as a defense against charges of discrimination. To say that bodily autonomy justifies abortion is to literally make it the only unlimited right, which is irrational.
Bodily autonomy isn’t unlimited, and that would not change – even in your example. One person’s rights end where another’s begin – that’s the limiting factor.
Doug,
Your bodily autonomy argument would hold more weight if the life inside her was an invasion of some kind (rape) but when a woman willingly engages in sex she is giving up some of her bodily autonomy and accepting responsibility.
Truthseeker, I’m not saying much at all about bodily autonomy, here.
Per what you said – if you see rape as justification for having an abortion, okay, but I don’t think you do, eh? I’m curious as to why you brought it up.
There’s the “basic pro-choice” thinking that the woman’s body is hers, alone, and that thus she should not be compelled to remain pregnant against her will, but I was not bringing that up with Rebecca.
She said, a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care necessary for life from their parents outweighs the right to bodily integrity
That does not seem right to me since the parents really do not have to do anything – they can’t be forced to. Their kids will be taken away from them for lack of care, but the parents’ autonomy and bodily integrity will be there as always, undiminished.
TS, you are positing that the woman who engages in consensual sex is accepting responsibility to do what you want, i.e. remain pregnant. Now you already know that I disagree. No need to rehash the obvious.
Under your way of things – what do we do if the pregnant woman drinks a bunch of booze?
Doug, fathers can be forced to pay child support for their child, even if they are unfit parents who are denied custody. You didn’t answer my question. When does the right to bodily integrity give you the right to dismember, tear apart, poison, or mangle someone else’s body? Do you support abortion methods that do that to the fetus’ body?
Also, all these dictionaries define fetus as a child. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child
Also, you say that the parent’s bodily autonomy should never be subservient to a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care. I’m curious how you justify that without relying on bodily rights absolutism. After all, how do you react to people who say that public safety should never trump the absolute right for anyone to own and to carry a gun anywhere they want, or that non-discrimination and children’s rights to receive life-saving medical care should never trump religious freedom, or that public safety in the form of laws against threats of violence should never trump freedom of speech? My guess is, you would view them as extremists. Since all other rights have limits, so should bodily autonomy. And it seems logical to require parents to provide an ordinary level of care to their children, if no one else is able to do so, even if they have to use their own bodies. After all, fathers have to pay child support, even if they never consented to be parents or even to the act of sex itself, although we could use tax dollars to support these children. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/he-says-he-said-no-to-sex-now-says-no-to-child-support/1183449
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/
Doug, how do we enforce rules against child abuse after birth? We generally wait until there are reports and then CPS deals with it. Depending on the parent’s intentions and mental state, they could be punished, sent to therapy, or both. In my experience dealing with women who have had abortions, a therapeutic treatment is better in my opinion, since many women don’t understand that they are indeed killing a human being. Also, most women who abuse drugs and alcohol throughout their pregnancies are addicts, meaning that therapeutic treatment is necessary for their health as well as the health of their unborn child.
Also, your ad hominum attack on Dr. Adams was disgusting. If you look at all the public opinion polls done by Gallup in the last decade, you find that the only significant difference between men and women in regards to opinions on abortion is that women tend to fall more in either the extremely pro-choice or extremely pro-life camps, while men tend to be more moderate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
“Truthseeker, I’m not saying much at all about bodily autonomy, here.
Per what you said – if you see rape as justification for having an abortion, okay, but I don’t think you do, eh? I’m curious as to why you brought it up.”
I brought it up because I saw you discussing bodily autonomy with Rebecca. You are correct that I do not see rape as justification for abortion, but I do think the bodily autonomy argument is much less compelling when a person willing engages in the procreative act.
Rebecca, I really was not trying to “disgust” you or anybody else. It was not an “ad hominem” attack (come on…) I did mean it with some humor – we can’t see body language or hear voice inflection from online posts, but I did put a “wink” at the end. If it made you personally upset, then I am sorry for that. It wasn’t my intention and I went too far, then.
I do think the concept is valid. After all, as I said to Kel, it often does make a difference when it is the person themself who has an unwanted pregnancy, versus being somebody else talking about it.
Witness the large numbers of women who, with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, elect to have abortions even though to that point in time they self-identify as “pro-life” and/or “fundamentalist Christian” and/or “born again.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
Rebecca, from this poll you mentioned, men were 7% more “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” Women were 9% the other way, i.e. more “pro-choice.” That is a 16% spread between them. If you are looking for “significant differences,” I suggest that there is one right there.
Moreover, there is nothing in that poll that comes anywhere near to refuting anything I have said.
Rebecca: Doug, fathers can be forced to pay child support for their child, even if they are unfit parents who are denied custody. You didn’t answer my question. When does the right to bodily integrity give you the right to dismember, tear apart, poison, or mangle someone else’s body? Do you support abortion methods that do that to the fetus’ body?
Rebecca, having wages garnisheed to pay child support, or tax refunds confiscated, etc., has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. It’s still there, as much as ever.
Also, people actually cannot be forced to pay. If they don’t want to pay, there is nobody forcing them to work, to have income.
On tearing apart “someone else,” as far as a thinking, feeling, born person, then one’s bodily autonomy doesn’t grant that right.
As far as the unborn, I’m not for elective abortion after 24 weeks. Earlier than that, I realize it happens, and we’ve currently got the debate over whether pain can be felt at the end of that period, i.e. 20 to 24 weeks.
Do you think the exact procedure really matters? Considering that death is the result, I would think that from a pro-life perspective the procedure would be of vastly lesser importance.
Rebecca: you say that the parent’s bodily autonomy should never be subservient to a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care.
No, I’m saying that the parent’s bodily autonomy is not involved. Whether or not they care for the child, whether or not they pay anything, their bodily autonomy is there all along, unaffected.
how do we enforce rules against child abuse after birth? We generally wait until there are reports and then CPS deals with it. Depending on the parent’s intentions and mental state, they could be punished, sent to therapy, or both.
Yeah, I agree. Nobody is saying that the parent’s bodily autonomy justifies child abuse. Here again, I’m saying that autonomy doesn’t come into it.
most women who abuse drugs and alcohol throughout their pregnancies are addicts, meaning that therapeutic treatment is necessary for their health
Well sure. To me, it’s a hard question – what do we do, exactly? Lock up the woman with a fetal alcohol syndrome kid? She then obviously can’t do much mothering from inside a cell.
TS: You are correct that I do not see rape as justification for abortion, but I do think the bodily autonomy argument is much less compelling when a person willing engages in the procreative act.
Truthseeker, you’re still saying that in both cases it doesn’t really matter – you are against elective abortion.
I’m still for it, in both cases, as well. If the woman has an unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason, then she can choose to have an abortion.
I think the both of us are recognizing that being raped may be the reason why a given woman chooses to have an abortion.
Doug, does that mean you agree/understand that the bodily autonomy argument is much less compelling when a person willing engages in the procreative act.
Truthseeker, no – when the woman is pregnant, her bodily autonomy remains just as important, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy. The difference, in cases of rape, is that that autonomy has already been violated in the past.
Doug, it is hard to see any ‘violation’ when the person willingly engages in the procreative act. It would be like inviting somebody into your house for a game of poker and literally ‘betting the house’ and then if things don’t go the way you wanted then you just claim they violated your right to privacy by entering your house and so you kill them.
“I think the both of us are recognizing that being raped may be the reason why a given woman chooses to have an abortion.”
Rape might be the reason she puts down on some form. But getting down to the nitty gritty about why she ends up on a table at the kill mill could be due to one or more of the following, all of which make her vulnerable to choosing to abort her child:
Because she is scared that the rapist might come back and rape her again, or worse
Because she is coerced/worse by family, friends, the rapist and/or medical and other ‘professionals’ to abort
Because she is traumatized by the rape and is not able to make sound decisions
Because she believes that anyone whose biological father is a rapist is better off dead
Because anger was taken out on her by someone more ‘powerful’, so she is going to take it out on someone ‘lesser’
Because no one has offered her any help other than abortion ‘care’
Because she has bought into the lies that so many have been sold by the proaborts
Because she has only been exposed to the Culture of Death, and not the Joy of Life
Because she is a narcissist
Because she does not know that abortion kills a human (the advance in technology makes this one harder for women to claim anymore — even woman who are addicted to mind-altering substances)
Because abortion is legal
Truthseeker, allow me a little humor here – I can see you in a long robe, up on a big rock, in rather a biblical-movie type deal where you are waving a hand around and speaking of “the procreative act.”
: P
(???)
When somebody comes to play poker, you don’t agree to let them stay for any longer than what pleases you. If you want them to leave – it’s your house and out they go.
Among the numerous differences between what we were talking about and this poker deal is the fact that the act of inviting somebody to play cards is just that.
Not so with having sex and what you said. The overwhelming, gigantic majority of times that people have sex is not with the intent to create a pregnancy, rather – it’s just to have sex. Having sex does not constitute an agreement to remain pregnant, should a pregnancy result.
“When somebody comes to play poker, you don’t agree to let them stay for any longer than what pleases you. If you want them to leave – it’s your house and out they go.”
Not when you have four of a kind and bet the house and lose it.
“The overwhelming, gigantic majority of times that people have sex is not with the intent to create a pregnancy, rather – it’s just to have sex. ”
And the overwhelming, gigantic majority of times that people have four of a kind they would win so the intent is not to lose the house on a bet; so it is a fair analogy.
Doug, you are using bodily integrity as a justification for abortion. But bodily integrity only works as a justification for removing the fetus from the woman’s body, not for directly attacking its body. Answer my question. Since when does a right to bodily integrity give you the right to dismember someone else?
“Having sex does not constitute an agreement to remain pregnant, should a pregnancy result.”
Then why are men who don’t want a woman to keep the kid forced to pay child support?
“Truthseeker, allow me a little humor here – I can see you in a long robe, up on a big rock, in rather a biblical-movie type deal where you are waving a hand around and speaking of “the procreative act.” : P (???)
Doug, I thought of other ways of saying it first but chose a way that was kid friendly.
Doug, in a sense no one can force anyone to do anything. People can still chose to break the law, but there are consequences. And actually, according this government published parental guide to child support, if one quits a job in order to get out of paying child support, one is still on the hook for child support payments. Those delinquent on child support can be denied driver’s licenses, passports, and even be put in jail in extreme instances. If that’s not forcing someone to pay up, I don’t know what is. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/child_support_handbook_with_toc.pdf
So Doug, should parents have the right to kill an infant born into a temporary coma, since it is not feeling or thinking yet? Why should being born make a difference? What’s so magical about popping out of a vagina that makes you a person? Why should viability make a difference? It is utterly dependent on the medical technology available in the location where the child is born. To say that viability determines personhood is to say that a 24 week old fetus in the US is a person, while a 24 week old fetus in Rwanda is not. How does that make any sense?
Doug, sentencing pregnant women with substance abuse issues to residential treatment centers would be my preferred way of dealing with the problem.
You still haven’t explained to me why you view bodily autonomy as unlimited when you seem to acknowledge, by your silence, that other rights are not unlimited. Again, how would you respond to a NRA member loudly claiming that anyone should have a right to have a gun anywhere, public safety be d*mned, because of the 2nd Amendment? Or an online troll claiming that he should have the right to threaten you with death because of freedom of speech?
Why should bodily autonomy be the only unlimited right? Why is it so important that not even the fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion get unlimited status that it does?
What’s interesting is that this poll from Gallup finds that 46 percent of women and 50 percent of men defined themselves as pro-life, not a very big difference at all. http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx?utm_source=women abortion&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles
“When somebody comes to play poker, you don’t agree to let them stay for any longer than what pleases you. If you want them to leave – it’s your house and out they go.”
TS: Not when you have four of a kind and bet the house and lose it.
Truthseeker, I have to laugh – where are we going with this? I imagine that if other people are reading this, they’re scratching their heads too.
?(?????)?
In your original example, the householder bets big, loses, and then kills the winner, claiming the winner violated his right to privacy. Well, what court is going to accept that? Unless self-defense can be proven well enough, or that the householder was justified in fearing for his life, then the householder is gonna be in big trouble. “Privacy” would not come into it, in the first place.
– – – – –
“The overwhelming, gigantic majority of times that people have sex is not with the intent to create a pregnancy, rather – it’s just to have sex. ”
And the overwhelming, gigantic majority of times that people have four of a kind they would win so the intent is not to lose the house on a bet; so it is a fair analogy.
:: laughing… :: Man, my head is spinning.
Rebecca: Doug, you are using bodily integrity as a justification for abortion.
Rebecca, it’s part of it, yes – not the whole deal, but okay, yeah. I have the same justification for not forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will – as a society we don’t have a sufficient need to do that. She’s the one who is pregnant, so I say let her decide.
But bodily integrity only works as a justification for removing the fetus from the woman’s body, not for directly attacking its body.
I can see how you say that, but if the fetus isn’t viable, then it’s going to die no matter what. The concern is then for the woman, and the best procedure may involve cutting the fetus up. (And there is a big “yuck” factor there, certainly.)
Answer my question. Since when does a right to bodily integrity give you the right to dismember someone else?
I guess only in the case of legal abortion, then, if we go with your usage of “someone else.”
“Having sex does not constitute an agreement to remain pregnant, should a pregnancy result.”
Truthseeker: Then why are men who don’t want a woman to keep the kid forced to pay child support?
Because once the kid is born, then society says it needs support, and society holds the parents liable for it.
Doug, in a sense no one can force anyone to do anything.
Correct, Rebecca (short of physical compulsion.)
People can still chose to break the law, but there are consequences. And actually, according this government published parental guide to child support, if one quits a job in order to get out of paying child support, one is still on the hook for child support payments. Those delinquent on child support can be denied driver’s licenses, passports, and even be put in jail in extreme instances. If that’s not forcing someone to pay up, I don’t know what is.
It’s still not directly forcing, though.
Rebecca: So Doug, should parents have the right to kill an infant born into a temporary coma, since it is not feeling or thinking yet?
Not according to me.
Why should being born make a difference? What’s so magical about popping out of a vagina that makes you a person? Why should viability make a difference?
I’m not saying that born/unborn is the totality of it, not even saying it makes much difference to me. I’m not for late-term abortions on an elective basis. I see personhood developing, for most fetuses (those that gain awareness, etc.) as gestation progresses.
That is my opinion, and it’s different from society’s. Society says that born = person, and we attribute full rights at birth.
It is utterly dependent on the medical technology available in the location where the child is born. To say that viability determines personhood is to say that a 24 week old fetus in the US is a person, while a 24 week old fetus in Rwanda is not. How does that make any sense?
I don’t think I have said that viability = personhood. There’s more to it than that, in my opinion, to start with.
On a societal level, it’s not viability that equates to personhood, either, i.e. a born, non-viable baby in the US is accorded rights and personhood at birth, though it may not live long.
Rebecca: You still haven’t explained to me why you view bodily autonomy as unlimited when you seem to acknowledge, by your silence, that other rights are not unlimited.
What are you smoking, Rebecca? ( ?° ?? ?°)
Where are you getting this “unlimited” stuff? April 28, 6:52 p.m., I said: “Bodily autonomy isn’t unlimited, and that would not change – even in your example. One person’s rights end where another’s begin – that’s the limiting factor.”
– – – – –
Again, how would you respond to a NRA member loudly claiming that anyone should have a right to have a gun anywhere, public safety be d*mned, because of the 2nd Amendment?
I’d remind them that Soylent Green is people. [wink]
To be serious, I’d say that no, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that.
Or an online troll claiming that he should have the right to threaten you with death because of freedom of speech?
I’d say he was a clown. There’s a federal law against using interstate communications – like the internet – to makes threats against people.
What’s interesting is that this poll from Gallup finds that 46 percent of women and 50 percent of men defined themselves as pro-life, not a very big difference at all.
Okay, Rebecca, you found a different poll than the first one you presented.
Okay, well I would say, and the law agrees, that children who are persons have a legal right to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents, especially if the parents are the only ones who can provide the child with that level of care. It’s why child support is mandatory, even for men who did not consent to parenthood or even sex. Since I can see no non-arbitrary reason for denying personhood to the unborn that could not also be used to deny personhood to certain classes of the born, such as temporary coma patients, then logically the unborn should be persons and should be entitle to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents. The parents’ right to bodily integrity should be limited by the child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care that is necessary for life and can only be provided by the parents from the parents.
“Bodily autonomy isn’t unlimited, and that would not change – even in your example. One person’s rights end where another’s begin – that’s the limiting factor.”-So if bodily integrity ends when another person’s rights begin, shouldn’t the fetus have a right not to be poisoned and dismembered, since the mother’s right to chose what abortion method is right for her should be limited by the fetus’ bodily autonomy. After all, one person’s rights end when another’s begin, right?
“Because once the kid is born, then society says it needs support, and society holds the parents liable for it.”
So once the man gets the woman pregnant he is legally liable to support the baby. He cannot say 3 months into the pregnancy that the baby is not a person and disown legal responsibility. So they force him to take responsibility, and he is not allowed to break from that responsibility during the pregnancy, how is that not a legal contract the state has put him under?
Rebecca: So if bodily integrity ends when another person’s rights begin, shouldn’t the fetus have a right not to be poisoned and dismembered, since the mother’s right to chose what abortion method is right for her should be limited by the fetus’ bodily autonomy. After all, one person’s rights end when another’s begin, right?
We don’t accord personhood and full rights to the fetus, though.
I didn’t mean that the mother is choosing the abortion method, I meant that the doctors will use the procedure they feel is best. Maybe there are times when more than one will be advisable, and maybe the woman is consulted with/gives her ‘druthers, etc. – I’m not sure.
Now, I do think that the restrictions on abortion later in gestation constitute a limited form of personhood and rights. Late enough – past viability, then if the pregnancy is to be ended, there won’t be an abortion anyway, would there? The baby will be delivered.
“In your original example, the householder bets big, loses, and then kills the winner, claiming the winner violated his right to privacy. Well, what court is going to accept that?”
My point exactly. And they shouldn’t accept as grounds for a pregnant woman to kill her baby either.
So once the man gets the woman pregnant he is legally liable to support the baby.
Truthseeker, I’d say not. Only once the baby is born does that kick in.
He cannot say 3 months into the pregnancy that the baby is not a person and disown legal responsibility.
The baby isn’t a person under law, then, regardless of what he thinks. He does not yet have any legal responsibility – that will be later, if at all. The baby may die, etc. But at that point, the man cannot prevent his possible future liability, yes.
So they force him to take responsibility, and he is not allowed to break from that responsibility during the pregnancy, how is that not a legal contract the state has put him under?
He’s not really “under contract” at that point, though he cannot avoid the possibility of future liability, on his own. Once the baby is born, then the laws kick in, although it’s up to the woman there still – she can decide to raise the baby by herself, not pursue the man for support, etc.
If we are to say, “the man has no choice,” then yes. And it makes for some bad situations. If two people agree that no kids will result from them having sex, yet then the woman gets pregnant and gives birth, the man is then liable. There are times when the woman would not have the kid if the man wasn’t going to have to pay, and I think that’s a crappy reason to have a kid – because somebody else will have to pay.
I’ve had this discussion with several people over the years, and one was a lawyer and said that even if both people signed a written agreement beforehand, agreeing that any pregnancy would be aborted, that it would likely not be held valid in court, as the man is not at risk as the woman is.
Likewise, if two people agree that any pregnancy will not be aborted, but a pregnancy results and the woman then chooses to abort, the man cannot prevent this, and some men get hurt a lot by this.
“But at that point, the man cannot prevent his possible future liability, yes.
Doug,
You can parse words all you want but if he cannot prevent his possible future liability then he is under a recognized legal contract.
Rebecca: Okay, well I would say, and the law agrees, that children who are persons have a legal right to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents, especially if the parents are the only ones who can provide the child with that level of care. It’s why child support is mandatory, even for men who did not consent to parenthood or even sex. Since I can see no non-arbitrary reason for denying personhood to the unborn that could not also be used to deny personhood to certain classes of the born, such as temporary coma patients, then logically the unborn should be persons and should be entitle to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents. The parents’ right to bodily integrity should be limited by the child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care that is necessary for life and can only be provided by the parents from the parents.
Rebecca, to an extent it is arbitrary, yes, but it’s always been after birth that full personhood has been accorded. Part of that is due to there being a difference between being “in” and being “out.” We can’t treat the unborn in all the same ways that we do the born. Even if we wanted to, the woman and baby are not separate enough to make that possible.
State laws vary widely, but some have “feticide” laws and some consider the death of the fetus, due to a violent act against the mother, to be homicide.
One problem with giving the unborn separate legal status is that it can make for an adversarial relationship between the baby and the woman – if the woman’s actions affect the baby, then what do we do?
You can parse words all you want but if he cannot prevent his possible future liability then he is under a recognized legal contract.
No he’s not, TS. We have child support laws and at that point he waits and later finds out whether he’s going to have to pay or not.
No he’s not, TS. We have child support laws and at that point he waits and later finds out whether he’s going to have to pay or not.”
Doug, we have child support support laws and under the child support laws he is liable because of his participation in the procreative act. That is the who , what, when, where and why of determining legal liability. The birth is just when a ‘portion’ of that liability kicks in.
“In your original example, the householder bets big, loses, and then kills the winner, claiming the winner violated his right to privacy. Well, what court is going to accept that? Unless self-defense can be proven well enough, or that the householder was justified in fearing for his life, then the householder is gonna be in big trouble. “Privacy” would not come into it, in the first place.”
My point exactly. And they shouldn’t accept as grounds for a pregnant woman to kill her baby either.
Truthseeker, in your example the situation is clear-cut, and there will be no meaningful debate about it. “The right to privacy,” there does not apply.
Legal abortion is much different. There the courts have already accepted that the right to privacy applies, i.e. its 180 degrees different.
Truthseeker: Doug, we have child support support laws and under the child support laws he is liable because of his participation in the procreative act. That is the who , what, when, where and why of determining legal liability. The birth is just when a ‘portion’ of that liability kicks in.
Nope, you said " 3 months into the pregnancy," and there's as yet no liability at that time. There is the possibility of future liability, due to our laws, that possible liability being contingent on things working out a certain way.
“Nope, you said ” 3 months into the pregnancy,” and there’s as yet no liability at that time”
So if the woman has complications during the pregnancy and wants to keep the baby then the man has no legal liability for the expenses due to the pregnancy? Answer, it varies by state and their ability to determine paternity.
Yeah, Michigan requires fathers to pay prenatal care, and that’s just the states I know about. A woman could go after a man for costs related to her pregnancy if he impregnanted her, and legally speaking, he’d have to pay.
What’s interesting is that male victims of statory rape and forcible rape can be forced to pay child support, which the articles that I linked to prove. Apparently a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents exists even when the father did not even consent to sex.
One problem with giving the unborn separate legal status is that it can make for an adversarial relationship between the baby and the woman – if the woman’s actions affect the baby, then what do we do-In the vast majority of cases, that involves a woman who is an addict or has mental problems. We give her therapeutic treatment, that’s what we do. There are residential treatment centers in existence that specialize in treating pregnant women, and we should expand those.
Even if we wanted to, the woman and baby are not separate enough to make that possible.-Conjoined twins are not separate, but they still are distinct legal persons.
after birth that full personhood has been accorded.-Yes, and until the advent of Christianity in the ancient world, infants were not considered legal persons until 8 days after birth. Past precedent is no reason to continue an illogical custom. I’m guessing that you view the arguments of people opposed to Same-Sex Marriage because no society has ever recognized it before as ridiculous. Why do you use the same logical fallacy to defend abortion rights?
The Real TS: So if the woman has complications during the pregnancy and wants to keep the baby then the man has no legal liability for the expenses due to the pregnancy? Answer, it varies by state and their ability to determine paternity.
Truthseeker, hmm… well, if, as you say, the man can be held liable for expenses during pregnancy, then I stand corrected.
Yeah, Michigan requires fathers to pay prenatal care, and that’s just the states I know about. A woman could go after a man for costs related to her pregnancy if he impregnanted her, and legally speaking, he’d have to pay.
Rebecca – okay, then I was wrong and Truthseeker was right – the man can (in some states) be “under contract,” so to speak, during gestation.
I just left Michigan yesterday. Was working in Flint, and while I always rather feel that Michigan is “enemy territory,” (me being originally from Ohio and having a sister and two brothers who went to Ohio State), my hat is off to Michigan’s brewers, like Founders and Bell’s – wow let me tell you that Founders Milk Stout is righteous, and Bell’s Two Hearted Ale is all-conquering.
What’s interesting is that male victims of stautory rape and forcible rape can be forced to pay child support, which the articles that I linked to prove. Apparently a child’s right to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents exists even when the father did not even consent to sex.
Wow – Holy Crow, Rebecca – I had never head that. Dang….
Man – if I was that guy, then you talk about wanting to hunt somebody down….
I presume, then, that it also applies if the woman was the non-consenter.
“One problem with giving the unborn separate legal status is that it can make for an adversarial relationship between the baby and the woman – if the woman’s actions affect the baby, then what do we do?”
Rebecca: In the vast majority of cases, that involves a woman who is an addict or has mental problems. We give her therapeutic treatment, that’s what we do. There are residential treatment centers in existence that specialize in treating pregnant women, and we should expand those.
“Therapeutic treatment”? Hey, the baby is dead or so severely messed-up that its life is pretty much trashed, possibly with wicked effects on the lives of several people around it. We are talking about a “new regime,” here – one where the unborn are treated as persons. Ain’t gonna just be some therapeutic treatment – that nutso lady gets locked-up for life, or for a doggone long time, like mental patients who kill somebody, or – if they’re an addict, then it’s almost never a defense at all, i.e. for the death of the baby, we kill the mother or give her life in prison or at least a ton of years there.
Conjoined twins are not separate, but they still are distinct legal persons.
They’re born, and that removes a massive deal.
until the advent of Christianity in the ancient world, infants were not considered legal persons until 8 days after birth. Past precedent is no reason to continue an illogical custom.
And the ancient Romans considered ages zero to seven to be, well – something or other, again – much different than today. Yes, things can change.
I’m guessing that you view the arguments of people opposed to Same-Sex Marriage because no society has ever recognized it before as ridiculous. Why do you use the same logical fallacy to defend abortion rights?
There are 10 or 20 countries where gay marriage is recognized. However, Rebecca, I grant you that it’s a fairly new thing, within the grand scale of human history. A relatively few people wrote of their fears and prejudices a long time ago, and it’s had an inordinate and unfortunate affect on our world since. Thankfully, some such things are falling by the wayside.
I don’t defend abortion rights because of the past, I do it because I see no reason to deny a woman an abortion if she wants one, to a point in gestation.
In an abortion, there is the death of “a human organism,” yes, but 20 or more times as many die every day from being genetically deficient and/or from failing to implant (and conceivably from other factors in the first couple weeks after fertilization). Would it really matter if 4 or 5 % more died from those ‘natural’ causes, and nobody chose to have an elective abortion? I don’t think so. The end result is the same. What if 5% less died? There too, I see no big change – there would be some decrease in later conceptions, what with people feeling that was “enough” kids and thus having fewer future pregnancies, but among all these various scenarios, the world goes on like it does, the universe does not care about it…
So, I am saying that as a society, we have no need to further restrict abortion nor take away the freedoms and rights that a pregnant woman now has. The unborn, to a point in gestation, are insensate, have no awareness, don’t care about a thing. The abortion debate is entirely made up of people with different cares – different valuations and assumptions. There really is no logical case that we need “more people on earth,” for the sake of “more.” If anything, it’s the opposite.
So, why does being born make a difference? I would say that conjoined twins are more intertwined, not less, than a pregnant woman and her fetus, since conjoined twins need extensive, risky surgery to be separated, and sometimes, depending on where the twins are joined, separation surgery is impossible and the twins must spend their entire lives conjoined.
So, in pre-modern times, 50% of all children would die before reaching the age of 5. Does that mean that it should have been legal to murder young children, since they had a good chance of dying anyway?
Since overpopulation and rising medical costs are a problem, should it be legal for families to decide to pull the plug on or directly kill a temporary coma patient with a decent chance of recovery, even if the patient would presumably want to live? What about an infant born in a temporary coma? Should it be legal for parents to decide to directly kill or pull the plug on that child, if that child has a good chance of recovery? After all, coma patients are insensate, have no awareness, and don’t care about a thing.
Rebecca: So, why does being born make a difference?
Because – for the moment leaving all other considerations aside – being inside the body of a person is not the same as not being there.
Because being unborn often equates to having no awareness, no desire, no capability to suffer; it’s not being a “moral creature of reason,” which is the philosophical underpinning for much of the attribution of rights.
Rebecca, to me, at the end of gestation, being “in” or “out” really doesn’t make all that much difference, and anyway – we are not talking about elective abortion, then, are we? If a pregnancy has to be ended late in gestation, then the baby will be delivered, except in very unusual circumstances, no?
I would say that conjoined twins are more intertwined, not less, than a pregnant woman and her fetus, since conjoined twins need extensive, risky surgery to be separated, and sometimes, depending on where the twins are joined, separation surgery is impossible and the twins must spend their entire lives conjoined.
Yeah, I agree on “more intertwined,” certainly. There was a very interesting (and hard to decide) court case in England where conjoined twins were both going to die if they remained together – Jodi and Mary, in 2000.
The parents, on religious grounds, did not want a separation operation to be done, even though Jodi had an excellent chance to live if separated from Mary. The parents wanted to let the chips fall where they may, but the involved doctors took it to court – and the court ruled that the operation should be done. Jodi’s alive and doing well today.
So, in pre-modern times, 50% of all children would die before reaching the age of 5. Does that mean that it should have been legal to murder young children, since they had a good chance of dying anyway?
Not according to me. As far as going back in history, infanticide was more the rule than the exception – sacrifices on religious grounds were present all over the world, from local “cave-man” stuff to the most highly organized societies.
Since overpopulation and rising medical costs are a problem, should it be legal for families to decide to pull the plug on or directly kill a temporary coma patient with a decent chance of recovery, even if the patient would presumably want to live? What about an infant born in a temporary coma? Should it be legal for parents to decide to directly kill or pull the plug on that child, if that child has a good chance of recovery? After all, coma patients are insensate, have no awareness, and don’t care about a thing.
No, not with a “decent chance of recovery.” Not for a “temporary coma.” An aware, sentient, person who is asleep or temporarily comatose is just that. When there is no chance of recovery, then why keep the body alive? When things are unknown, or there is a very small chance of recovery, then it’s a hard decision – one that normally is made after a long time.
Doug, a temporary coma patient has no awareness, no desire, and no capability to suffer. If you were being at all logically consistent, you would say that any coma patient has no personhood and should have no human rights. Furthermore, in the case of an infant born in a temporary coma, they never were aware, never had any desires, and never had the ability to suffer. If you were being logically consistent, you would say that it is not a person yet and the parents should be able to legally kill it directly or pull the plug on it. A deep coma patient is not an aware, sentient person in any sense. “initially a person may be in a very deep coma, where they’re unresponsive to pain, before gradually recovering to a lighter coma, where they respond to pain.” http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/coma/Pages/Introduction.aspx
“Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns”
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm
I did not ask you whether it was socially acceptable and legal to murder children in the past, I asked you if it should have been.
Rebecca: I did not ask you whether it was socially acceptable and legal to murder children in the past, I asked you if it should have been.
Rebecca, you said, Does that mean that it should have been legal to murder young children, since they had a good chance of dying anyway?
I said not according to me. No, I don’t think it should be legal.
The one case where I’m not so sure is with small societies – really just tribes – where in times of severe resource shortages and danger to the tribe they would “put out” their elderly, sick, and at times even some kids since the survival of the entire tribe was at stake and the kids weren’t contributing enough at the time.
Rebecca: Doug, a temporary coma patient has no awareness, no desire, and no capability to suffer. If you were being at all logically consistent, you would say that any coma patient has no personhood and should have no human rights.
Hold on here, Rebecca, let’s talk a bit about logic. There is the concept of “necessary but not sufficient.”
A full-grown grizzly bear is furry. I think you better be afraid of it. A kitten is furry. By your “logic,” you’d say I’m inconsistent if I don’t say you better fear the kitten, too.
The truth, however, is that I don’t think you need fear the kitten. There is a difference between the bear and the kitten, though they share some characteristics.
Likewise, there is a difference between the person who is asleep, or in a temporary coma, versus the unborn, to a point in gestation.
Furthermore, in the case of an infant born in a temporary coma, they never were aware, never had any desires, and never had the ability to suffer. If you were being logically consistent, you would say that it is not a person yet and the parents should be able to legally kill it directly or pull the plug on it.
Okay, I didn’t get that you meant there had never been awareness for the infant born in a temporary coma. How, then, would this be “temporary”?
I don’t know if this ever happens – but if there is reason to think the baby is going to “wake up,” then there’s no disagreement, and rights have been attributed – it’s born, it’s a citizen, etc.
It’s also not just my opinion at work, there. If the baby is going to wake up, then it’s the same as any other baby in that respect and the law has already pronounced on things.
If it’s never going to wake up, then there indeed is the question of pulling the plug. In the case of anencephalics, I don’t think extreme medical measures are used to keep the body alive, often. I would think the parents would have some input, there.
A deep coma patient is not an aware, sentient person in any sense. “initially a person may be in a very deep coma, where they’re unresponsive to pain, before gradually recovering to a lighter coma, where they respond to pain.”
“Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns”
Okay, I don’t disagree with that. But it doesn’t mean I think they should be instantly killed. As with the bear and kitten, some characteristics are shared, but it’s still a much different case than the unborn.
If there is no recovery, if “permanent vegetative state” is the deal, then eventually I think the family should decide what to do.
Let us say a person’s brain is removed, and the body kept alive by oxygen and nutrients being circulated in the blood. There is still a living human organism there, with unique DNA, etc. My opinion is that the person they were is long gone, however.
I realize there can be some doubt with vegetative states, comas, etc.
Here’s the thing-you’re comparing withdrawing an extraordinary level of medical care from someone who has no conscious future (brain dead individuals, permanent vegative state patients, anencephalic infants) to directly killing or withdrawing an ordinary level of care from someone who has a good chance of a conscious future (aborting a fetus or embryo.) Why is the unborn not a person while the comatose infant is? The only difference that I can see is location, and level of development. Both are unable to be conscious or sentient, the former because it has not developed that ability yet, and the latter because brain damage keeps it from achieving that ability. It seems to me that you are desparately trying to assert that the unborn are not persons in order to justify abortion.
Here’s the thing-you’re comparing withdrawing an extraordinary level of medical care from someone who has no conscious future (brain dead individuals, permanent vegative state patients, anencephalic infants) to directly killing or withdrawing an ordinary level of care from someone who has a good chance of a conscious future (aborting a fetus or embryo.)
Rebecca, I don’t see the embryo as a “someone.” There is no awareness there yet, nothing of personality, nothing of that which makes us “people” versus just living organisms. I realize you may disagree.
You are right about the “good chance of a conscious future.” Certainly most fetuses, if they continue living, will develop awareness, etc. Okay, I accept that as a given. But we don’t need “more people” on earth for the sake of “more,” definitely not to the extent that we need deny an abortion to a woman. My opinion.
We are talking about elective abortions – that result in only about 1/20 as many deaths as “natural causes” – failure to implant and/or genetic abnormality. Our world goes on “just fine,” i.e. as of now I see no compelling reason to drastically increase or decrease the population – and this is with that 95% or so of deaths due to natural causes. I think it goes on just fine with the 5% due to elective abortions – what sense does it make to think otherwise? If we’re okay with the 95%, hard for me to think that the 5% is a big deal.
Why is the unborn not a person while the comatose infant is? The only difference that I can see is location, and level of development. Both are unable to be conscious or sentient, the former because it has not developed that ability yet, and the latter because brain damage keeps it from achieving that ability.
If the “comatose infant” was aware before going into a coma, then the presumption is that it will recover. If not – if it’s never going to have any awareness again, then how is that different than if the brain itself was removed? No brain, no mind, is just that, and then I’m going to say “no person.”
If you mean society’s position, then full personhood was attributed at birth.
If you mean my own opinion, then I agree that location, i.e. being inside the womb, does not rule out awareness and I do see the later-term fetus as developing personhood.
It seems to me that you are desparately trying to assert that the unborn are not persons in order to justify abortion.
No. There are two things here. There is the societal definition of personhood and the attributing of rights. That is one thing.
There is also what I think, and it’s not exactly the same, i.e. as above I do see personhood coming later in gestation.
Okay, let’s say that the infant was born into a comatose state, but has a good chance of gaining consciousness at a later date. Would such an infant be a person to you? Also, if having consciousness is what defines personhood, then wouldn’t that make conscious members of other species, such as rats, squirrels, and even fish, also persons?
Would you say that an infant who was never conscious before, born into a comatose state, lacks personhood? Should it be legal for the parents to withdraw medical treatment or directly kill it even if it has a good chance of developing consciousness? After all, not only is overpopulation a concern in this scenario, but also scarce medical resources.
Okay, let’s say that the infant was born into a comatose state, but has a good chance of gaining consciousness at a later date. Would such an infant be a person to you?
Yeah, Rebecca, and this does happen – I don’t know all the possible causes but lack of oxygen/being asphyxiated at birth is one of them. In those cases, there are three usual outcomes, and they all have substantial probabilities of occurring. One is that the baby recovers, ends up okay or with minor problems. Another is that the baby is majorly messed up, but lives. The third is that the baby dies.
It’s not all guesswork during the time of the coma, here – an Electroencephalogram done on the first day after birth is usually very telling. And on subsequent days, an inactive EEG always means a poor prognosis.
Also, if having consciousness is what defines personhood, then wouldn’t that make conscious members of other species, such as rats, squirrels, and even fish, also persons?
Nobody said consciousness is the end-all of personhood. Again – “necessary but not sufficient.”
I am not saying that other species should be treated exactly the same as ours, but I definitely do think there is “somebody” there when we consider apes, chimps (many primates, really), elephants, dolphins, killer whales, etc. When somebody really gets to know a dog or cat, hard for me to believe they don’t see that there’s a someone there.
Would you say that an infant who was never conscious before, born into a comatose state, lacks personhood?
Not enough information to be sure, but probably – it sounds like there’s never going to be any awareness at all.
Should it be legal for the parents to withdraw medical treatment or directly kill it even if it has a good chance of developing consciousness? After all, not only is overpopulation a concern in this scenario, but also scarce medical resources.
Very far-fetched, as far as I know, since how could there be “a good chance of developing consciousness” if there hasn’t been any all through gestation and now after birth? However, if that really was the case, then no, I don’t think so. And why would the parents not want the baby, in that case, if they chose to go all the way through gestation?
In real-world examples, some people do elect to continue the pregnancy and “let nature take its course” after birth – I think it’s very rare that the baby survives for long.
If there’s not a realistic chance that the baby will ever “wake up,” yet no death occurs, then it’s going to be up to the parents and doctors. Hard for me to believe that the parents would not elect to “pull the plug” at some point.
As far as resources – few families could keep the baby’s body alive, if they are paying for it. Medical resources – if cost is no object, then has there ever been a case of a baby that never “wakes up” being kept alive for years?
Fetuses in utero are not conscious. If a newborn comes out comatose, it’s fairly evident that it has never experienced consciousness. In the womb, fetuses are in a state similar to that of a sleeping person. You do seem to acknowledge that it would be wrong to kill or let die a comatose newborn with a good chance of recovery, and you seem to view them as persons with human rights.
Your requirement that an individual must have been at least a conscious human in the past to be a person is rather arbitrary. It is interesting that you’ve constructed it just to exclude the unborn. To me, that sounds like a blatent attempt to justify abortion and little else. I could just as easily claim that one has to have an IQ of at least 35 to be a person, since below that level a human has the intelligence and functions at the level of a cat or dog, and that would be just as valid. Furthermore, it would work very nicely for justifying mandatory euthanasia for severely intellectually disabled people who will never be able to care for themselves, and that would solve a lot of social problems.
Rebecca, we are soon to lose this thread, as far as being able to add more comments.
Fetuses in utero are not conscious.
Totally disagree – I think unless there are severe problems with the fetus, then consciousness will be there, later in gestation.
If a newborn comes out comatose, it’s fairly evident that it has never experienced consciousness.
That’s just not true. Newborns are sometimes in comas, while having been conscious prior to the birth process – lack of oxygen during the birth is one cause of the coma. As far as “being in a coma” through gestation, I have never heard of that. If it’s possible, okay – I just know nothing about that. Seems to me that lack of consciousness later in gestation is usually due to severe problems with brain development.
Your requirement that an individual must have been at least a conscious human in the past to be a person is rather arbitrary.
I don’t think it’s “arbitrary.” Without awareness, without personality, how can a person really be there? There are any number of species where there will be “unique, living organisms,” but without a certain brain complexity, without conscious thoughts and feelings, then I say “not a person.”
It is interesting that you’ve constructed it just to exclude the unborn. To me, that sounds like a blatent attempt to justify abortion and little else. I could just as easily claim that one has to have an IQ of at least 35 to be a person, since below that level a human has the intelligence and functions at the level of a cat or dog, and that would be just as valid. Furthermore, it would work very nicely for justifying mandatory euthanasia for severely intellectually disabled people who will never be able to care for themselves, and that would solve a lot of social problems
I have not constructed it that way. In no way does it only apply to the unborn. Scoop out my brain, and keep the body alive by pumping oxygen and nutrients through the blood vessels – is there still a person there? I say no. There is a “living, human organism,” but the person I was is long gone.
A temporary coma patient has no consciousness, no sentience. They have been conscious in the past and have the potential to be conscious in the future, but you seem to grant them personhood based soley on past consciousness and the ability to be conscious in the future. If you took out a brain from someone, they could never be conscious in the future. If they could, would you consider them to be persons? Based on the fact that you grant personhood to temporary coma patients with severe brain damage that prevents sentience and consciousness, it seems that your answer would be yes. I consider all human organisms to be persons, particularly if they can become conscious in the future.
It’s no less arbitrary than declaring a human with an IQ of 15 to be a person, even though they are less capable of understanding than your average rat, and rats are not persons. One could just as easily argue that personhood cannot exist unless that person has demonstrated some ability for higher thought processes, which would exclude infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities. After all, it would make sense of why we exclude other sentient animals from personhood, since the ability for higher thought is unique to us and a few other species.
If an infant had brain damage that prevented consciousness in the womb and caused it to be comatose when it was born, it is still legally considered to be a person. This does not mean much, since the law is arbitrary, but if some new medical treatment was invented that would give that child a chance at a conscious existence, would you consider it to be a person, even though it never experienced consciousness before? If the treatment had a good chance of succeeding, would you support the parent’s choice to directly kill or deny that medical treatment to such an infant?