There are some cells in my uterus at the moment that aren’t usually there. I call these cells “my baby”, and spend much of my time planning the future that they may have, once they’ve finished developing into a human being. Other women, with similar cells, plan how to remove the cells as quickly and painlessly as possible.
A favourite pro-life argument is to seize gleefully on the similarities between the two groups of cells and demand how you can possibly justify the vastly different ways of treating them. If the fetus has no value, they ask, why do pregnant women often feel a close bond with their unborn babies? If it’s nothing more than a bunch of cells, why can a miscarriage be so devastating? Tempting as it is to dismiss this as so much irrelevance, it’s worth exploring the apparent contradiction for the insights it can offer into what pro-choice really means.
My baby is not yet a human being. Even with special care, it is very unlikely to be capable of surviving on its own if it were removed from my body. It needs my bloodstream and my uterus to have even a chance of becoming a human being. Although it’s genetically distinct from me, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to view it as a part of my body. A part that could, given the right conditions, become a separate person, but until that happens a part of me.
We all see our bodies differently, and we all give different values to different parts. Some people welcome body hair because of the cultural value it has; others remove it for much the same reasons. A transsexual man could be delighted at the removal of his breasts; a woman with breast cancer is more likely to feel mutilated. The same body parts, but very different reactions.
The cells inside the uterus are just another example. I give mine a very high value and watch their development with delight; other women give theirs a low value and can’t wait to be rid of them. The belief that we both have the right to assign value to our own bodies for ourselves is the essence of being pro-choice. If a woman places a high value on her fetus, removing it against her will is just as unacceptable as forcing a woman to retain, against her will, a fetus she gives a low value to.
This is partly why miscarriage can be so devastating. A woman who anticipates with joy the time when her fetus becomes a fully-fledged human being invests those cells with a great deal of value. If they are destroyed, she’s lost a part of herself that she loved and welcomed, and will naturally feel a degree of grief. The pain could well be made worse by the attitude that women are walking incubators, but that’s another question entirely.
The contradiction turns out to be no contradiction at all. I care passionately about my baby; every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom it would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice.
Pingback: Macaroni from scratch
Well, congratulations!
Nick Kiddle, an excellent and well thought out post.
“The contradiction turns out to be no contradiction at all. I care passionately about my baby; every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom it would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice. “
Exactly. It is a woman’s choice. Or should be.
Though they are not functionally autonomous, zygotes, embryos, fetuses are not technically part of the body. They are discrete organisms. On the issue of abortion I agree with Peter Singer. I think that the value of a creature’s life is roughly correlated with its level of consciousness which is presumably correlated to its intelligence (I’m only talking really huge differences here; the difference between a mouse and a dolphin, not an idiot and a genius.) In my view, if you abort a three-month-old fetus it is like killing a lizard or something. A viable fetus is pretty close to human, depending on how close to birth it is.
Great post, Nick. Pregnant and pro-choice myself, I’ve had this conversation quite a bit given the current political climate. The best way I’ve been able to express it has been by saying this:
The pro-choice pregnant woman in essence is every bit as much the embodiment of choice as a woman having an abortion. She is choosing to nurture the pregnancy to term, in order to bring a new life into the world.
wow. great diary.
i am pro-choice, but when my wife was pregnant, i couldn’t explain how different i was feeling about the babies from the very beginning. if something horrible had happened either time, i would’ve definitely felt like we’d lost a child not just a fetus. but that’s ’cause our fetuses were wanted babies. anti-abortion relatives used that feeling against me in arguments and i was stymied for a reply. i wondered how i could still be very commitedly pro-choice and be so eager to go to every pre-natal exam with her & listen to that tiny heartbeat.
but you used the one example that made everything clear for me. my mom’s mastectomy (breast cancer) was devastating to her. yet mine, as a transman, was liberating. same event. same tissue. different desires & attachment to body parts.
it makes perfect sense now. thank you.
For me, I don’t base the right to abortion on what a fetus is. It makes no difference to me how it’s perceived. Bottom line, I have the right to decide who and/or what uses my body for sustenance. I have that right no matter what the other being is, how old it is, or what it might become.
I think you’re using the term human being here as synonymous with person. I would agree that not all fetuses are persons–that’s a cultural identification, not a scientific one. However, they’re all human beings.
And again, it doesn’t matter. A person walking into my apartment is a human being regardless. However, some people who walk into your home are welcomed family or friends–and some are dangerous to your safety. With fetuses it’s the same. My very wanted daughter caused me some pretty serious health problems early in my pregnancy, and I very seriously considered abortion for that and other reasons. (It didn’t help that her dad freaked out on me.) I’m glad I didn’t get one, but had I continued having the autoimmune reaction that swelled my knees up like inner tubes, made all my other joints hurt so that I could not turn over in bed or get up from the couch unassisted, and sent me to both an emergency room and an urgent care in the span of a week and a half looking for effective pain relief… well, I guess I would have been somewhat glad to end the pregnancy too. And any idiot who tried telling me I should value the right of a “baby” to live more than my right to live pain-free would have gotten the rough side of my tongue. Not to mention the business end of any heavy, blunt objects lying about nearby.
[applause for Nick]
In a much less “direct” fashion, I can feel happy for my friends when they show me an ultrasound of their future kid. Why should this be when I don’t want kids of my own ? Probably because I want my friends to have the life they want for themselves. I’m happy to see that ultrasound because it’s part of the life they want. I’d feel the same way if a friend adopted, of course.
As a woman who has had an abortion and a miscarriage, all I can say is well put (and Mazel Tov)
Seeing as this is an SAT raised culture (my apologizes to overseas and Candadian bloggers) maybe this could easily be explained to anti-choicers as such:
Sex is to rape as a wanted pregnancy is to an unwanted pregnancy.
Well put. I was amazed at how my first pregnancy sharpened my pro-choice beliefs. Even though it was wanted and I was happy, all I could think of was women who were in my situation but didn’t want to be and couldn’t do anything about it. No woman deserves that.
Great post. And I think that outside the philosophical issues, it’s important to point out that being pro-choice or even having an abortion is not incompatible with being a mother.
“And I think that outside the philosophical issues, it’s important to point out that being pro-choice or even having an abortion is not incompatible with being a mother.”
Very true, as it is that way with both of my sisters-in-laws. Both have had abortions, are pro-choice, and are wonderful, hardworking mothers. If they didn’t have those previous abortions none of my nieces or nephews would be in existence today, because those pregnancies probably would have taken them down different paths, and they probably would have never met my brothers to begin with. And the “what if’s” when it comes to fertilizations, implantations, pregnancies, and abortions are almost infinite.
Exactly. Every time I hear someone talk about how wonderful and fulfilling and all the rest it is to have babies, I think “Yes, it is, provided you’re doing it by choice.”
Well put. My wife’s pregnancy has strengthened by pro-choice stance as well. She also had an abortion at 20 while in college. She’d too would have had a very different and more difficult life. No disrespect to her ex, he’s a great guy with two little ones himself. I’m sure his life would have been very different as well. Her second pregnancy, 15 years later, was non-viable so she had a D&C to prevent infection. Same procedure, but it resulted in grief while earlier, relief. We were both so looking forward to being parents. Thankfully, the third time is a charm and this one is almost ready to be born. :)
What can I say that everyone else hasn’t? Other than adding to the bravos, I’ll say thank you as well. As a pro-choice mom I share the same feelings. I went to a pro-choice rally when I was very, very pregnant and still the anti’s came after me asking me if I wanted to abort my 8-month-old fetus or not. They know no distinction (until it’s them that’s pregnant!) and will offer us none.
AWESOME post! I couldn’t have said it better. (Literally couldn’t–I’m not pregnant.)
Antigone–Utter brilliance from you, too. One could also point out the similarity in the thought processes of a)pro-lifers who think pro-choice means anti-life, and b)rape excusers who when a non-virgin is raped, insist that “she said yes to another man, she must have said yes to this one.”
Piter–NO life, no matter how advanced it is, is ever of the value that its right to life includes a right to be kept alive by another person against that other person’s will. Right to life means a right to breathe and not be forced to stop breathing–to not have one’s own autonomous survival interfered with. If one can’t survive autonomously, one can become dependent EITHER on a machine (which has no opinion on whether it wants to support a person or not) or a volunteer (an organ donor, a woman who wants to be pregnant, etc). You can’t force a woman to support a fetus she doesn’t want, any more than you can go up to a random stranger with your blood type and demand he donate you a kidney. Having someone use their body to keep you alive is not a right. It is a privelge, granted or not granted by the person who inhabits that body.
Just wanted to say, hey, me too! Going through this pregnancy has clarified my pro-choice stance, not made it more difficult. Pregnancy is hard, exhausting, often painful, and contains as much worry as it does joy. This baby is planned for and *very* wanted, but there were days, especially at the beginning, when I was so sick and depressed I thought I couldn’t take it for five more minutes. If this pregnancy was not wanted, I can only imagine how much worse it would be. I would never force that on anyone.
To add another analogy, I have told people that pregnancy is much like climbing Mt. Everest. It’s challenging, potentially rewarding, but also sometimes life-threatening. Thus, no one should ever have the power to either compel you to do it, or compel you not to do it. Only the person whose health and life is being risked has the right to make that decision.
Thanks fo this. That pro-choice rhetoric too often ignores the concept of a wanted fetus is disturbing. You have not only addressed this concept, you’ve directly faced the difference between a wanted and an unwanted one. By so doing, you have advanced your cause, both in argumentation (rhetoric) and morally. Congratulations, and good luck.
So we’re basically endorsing the Peter Singer ethic here: if a real person loves , then is a valuable and wonderful thing; if real people are dismayed by or disapprove of , then is garbage with no value. The community of real people is a self-referential group of all the entities that value one another; any entity not valued by a member of the group is disposable. The initial nucleus for the group is any entity, I suppose, that is capable of valuing itself and which/who convinces some other entity to join the game.
Charming.
Ooops, I forgot that WordPress munches brackets. Rewrite!
So we’re basically endorsing the Peter Singer ethic here: if a real person loves X, then X is a valuable and wonderful thing; if real people are dismayed by or disapprove of X, then X is garbage with no value. The community of real people is a self-referential group of all the entities that value one another; any entity not valued by a member of the group is disposable. The initial nucleus for the group is any entity, I suppose, that is capable of valuing itself and which/who convinces some other entity to join the game.
Charming.
(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.)
Real fucking charming, Robert. Back to the innuendo’s of the killer women and their selfish desires to control their own body.
What would a thread about pregnancy and pro-choice be without your trolling it to tell us all how you, in all your self-righteous incapable of child-bearing knowledge, know better than us and are ever so much moral than us because of it.
Robert said:
Robert, you can be a real Asshat sometimes.
Robert, you can be a real Asshat sometimes.
One tries.
What would a thread about pregnancy and pro-choice be without your trolling it to tell us all how you, in all your self-righteous incapable of child-bearing knowledge, know better than us and are ever so much moral than us because of it.
I am describing, in neutral language, the ethic you are espousing. Even if you are referring to the “killing it” crack, which I acknowledge is not a particularly Christian statement, there too, I am expressing a simple, and neutral, truth – I’m glad she’s not killing it.
If a description of the moral game of telephone being engaged in is upsetting, perhaps it is not the description that is the source of the dismay.
As far as my moral superiority goes, I pretty regularly affirm, and I repeat the admission here, that I am not an intrinsically good person, that I have a lot of moral problems – and for that reason I require external checks on my actions, because my internal clock is not reliable. You, if I’m not mistaken, reject that view and believe that you are moral and make good decisions without such an external check. I’m not sure how that ends up with me claiming to be more moral than you. Quite a bit less, it would seem.
Dear Robert
There are many ill people who will die unless someone donates an organ or bonemarrow. Since we as a group shouldn’t be able to decide over our own bodies I am certain that you are very happy with a development that would force you to give away a kidney and do a bonemarrow transplant, aside from donating thrombocytes once a fortnight. While it would cause you some physical discomfort it would after all ensure an others life. It would also be far more efficient than forbidding abortion – after all we are all certain that these people actually ARE developed humans.
You, if I’m not mistaken, reject that view and believe that you are moral and make good decisions without such an external check. I’m not sure how that ends up with me claiming to be more moral than you.
No one has ever said that we don’t have external checks; that would be your interpretation so that you can denigrate our moral decisions as not having any larger (shall we say “Godlike”) approval. You wish to believe that our moral framework sprang into being from nothing — pretty miraculous that — so that you can claim that your beliefs come from an ultimate and eternal source while ours have no such authority. It’s an exemplar of moral smugness and self-righteousness.
As for the “baby killer” insult, as one who spent her childhood being regularly called a “Christ killer,” I’m quite familiar with the technique. If you can turn a particular group into moral monsters, then it becomes quite easy to claim that they are less than human and exempt from normal considerations.
Robert, for a christian you certainly seem to forget who god is. Shame on you for your pharisical judgments.
“(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.)”
Oh, come on: surely a comment as gratuitously hateful as THAT one has to be beyond the bounds of acceptability here?
Sincere congratulations from me, Nick, and thank you for showing that loving children and being pro-choice are not in opposition.
Let me add my congratulations hon. Too often the ‘choice’ focus is on the ‘choice’ to have an abortion (and this is partly our fault even though I would say the majority of the blame lies with the anti-choice crowd). Thank you ever so much for the reminder :)
You are one of the far multitude of women we can show in response to the “what if your mother were pro-choice?” rhetoric from the other side.
(Oh, and ignore Robert’s dickhead comment).
It doesn’t seem revolutionary to say that we place a higher value on what we want than on what we don’t want. Nor that, since the fetus is incapable of placing a value on itself, it can only derive its value from the value others place on it. You can wrap that up in whatever rhetoric gives you pleasure, but please try not to use that rhetoric to insult viewpoints other than yours.
I’d find it a lot easier to accept your congratulations if I believed they were sincere. (Thanks, btw, to all those who have offered sincere congratulations on this thread.) But when your remark about being glad I decided not to kill it leaves me doubting your sincerity, to say the very least.
your remark about being glad I decided not to kill it leaves me doubting your sincerity
I’m confused. Are we, or are we not, talking about deciding to kill, or not to kill, a fetus?
You have a fetus. You are glad about it. You have decided not to kill it. I am happy that you have made that choice.
Why would I not be sincere in saying so? I like fetuses, and what they become, and I wish more people were making your choice.
It doesn’t seem revolutionary to say that we place a higher value on what we want than on what we don’t want.
It’s not revolutionary. But it’s incomplete.
To complete the statement, we have to define what value we assign intrinsically, regardless of the additional increment or decrement provided by our feelings.
There seems to be a set of pro-choicers who assign an intrinsic value of zero. That’s the Singerian group – the one that believes our feelings concerning the fetus are the sole determinants of that fetus’ value, and worthiness of life. It’s not all pro-choicers (just as not all pro-lifers assign an intrinsic value of infinity.)
But it’s enough to chill the blood of people who know the history of this idea, and its usual consequences.
Especially since given this thread and others, it means that an awful lot of mothers must also be “killers,” right ? At least in Robert-land. Perhaps if a fetus is the same as a baby, the state should step in and take away all babies born to mothers who have previously had abortions. I mean, once a woman gets a taste for “killin’,” she probably can’t stop. It’s like potato chips or something. Yeesh.
Spot-on again, Nick.
Robert, you’ve dug yourself enough of a hole as it is. Perhaps you’d like to put the shovel down now. >:
The general English term for the deliberate termination of life is “kill”.
Alsis, why does having this action correctly – even clinically – described with a one-word term, cause you so much apparent anguish?
But it’s enough to chill the blood of people who know the history of this idea, and its usual consequences.
Too bad you aren’t equally “chilled” about the history and consequences of the idea that women have no right to control their own bodies.
Too bad you aren’t equally “chilled” about the history and consequences of the idea that women have no right to control their own bodies.
What makes you think I’m not?
I see abortion as a conflict between the rights of two or more people. Women exist in my moral calculus, as much as some folks would like to pretend that they don’t. (Ironically, these are generally the same folks whose moral calculus disappears fetuses, and who become angry when this is described.)
I believe that women, like men, have a right to control their own bodies. But that control – like most rights – is subject to some parameters and some boundaries. This far and no farther, etc.
I don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
That doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done.
don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
I see, so as long as the reason for abortion satisfies your “moral calculus” then we’re not baby killers; otherwise, we’re criminals.
Because only a smug, rude jackass polutes a thread not meant to be about semantics with his own opinion about women who have had abortions being “killers.” For abortion to be “killing,” it follows that mothers must also be “killers,” which I find a remarkably low blow even coming from you, Robert.
It’s enough of a struggle for some women to find peace within themselves after abortion in a society that tells them every day that they must be passive and self-sacrificing under all circumstances, and that if they fuck, they must be prepared for societal condemnation– at least once society can find visible evidence that they’ve fucked (ie– a pregnancy). You’re not helping, Robert. You’re being a shithead.
The kindly –dare I say, “civilized” thing to do, would be to apologize to Nick, and to request that Amp take your comments off this thread. You do that, and I’ll ask that my post-congratulation comments be taken off, too. What do you say ?
Congratulations Nick!
Robert – the intrinsic value of the fetus does not have to be zero. It is just lower than the intrinsic value of the autonomy of the mother.
Just like the value of my FIL’s life is not zero, but it is lower than the value of your autonomy (within some limits). Otherwise – do you match him genetically? I’ll be right over with the transplant doctor for that spare kidney you have lying around. And how about some bone marrow while we’re at it?
I see, so as long as the reason for abortion satisfies your “moral calculus” then we’re not baby killers; otherwise, we’re criminals.
There is no law against killing fetuses. Why would you be a criminal?
Actually, I wasn’t. I never considered abortion because my baby was wanted from conception. So there was no such decision to be made in this case.
To be brutally blunt with you, I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice.
Congratulations on your pregnancy!
I just wanted to add that I share your views. I have two small children, and I am pro-choice. My pro-choice stance was only reinforced by my pregnancies. Both my children were wanted, but I had horrible pregnancies. I would never force anyone to undergo a pregnancy they didn’t want, and I can’t understand the mindset that would do so.
“I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice.”
Bingo.
“I believe that women, like men, have a right to control their own bodies. But that control – like most rights – is subject to some parameters and some boundaries. ”
This is only true to an extent. Men have a right to control their own bodies based on the uniqueness of the male anatomy. Women have the right to control their own bodies only up until that point at which they diverge from male anatomy.
That really isn’t a right.
There is no law against killing fetuses. Why would you be a criminal?
This is such fucking bullshit. Don’t hide behind the “clinical” meaning of the word “kill,” Robert. You said what you did for one reason and one reason only: to piss people off. You had to know that your comment would come across as snide and spiteful. And you chose to say it anyway. Real classy behavior. Don’t be surprised now that people are calling you on it.
Nick, I don’t know you, but congratulations and best wishes.
“Developed humans.” I like it. But I think one of the reasons that it’s easy for pro-lifers to dismiss the parallel between forced childbearing and forced donation is precisely because the embryo/fetus is such a perfect, unformed “ideal” of a full-grown human. It can’t pee, barf, and crap on you, or keep you awake all night while cutting teeth. It can’t gripe non-stop becaause you can’t afford to buy it this new toy or that new jacket. It can’t argue with you, or choose an education/career path or political stance that you don’t like. It can’t cloud your day by actively appealling for your benevolence and charity, as could a relative in need of a transplant. Hell, in the pro-life mindset, it’s better than a live human, which also helps explain why states that are the most rabidly anti-abortion tend to be the most uncharitable towards struggling moms and children, not to mention other needy groups (ie– the homeless).
You have a fetus. You are glad about it. You have decided not to kill it. I am happy that you have made that choice.
I don’t think it’s any of your freakin’ business what Nick decided, Robert. Just be happy she’s doing what she wants to do.
Good point, alsis, about the anti-choicers fetishizing the fetus as the perfect child, yet dropping them when they’re born.
>>(Oh, and congratulations on the baby. I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill it.) >>
Careful, Robert. Now the selfish harpy might decide to murder her preborn baby out of pure spite.
>>To be brutally blunt with you, I doubt that your congratulations were motivated by happiness at the choice I made so much as they were motivated by a desire to criticise women who make a different choice. >>
And, of course, to criticize _you_ in an extremely vituperative way for supporting them in that choice. It was a venomous thing to say. Robert, who’s brilliant at pointing out semantic quibbles, knows that there’s a difference between “technically accurate” and “sincere.”
Oh, and I’d like to offer my sincere congratulations–to you and your child, in fact. Anyone would be lucky to have you for a mom.
What’s so striking to me here is that no one looks at it from the other end. You, too, were once a zygote, embryo, and fetus. Do you like to think that your entire value and your very existence depended on the chance of someone else’s wanting or not wanting you? It did, of course. But does that make you feel like you’re just lucky, or like your own value kinda rests on shifting sands? Doesn’t the conviction that you, as a woman, have a right to control your own body suggests that a fetus too might have a right to have its own body? The one-sidedness, the double standard, is breathtaking. You might say that abortion violates the Golden Rule: you wouldn’t have wanted someone to do that to you.
What’s more, women are talking here as if they’d been assaulted by an unwanted fetus, the way a rapist assaults you with unwanted sex. It may feel that way when you’re trapped and scared, but feelings aren’t facts. The embryo, obviously, has no intent to harm you. It didn’t even ask to exist. Its existence is generally a consequence of your own actions.
And I am pro-choice, first trimester. That is, I don’t believe early abortion should be outlawed. But I do believe in doing everything possible to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I’ve written about my own conflicted feelings on the issue in “The AmbivAbortion Rant,” Part I and Part II.
For crying out loud, people! I’m *drastically* pro-choice, and pro-personal-autonomy in almost every circumstance you can think of. I *don’t* believe a fetus has any inherent value, frankly.
But Robert is the only one in the second half of this thread with a *cogent* argument at all. He’s pointing out, in pretty neutral language, a potential inconsistency in your thinking — and you’re diving all over him for things he hasn’t said or even implied.
What he HAS said: “I don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.
That doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done. ”
And he’s right. You are killing a fetus. That IS value-neutral language, whatever you’d like to think. Whether that fetus has any value (and as previously mentioned, i don’t think it does), you are killing it. You kill thousands upon millions of bacteria every time you brush your teeth. That’s ALSO a value-neutral statement, as written.
And alsis, your phrase “a thread not meant to be about semantics” brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:
“Any time i hear someone put the word ‘mere’ in front of the word ‘semantics’, i bite my tongue hard and remind myself that i, too, am greatly ignorant.” — Spider Robinson
The point being, of COURSE it’s about semantics. If you think that there’s ANYTHING in modern political discourse, or for that matter *human existence*, that’s not partly about semantics, you’re sadly misinformed or deliberately naïve.
I’d echo Robert’s question to you: why does his use of value-neutral language seemingly fill you with such anguish and anger? It doesn’t *me*, and i have as much pro-choice, anti-pro-lifer street cred as you do, i suspect.
I don’t have a problem with Robert stating that abortion kills fetuses as a general statement about the way the world is. Abortion does, undeniably, kill fetuses; the discussion is all over whether that’s acceptable.
My problem is with the statement “I’m glad you’ve decided not to kill [your baby]”. It strikes me, as it has struck everyone else who’s heard it, as rather rude to say the least, value-neutral or not.
I wonder whether Robert habitually expresses his congratulations to pregnant women in such terms, and if not, what it is about me that makes it appropriate.
One of my favourite sig-line quotes is “Just think, if your father had masturbated just once more before your conception, you would not exist.” There are many things that could have led to my not existing, and the vast majority of them aren’t subject to the same debate that abortion is.
I pretty much agree with this.
That said, there’s a difference between objecting to the word “kill” – which, in the context given above, is value-neutral – and saying to a pregnant pro-choicer, “congrats. I’m glad you decided not to kill it.” I think context makes the latter clearly provacative, not neutral, and I can understand people being pissed off.
I also think there’s a tendency in the abortion rights debate – not unlike the gun rights debate – for the defenders to feel that they can’t retreat even a centimeter. Once I got into an argument with a gun rights dude who was so comitted to his “if people don’t have guns, they’ll kill in other ways” position that he refused to admit that a gun could be a more dangerious weapon than a pool cue.
Amba, welcome. Although I don’t always agree with you, I’m a regular reader of your blog, which I think is excellent.
However, I think you’re making an unjustified assumption here – that it hasn’t occurred to the people here that we, “too, were once a zygote, embryo, and fetus.” Of course that’s occurred to me, and I suspect it’s occurred to nearly everyone here. Frankly, it’s obvious.
However, I don’t understand why that should make any difference to me. There are billions of chance events which could have made me no longer exist, as Nick says. That’s life – each and every one of us is vastly against the odds. It’s an interesting philosophical point (and one that’s essential to the end of Watchmen), but it’s not a logical reason for me to think any differently about abortion – or birth control, or train schedules, or masturbation, or my older sister’s sleep schedule when she was an infant, or any of the other billions of things that might have led to me not being born.
Whether or not I in particular was born is a matter of very minor consequence to society – much less consequence than the question of if the government will be used to force pregnant women into childbirth against their will. If I had been aborted, I wouldn’t have known or cared or minded, so who cares? (I know from reading your blog that you’ll dismiss my saying that as “insincere”; but it’s not, it’s just the truth. That you have to assume I’m lying is a flaw in your logic, not mine.)
Here’s something that perhaps you haven’t considered (although maybe you have; you mention it in passing on your blog): Very often, abortion not only ends a life, it creates an opportunity for a different life. If you read “Alas” regularly, you’ve probably seen photos of Sydney Quinn. I’m absolutely mad for Sydney – I adore her so intensely it’s kind of scarey. But Sydney wouldn’t exist if her mother hadn’t been able to get an abortion. The life course that led to Sydney’s parents meeting and marrying and having children would never have happened if the government had forced Sydney’s mother to go through with her earlier pregnancy.
No doubt that the child born if Sydney’s mother had been forbidden abortion would also have been wonderful and unique, just as Sydney is. But I don’t see any reason to imagine that that other child would have been superior to, and more valuable than, Sydney; I don’t see any reason to believe, as pro-lifers believe, that the world would somehow be a better place if that other child existed and Sydney didn’t.
From the point of view of society, I think we’re better off that Sydney’s mother was able to control her own childbearing timing; there’s a lot of social science data indicating that Sydney’s mother is now in a better position to raise happy and healthy children than she was years ago. The child that might have been born instead of Sydney would have been unique and wonderful – but she also would have faced higher odds of being unhappy or facing grave difficulties. More importantly, the freedom of Sydney’s mother, and other women, is an important positive in and of itself.
Here, you’re assuming what’s actually at issue in the abortion debate: that a woman and a fetus are comparable and have the same rights.
That’s not something that you can assume as if everyone agrees on it. There is a “double standard” between what’s appropriate to do to a fetus and what’s appropriate to do to a woman, and logically there should be a double-standard; the two things are not the same in many of their essential characteristics.
To really argue that a double-standard between a fetus and a woman is inappropriate, you’d have to first establish that there are no important differences between women and fetuses. Until you’ve done that, I don’t think your “golden rule” and “double standard” arguments hold weight.
alienne wrote:
“Anytime I hear someone quote Spider Robinson, who is surely one of the most pathetic, overrated, self-important hacks to ever shame the English language with his trite, hopelessly pretentious bullshit, I bite my tongue hard and remind myself that there is truly no accounting for taste.” –alsis 39
As I told Robert, I think that just for once, in the thread where Nick talked quite passionately about how she looked forward to the birth of her baby and why this was not at odds with being pro-choice, he could have kept his snide, nasty remarks about “killing babies” to himself. Perhaps if you spent more time on this board dealing with Robert, you’d understand why he is quite exasperating in even small doses. Or why it can be a real drag dealing with someone who has scolded me before for “behaving badly,” (to a sexist man, of course) yet thinks nothing of behaving badly to an expectant mother.
Do you really not understand why his remark was incredibly rude ? Please, don’t ever come to my baby shower, in the unlikely event that I ever have one.
Oh, and thank you for letting me know that I am “sadly misinformed” or “naive.” Please accept my “sadly misinformed, naive” wishes that you cram your patronization where the sun doesn’t shine. I don’t need it.
As I stated earlier:
I don’t care for the term “killing a baby” because it implies that this is a “crime” comparable to shooting an adult or strangling a toddler. Because it implies that an embryo, zygote, or fetus should have the same legal rights as toddlers or adults.
I don’t care for it –also as I state earlier– because for there to be a “killing,” women who have had abortions, including mothers, must be “killers” comparable to those who shoot adults or strangle toddlers.
Do you really not understand why this would bother me ? Do you really not understand why accepting this cedes ground to pro-lifers ? The English language, far as I can tell, has no term we can use to which all sides will agree. So we’re stuck debating terms until something better comes along. If you have one to contribute, go for it. Why not ask yourself WWSD (what would Spider do) ?
Nick and Ampersand (and Alsis),
I agree: Robert’s last remark was incredibly rude, and pretty uncalled for. It’s the *rest* of his points, though, that i was defending. I think jumping down his throat on everything else he has to say because of a snide closing remark is missing the point. Sure, it was unworthy of him; but it doesn’t invalidate the REST of what he had to say.
Alsis,
I *do*, in fact, spend a lot of time on this board. Certainly, Robert can be exasperating and rude and nasty. As far as i can tell, that places him on an even footing with most of the *rest* of the regular commenters here, of all ideological stripes. There’s a reason i don’t comment more often.
And i don’t care for the phrase “killing a baby” either. But to think it implies moral equivalency with “shooting an adult” is, i think, bad semantics. I certainly prefer “killing a fetus”, since as far as i know, the definition of a baby involves being *born* — and that makes “killing a baby” to refer to the act of abortion ALSO bad semantics, and manipulative besides.
I’d like to point out, too, that only in his snide remark does Robert use “killing a baby” as a construct. Why not forget that one, just for the sake of argument? Everywhere else in this thread, he *does* use the much more value-neutral “killing a fetus.” Which i’m perfectly fine with, both as a construction and an action.
Suit yourself, alienne. I smell another break coming on. My head hurts. :/
Alsis:
I don’t want to sound like a smart-ass, but the term “abortion” is just fine by me, and I think the pro-lifers who pretend not to understand the “I had an abortion” are just trying to push the semantics toward their side (killing a fetus-> fetus is an unborn baby -> so women having an abortion are killing a baby, albeit an unborn one -> baby-killing! [and I suppose we are all “undead corpses”, that is just as technically true as the fetus/embryo = unborn baby thing])
So pro-choicers are certainly right to not want play such games with the moderates and pro-lifers.
Congratulations to the original poster, a wanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing, I suspect.
[Sigh.] You’ve convinced me, Tuomas. Now all we have to do is convince everyone else.
Better yet, just tell me how hard it would be for me to learn Finish. I had so-so grades in French and in Spanish, back before my college days. :/ My partner knows a smattering of Russian and Czech. :/
Sorry, I should have separated the rest of my comment from the the abortion term, or maybe not said that at all. I agree with your comments, and I didn’t mean to sound patronizing and I don’t feel I need to convince you of anything. (Maybe just to convince some lurkers/moderates).
The funny thing is I was once an egg and a sperm too but no one gets all up in arms about me having a period or a guy jerking off.
You didn’t exist until the egg and sperm met. Had they never met, you wouldn’t be here. If not aborted a sperm will not grow into person. If not aborted an egg will never grow into a person. If not aborted (and not killed by natural causes) the sperm/egg combo with genetic blueprints to decide everything about a person will undoubtable grow into a person.
My eggs can sit inside me all day long and not become a baby. This is basic biology.
Nick talks about all the factors that go into making a person exist (i.e. the “if your dad had masturbated” comment.) That doesn’t suggest that we are all haphazard mistakes, but reinforces the uniqueness and preciousness of every human life. Nick is unique to the point where no one will ever have her fingerprint or DNA- if she were killed, we wouldn’t get another Nick. She’s a one-0f-a-kind original and as such, she has intrinsic value. Every unborn child from conception has unique DNA and is a unique person. They also have intrinsic value. If your mom dies, someone that looks, acts and talks like your mom cannot replace your mom. You mourn your mom because she was a unique person. So are unborn babies. You don’t imbue them with value. A diamond has value whether you want it or not. So do all human beings.
Either all human beings have equal values regardless of age, gender, ability, race or other discriminating factors-and I’m sure they do- or we are ALL in deep trouble. I bet you wouldn’t be prochoice if someone was allowed to decide for you if you should live or die. It’s easy to be prochoice if you’re not the one being killed.
But, hey- pro-abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.
I don’t like the idea of abortion any more than the next person. It should remain a matter between a woman and her physician, and her family, if she has one. Robert is an asshat, and now an infamous asshat. Enjoy the notoriety, asshat.
The same goes for euthanasia. I want the right to have the choice, and if I am not able to make the choice for myself, I would want someone I trusted to do it for me.
http://criterion.uchicago.edu/issues/iv6/wang.html
I >>agree: Robert’s last remark was incredibly rude, and pretty uncalled for. It’s the *rest* of his points, though, that i was defending. I think jumping down his throat on everything else he has to say because of a snide closing remark is missing the point. Sure, it was unworthy of him; but it doesn’t invalidate the REST of what he had to say.>>
Oh, but it did. There’s nothing unreasonable about calling it out for the horrible insult it is.
Either all human beings have equal values regardless of age, gender, ability, race or other discriminating factors-and I’m sure they do- or we are ALL in deep trouble. I bet you wouldn’t be prochoice if someone was allowed to decide for you if you should live or die. It’s easy to be prochoice if you’re not the one being killed.
But, hey- pro-abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.>>
Actually, I would not have wanted my mother to bear me against her will. And I would be horrified if she were to tell me that she had been forced into carrying me to term. I respect her right to bodily autonomy such that she should make her own choice as to whether to continue a pregnancy. I do realize that the right to abort could very well have included me, or a potential brother or sister. How do you feel about the potential effects that a ban on abortion could have on your female relatives?
And most of us, ftr, are not “pro-euthanasia.” Even if that were an accurate assertion, it’s about as relevant as a flippant comment about how pro-lifers, with their opposition to stem-cell research, will lose valuable members to MS, ALS, and Alzheimer’s.
Jacqueline said “If not aborted a sperm will not grow into person. ‘
How exactly does one abort a sperm? Are you suggesting that a sperm, which typically spends most of its time residing in the body of a man, is capable of growing into a baby all by itself? Or are you suggesting that a man masturbating is is committing a form of abortion? If so, I’d like to point out that there are a whole lot of men out there you might want to have a word with about their evil sperm-killing ways.
And Amp, thanks for the pics, Sydney is indeed ridiculously cute.
That second if is a pretty big one. I read earlier in my pregnancy that one in six clinically recognised pregnancies end quite naturally before the end of the first trimester. And that’s not even counting the sperm/egg combos that fail to implant and disappear without becoming a pregnancy.
That being the case, I can’t see anything special about a fertilised egg, and certainly nothing to justify imposing on a woman the responsibility of acting as life-support for nine months.
BTW, for those of you who love fetuses or are interested in the progress of my pregnancy, I’ve put the picture from my 20-week ultrasound up over at the Iron-On Line.
Why not forget that one, just for the sake of argument?
Because Robert is an intelligent person and not given to verbal flatulence. Why are you so eager to say “nothing to see here, move along” when he makes a point you dislike, in order to call attention to the points you like?
… That’s assuming she doesn’t have an identical twin, in the case of DNA, and really, a fingerprint is a lousy criteria for uniqueness. A person’s unique value is determined by more things than having an unique DNA (placentas have unique DNA, you don’t see the pro-life movement fighting for placentas rights).
A fascinating discussion, and one I read often on the NYT Bioethics Forum. We have a Robert, named ken, and have come to see him as a good advertisement for what is wrong with the RTL crowd, sort of an ad for the extreme. No matter the rhetoric, his motivation for choosing his language is transparent.
Nick, my boys are 21 and 23 now, but I remember the similar feelings of kinship with all women during and after my pregnancies. I had ended a pregnancy earlier in my life and had come to a place where I could safely support and provide for our child’s life. Someone at the time expressed condolences that we had required C-section as somehow a failure of our “right” to a natural birth, as though I had been forced to participate. We didn’t feel the need to explain the medical reasons, but I have always remembered her comment as incredibly limited in terms of the overall joy of the occasion.
Jacqueline’s comments about “euthanasia” reflect her ignorance on the issue. Euthanasia is when action is taken to end the life by someone else. I’m pretty sure she’s referring to assisted suicide, within the Right to Die movement, which is a completely different issue and process. Euthanasia occurs when we take our animals to the vet to be “put down”, and within capital punishment, when we end the lives of criminals with lethal injection. Assisted Suicide is a self-directed option available to those who have illnesses or conditions which present a prognisis of unrelenting suffering or loss of function which is intolerable for them. They are provided with the means for suicide after painstaking evaluation and treatment to relieve their suffering. Most do not follow through, but they report a sense of peace with the knowledge that they have the option. I personally do not support euthanasia for human beings, preferring hospice and palliative care, but I wholeheartedly support a persons choice in how they die, when death and/or suffering are inevitable. I think it is very important to understand the difference between these ideas, as it is a debate that will be on the national table over the next 10 years.
Thanks for the opportunity to share in your thoughtful discussion.
These are really thoughtful posts. Anti-choice candidates have been too successful at suggesting pro choice voters don’t understand the complexity of the issue or are heartless. I am politically active and this complexity pointed to here only makes me more committed to electing pro-choice candidate and particularly pro-choice women candidates. I suggest people who are sympathetic check out Jennifer Lawless’ pro-choice campaign against one of the house’s most radical (democratic) anti-choice male congressmen, james langevin. Her website is http://www.lawlessforcongress.com and she recently made headlines because sarah weddington, who argued roe vs. wade is coming to rhode island to campaign for her.
I should have added the campaign is picking up but definately needs donations. I think this is a great place for those of us who care about this issue to join Weddington and to send support.
I just wanted to add in the general support for this article. I’ve always been pro-choice (okay, from the age of 14 onwards – prior for that I hadn’t a developed sense of empathy for others and just thought babies were visually cute …). I’m now pregnant and feel almost frightened by the number of people who seem to think I and other pregnant women shouldn’t have a say in what happens to our own flesh and blood. Like Nick, I have decided not to “kill my baby” because I want a child and am willing to go through the risks involved for that. As she points out, it is no real “decision” as it’s based on pre-existent priorities (I wanted to get pregnant) and it’s no more or less “selfish” than having an abortion.
I don’t see any value in assigning certain rights to a fetus if the minute a baby is born, these rights become conditional upon whether the baby is male or female. I don’t yet know the gender of my child but I want him or her to have full bodily autonomy throughout his or her life. I know others don’t think this way and perhaps that is part of the obsession with human “potential” so evident in pro-life thinking – the unknown fetus might be male, rather than a breeder whose individual status always hangs in the balance.
“But hey- pro-life abortion folk are often also pro-euthanasia…so they’ll eventually get old and weak and their viewpoints will be the end of them.”
This argument is irrelevant. You are comparing two completely different subjects here. Although they do both deal with death, they arise from completely different situations. A woman should have a right to chose whether or not to abort a baby, just as someone should have the right to chose to die peacefully. Having a baby at a time that is not right in a woman’s life could forever harm not only the woman herself, but also her baby. The upbringing of an unwanted child will be much different than a planned, wanted child. Every situation with abortion is different, I realize that. Some women may be just as qualified as the next to have a baby, but that’s not you or anyone else’s call. As far as euthanasia stands, if someone id terminally ill, it should be left up to their discretion as to what to do. Yes, at some point, we all will become old and weak. If we truly feel this way about our viewpoints, so be it that they are the end of us. At least we stand by our words until the death of us.
“I care passionately about my baby, every sign of movement brings me a little extra joy. But it wouldn’t bring joy to every woman, and those for whom is would mean nothing but discomfort should be able to make a different choice.”
I know at this point these comments are arguments against each other’s comments are arguments against each other’s comments, but I would like to discuss the actual posted article.
As a nineteen year old college student, I can wholeheartedly agree with this comment here. God-for-bid some unexpected occurrence were to happen and i were to find myself pregnant, I would hope that I could make my own decision regarding to resolving the issue. The baby would in no way, at this point in my life, bring me joy. I am a motivated student with a life still ahead of me and plans I would like to carry out before I even think of having kids. A child would completely ruin my goals and ambitions in life. The author of this article is correct in stating that a baby brings joy to some, while not to others as well. Every person’s life situation is different and just because one woman is elated to be pregnant doesn’t mean another feels the same.
If a human being must be independent, then newborn babies are not human, because if left alone they too will die. If human beings must be independent, then children with disabilities that cannot survive on their own are not human. And the elderly who are no longer independent are not human.
What is right and what is wrong transcends how people feel.
“The cells inside the uterus are just another example. I give mine a very high value and watch their development with delight; other women give theirs a low value and can’t wait to be rid of them. The belief that we both have the right to assign value to our own bodies for ourselves is the essence of being pro-choice. If a woman places a high value on her fetus, removing it against her will is just as unacceptable as forcing a woman to retain, against her will, a fetus she gives a low value to.”
I think there is a great point made here in that much of the value a woman places on her fetus should be directly related to her right to decide whether to continue or discontinue her pregnancy. I don’t think, however, that choosing to keep or abort a pregnancy is solely dependent on this black and white economic model. Even if a woman assigns a low value to her fetus, it would still be possible for her to choose adoption after she gives birth. Additionally, I feel that regardless of the value assigned there should be some parameters regarding low late in a pregnancy a woman can choose abortion. These factors, and possibly others, should play into the decision to continue or discontinue the pregnancy.
“I believe that women, like men, have a right to control their own bodies. But that control – like most rights – is subject to some parameters and some boundaries. This far and no farther, etc.
I don’t view abortion as a choice that must never be made. There are many times when the needs of the woman involved outweigh the need of the fetus, and abortion is the least-bad choice of the choices that can be made.”
The “parameter” that women should ONLY be able to choose abortion when her needs or health is jeopardized is a violation of that right to control her body. The only parameters that need to be set on a woman’s ability to get an abortion should be regarding how late in her pregnancy she is. Other than that, our lives should be about choice and it seems that the argument you present implies that women and men have the right to control their bodies up until the point that women’s anatomy differs from men’s.
In addition, abortion may be the least bad choice to be made in several instances. For example, if a young girl living in poverty was pregnant and couldn’t get an abortion, her standard of living would probably be worsened by having to support someone else in addition to herself. Also, if a woman clearly has no desire for a baby, then bringing an unwanted baby into her world is a bad choice that might even lead to neglect or abuse of that baby.
I’m concerned here that the right to an abortion not become the obligation to have one.
The most obvious example is China. If the obligation to abort a child the mother wants to bear is “pro-choice” I’m an African elephant.
But when we in the United States move towards requiring every pregnant woman to have a test for Down Syndrome in the fetus, and we increasingly collectivize the payment for health care, how long will it be – indeed, the day is upon us – when women who, in possession of this information but who choose to have the baby anyway – are penalized, or, worse, the children are penalized, in the form of diminished opportunities for health care afterwards?
Choice has got to mean just that: that the mom has the choice, and that we will back her up, whatever her decision.
italics off, sorry
Pingback: Whoo hoo! at Nobody Likes a Dead Cat
Thanks again for providing a consistently well written and informative blog. From everyone here at the Equal Access Fund, we thank you.
Abortion providers/seekers in the Appalachian region face even more strife than in the rest of the nation due to small thinkers, bible thumpers and anti-choice fake clinics next to each actual provider.
Thanks for listening and for donating.
_heather at equal access fund of appalchia
————————————————————–
WE PROVIDE LIFE CHANGING ASSISTANCE TO WOMEN
:::PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING AT THIS CRUCIAL TIME:::
Equal Access Fund continues to seek “seed money” donations from individual donors in order to grow our fund to help more women reach justice by funding their right to choose.
As the only abortion fund in Tennessee, we are receiving FAR more requests for assistance than we can meet.
Your contributions are critical to this work. Your donation will be used to provide direct, life-changing assistance to women who want or need an abortion but don’t have the financial resources to pay for it.
HOW TO DONATE ONLINE:
Use the address equalaccessfund@gmail.com to send a PAYPAL donation.
PayPal is one of the safest ways to send money online, and they never share your financial or private information.
I do not mean to spam you, so delete this if you do not appreciate it. I have started an abortion discussion at the ISU discussion blog ISUer.com. Just inviting you to present your own facts if you would like.
http://isuer.com/2007/11/27/make-abortion-available-to-all-then-work-to-decrease-need/
thanks
The perfect outfit for our pro choice babies. Too cute.
http://www.cafepress.com/Herbal_Tee
I know this post is old, but I love it. This is one of the posts I have a link to on my abortion blog, along with a few other articles that I think show what being pro-choice is really about.
Thanks for writing it. I hope your baby is healthy and happy!
I’m coming back to this discussion three and a half years later.
Ampersand, you made excellent pro-choice arguments, which I have to agree with — up to a point. (Yes, I did more than just mention in my essay that my mother — and therefore I — would not exist if her mother had not had two, at the time illegal abortions in between her two daughters.)
You said, “each and every one of us is vastly against the odds.” That’s why it is vastly better to avoid pregnancy, if not ready for it or wanting it, than to abort it. Once someone is conceived (and implanted, which I think is a better definition of the beginning of life — we cannot exist without someone else’s body accepting us, and, obviously from this thread, their heart and mind too), a unique individual has been created. It is not yet conscious in the same way we are, but it has the design for a face and a temperament and a set of talents that have come and will never come again. If we don’t value that accident whenever it happens, we don’t fully value ourselves either.
Yes, our choices are just one of many things that can facilitate or prevent someone’s existence. But they are in a rather different category than blind accidents of nature. We have the choice to think it’s amazing whenever a unique someone is conceived and created, and therefore to honor that “accident” enough to try harder to avoid it when we don’t want it. I know, birth control can fail. But I suspect that a lot of its failures, though certainly far from all, are attributable to the failure to use it scrupulously.
As a young woman I wanted to know, “What about me? What about my chance, my time?” Women had been denied the right to be the one at the center, the one whose experience and wishes and achievements matter, for so many millennia — you were a vessel first, and you just had to step aside and give it all up if someone else was ready to come through you. The other side of that is that — not selfishness — but selfness has its limits, which become evident as you grow older. The defense and promotion of the self starts out as a happy triumphant thing, but can become sad and sour in the long run if it remains the be-all and end-all. We have children for ourselves, of course, but not only. Not only.
I think Robert, though his “glad you didn’t kill it” was indeed a sneer, was generally very brave and very calm and took a lot of ugly abuse on this thread.
Enough about whether your specific beliefs or religion are pro-choice or anti-choice. That’s just going down a rabbit hole. There are a number of individuals and religions who support a woman’s right to choose. I find it ironic that we believe that women are intelligent enough to be attorneys, doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. unless they are pregnant. Then we take the position that they are too stupid to understand the consequences of any decision they make. Let medical science make the determining factor.
In this society, we have no problems pulling the plug on a human being if there are no brain waves. We also have no problem doing an organ transplant if there are no heartbeats. Ditto for keeping the heart artificially beating until an organ transplant can be performed. If lack of brainwaves is our definition of the cessation of life, let it also be our definition of when life begins. Brain activity in a fetus begins at approximately 25 weeks of gestation, shortly before the third tri-mester.
Perhaps the problem is that we provided medically safe procedures for women terminating an unwanted pregnancy. For those who are anti-choice, abortions will still continue, but with women using clothes hangers and knitting needles. Show me the pictures of a fetus prior to abortion and I can show you pictures of women dead, lying in their own pool of blood from hemmoraging to death from a back-street butcher.
Anti-abortion laws are the “poor woman’s” law. Only poor women will be have to comply. Those that have the financial means will be able to travel to areas that will be able to provide the care necessary in these type of situations. For myself, I love my daughers and daughters-in-law enough to ensure that they never face those dark ages that was once part of this nation’s history.
I guess I don’t understand how one can say that it is valid to believe women assign value to their unborn humans. WHAT? Whether a woman wants or doesn’t want her developing human is a FEELING… not the FACTS. Do people get that? The fetus (fetus, as defined by Webster, IS a developing human from 8 weeks to whenever birth happens) is the SAME no matter who wants or doesn’t want them.
Do pro-choice women truly believe their thoughts have *magical* powers that can change the biological make – up of OTHER humans?… If pro-choie women believe that… they need to call Dr. Phil because he will want an interview. Come on! The truth is that what women have are FEELINGS… but feelings cannot, do not and will NEVER change the existance and reality of OTHER humans!
Would we allow a woman with a newborn baby to end the life of that new born child because she *FEELS* she doesn’t want him or her??? “No, of corse not” you say. Well, why not? That is what you say to women with their developing humans whom live in their womb!? Why not out of the womb then??
The facts… Humans do not have the power to decide which other humans have value and which ones do not. Simply put, pro-choicers are confusing FEELINGS with REALITY. Don’t believe me? The aborted 10 week human fetus was just as vibrant, kicking, moving… with the same 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose and 1 mouth… AS the 10 week human fetus whose mom has yet to abort, kill him or her. SAME fetuses… the only difference… Mom’s feelings. BUT, feelings ARE NOT reality!
Sara, if you want to continue to post here, please try and moderate your tone a bit.
I don’t understand why pro-lifers are so fixated on fingers and toes and so on. That has nothing to do with anything.
Suppose I showed you a realistic-looking plastic doll, that had 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose and 1 mouth. Also, it’s outfitted with some motors inside, so it can kick and move. It has, in other words, all of the traits that you describe above for a 10 week human fetus.
Is that a person, in your view? Does it have a right to life? Of course not. So none of the traits you list are what describes a human being.
Now consider a soldier who lost all four of her limbs, and also her facial features, in the war. But she’s still alive, even though she doesn’t have toes or fingers or eyes. Is that a person, in your view? Of course she is.
My point is, being a person isn’t defined by fingers, toes, eyes, and the rest. So why do you bring them up?
I agree with Hazel… high-level brain activity seems like a much better way of defining when a person begins and ends.
Of course, that’s not the end of the debate. Even if you agreed that high-level brain activity is the earliest personhood could begin (and not that I say “personhood,” not “biological humanity”) — and I doubt you would agree with that — it doesn’t logically follow that we should never allow abortions to take place after the 25th week or so (when high level brain activity begins to take place).
A “realistic plastic doll with motors”? I would challenge someone to create a “doll” with what could come even remotely close to what an amazing being a 10 week human being is.
It’s never been done and never will be done. Because that would be like someone creating you or me. Humans cannot even be remotely compared to dolls or even to robots.
Consider the following list of traits of fetal development and yes, let me know how you’ll make your “doll” into a human…
By the end of 4 weeks: all major systems and organs begin to form
the neural tube (which becomes the brain and spinal cord), the digestive system, and the heart and circulatory system begin to form
the beginnings of the eyes and ears are developing
tiny limb buds appear (which will develop into arms and legs)
the heart is beating
By the end of 8 weeks: all major body systems continue to develop and function, including the circulatory, nervous, digestive, and urinary systems
the embryo is taking on a human shape
the mouth is developing tooth buds (which will become baby teeth)
the eyes, nose, mouth, and ears are becoming more distinct
the arms and legs are clearly visible
the fingers and toes are still webbed but can be clearly distinguished
the main organs continue to develop and you can hear the baby’s heartbeat using a Doppler
the bones begin to develop and the nose and jaws are rapidly developing
the embryo is in constant motion but cannot be felt by the mother
During weeks 9-12: the external genital organs are developed
fingernails and toenails appear
eyelids are formed
fetal movement increases
the arms and legs are fully formed
the voice box (larynx) begins to form in the trachea
Unless you were referring to that, of course, the fetus is a human… but you meant that he or she is not really a “real” human BEING. Meaning, yes, he or she has those little fingers and toes and things that you and I have… but the fetus can’t really think like you and me. The fetus isn’t reasoning and compassionate like you and me… etc. etc.
Basically, the “not a person” fallacy again (Joyce Arthur). But you should note that newborn infants (who were fetuses just moments before they were born), the older infant, the young child and the adolescent- don’t have any of the “humanity” characteristics that you are blaming the fetus for not having.
Young (born) humans don’t have the compassionate human emotions and virtues, such as pathos, love or kindness. They don’t have the ability to express themselves clearly if they feel joy, sadness, anger or hatred. They cannot demonstrate intelligence, self awareness, and moral responisiblity.
Basically you need to acknowledge that it isn’t only developing unborn humans who cannot yet “demonstrate adequate personhood” (by pro-choicers exaggerated and irrational definitions) but that it is ALSO born humans- infants, toddlers and even adolescents who demonstrate these inadequate “personhood” qualities! Would one then suggest that we should be able to kill any humans who are not as mature and “person-ish” as the fully educated adult who has a college degree and brings in 6 figures?
Pro-choicers are being irrational by applying developmentally inappropriate standards to preborn babies, born babies, and even growing children!
A human is a human because they simply are. Not a doll, and yes whether they’ve got all their fingers or not. Taken from war or not. Whether you define them as “person-ish” enough or not is completely subjective and irrelevant. It wasn’t long ago that the “lack of personhood” issue was said about African Americans and women.
It’s funny how you’re changing your target, Sara. Suddenly it’s no longer about fingers and toes… it’s about all those other organs and stuff.
Okay, let’s imagine a human being born with a complete compliment of fingers, toes, organs, voicebox, etc… but lacking a forebrain. (As I’m sure you know, this is a real, although rare, birth defect).
Is that a person, in your view? If we could do it, do you think we should keep such a baby alive for a full human lifespan, rather than letting it die?
How about a grown-up human who was shot in the head multiple times by a murderer. The higher brain has been entirely, 100% destroyed, without any possible doubt, and with 100% of doctors agreeing. The body is being kept alive on machines. Do you think that person is still alive? Should we keep the body alive for a fully human lifespan?
You seem to be saying that whether or not a human being has a functioning brain makes no difference at all to whether or not it’s a person. I don’t think that’s how most people understand what it means to be a person at all.
In our society, it’s not murder if doctors allow a brainless body to die, rather than keeping it alive indefinitely. That’s because we medically define death as the lack of a brain capable of higher brain functions. Do you disagree with that? And if so, why?
* * *
You wrote:
Did you read my comment before you responded? Because you seem to be responding to things I never wrote.
1) I didn’t say anything about “humanity” characteristics. I talked about personhood, not “humanity.”
2) The one characteristic I discussed in my comment was the development of the physical ability to have certain higher brain functions around the 25th week of pregnancy. Obviously, that’s a standard that newborns, infants, children, and adolescents are all capable of meeting.
3) I don’t “blame” the fetus, or the zygote, for anything. I’m just talking about the facts of fetal development. It’s a biological fact, not a casting of blame.
This is circular logic, and therefore invalid. You must have some way of defining what a human is, other than “a human is a human.”
Are you able to define what you consider to make a human being, or not?
* * *
One more question, Sara.
Imagine that you’re in a building that’s burning down. All the way down the hall, there are ten living 2-week-old zygotes, in test tubes. If you rescue them, there’s a van with lab equipment outside which can keep them alive, and eventually they’ll be implanted into their mothers and then born.
All the way at the other end of the hall, is a living three-year-old child.
You have time enough to rescue the 10 zygotes, or the 3-year-old child. But you can’t rescue both. Which do you rescue?
What do you mean “changing my target”… because I need to remind you that underneath those little fingers and toes (he or she is NO plastic baby doll I can tell you that) are those “human things” we all have… ALL the major body systems: including the circulatory, nervous, digestive, and urinary systems. He or she may be a fetus, but don’t forget he or she is still a human… the word fetus MEANS developing human from 8 weeks until birth.
It is you who is changing your target, since I know the unborn human isn’t an empty plastic doll now you are giving me rare and extreme scenarios to “solve” to try to justify why it is okay to kill unborn humans. Now, that seems to be a change of target.
Like the majority of those of us who are against abortion: we believe that abortion for serious reasons, such as life of the mother or life of the child need to be considered. The discouraging TRUTH of abortions, however, is that the majority of abortions are NOT for those real, rare birth defect or health of the mother or reasons of rape.
So why even restrict abortion? Why don’t I feel any woman should be able to abort any unborn human at any gestational age?… well, because abortion KILLS a human being. The act of abortion needs to be taken extremely seriously and used for those rare reasons. Additionally, consideration needs to be given to the unborn human baby. His or her development, pain perception, etc.
I don’t necessarely disagree with what you described as allowing the death of a person who has no brain functioning. But that is NOT what abortion terminates. The formation of neurons begins very early in the human embryo. By five weeks after conception, the cells in the baby’s developing brain begin dividing rapidly to form the 100 billion or so neurons that an infant’s brain has at birth. Even in adulthood our brains are still developing and growing.
YOU SAID:
“1) I didn’t say anything about “humanity” characteristics. I talked about personhood, not “humanity.”
Did you NOT read what I wrote? I was talking about the whole “personhood” fallacy arguement and how the entire “not a person” excuse is just that, a smokescreen, a fallacy. It’s been used throughout history on perceived other races, African Americans, women and tribes. The truth: there is NO such thing as a human who is not a person. Personhood is a SUBJECTIVE word that has nothing to do with the human and everything to do with how another human perceives the human “in question”. But we as humans do not have value because someone else decides to value us, we have value because WE ARE… HUMAN BEINGS. It has NOTHING to do with who values us. We have value because we are.
YOU SAID:
“2) The one characteristic I discussed in my comment was the development of the physical ability to have certain higher brain functions around the 25th week of pregnancy. Obviously, that’s a standard that newborns, infants, children, and adolescents are all capable of meeting.”
However, what about the scientifically accepted idea of what constitutes a human life? Beating heart, brainwave activity AND an active nervous system. The question of when “life” begins and ends can be viewed from a biological and scientific view. Life is generally determined by a beating heart and brainwave activity, the telltale signs of we count as a living, breathing homo sapien. Without these, you are not living. And all of these characteristics are present in the 1st trimester unborn human.(http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2005/03/01/9-1-2-weeks )
YOU SAID:
“3) I don’t “blame” the fetus, or the zygote, for anything. I’m just talking about the facts of fetal development. It’s a biological fact, not a casting of blame. A human is a human because they simply are. This is circular logic, and therefore invalid. You must have some way of defining what a human is, other than “a human is a human.” Are you able to define what you consider to make a human being, or not?”
Circular logic? You must be joking. You go ahead and theorize about when a human is really a person- to you. I am NOT going there. I am NOT going to do what all those others did when they oppressed, abused and killed perceived “lesser” humans throughout our troubled history. You go ahead and let me know when you think you should start to value human beings and for what reasons they deserved to be valued. This seems to be something you think you have the moral authority to do.
As to your scenario of the burning building…
well, why don’t you tell me what you would do? Since you seem so interested in this extreme scenario. I’d just like to know WHAT this scenario has to do with abortion?
Could it be that abortion is really more like the MIDDLE POINT between your two extreme examples? Could it be that the majority of abortions take place killing developing humans who ARE indeed quite baby-like already? Yes, not the 2 week zygote (a woman is yet to know she is even pregnant at this point) But also, not quite the 3 year old talking, independent, bossy toddler yet?
The answer… is yes. That is precisely what abortion kills. That unborn human, that preborn baby… he or she is NOT a bunch of cells as a zygote and yet, NOT a bossy 3 year old. But, in between those two stages. And in between that you STILL have that HUMAN. I mean, person, I mean… well…. I think you know what I mean.
sara,
As to your scenario of the burning building…
well, why don’t you tell me what you would do? Since you seem so interested in this extreme scenario. I’d just like to know WHAT this scenario has to do with abortion?
I feel sure that Amp would rescue the one 3-year-old over the dozens of zygotes. You’re the one insisting that if it can be assigned to the human species, it therefore is a “person,” and since zygotes definitely belong to no other species, they must be human and therefore must be people. Under your reasoning, for you to save one 3-year-old instead of the many zygotes means that you do in fact draw demarcations of which persons are worth more than others. You value the 3-year-old person over all the zygote people. You have a spectrum of personhood in which one is apparently more valuable the older one is, such that the 3-year-old person is older than the zygotes and therefore more valuable.
It would be rather more sensible and decent to treat all persons equally, instead of creating such an age-based spectrum of personhood.
By five weeks after conception, the cells in the baby’s developing brain begin dividing rapidly to form the 100 billion or so neurons that an infant’s brain has at birth.
How many stable neurons does an 8 week old embryo have? How many dendritic connections do each of these neurons have? Have the axons formed yet? How much cortex has formed? How does the size of the brain compare to that of a mouse? How many of the neurons present at birth are present in the 8 week old embryo’s brain? Do you even know why I’m asking these questions?
Could it be that the majority of abortions take place killing developing humans who ARE indeed quite baby-like already?
No. The majority of abortions take place in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, the embryonic stage. Here’s a 7 week old embryo It doesn’t look like any baby I’ve ever seen. Plus it’s 18 mm (less than one inch) long.
However, what about the scientifically accepted idea of what constitutes a human life? Beating heart, brainwave activity AND an active nervous system.
This statement comes under the category of “not even wrong.” A beating heart or lack thereof actually has very little to do with the current definition of a human life. A person with no heartbeat who is being given CPR and is being prepped for defibrillation is alive until proven otherwise-without even a hint of a heartbeat. A person with a beating heart and no neurological activity is dead, absolutely and unalterably dead. A person with a beating heart and brainstem activity but no cortical function is eligible for removal from life support on the grounds that the important parts of the brain, the things that make us human, are gone. As in Tom Delay’s father, removed from life support after an accident which left him with a bit more brain function than Teri Schiavo.
And all of these characteristics are present in the 1st trimester unborn human.
If I may make a suggestion, you’ll sound much more credible if you quote google scholar or pubmed sources instead of some random “pro-life” website. But then again, pubmed sources won’t agree with you so that would never do, would it? ‘Brain birth’, if the concept is even realistic, probably begins during the third trimester. Actually, I have grave doubts about even that conclusion: Most considerations of brain activity in the fetus are based on brain activity and behavior of similarly aged premature infants. But premies aren’t just extrauterine fetuses. A number of changes take place at birth. The one which is probably most important from the brain function point of view is exposure to much higher concentrations of oxygen. The pO2 in the embryonic vein (which supplies oxygen to the fetus) is around 30 mmHg, about 1/3 of that of normal arterial blood in a living person. The cortical neurons are highly sensitive to hypoxia and a person exposed to low oxygen levels quickly loses consciousness. So the fetal brain may be like a computer receiving just enough electricity to retain memory (i.e. for the neurons to survive) but not enough to run (ie for the fetus to think in any meaningful manner.) Evolutionarily, what would be the advantage of having the fetus be conscious? I can’t see any-and it would “cost” a lot in terms of oxygen and nutritional requirements. So the likelihood of there being any meaningful neurological activity in a fetus seems quite low.
Diane, you have brought up many interesting ideas of the unborn human’s brain development. Below is a short list of how the unborn human’s brain develops. I would argue that basing the ‘right to live’ ONLY on “higher level brain functioning” is a risky objective to take- for a number of reasons, which you will read as you read this and the next post. Additionally, as you pointed out, brain functioning alone is NOT the only indicator of life.
So…when does the fetus’s brain begin to work? Here is a short summary of what takes place in human brain development prior to birth (‘ZERO TO THREE: National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families’):
In the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus’s spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements–spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body–that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow–of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus’s movement repertoire is remarkably rich.
The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body’s most vital functions–heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.
Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex–those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing–as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother’s abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother’s voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life.
Note the recent article from The Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/16/fetuses-found-to-have-memories/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_more_news_carousel
By birth, only the lower portions of the nervous system (the spinal cord and brain stem) are very well developed, whereas the higher regions (the limbic system and cerebral cortex) are still rather primitive. It needs to be noted that the lower brain is therefore largely in control of a newborn’s behavior: all of that kicking, grasping, crying, sleeping, rooting, and feeding are functions of the brain stem and spinal cord.
So Diane, based on these facts of brain development in the preborn and born humans- the main flaw with your theory… is that if “brain birth” is used to define personhood- the brain of the newborn, which is incapable of a capactity for thought and rational deliberation, will have bestowed upon the newborn a non-personal status, as well!
Even the striking visual behavior of newborns–their ability to track a bold moving object, or to orient to Mom or Dad’s face—is thought to be controlled by visual circuits in the brain stem. When pediatricians conduct a series of reflex tests on the newborn, they are primarily assessing the function of these lower neural centers. These reflexes include the doll’s eye maneuver (the baby’s eyes stay focused forward when his head is turned to one side), the “Moro” or startle response (baby splays out arms and then slowly closes them in response to a sudden movement or feeling of falling), and even the remarkable stepping reflex (the baby “walks” when you hold him up with feet touching a flat surface). Based on these facts, if your concept of brain-birth is used to demarcate the time between person and non-person… well, it will have major repercussions for ethical decision making- as the newborn human is lacking the essential characteristics your blame the fetus for not having.
And, did you even read the research and data on “brain birth”? Several doctors and researchers dismiss such accounts stating reasons such as “not wanting to deprive 25-day embryos of the basic human right to life”, even though prior to 25 days the basic cerebral cortex development hasn’t developed. At 6 weeks some consider the embryo as having “person” characteristics (Singer and Wells). At 30 days old one doctor noted will not culture embryos because 30 days is when the forebrain begins to take shape(Edwards). Dr. Goldenrign used EEG to determine when the brain functioning of the preborn human was reliably present. To which he discovered the 8 week fetus has full brain differentiation. By 32 days gestation the five major regions of the future brain can be distinguished, with the cerebral hemispheres becoming distinct at 6 weeks, with the cortex taking shape. At 8 weeks neuronal populations of the cortex, relfex movments and spontaneous movments are present. At 14 weeks EEG aciticity can be obtained and there is responsiveness to pain.
Basically, the human brain takes time to develop, so nature has insured that the neural circuits responsible for the most vital bodily functions—breathing, heartbeat, circulation, sleeping, sucking, and swallowing—are up and running by the time a baby emerges from the protective womb. The rest of brain development can follow at a more leisurely pace, maximizing the opportunity for a baby’s experience and environment to shape his emerging mind. While babies come into the world with some very useful survival reflexes, they are still strikingly helpless, in large part because the cerebral cortex is still quite immature. As the highest, most recently evolved part of the brain, the cerebral cortex is responsible for all of our conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions. Although all of the neurons in the cortex are produced before birth, they are poorly connected. In contrast to the brain stem and spinal cord, the cerebral cortex produces most of its synaptic connections after birth, in a massive burst of synapse formation in the exuberant period.
Hey, a pubmed you requested! (PUB MED Source From NIH.GOV… (Brain Birth and Personal Identity, Jones. J Med Ethics. 1989)
So, basically Diane, what I have to say is “good try on the ‘brain birth’ idea”! However, the facts show that if you go that route, you will have a big list of other issues you need to justify. Listen, abortion kills a human life. Little, immature, undeveloped in many ways… but isn’t that the story of ALL human development? Isn’t the one year old human SO MUCH LESS developed than the 3 year old human? YES! That is the way humans develop. Little by little… At what point is it okay to kill that human and at what point is it NOT okay to kill that human?