While doing some searching, I came across some abortion-related links I wanted to save, hence this post. Nearly all of these are pro-choice, although I stuck a token pro-life link in too. :-p
Why Abortion is Moral — By Elroy
Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying “The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal.” This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn’t belie the fact that indeed “location” makes all the difference in the world.
It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other – and thus they don’t have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a “right to life” to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother’s right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another’s right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights.
7 weeks–Neurons form a brain stem atop the spinal cord.
8 weeks–Brain stem resembles that of newborn. Embryo has face, hands and feet, but lacks upper part of brain that controls intentional movement.
22 weeks–The most primitive part of the brain, the cortex, is sufficiently formed to control limb movement.
28 weeks–Interneurons form, linking the cells within the neocortex. Such connections are essential to performing multitask functions, such as writing or playing tennis.
30 weeks–Electroencephalogram recordings resemble those of a newborn baby. Distinct sleep-awake patterns emerge. Fetus can usually survive outside womb.
Abortion And Public Policy, by John M. Swomley, in Christian Ethics Today
Neuromaturation and the Moral Status of Human Fetal Life, by Michael Flower. (PDF link).
Thus, if we return to those neocortical capacities most likely to engage our moral attention as we prepare to ascribe a protected status of fetal personhood (i.e. possible awareness and/or a discrete and sustainable bodily existence regularly achieved through birth), we might be led to conclude that it is probably not until after 28 weeks of gestation that the fetal human attains a level of neocortex-mediated complexity sufficient to enable those sentient capacities the presence of which might lead us to predicate personhood of a sort we attribute to full-term newborns.
20 Questions For Pro-Choice People
If you do concede this, then I would urge that it’s not clear that you have any moral principles at all–since it seems you are willing to give up your moral beliefs, if enough people disagree with you. You would be, in effect, hostage to how others think. But if you wouldn’t concede this–if you deny that a lack of consensus that it is wrong to kill infants would cause you to acquiesce in legalized infanticide–then why do you concede that a lack of consensus about preborn children implies they should not be protected? To put the point another way: if you lived in the United States in the 1950s, say, when abortion was considered as abominable as infanticide is today, you presumably would have denied that the wrongness of abortion hinged upon the consensus against it. So similarly you should deny today that legalized abortion follows from a lack of consensus against it.
(The above is obviously a pro-life link; by linking to it, I’m not saying I agree with it.)
Gladiatrix’s arguments on a Christian discussion forum:
Let’s examine one of the better arguments presented by some anti-choicers===>“One can claim that because a fertilized egg contains the DNA “blueprint” (46 chromosomes) needed to create a human being that it is in fact A human being.” But does that work?
Actually the logical outcome of this argument would extend the definition of “human being” to any cell with 46 chromosomes. That would mean that when a surgeon chucks an appendix in the trash after an appendectomy he would be guilty of mass murder.
The point is that every cell in the body has the “blue-print” for creating a new human being via cloning…
Michael Bennet, chair of the Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine writes: “Personhood goes with the brain and does not reside within the recipient body. There is none, not heart, kidney, lung or spleen, that we cannot do without or replace artificially. The brain is the essence of our existence. It cannot be transplanted.”
You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body.
True. Presuming that you recognize a women carrying a fetus as “one body”.
One will automatically have veto power over the other – and thus they don’t have equal rights.
Might does not make right.
In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a “right to life” to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother’s right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Not entirely true. The fetus’ right to life does not cancel out the mother’s right to life – thus, the various exceptions referencing the mother’s health in all but the most extreme anti-abortion positions. However, the fetus’ right to life does supercede the mother’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, much as it does after the child is born and the mother is required to constrain her liberty and pursuit of happiness to the extent necessary to feed, clothe, and otherwise care for it. After all, unless the child was the product of rape – the source of the other major exception to all but the most extreme anti-abortion positions – the mother exercised her rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by engaging in the behavior that caused the child to be conceived in the first place. The exercise of rights necessarily requires the acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of having done so. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated.
The childs right to life does not trump the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. No one person’s right to life trumps another person’s right to bodily autonomy. Even if I am dying and the only way for me to survive is a kidney transplant, this does not give me the right to take somebody elses kidney. Not even if that someone else is my mother or father. It also doesn’t give the state the right to pass a law that makes it mandatory for someone (or just for parents) to donate organs if someone (or just their child) needs one.
And this is when we are talking about two living human beings. There are a lot of good reasons for not considering a fetus a living person, but even if you don’t agree with that, you still do not get to a point where one person’s bodily autonomy can be taken away to help another.
This is why I find the “we want the fetus to have the same rights as a born child” arguement so dishonest. They don’t want it to have the same rights- they want it to have rights that no living person has.
In general, as a society, we allow and even encourage people to ameliorate the possible unwanted or negative consequences of their behavior choices. For example, you’re allowed to drink water and take aspirin to avoid a hangover even though you drank too much alcohol–and that’s a case where the consequence is far more likely and prevalent than an unwanted pregnancy after consensual sex and is also far less onerous.
However, the fetus’ right to life does supercede the mother’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, much as it does after the child is born and the mother is required to constrain her liberty and pursuit of happiness to the extent necessary to feed, clothe, and otherwise care for it.
After birth she can relinquish her rights as a parent and put the child up for adoption. In some states she can drop the baby off at a hospital and never pick it up again. A fetus and especially an embryo can not be separated by any means that doesn’t kill the fetus/embryo.
A fetus and especially an embryo can not be separated by any means that doesn’t kill the fetus/embryo.
Not atm, but incubators are not at all far away. Expensive, but once theoretically possible, do they change the moral calculus? I’m inclined to think they do, but then I’m inclined to think lots of things change the moral calculus, especially when death is on the line.
(Never bet against a Sicilian when death is on the line.)
A prospective donor did not create the other person’s need for a kidney. But the mother did help create the fetus’s life. That voluntary action trumps her right to bodily autonomy.
We do not allow them to do so to the extent that the actions they take risk someone else’s life.
Until those actions are completed the biological parents are still personally responsible for preserving the child’s life and supporting it. In performing those actions the biological parents have met their obligations by legally transferring the responsibility of preserving the child’s life to someone else who in turn has agreed to accept them and be bound to them by law.
Suppose that the other person has a genetic condition which led to his need for a new kidney; and suppose that the prospective donor is the father, and the genetic condition is one known to be in the father’s family (although the father himself doesn’t have it, and has two healthy kidneys).
In that case, the father did help create the life, and in a sense created the need for the kidney. Yet he unquestionably has the legal right to refuse to donate a kidney.
But in the case of abortion, there is no “someone else.” Before there are substantial higher brain functions, a fetus is no more a person than a finger is a person. And virtually all abortions — including late term abortions — take place prior to the fetus developing higher brain functions.
“In a sense” is not enough to create the obligation.
Wherein we hit one of the major moral distinctions over which pro-life and pro-choice people differ.
A finger will never develop into a whole human being. A fetus, absent unfortunate circumstance, will. Pro-choice people say that potential != actual and until some threshold is met (e.g., higher brain function) there is no obligation to preserve the fetus’ life. Pro-life people for the most part hold that once there is a fetus (actually, once there is an embryo) its potential for human life is automatically invested with certain rights, most specifically the right to life. I am persuaded that the latter is the more moral viewpoint.
Which speaks to this as well. I believe that Gladatrix misunderstands ( a kinder proposition than holding that Gladatrix misrepresents) the pro-life argument here. The pro-life argument is not that a fertilized egg should be preserved against abortion because it contains 46 chromosomes. It is that it should be so preserved because it will develop into a human being, which an excised appendix will not.
RonF:
It’s not voluntary if it’s not volitional. It’s really not voluntary if you’ve taken reasonable steps to avoid the consequence, like using birth control.
[Amelioration
Sure we do. I’m allowed to defend my life against attack even to the point of killing my attacker. I’m allowed to avoid a collision in front of me by slamming on the brakes in my car even if the car behind me might rear-end me.
Why not? In this case, the father co-created the child, and it was the father’s genes that created the kidney problem.
But why?
An acorn is not an oak tree. If I trespass on your property and cut down a 200-year-old oak tree, I’ve committed a far graver offense than if I trespass on your property and crush an acorn lying on the ground by stepping on it.
Imagine a person whose higher brain has been liquefied. They can potentially live another 50 years on life support, but they will never think or feel anything ever again. Most people, and conventional medicine, would say that person is dead. Yet they are “human life.”
Now imagine there’s an injured person with an intact, functioning brain, but there’s a small but real risk she could die or be permanently injured unless she’s put on life support. But the only life support equipment available, for some reason, is the equipment that’s keeping the brainless body alive.
In that situation, would you move the life support equipment? If you do, the brainless body dies, but the injured woman’s risk of death or permanent injury is massively reduced.
I’d say that the brainless body is not a living person, and the needs of people should outweigh needs of non-people. What’s your thought?
Under certain circumstances (i.e., cloning, being held in a laboratory while a scientist builds and nourishes the fetus), cells from an excised appendix will develop into a human being. Under other circumstances, they won’t.
Under certain circumstances (being held in a woman’s womb while the woman’s body builds and nourishes the fetus, not being miscarried, etc), a fertilized egg will develop into a human being. Under other circumstances, they won’t.
No one would say that the scientist should be legally forced to turn the cells into a human being. Yet both cells in a cloning lab, and a fertilized egg, could potentially become people.
For that matter, an unfertilized egg could also, under certain circumstances, become fertile. (I.e., it could be fertilized.) So shouldn’t we legally require women to obtain sperm to fertilize their eggs? Why isn’t the potential life inherent in an unfertilized egg given a right to life?
In my opinion, the best argument against abortion is that an abortion that fails can damage the fetus, and then a child is born with a handicap.
For the record, I’m ok with the current law in my country which allows abortion in the first 3 months, and anytime after the 3 months for medical reasons.
It’s not voluntary if it’s not volitional. It’s really not voluntary if you’ve taken reasonable steps to avoid the consequence, like using birth control.
Since you know that the reasonable steps are not fool-proof, then “I took some steps to maybe prevent the undesired outcome” doesn’t really cut it. “I was living chastely and avoiding sex altogether, but then was raped” cuts it in many ways; “I was having lots of PIV sex but it was on the pill so it shouldn’t count” is just, well, childish. Childish in the sense of wanting the outcome and thinking that the desire constitutes concrete action to guarantee the outcome. It doesn’t.
Birth control is a minimal first step in the “I never want children” panoply of actions. It is necessary but quite insufficient to establish a genuine volitional movement to FORBID pregnancy. Forbidding pregnancy, absent rape, is pretty easy: don’t fuck. Nobody has ever died from not fucking, and “I really want to fuck, though!” while a totally understandable position (I’m totally there! It’s been a long week!) doesn’t equal “I am taking all the steps that a prudent person would recognize as necessary to totally avoid pregnancy.”
An acorn is also not a human life. The type and value of a potential human is far higher and has far more priority than a potential oak tree. It has rights that an acorn does not have.
Yes, but the father did not create his genes – that was literally an act of God.
The attacker created the situation by attacking you. It’s reasonable for him or her to presume that you will use deadly force to defend yourself against deadly force and accepted that risk when they decided to commit the assault.
That does put the person behind you at risk, true. OTOH, by getting in your car and driving you accept that someone might do this in front of you AND you are told by your driving instructor, the Secretary of State when you take your driver’s test and the cops when you take traffic school (don’t ask how I know the latter …) that you should expect something like this to happen and that you should leave sufficient space between you and the car in front of you to stop in case just that circumstance occurs. So that driver knows about and accepts that risk when they got in their car and decided on how closely to follow you.
Even if someone caused an accident, the completely innocent pedestrian who got hurt and now needs a transplant still doesn’t have the right to force the person who caused the accident to “donate” his kidney.
You want something that is not yet a human baby to have more rights than any actual living human has.
Also, if the potential for human life is so sacred, why aren’t people trying to outlaw male masturbation. So many potential lives wasted! Why are women allowed to use the pill? Every month, a potential baby dies!
Why is a fertilized egg so much more special? All it takes for an egg or a sperm to turn into a n embryo is sex at the right moment once. To turn an embryo into a baby takes 9 month of incredibly hard work on the part of the body of the pregnant person, plus hours of painfull delivery (and that’s the best case scenario). Yet anti-choicers claim that a fertilized egg is practically a baby. Why not eggs and sperm, then?
A prospective donor did not create the other person’s need for a kidney. But the mother did help create the fetus’s life. That voluntary action trumps her right to bodily autonomy.
A bone marrow donor signed up to be on a registry to donate if needed. Does that voluntary action trump his/her right to bodily autonomy, i.e. saying “no” in the actual event?
The type and value of a potential human is far higher and has far more priority than a potential oak tree.
In that case, about your mastrabation and/or protected sex history… those were little potential lives, needing only an egg to combine with, that you were throwing away by deliberately exposing them to an environment where they’d have no chance of meeting an egg. (Or is the argument that it’s immoral to have unprotected PIV sex because the sperm might meet an egg and be merged into the egg and so “killed” as an independent entity before it would have died “naturally”…so confusing when you talk about the rights of one celled creatures.
Nobody has ever died from not fucking,
Actually, there’s at least moderate data to suggest that people without partners don’t live as long. So, yes, you can. Or at least you’re likely to die younger as an indirect consequence of not having sex: no chance to bond with a partner, lower life satisfaction, more depression, earlier death. Maybe the best way is for everyone with any flexibility in their sexual orientation to have gay/lesbian sex.
The cases aren’t parallel. Both of these illustrate the doctrine of Competing Harms, which is very well-established in the American legal system.
In the first case, if someone attacks you, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. The level of force may not significantly exceed the level of threat; you can’t defend against a flyswatter by using a knife. Also, in most jurisdictions and cases, if you helped create the circumstances and could reasonably have foreseen that force might become an issue, and could reasonably have avoided the circumstances, your right to use force to defend yourself evaporates. You cannot step into the path of a car and then shoot the driver in “self defense”.
In the second case, you are avoiding a certain harm (another collision, this one versus a stationary car) by risking a possible, likely lesser, harm (a possible collision, between two cars travelling in the same direction, after one or both cars have scrubbed off some speed). If you were following too closely yourself, then you may be legally responsible, in part, for one of those collisions. Otherwise, it’s the person behind you.
Note that in both cases, if you engage in conduct and it was reasonably foreseeable that something bad might happen, you are legally responsible for the bad thing happening.
Grace
Many of these analogies seem to ignore the fact that in almost every moral calculus I’ve seen or heard of, parents have greater responsibilities toward their offspring than random strangers off the street have to other strangers or mystery violinists.
And yet even a child does not have the right to demand that a parent donate an organ to hir. Parental responsibility is high, but there are limits.
And again, something that has the potential to become a child is not the same as an actaul child.
ETA: sorry, not sure why that double-posted
Just dropping in to say that I have been reading and wishing I had the time to comment–not just on this thread; on others as well–and that I thought I would add a post I wrote a long time ago, Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking, to the mix.
Pingback: Welcome to Monday ~ 26th September 2011 | feminaust ~ for australian feminism