Pro-Choice / Pro-Life Retread

[Lord Mhoram]

Fist,

(Some might think that's wrong regardless of what the mother says.)

That is the crux of the matter. Pro-choicers feel that it is the mother's choice about what to do with the fetus. Pro-lifers, which I think I am safe in assuming you are, feel that abortion is simply wrong, and the choice should not be left to the mother. I disagree.

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, it's all a matter of how much value we assign to a fetus.

[Furls Fire]

Life, I feel, begins at conception. A baby's heart is beating by the 5th week gestation. By eight weeks little hands and feet begin to form, the head and brain begin to form...all this has happened probably before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

Yes, the baby is completely dependant on his/her mother's body for survival at this point, but he/she is alive in my opinion. In later months, the baby moves around, kicks, sucks his/her fingers or thumb, drinks ambiotic fluid, goes thru periods of "wakefulness" and "sleep", gets the hiccups...all inside the mother's womb. The baby is not just a "collection of cells" and how do you know the baby is not sentient? How do you know that he/she is not aware of him/herself? Because he/she can't tell you?

Abortion, to me, is murder.

[Lord Mhoram]

Furls,

It's definitely "alive." But what is a "life"? Is it more than, say, an ameba? It isn't conscious nor sentient. Studies show sentience occurs probably several months after birth, as I said.

Is a month-old baby self-aware?

I could even argue that the fetus is a parasite, if I wanted to!

[Furls Fire]

I believe babies are self-aware in-utero. All of my children at birth were self aware. They knew when they were hungry, when they were content, when they were cold...and they knew me, my voice, and they knew their father's voice. At 1 month they were able to communicate their happiness by smiling. And one minute they were able to communicate their discomfort thru crying.

A fetus, to me, (and I say "to me" because this is my opinion), is alive, and sentient, and not just a collection of cells...and is certainly not a parasite.

[Lord Mhoram]

Furls,

For the record, I do not believe a fetus is a parasite, though I have actually seen that line of logic used before...

However. Here is the line of argument I will use. It is Judith Jarvis Thomson's defense of abortion: It is not necessarily true that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to control what happens to her body when these rights come into conflict.

So basically, I can totally buy this: The woman's right to control her own body is greater than that of keeping alive a fetus of dubious consciousness.

Regarding sentience: There is a lot of debate on that. I've seen it said so many times that it is sentient, or that it is not. It's an OLD argument.

[sgt.null]

let's put it this way Mhoram, why stop at the foetus. let's logically assign your position. say I need your kidney, I should be able to take it right?

"However. Here is the line of argument I will use. It is Judith Jarvis Thomson's defense of abortion: It is not necessarily true that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to control what happens to her body when these rights come into conflict."

so might makes right? if I can take your kidney, it's mine, right? you having a kidney I need conflicts with my right to choose life.

[Avatar]

I do love this topic. Nice to see it re-treaded again. LM, I've used the "parasite" argument myself, and biologically, it's a pretty fair damn assessment I think, not only of the foetus, but of the child as well. Pleae note: Biologically not emotionally, morally, socially or reproductively.

Fist, while I certainly agree that extreme examples are often warranted, I feel I must point out that abortion is rarely carried out that late, and indeed, usually while there is no more than a collection of cells which even stringent medical intervention would be hard pressed to maintain, if they could do so at all.

For me, the issue is indeed sentience and viability, and above all, choice. Where the state, or any religion, attempts to control what we may and may not do with our bodies, be it suicide, euthanasia or abortion to name but a few, it seems nothing more than slavery to me. Either we are nobody's property but our own, or we are the property of the state. And I do not believe that the state has the right to treat us as property.

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Fist,

I don't see how some freak premature birth has anything to do with this. Of course they should save the baby, if the mother wishes to. If the mother wished to have the fetus aborted during an early strage of pregnancy, then yes the should have done that too.

Okay, working in this whole "freak" scenario here...

Moments before this "freak" birth happened, this baby was a five-month old fetus.
I believe (tell me if I'm wrong in this) that you are saying that it would be okay for a mother to abort the fetus at this point.

Now, the "freak" birth happens.
Is the baby that is now in the cold world now suddenly worth saving? If someone were to smother the child now, would it be called murder?
If so, why wasn't it so before?
What is it, exactly, that makes the born baby's life so much more valuable than the fetus in the womb's life, in your opinion?

[Iryssa]

P.S. Those questions are open for anyone to answer

[Avatar]

LM did specify that if she had wanted to at an "earlier stage." I don't think he was advocating late-term abortion per se.

In my (possibly extreme) opinion, there is nothing different. The only difference that I'll submit is that the premature baby (or any other baby, premature or not) has become an independent entity, no longer a physical part of the parent.

The only thing is that the potential is closer to being (has a better chance of being) realised.

Philosophers on Abortion and Infanticide

In his article entitled ‘In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,’ Michael Tooley introduces Feinberg’s ‘interest principle’ in an effort to better explain his position. He tells us that, according to the ‘interest principle’, only that which has or is capable of having interests can have rights. In addition, interests are in some way related to desires. Tooley finds the interest principle somewhat lacking for his purposes because although it talks of things possibly having rights, it does not talk of things actually having "rights - including, in particular, a right not to be destroyed" (Feinberg 1984: 124). He goes on to define a ‘particular interest principle’ which, he tells us, asserts "that an entity cannot have a particular right, R, unless it is at least capable of having some interest, I, which is furthered by its having right R" (Feinberg 1984: 125). This, he tells us, will help to explain why new-born kittens have a right not to be tortured but do not have a serious right to life. Kittens have a right not to be tortured, according to Tooley, because they can be said to have an interest in not experiencing pain. Kittens do not, however, according to Tooley, have a serious right to life because they cannot be said to have an interest in their own continued existence. Tooley contends that kittens cannot have an interest in their own continued existence because they lack self-consciousness. Moreover, he argues that since not only foetuses but also new-born babies lack self-consciousness and, consequently, cannot have an interest in their own continued existence, they also do not have a serious right to life.

Tooley applies the ‘particular interest principle’ to the concept of a right to life. Before doing this, however, he replaces the term ‘right to life’ with the term ‘right of a subject of experiences and other mental states to continue to exist’. He makes the point that interests presuppose desires and that desires "existing at different times can belong to a single continuing subject of consciousness only if that subject of consciousness possesses, at some time, the concept of a continuing self or mental substance" (Feinberg 1984: 129). The latter point, together with the ‘particular interest principle’, are used to argue for the necessary condition, viz. that the entity have, at least once, "the concept of a continuing self or mental substance," which something must fulfil in order that it possess a right to life (Feinberg 1984: 130).

Tooley then explores the implications which the latter statement has for the morality of abortion and infanticide. He points out that if, as most philosophers do, one sees the mind and brain as being closely related, then "when human development, both behavioural and neurophysiological, is closely examined, it is seen to be most unlikely that human fetuses, or even newborn babies, possess any concept of a continuing self " (Feinberg 1984: 130-131). What this means, according to Tooley, is that neither newborn babies nor foetuses have a right to life.

If, however, one chooses to hold that the mind is distinct from the brain, then, according to Tooley, this commits one either to the belief "that it is possible to establish, by means of a purely metaphysical argument, that a human mind, with its mature capacities, is present in a human from conception onward " or to the belief "that it is a divinely revealed truth that human beings have minds from conception onward" (Feinberg 1984: 131). He denies the validity of the former belief and points out that doubts about the existence of God create uncertainty about the validity of the latter belief. In addition, Tooley points out that the latter belief does not enjoy widespread acceptance either among religions or within the religion to which it belongs.

--A

[Iryssa]

LM did specify that if she had wanted to at an "earlier stage." I don't think he was advocating late-term abortion per se.

Ah, gotcha...hadn't noticed that...skimming again All this trying to catch up on things

[Avatar]

I know how you feel, and I only miss weekends.

--A

[Prebe]

Mohram: While I agree with you in terms of being pro-abortion (provided the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks) you must enlighten me as to the meaning of the term pro-choise if it does not mean pro-abortion.

[Prebe]

Fist:

Who was talking about abortion in the 5'th month?

[Avatar]

Personally, I see pro-choice as not necessarily meaning pro-abortion. Pro-choice implies a far wider range of issues than simply abortion.

I think that "prevention" is far better than abortion myself. And I think that if you're going to have a child, you should be prepared to offer the best to it that you possibly can. But I don't believe in telling a person that they must or must not do something. Give them all the information, and let them make their own informed choice.

Pro-choice covers, as I mentioned, suicide, euthanasia, drug-use, body-modification, anything that deals with a persons belief as to what is good (or at least right) for themselves. Who are we to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do, as long as it doesn't hurt others unnecesarily?

Pro-choice doesn't imply encouragement to do something, or insistence that anybody does something. It doesn't imply agreement or approval. It implies that everybody has the right to make those decisions for themselves.

--A

[Prebe]

Pro-choice covers, as I mentioned, suicide, euthanasia, drug-use, body-modification, anything that deals with a person’s belief as to what is good

I would consider it impossible to compound issues as abortion, drug-use, body modification and euthanasia into the same discussion. Or at least unlikely to find a group of people who all agree to the endorsement of freedom of choice in ALL of the mentioned issues, AND who could argument equally well for their attitude towards each.

The danger in using positively charged and generalising epithets (thanks for that word Edge) I have already described. Charged words are generally applied to persuade ill informed, indifferent and sceptic people that your stance is the right one, and to create an opposite entity: the bad guys.

I like to refrain from using such cheap tricks in a discussion

[Avatar]

While I certainly agree with both the danger, and the unfairness, of using such emotionally charged words in a debate, I was simply offering what I consider to be encompassed in the term "pro-choice."

In fact, the term itself goes a long way toward explaining itself. Pro-choice. In favour of people's right to choose for themselves.

And BTW I endorse freedom of choice in all those mentioned issues, and I'm perfectly willing to debate it with anybody who cares to.

What I was really trying to highlight was the same danger of people assuming that "pro-choice" meant encouraging abortion, when nothing could be further from the truth in terms of definition at least.

My GF is a perfect example. She says that she could never have an abortion, and that abortion is, to her, indeed murder. However, she won't let that view make her say that nobody else may have one, nor does she judge other people for making the choice that they believe is right for them. She believes it is up to each person to choose for themselves. Pro-Choice.

--A

[Prebe]

Avatar: I see what you are saying. But a person, who believes abortion to be murder, and who says that other people should have the right to choose to have an abortion, is ín this way saying that others have the right to commit murder (without legal consequences). I am sure she can't mean that!

[Cail]

But Cail...a fetus really isn't a "person." It is only a "potential person." It isn't even physically independent: it is still in the womb. How can aborting a physically dependent fetus be murder?

A hair follicle contains a full set my DNA. Would you defend its human rights?

Further, a fetus isn't even sentient. Sentience doesn't usually come about until months after birth.

LM, you've defined a fetus as a non-person because it makes it easier to justify your position. History should teach you that defining a group as non-persons is a dangerous road to go down.

Further, it doesn't make any sense (neither does the hair argument or the sentience argument). Newborn children aren't physically independant either, so it should be OK to snuff them too, right? And what does sentience have to do with the argument? Got anything scientific to back up when sentiece occurs?