What Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

reply to post by yes4141


In afterthought I did want to restate I am NOT in favor of making abortion illegal but I do strongly believe there needs to be more guidelines.

I am new here and as I am still figuring out my way around my frustration with this particular thread is I have had to restate this several times, due to (I think) people coming into the thread later and thinking by my posts I am opposed to legal abortion.

Now I am unsubscribing from the thread.

reply to post by Wertwog


I do advocate restrictions on abortion only in the late-term. Most countries do have such restrictions, so you can look at these to see how it works in practice.

Do you really want the state to be telling us what we can do with our reproductive organs?

Yes, to a point. I believe reproduction freedoms are too extensive today, and I advocate things like ban on late-term abortions or population control like in China.

Originally posted by jeramie
It doesn't matter what it's called. It's still murder.

It does matter what it's called, because perceptions and thoughts form the basis of the law. And the perceptions and thoughts of the masses are directly controlled by the media and the NWO who controls that media. Of course they want abortion, they want decreased population by any means necessary.

Ethically, abortion is almost always wrong and irresponsible. But we have it as much due to a corrupt populace as to the corrupt people at the top, controlling that populace and their beliefs.

reply to post by Observer99



Very well put..and much wisdom in those words.

Society is easily influenced by the masses and media , which uses the human condition of wanting to be accepted by their peers, as a tool.

reply to post by Maslo


Forcing someone to reproduce is tyranny no matter what reasons you have for it.

You all seem to think saying it's "wrong" is somehow going to matter. Banning abortion would simply mean instead of dead babies, you'd now have dead mothers and babies.

Wake up to the real world people, your high morals opinions don't matter one bit and all you'd end up doing is forcing your daughters and sisters into back alley rooms to men with coat hangers. How easily people forget history...

You all sound very noble and well meaning, but extremely naive. You forget the pennyroyal and other abortives women used for centuries, the recipes still exist. Before there was contraception, how do you think women managed to avoid have 10, 20+ babies (one every year of their reproductive life, less miscarriages)? Abortives and abortion was widespread, these things women knew and taught each other.

The midwives and the old crones knew the recipes, sold the tinctures, and taught wives and girls how to manage their reproduction so they didn't end up having 18 babies... sometimes husbands encouraged it, so many mouths to feed, and always the risk of loosing the mother in childbirth. Often the abortives killed also, dangerous mixtures that could cause uncontrolled bleeding. Infanticide (especially of girl babies) and abortion has been with us for ever. That is the reality of human life. In this age we have been freed of the need of it somewhat with the pill and good contraception. Make no mistake, any change in that availability for the worse would mean a return to reproductive slavery for women.

Whether it's WRONG or RIGHT is beside the point. Abortion WILL CONTINUE regardless of any laws. It has for centuries and it will until the end of human life. The question really is do we want our daughters to have legal or illegal access to it.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

I do advocate restrictions on abortion only in the late-term. Most countries do have such restrictions, so you can look at these to see how it works in practice.

Do you really want the state to be telling us what we can do with our reproductive organs?

Yes, to a point. I believe reproduction freedoms are too extensive today, and I advocate things like ban on late-term abortions or population control like in China.

edit on 10/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Hummm. Ok, I'll bite. Here's how it works in practice, as you say. As regards China's one child policy, perhaps you are not aware of this...

Source
The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.

[.../snip]

According to Peter Stockland, "Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations." (Stockland, "China's baby-slaughter overlooked," The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claiming that "the imbalance between the sexes is now so distorted that there are 111 million men in China -- more than three times the population of Canada -- who will not be able to find a wife." As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has increased: "Since 1990, say official Chinese figures, 64,000 women -- 8,000 a year on average -- have been rescued by authorities from forced 'marriages'. The number who have not been saved can only be guessed at. ... The thirst for women is so acute that the slave trader gangs are even reaching outside China to find merchandise. There are regular reports of women being abducted in such places as northern Vietnam to feed the demand in China." (Jonathan Manthorpe, "China battles slave trading in women: Female infanticide fuels a brisk trade in wives," The Vancouver Sun, January 11, 1999.)

Beware. State interference in reproduction can have complex, disastrous and unintended consequences, but China is not alone. Cultural practices that prefer male children over female children 'load the deck' for increases in infanticide and gender selective abortion.

As already noted, female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in many societies around the world. The "burden" of taking a woman into the family accounts for the high dowry rates in India which, in turn, have led to an epidemic female infanticide. Typical also is China, where

culture dictates that when a girl marries she leaves her family and becomes part of her husband's family. For this reason Chinese peasants have for many centuries wanted a son to ensure there is someone to look after them in their old age -- having a boy child is the best pension a Chinese peasant can get. Baby girls are even called "maggots in the rice" ... ("The Dying Rooms Trust")

Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the Third and First Worlds. (This contrasts markedly with "infanticide in nonhuman primates," which "is carried out primarily by migrant males who are unrelated to the infant or its parents and is a manifestation of reproductive competition among males." [Glenn Hausfater, "Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives," Current Anthropology, 25: 4 (1984), p. 501.] It also serves as a reminder that gendercide may be implemented by those of the same gender.) In India, according to John-Thor Dahlburg, "many births take place in isolated villages, with only female friends and the midwife present. If a child dies, the women can always blame natural causes." (Dahlburg, "Where killing baby girls 'is no big sin'.") In the United States, "every year hundreds of women commit neonaticide [the killing of newborns] ... Prosecutors sometimes don't prosecute; juries rarely convict; those found guilty almost never go to jail. Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly 300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail." Much of "the leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers" reflects the fact that they are standardly "young, poor, unmarried and socially isolated," although it is notable that similar leniency is rarely extended to although it is notable that similar leniency is rarely extended to young, poor, and socially isolated male murderers. (Steven Pinker, "Why They Kill Their Newborns", The New York Times, November 2, 1997.)

Human reproduction is socially and biologically complex. These examples dramatically illustrate that you can't solve these issues with a simple ban on abortion or population engineering. Infanticide and abortion does and always will exist regardless of the very naive and well meaning folks out there who will try to use the power of the state to control others. State interference in reproduction should be very minimal, and we should also look to the influence of gender biased cultural norms and practices (in other words, ourselves) to solve some of the issues of why a girl or woman would be driven to considering this choice to begin with.

Originally posted by loam
Does science play any role in any of your analysis?

In my scientific analysis, yes. In my personal analysis, no.

Even without medical help, many fetuses in the third trimester are capable of surviving outside the womb with little or no medial assistance.

This is true. But only if the host (pregnant woman) allows it to attach and grow within her womb. I'm not sure of your point.

I can think of another context where the issue of 'control of body' arises between two people-- conjoined twins.

Conjoined twins are BORN. And therefore have all the same rights as any other person.

The physical dependencies can range across the spectrum from little to great-- precisely in the same manner as any fetus and mother.

Except that conjoined twins are BORN and fetuses are not.

Citing the law as 'evidence' of the objective nature of something is pretty weak, imo. Blacks were chattel under the law at one time, but it didn't make it true, did it?

I was making a statement of fact, not citing evidence. By law. a fetus is not a person. That's not evidence of anything, just a statement.

Seems pretty arbitrary doesn't it? If the seminal moment of passing thru a uterus is all that is required to graduate into person-hood, then that's really not too different from the dozens of other silly religious "rights of passage" beliefs about when a person becomes something.

It's not the passing through the birth canal that makes a person (the baby actually grows in the uterus), it's the birth and cutting of the cord - the disconnection from the host that is the pivotal moment or the "right of passage" It doesn't seem arbitrary to me at all, just the opposite, in fact. A totally dependent life attains "personhood" when they physically disconnect from their host and start their journey to grow into an autonomous human being.The birth and cutting of the cord is not arbitrary at all.

I actually think rights of passage are a very important part of a culture and shouldn't be ignored. We (Americans) don't have a right of passage for boys to men and I personally think that having one would help men to grow up and start taking responsibility instead of growing up to be nothing more than irresponsible big boys with their favorite toys. That's not to say that all men are irresponsible by any means, but a "right of passage" into adulthood would be a great addition to our culture, IMO.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

It's not the passing through the birth canal that makes a person (the baby actually grows in the uterus), it's the birth and cutting of the cord - the disconnection from the host that is the pivotal moment or the "right of passage" It doesn't seem arbitrary to me at all, just the opposite, in fact. A totally dependent life attains "personhood" when they physically disconnect from their host and start their journey to grow into an autonomous human being.The birth and cutting of the cord is not arbitrary at all.

What exactly is the important difference between birth and separation of conjoined twins? Both unborn babies and unseparated conjoined twins are biologically dependent, which is the core of your argument, isnt it? The analogy still stands.

I dont see how a radically pro-choice person (personhood defined by birth) can be anti-choice in case of conjoined twins without a case of serious cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by Maslo
What exactly is the important difference between birth and separation of conjoined twins?

With conjoined twins, they are both equal persons who have been born. A fetus is not.

I dont see how a radically pro-choice person (personhood defined by birth) can be anti-choice in case of conjoined twins without a case of serious cognitive dissonance.

The difference is that an unborn fetus is completely reliant on the host. They share no organs or body parts. The fetus is dependent for its very survival on the host. Conjoined twins are two living (BORN) people who happen to share some body parts. For them to separate, it should be a joint decision or one made by their parents. It's not up to me or the state.

If you don't understand the difference, I'm afraid I can't help you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

With conjoined twins, they are both equal persons who have been born. A fetus is not.

Now answer WHY is birth of any importance?

The difference is that an unborn fetus is completely reliant on the host.

With the exception of late-term fetuses, which are not. And I dont see why a conjoined twin cannot be completelly reliant on the other twin, too.

Conjoined twins are two living (BORN) people who happen to share some body parts.

Living does not equal born. Foetus is alive, but not born.

If you don't understand the difference, I'm afraid I can't help you.

No, I dont understand it. The analogy is perfect. I am afraid that any difference in judging these two equal situations is a case of cognitive dissonance, nothing more.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

[...snip]

The difference is that an unborn fetus is completely reliant on the host.

With the exception of late-term fetuses, which are not. And I dont see why a conjoined twin cannot be completelly reliant on the other twin, too.

[.../snip]

Wrong.

Late-term fetuses are still completely reliant on the host for the essentials of life, the proof is that if the mother dies so will the baby.

Personhood is based on being born. When you are born and the umbilical is cut is when you become a person, in law. Not before. Autonomy from your mother is the right of passage for becoming a person. If you are two people, joined and dependent on each other as some conjoined twins are, you are still people because you have been born. The 'host' is the mother, once that dependency is cut is the defining moment.

The concept of personhood stems in large part from agency.

In philosophy... the term may designate any human (or non-human) agent which: (1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.[5]

Source

The key is that while a fetus may have consciousness and frame representations about the world, while connected to the host mother is incapable of acting on them.

however,

The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy. In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic. However, personhood could also extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is required. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is a term used to describe the status of a human being vis-a-vis his or her individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade.[12] However, the distinction in ethical value between currently existing persons and potential future persons has been questioned.[13] Subsequently, it has been argued that contraception and even the decision not to procreate at all could be regarded as immoral on a similar basis as abortion.[14]

Susan Bordo has suggested that the overwhelming focus on the issue of personhood in abortion debates has often been an alibi for depriving women of their own rights as persons. She writes that "the legal double standard concerning the bodily integrity of pregnant and nonpregnant bodies, the construction of women as fetal incubators, the bestowal of 'super-subject' status to the fetus, and the emergence of a father's-rights ideology" demonstrate "that the current terms of the abortion debate – as a contest between fetal claims to personhood and women's right to choose – are limited and misleading."

While some tend to be comfortable constraining personhood status within the human species based on basic capacities (e.g. excluding human stem cells, fetuses, and bodies that cannot recover awareness), others often wish to include all these forms of human bodies even if they have never had awareness (which some would call pre-people) or had awareness, but could never have awareness again due to massive and irrecoverable brain damage (some would call these post-people). The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionalist understanding of personhood theory, while other communities, such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected personhood theory as biased against human exceptionalism. Of course, many religious communities (of many traditions) view the other versions of personhood theory perfectly compatible with their faith, as do the majority of modern Humanists (especially Personists).

reply to post by Wertwog

Wrong. Late-term fetuses are still completely reliant on the host for the essentials of life, the proof is that if the mother dies so will the baby.

Wrong. If the mother dies, the baby can survive independently. Never heard of preterm births?

Personhood is based on being born. When you are born and the umbilical is cut is when you become a person, in law. Not before. Autonomy from your mother is the right of passage for becoming a person.

You mean according to US law, and I am aware of that. I am asking to hear the justification for this, because it is an absurd criterion, IMHO, and even more importantly, inconsistently applied.

If you are two people, joined and dependent on each other as some conjoined twins are, you are still people because you have been born. The 'host' is the mother, once that dependency is cut is the defining moment.

All right, I will make it simple:

1. Birth is an important criterion PRECISELY BECAUSE it is when last biological connection is severed, and the issue becomes pointless. (Or if you have another reason, I am all ears.)

2. That has not yet happened for conjoined twins, they are still biologically connected, and may be even variously dependent for survival, just like a foetus.

3. Therefore any pro-choice until birth person must believe that conjoined twin has a right to decide about their own body even if it harms or kills the other twin, too. Otherwise it is inconsistent and a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

The concept of personhood stems in large part from agency. The key is that while a fetus may have consciousness and frame representations about the world, while connected to the host mother is incapable of acting on them.

It is just one of the definitions, and one I surely disagree with. I do not see why the ability to act should be of any importance for this definition. And what exactly does birth change on the ability to act, anyway?

reply to post by Wertwog

Forcing someone to reproduce is tyranny no matter what reasons you have for it. You all seem to think saying it's "wrong" is somehow going to matter. Banning abortion would simply mean instead of dead babies, you'd now have dead mothers and babies.

Abortion is banned in second or third trimester in plenty of countries, and you are making it much more of an issue than it really is. This "tyranny" means a tiny fraction of pregnant women who suddenly do not want their baby and have not obtained abortion before the abortion limit has passed have to endure few months of relative discomfort. How horrible

Originally posted by Maslo
1. Birth is an important criterion PRECISELY BECAUSE it is when last biological connection is severed, and the issue becomes pointless. (Or if you have another reason, I am all ears.)

Very close, but a couple important things are missing. I would say that Birth is an important criterion PRECISELY BECAUSE it is when last biological connection between host and offspring is severed, and the offspring's biological functioning becomes independent from the source.

With twins, one is not created inside of and dependent on the other for its life, growth, nourishment, and entry into this world. The twins are clearly two equal individuals with some biological functions they share. They are equals.

That is the difference to me.

3. Therefore any pro-choice until birth person must believe that conjoined twin has a right to decide about their own body even if it harms or kills the other twin, too. Otherwise it is inconsistent and a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

From Wiki: Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

I assure you, I am not experiencing cognitive dissonance. I am comfortable with my opinions on when life begins, who has the right to decide and the legal and moral status of abortion. I am also comfortable with my opinions on conjoined twins, as if that has ANYTHING to do with abortion.

It seems as though you may be uncomfortable with my opinions or more likely, you don't understand them fully, but rest assured, I feel no hypocrisy in my position at all. And I'm not sure why it's important to you to find hypocrisy in my opinions, but I'm enjoying the debate.

I do appreciate you challenging my position in such a non-personal way and avoiding the normal attacks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for taking the time to address my post.

I can see we approach the issue from completely different perspectives, not likely to change as a result of any discussion on these boards.

This isn't my favorite subject anyhow-- frankly for this very reason.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

Forcing someone to reproduce is tyranny no matter what reasons you have for it. You all seem to think saying it's "wrong" is somehow going to matter. Banning abortion would simply mean instead of dead babies, you'd now have dead mothers and babies.

Abortion is banned in second or third trimester in plenty of countries, and you are making it much more of an issue than it really is. This "tyranny" means a tiny fraction of pregnant women who suddenly do not want their baby and have not obtained abortion before the abortion limit has passed have to endure few months of relative discomfort. How horrible

edit on 20/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

You admit it is tyranny. I disagree it is a "tiny fraction" and you totally ignore the fact that regardless of any law women are going to do this anyway, but having it available in the first trimester makes illegal and more dangerous abortions in later trimesters less common. You make women sound fickle and changeable as the wind when it comes to these issues -- I assure you it is never taken lightly.

It is far more of an issue than you seem to think it is! Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently dangerous and life threatening. It is not a minor inconvenience or "discomfort" like a belly ache or a very long constipation. For many women pregnancy truly is "horrible" and even in the developed world women still die, and there is ALWAYS RISK. My best friend came very close to death delivering her first child in an advanced state-of-the-art hospital. An emergency C-section was performed and she and the baby survived. They very nearly had to choose between them. She was incapacitated for weeks recovering from bloodloss, some women are not so lucky.

Women's bodies are permanently altered during and after pregnancy, and motherhood is a lifelong commitment. Her status is effected, her life prospects, her career, reputation and social network greatly impacted and life permanently altered. Even if the baby is adopted out the mother will bear the effects the rest of her life, mentally and physically. It is very callous and cold of you to dismiss women's psycho-physiology so flippantly. A child is not a wart to be removed and forgotten. A baby is not something a woman just "pops out" like a bottle rocket. A woman is not a fleshcubator slave to submit to your moral imperatives. Even when aborted or adopted the woman will bear this pain and remembrance forever, given the magnitude of the choice this is probably fitting.

Have you ever walked a mile in my aunt's shoes? My aunt who died from a back alley abortionist? If you can walk a mile in her shoes I think you would have a different perspective on the issue. If you cannot, then I suggest you try to have a little compassion for all the complexities around this issue and what it must be like for a girl/woman faced with this choice.

You will never end abortion, but you can end legal abortion. Question is: how do you want your daughters and sisters to abort their babies?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

Wrong. If the mother dies, the baby can survive independently. Never heard of preterm births?

Yes, I have because I am one. I was born at 6 1/2 months, 2lbs 3oz. I was BORN naturally to a live mother and incubated because my lungs, heart, liver and many organs were not developed. What I am talking about is when the mother dies the baby will always die (unless removed by extraordinary measures). The baby cannot birth itself and cannot cut it's own umbilical cord.

Personhood is based on being born. When you are born and the umbilical is cut is when you become a person, in law. Not before. Autonomy from your mother is the right of passage for becoming a person.

You mean according to US law, and I am aware of that. I am asking to hear the justification for this, because it is an absurd criterion, IMHO, and even more importantly, inconsistently applied.

I don't find it absurd at all and it has deep philosophical underpinnings and rationale that I referenced for you in my post. That it may be inconsistently applied has no relevance to it's logic - whether or not it is cogent or reasonable.

If you are two people, joined and dependent on each other as some conjoined twins are, you are still people because you have been born. The 'host' is the mother, once that dependency is cut is the defining moment.

All right, I will make it simple:

1. Birth is an important criterion PRECISELY BECAUSE it is when last biological connection is severed, and the issue becomes pointless. (Or if you have another reason, I am all ears.)

No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that when the umbilical is cut the entity is a free agent able to act on it's own behalf and exercise all the other criteria for person-hood.

2. That has not yet happened for conjoined twins, they are still biologically connected, and may be even variously dependent for survival, just like a foetus.

Wrong. When twins are born they usually satisfy the criteria for person-hood by being able to act via their own agency. That they are dependent on one another is not "just like a fetus" because they were born and are people. Sometimes, in cases where they share a brain and other major organs, they are actually just considered one "person" even though they might have extra limbs and other anomalies.

3. Therefore any pro-choice until birth person must believe that conjoined twin has a right to decide about their own body even if it harms or kills the other twin, too. Otherwise it is inconsistent and a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Conjoined twins who are considered two people. This is not always the case when they share one brain and major organs. In cases where they are considered two "people" they satisfy person-hood criteria. Harming or killing another person is generally considered illegal.

The concept of personhood stems in large part from agency. The key is that while a fetus may have consciousness and frame representations about the world, while connected to the host mother is incapable of acting on them.

It is just one of the definitions, and one I surely disagree with. I do not see why the ability to act should be of any importance for this definition. And what exactly does birth change on the ability to act, anyway?

Philosophers have debated this a long time, but to be considered a person you must be able to act upon your own desires and representations of the world. You are an "agent" in the world and can effect the world by acting upon it and within it. Babies in the womb do not have this ability and are completely reliant on the mother to act on their behalf for what she believes is their interest. They can not communicate this interest. To be considered a "person" as opposed to a rock or tree is that you must be able to act on your own behalf and form impressions of the world and be conscious of them. Some folks go so far as to consider animals people, and it is already law that corporations are people because they satisfy these criteria.

It is an interesting topic since many former persons have had their "person-hood" rights stripped away when they loose their ability to act on their own behalf, form representations about the world, and loose consciousness, usually due to medical conditions, diseases and accidents.

Aliens and other sentient beings may or may not be considered legally 'people' on earth since we do seem to restrict the definition, at least the intention of it, to humans. I would guess that aliens would be granted this right also, but it might depend on the form of alien life as to whether we could recognize their agency.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

With twins, one is not created inside of and dependent on the other for its life, growth, nourishment, and entry into this world. The twins are clearly two equal individuals with some biological functions they share. They are equals.

One twin can be biologically dependent on the other. They are not necessarily equals in this, just like a mother and a foetus. What is the difference, then? I dont see any.

reply to post by Wertwog

You admit it is tyranny. I disagree it is a "tiny fraction" and you totally ignore the fact that regardless of any law women are going to do this anyway, but having it available in the first trimester makes illegal and more dangerous abortions in later trimesters less common.

Protecting human beings is never tyranny. It is a tiny fraction, late-term abortions make up less than 1 % of abortions in countries where it is legal, and probably a lot less in those where it is illegal.

Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently dangerous and life threatening.

I can admit there is some danger, but not enough to justify killing the baby.

Anyway, ban on late term abortions does not mean women will be forced to be pregnant, because late-term babies are already beyond the point of external viability. Thats why there absolutely is no justification for late-term abortions being allowed.

Yes, I have because I am one. I was born at 6 1/2 months, 2lbs 3oz. I was BORN naturally to a live mother and incubated because my lungs, heart, liver and many organs were not developed.

I am one, too. 7 months and 1,5 kg.

What I am talking about is when the mother dies the baby will always die (unless removed by extraordinary measures). The baby cannot birth itself and cannot cut it's own umbilical cord.

That is not biological dependence as used in abortion debate, it is defined by point of external viability. I also fail to see how is it relevant. The baby also cannot feed itself, and will die without adults taking care of it whether pre-birth or post-birth. The only thing that birth changes is severing the last already obsolete biological connections.

No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that when the umbilical is cut the entity is a free agent able to act on it's own behalf and exercise all the other criteria for person-hood.

As I said, I disagree with your definition, I would cut out the last part:

(1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans

Also, can a newborn formulate plans? Are people always conscious?

No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that when the umbilical is cut the entity is a free agent able to act on it's own behalf and exercise all the other criteria for person-hood.

So what is the difference between this and a siamese twin? One is connected by an umbilical chord, the other by some artery, possibly vital. Are they not free agents, and thus no persons?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Protecting human beings is never tyranny. It is a tiny fraction, late-term abortions make up less than 1 % of abortions in countries where it is legal, and probably a lot less in those where it is illegal.

Late term abortions are fewer in countries that allow abortion in the 1st trimester, but not in countries where abortion is banned. Why do you think this is? It is because when abortion is a legal option women will choose to abort early on.

You seem to think tyranny is ok sometimes. Removing a human's basic rights is ok, sometimes. Almost all tyranny is done in the name of "protecting human beings". Just like all war is "self defense". Is a woman not a human being? Why would she have rights when she isn't pregnant but looses them when she is? Why are you so willing not to protect her right to self-sovereignty? Why do you make it ok to remove a person's basic human rights?

A 'baby' belongs to the mother. It is her flesh and blood. It does not belong to the state or anyone else. You do not have the "right" to remove a person's rights so this argument is rather frivolous actually. You want to assume the "right" to remove another person's "rights" and you believe that is ok.

Let's look at this from another angle. If I decided tomorrow that men's balls contained millions of potential babies and therefore wanted to outlaw the anything that 'wasted seed' (so to speak...umm, the big "M") I'm sure men would be the first to complain "get your laws off my body" and the porn industry would panic. I would not have the "right" to remove a man's right to do what he wanted with his package! It would be seen as ridiculous. Now lets extend this further by imagining if some of these babies actually gestated in testicles (ew, but..), do you think men would allow me to put my laws all over them? Would I be able to force all men to bring these babies to term? Of course not. It's absurd.

You have to see the gender politics involved here. It is because it is women that we even consider removing their rights and not for the high "moral" ground many of you proclaim.

I can admit there is some danger, but not enough to justify killing the baby.

In the modern developed world when there is a choice between saving the baby or the mother the mother is almost always chosen.

The risk is not an excuse to have an abortion, I wasn't saying it is except in cases where the mother has a medical condition that will put her life in danger (cystic fibrosis etc). What I was saying is that you seemed to think pregnancy was no more than a "discomfort" or an inconvenience with no consequences for the mother.

I am one, too. 7 months and 1,5 kg.

Then what is your point? It doesn't seem relevant.

What I am talking about is when the mother dies the baby will always die (unless removed by extraordinary measures). The baby cannot birth itself and cannot cut it's own umbilical cord.

That is not biological dependence as used in abortion debate, it is defined by point of external viability. I also fail to see how is it relevant. The baby also cannot feed itself, and will die without adults taking care of it whether pre-birth or post-birth. The only thing that birth changes is severing the last already obsolete biological connections.

I don't know the terms of the current abortion debate and how it is used, or really care, but in my mind it is not purely biological dependance or wholly external viability. You seem to fail to see the arguments already stated. Read again.

No, that is not the reason at all. The reason is that when the umbilical is cut the entity is a free agent able to act on it's own behalf and exercise all the other criteria for person-hood.

As I said, I disagree with your definition, I would cut out the last part:

(1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans

I'm sure you would disagree because it is inconvenient to your position. Are you really prepared to say a person is something that simply has free agency but no consciousness? What about a plant? Is it a person? No. Why not....? It acts upon the world, is an "agent" in space and time, acts upon the environment, grows, etc. Removing these other criteria would not seem to encompass the concept properly.

Also, can a newborn formulate plans?

I don't know, but crying is not only communication, it is the method the baby chooses to deploy when trying to attract the attention of the mother for food, comfort etc. Once it learns what other methods are effective (smiles, hand gestures etc) it will begin to formulate plans and make choices to get its needs met. It can only do these things once it is outside of the womb.

So what is the difference between this and a siamese twin? One is connected by an umbilical chord, the other by some artery, possibly vital. Are they not free agents, and thus no persons?

edit on 21/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Person-hood is about agency but and also about consciousness, planning and ability to form impressions of the world and these are the philosophical roots of the concept whether you agree or not. Legal definitions may differ.

Are you really trying to argue that siamese twins are the equivalent of mother and child? If one is connected by an umbilical cord to the mother it is not yet a person - it has no agency. If they are connected to themselves they would be one or two persons who are dependent on each other. The courts will decide if it is one person or two based on the extent of their ability to act as agents in the world and the other elements. I'm not familiar with the legal criteria and precedence for how they rule on these cases, I'm sure there is a very complex and interesting process for making these determinations.

reply to post by Wertwog

You seem to think tyranny is ok sometimes. Removing a human's basic rights is ok, sometimes. Almost all tyranny is done in the name of "protecting human beings". Just like all war is "self defense". Is a woman not a human being? Why would she have rights when she isn't pregnant but looses them when she is? Why are you so willing not to protect her right to self-sovereignty? Why do you make it ok to remove a person's basic human rights?

Tyranny is certainly OK sometimes, when the alternative is worse, or would lead to greater breaching of basic human rights. Yes, removing human rights to protect life or health of another human being can be OK. Yes, defensive wars are OK. Violence is simply a tool. Tool itself is not evil, only how you use it can be evil.

You are implying baby in the third trimester is not a person. This is not a question of rights. Rights depend on our definition of a person, not the other way around.

A 'baby' belongs to the mother. It is her flesh and blood. It does not belong to the state or anyone else. You do not have the "right" to remove a person's rights so this argument is rather frivolous actually. You want to assume the "right" to remove another person's "rights" and you believe that is ok.

No, baby certainly does not belong to parents. Baby is individual person with rights, such as right to live, to be taken care of etc.. Baby belongs to noone. Otherwise child abuse would be legal. So what about childrens rights?

Parents do not have a right to do everything with their children. And yes, it is a duty of the state to protect individual rights, such as childrens rights.

I'm sure you would disagree because it is inconvenient to your position. Are you really prepared to say a person is something that simply has free agency but no consciousness?

Nor ability to act (free agency), nor continuous consciousness should define person IMHO. In the first case, it would allow to kill human beings which are exactly like you and me, only cannot influence the world for some case (illness, isolation). In the second case, early newborns or sleeping persons could be killed (they also momentarily lack free agency and ability to influence the external world, so they are also excluded by the first criterion).

This is my definition of a person, being:

It refers to a life form that has properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

Presence of mind is what should define personhood, and that is a question of neurology. According to brain scans, mind (ordered brain waves) develops after 5th month of fetal development. From then on, there is no difference between pregnant mother and siamese twins. Two sentient beings (persons) in one body. One of them should not have a right to kill the other one.

Whether something should have rights or not is thus a neurological question for me.

What about a plant? Is it a person? No. Why not....?

It is not a person, there is no sentience (mind), not even neural system, only automated life functions. You seem to misunderstood my post. The quoted part refers to part of definition I would keep, not what I would cut out. I would cut out the agency thingy.

Are you really trying to argue that siamese twins are the equivalent of mother and child? If one is connected by an umbilical cord to the mother it is not yet a person - it has no agency. If they are connected to themselves they would be one or two persons who are dependent on each other. The courts will decide if it is one person or two based on the extent of their ability to act as agents in the world and the other elements. I'm not familiar with the legal criteria and precedence for how they rule on these cases, I'm sure there is a very complex and interesting process for making these determinations.

I think it should be decided by psychologists and neurologists, on the basis of number of present functional neocortexes, not lawyers and some abstract " ability to act as agents in the world". There is a very interesting case of siamese twins who were joined by heads and had a brain connection:
www.nytimes.com...

Now I think these are two persons, since there are two neocortexes, where mind resides. Just like with pregnant mother and baby, after neocortex develops.