Pharyngula: Another contentious subject

#1

Contentious? Indisputable isn't it?

Posted by: Fnord Prefect | October 22, 2007 11:44 AM

#2

Not much to discuss, PZ. It seems to be a pretty bang-on appraisal of religious attitudes toward women. They are nothing but subjugated baby-factories whose only reason for living is to squeeze out one potential believer after another.

Posted by: Dan | October 22, 2007 11:46 AM

#3

Brilliant.

Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | October 22, 2007 12:00 PM

#4

You know what this means, PZ's beloved squids are not alive. They do not breath and therefore never had the "breath of life". Discuss.

Posted by: Janine | October 22, 2007 12:16 PM

#5

That's pretty funny. I wondered when others would bother to notice that, very literally, an unborn human is about as valuable as a sheep or goat from a strict biblical perspective and has no rights or even a value you might place upon any other production instrument in an agrarian economy.

Posted by: Moses | October 22, 2007 12:16 PM

#6

The specific situation mentioned in the Exodus text is precisely the same as is currently covered by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which means that the law is more draconian than the biblical law, which is hard to do.

Posted by: Moopheus | October 22, 2007 12:21 PM

#7

Haven't you heard? God is pro-choice

Posted by: The Professor | October 22, 2007 12:27 PM

#8

@#4: Nah. We commonly speak of fish and squid "breathing water" instead of air. Squid even ventilate the mantle cavity.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 22, 2007 12:30 PM

#9

All I could possibly add is that it wasn't until the 18th century (I think -- I'm not 100% sure about the date) that the Catholic Church decided to oppose all abortion at any stage of a pregnancy. Before then, their position had been that the soul entered the body at "quickening" -- i.e., when the fetus started moving inside the womb -- and that abortion was okay before that.

Of course, once they'd established the new policy, it had always been true for all time.

Oh, and I'd also add this: Yes, it's about keeping women under control. But I think it's also about keeping the birth rate high, and thus preserving and expanding the ranks of the faithful.

Posted by: Greta Christina | October 22, 2007 12:35 PM

#10

Catholic arguments against abortion go back quite a bit further than the 18th century - but on the grounds that abortion was the concealment of evidence of the crime of fornication or adultery. The purported personhood of a fetus is a modern addition.

Numbers 005:027 seems to be a recipe for how a priest can magically induce abortions for pregnancies caused by adultery (unless you can come up with another translation for the euphemism "... and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot ...").

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 22, 2007 12:47 PM

#11

The fundamental question remains unanswered. When does a fetus become an individual with rights to be respected?

Clearly, a fertilized egg is not an individual except by religious decree. However, is a just born infant an individual? Two hours before birth? 1 week before birth? 1 month before birth? There is a transition, and science must define a credible point.

Birth does not seem to be such a credible point. If it were, then insurance companies could well deny any pre-mature birth care.

So, at some point the argument shifts from the rights of the mother to the rights of both the mother and the child.

Posted by: George | October 22, 2007 12:49 PM

#12

@#8: How dare you quash an argument by bringing in the facts. Because as those of us of a certain age know: "Facts are stupid things."

Posted by: Janine | October 22, 2007 12:51 PM

#13

Great, according to George's insurance companies' theory of personhood my car and my home now are individuals with rights to be respected!

Posted by: Arnaud | October 22, 2007 1:00 PM

#14

If abortions were being performed 2 weeks before birth, you'd have a point, George. As it is, if there must be a time for the rights to "transfer" from mother to child (insinuating that we can safely assume that some pregnant women are not rights-bearing citizens), how about when they're separate people? Why have a situation where some pregnant women, for semi-arbitrary reasons, become non-rights-bearing people? Setting personhood at birth is the best way to make sure we don't punish women for getting pregnant, and you can rest easy about the imaginary women who get abortions for shits and giggles the day before they give birth. That's a fantasm of the religious right, not a real occurence.

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | October 22, 2007 1:10 PM

#15

We should start worshipping ventilators according to Bible.

Posted by: Edman | October 22, 2007 1:24 PM

#16

That's a fantasm of the religious right, not a real occurence.

True that.
I'm so fucking sick of the absolutely ridiculous specters and doomsday scenarios the wingnuts fabricate on a regular basis. They are not rooted in reality whatsoever, and are nothing but shameless attempts to whip the flock into a frenzy of hangwringing and draconian legislation.

Posted by: Paul D | October 22, 2007 1:31 PM

#17

@George

Life Insurance companies won't insure a baby until it has survived outside the womb 90 days...

So going by your definitions, a baby is a 'medical condition' while it's in the womb, then a non-person for the first 90 days outside the womb, and then alive? Does that make post-partum abortion legal for 90 days?

I'd also like personhood established for my vehicle and possessions, so that when I get in an accident, I can be charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter too.

Posted by: G | October 22, 2007 1:55 PM

#18

George: A number of events occur at birth, no matter how premature the birth, that make it a credible time to consider "personhood" to begin. The most obvious of these is the shift from a low-oxygen intrauterine environment to a high-oxygen extrauterine environment. Without the extra oxygen, it is likely that the fetal neocortex is essentially non-functional, no matter how developed it is compared to a premature infant.

I would claim that one can make a case for restricting third trimester abortion to cases of fetal anomaly or risk to the mother's life if and ONLY if abortion is freely available in the 1st 20-24 weeks. If it is, then one can state that being pregnant and doing nothing about it constitutes implicit permission for the fetus to use the pregnant woman's body as a support system for as long as it needs, unless it begins to endanger her. But if obstacles are placed such that it is not possible for her to obtain an abortion until very late, then the argument is obviously not sound.

Posted by: Dianne | October 22, 2007 1:57 PM

#19

My point is simply that there is a question of when a fetus gains rights as an individual, if it does. The argument simply laid out the obvious. If we agree that a fetus two weeks before term is an individual with rights, then when did that designation take place?

You can have a silly knee-jerk reaction that abortion is not common close to birth, but so what. I agree that abortion is a right of a woman up to a point, because there are no competing rights to deal with. Unfortunately, I don't know where that point is. This leaves unacceptable ambiguity. We need a scientific, rational approach. Religious or emotional knee-jerk approaches for any view are not acceptable either. The only other choices are birth or conception, neither is acceptable nor rationally defendable.

BTW- I am not aware of a car or home that has insurance. Only the owners / operators have insurance.

Posted by: George | October 22, 2007 1:59 PM

#20

There's no point in getting into quoting the Bible at fundies. They've been doing this longer than we have, and they care while we fundamentally don't. On Exodus 21:22 and abortions, a quick Google search finds:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion

and I can't imagine anything more tiresome than arguing about biblical translations with fundamentalists.

Posted by: Paul Crowley | October 22, 2007 2:20 PM

#21

George, as a pro-choicer who occasionally goes so far as to describe himself as "pro-abortion" (because jebuz knows, there are so many instances when an abortion should have occurred but did not), I will acknowledge that there are times the reason for using birth as the point aren't always obvious to me. I tend to think the real point could even be on the other side of birth (in a strict philosophical sense), but I suppose that's a discussion for another day. For the time being, though, I see it as such: clearly no rational person equilibrates "embryo" with "baby", and most rational people aren't infanticidal. Those being the case, birth is the by far the most enormously important event that occurs between the two. That, and I think most feminists would tell you is birth is the first time the fetus isn't a leech on another person's organs, and we don't force anyone to donate organs.

Posted by: jeffk | October 22, 2007 2:23 PM

#22

@ George:
Richard carrier covers some of those topics you're asking about in a debate he had in 2000 (though it is somewhat outdated, and his position has been updated in his book). Specifically, he says:

Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual "abortion" to occur, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. That is a condition universally regarded as a state of death in adults. ...
...None of this individualization can occur before the existence of a complex cortex that can be individualized (pre-fifth-month)--certainly none before there is a central nerve organ of any kind (pre-third-month). Therefore, an individual human (as opposed to a vacant body) cannot exist when a medically-defined abortion occurs. This entails that abortion cannot counter our shared value for individual human existence.

There's more available at the link to the debate and in the book, and it's well worth the read - Carrier always seems able to find the implicit assumptions in our values and our support for them, and clearly explain the logical implications of them.

Also, I think Dianne's proposal is a good legal way of implementing a "scientific" distinction like Carrier's.

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 22, 2007 2:32 PM

#23

I would be able to like this if not for the fact that women as a whole women are more anti-abortion than men. So women are trying to keep themselves under control? It's entirely possible when deranged by religious beliefs but still a bit perplexing for me.

Posted by: Bill C. | October 22, 2007 2:41 PM

#24

So women are trying to keep themselves under control?

No, just other women. Someone here once linked to a list of tearful testimonies from pro-lifers finding themselves in need of the services of an abortion clinic.

While many gained some empathy for the 'baby-killing' mothers they'd previously terrorised, a few looked at the doctors and said point-blank "You're going to Hell" mere moments after they'd had the procedure.

Anyone remember that link?

Posted by: Brownian | October 22, 2007 3:09 PM

#25

A fetus becomes an individual (baby) as soon as it can survive without the use of a woman's body. Usually this happens at birth. So, it's pretty simple, but obviously depends on the situation cause it becomes about probabilities of survival the later you get into pregnancy.

The question of a fetus's 'rights' is irrelevant as even you as an individual can't demand the use of another person's body to keep you alive.

Posted by: laurelin | October 22, 2007 3:10 PM

#26

correction: 'can survive' = 'survives'

Posted by: laurelin | October 22, 2007 3:18 PM

#27

To completely sidestep the ethical issue here, I fail to see how any change in environmental oxygen matters - the brain is not exposed to air. One could say that with the move from fetal to regular hemoglobin, the available oxygenation to the brain from the blood goes down.

Posted by: Darby | October 22, 2007 3:22 PM

#28

Unfortunately, Jesus and Mo are quotemining the Bible. The penalty for causing pre-mature birth is a fine. If the fetus is actually harmed, the penalty is equal to the harm (eye for eye, etc.). Therefore, the penalty for abortion (using the logic of the cartoon) is death, per Ex. 21:23.

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 22, 2007 3:30 PM

#29

Is anyone else wondering why Mo(hammed, I assume) is wearing a Sikh-style turban? None of the muslim men I go to school with (and there are a shitload) wear headdresses like that.

Posted by: Jake | October 22, 2007 3:52 PM

#30

Quote mining, eh? Nice try, but the consensus interpretation of the Exodus passage you reference is that it refers to harm to the mother, not the fetus.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."

Posted by: melior | October 22, 2007 3:57 PM

#31

Louisiana has elected a total wingnut asswipe as governor, Bobby Jindal. He has the worst of religious backgrounds. He is from a hindu background but converted to Catholicism. Now he says he is 100% against abortion. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Posted by: bernarda | October 22, 2007 4:04 PM

#32

@laurelin #25:

A fetus becomes an individual (baby) as soon as it can survive without the use of a woman's body. Usually this happens at birth.

Actually, as premature birth demonstrates, many unborn fetuses could survive without the mother, but stay in the womb longer. So I would say that very rarely do the time when the baby can survive without the mother and the time when the baby is born actually coincide.

Furthermore, if "survival on its own" is the defining limit, then many premature babies aren't individuals by that definition, because they actually can't survive without the woman's body or a substitute (which we often provide in the form of medical care - but it doesn't change the fact that they couldn't survive on their own). Yet we spend quite a bit of time taking care of premature babies as if they really are individuals. If you're going to say that those cases of premature births preclude individuality, then what about people on life support, or who need organ donations? Though they do not have a right to "demand" the use of another's body, they don't lose their status of personhood simply because they can no longer survive without the use of another's body.

I guess I really don't see a logical connection between "can survive on its own" and "is an individual."

The question of a fetus's 'rights' is irrelevant as even you as an individual can't demand the use of another person's body to keep you alive.

But it's a little more complicated than that, isn't it? Because you could argue that by engaging in sex, the woman has already consented to allowing another individual to use her body in order to develop, right? (I personally don't accept that argument as a valid reason to prohibit abortion, but it points out the difference between pregnancy and other cases where one human needs the use of another's body to survive.) And our laws also require that parents provide for their children - so children, while they are individuals, do have a right to demand the use of another person's (at least) resources, if not their body, to keep them alive.

I think you were correct when you said that your explanation was "simple" - and I think that's a pretty good sign that it doesn't really cover the issue, because it isn't a simple issue.

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 22, 2007 4:35 PM

#33

I fail to see how any change in environmental oxygen matters - the brain is not exposed to air.

The fetus obtains oxygen through the umbilical vein, which has a pO2 of around 35-40. Arterial blood in a person with normal lung function breathing room air has a pO2 of around 80, so a newborn has far more oxygen available to it than a fetus. The cerebral cortex is highly sensitive to oxygen deprivation and simply doesn't work under low oxygen conditions. Fetal hemoglobin, as you mentioned, has a higher oxygen affinity than adult hemoglobin, which is good for getting oxygen from the umbilical artery, but less good for getting it released to the tissue efficiently, so I'm not sure what kind of effect it would have in the end.

Posted by: Dianne | October 22, 2007 4:41 PM

#34

bernarda: Louisiana has elected a total wingnut asswipe as governor, Bobby Jindal.

He's also an explicit advocate of teaching "intelligent design" in public schools.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 22, 2007 4:42 PM

#35

Anyone remember that link?
Posted by: Brownian | October 22, 2007 3:09 PM

I remember it. I remember the dripping condensation some those women had that only they were informed/intelligent enough to make that choice that should be restricted from others who didn't possess their special intelligence and unusual circumstance and how it "wasn't their fault," etc.

I just shook my head in disbelief. Just like I do when I find out about the Ted Haggards, etc., in this world.

Posted by: Moses | October 22, 2007 4:42 PM

#36

Note my correction of 'can survive' to 'survives.' Once a fetus survives outside the body, it is a baby, whether it was premature or born normally.

You are right in that consenting to having sex is not waiving your right to bodily autonomy. I think this is one of the main differences in worldview between 'pro-lifers' and us.

People who need donor tissues and DON'T GET THEM do cease to become individuals i.e. they die. They don't have a right to force anyone to give up a part of their body or the use of their body in order to keep being alive.

Morally, yeah, it's really nice to help another human keep living (or be brought into the world) but that's not the issue. It's ideal but shouldn't be compulsory.

Also, monetary resources etc. are not the same thing as your physical body.

Posted by: laurelin | October 22, 2007 4:56 PM

#37

umbilical artery

Gah! Umbilical vein.

Posted by: Dianne | October 22, 2007 5:03 PM

#38

@11 what bout the innervation of the cortex ( around 17-22th week ) without a cortex there can't be any human thought nor any personality, so prior to (say 15th week) we can safely assume nobody gets killed by an abortion, because, well, nobody's at home yet. ( is it scientistifical enough ? :-) )

@33 we have some evidence of fetal memory, and can record fetal EEG, so, apparently, fetal brain DOES some function in spite of low oxygen level.

Posted by: T_U_T | October 22, 2007 5:40 PM

#39

I take it back - Mo must have been reading the New American Bible:

"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges."

Of course, the true meaning of that verse is probably long lost in the ashbin of history. Not that it should have any bearing on the question in modern society, which is not governed by religious principle.

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | October 22, 2007 6:19 PM

#40

"The fetus obtains oxygen through the umbilical vein, which has a pO2 of around 35-40. Arterial blood in a person with normal lung function breathing room air has a pO2 of around 80, so a newborn has far more oxygen available to it than a fetus."

Nah. PO2 refers only to dissolved oxygen in the plasma; 98+% of anybody's blood oxygen is bound to hemoglobin and not in solution. Because of its higher affinity, fetal hemoblobin ought to be about 80% saturated at a PO2 of 35. That's plenty of oxygen. I'm not buying the oxygen-deprived brain thing.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 22, 2007 6:31 PM

#41

Eric Davison,

But it's a little more complicated than that, isn't it? Because you could argue that by engaging in sex, the woman has already consented to allowing another individual to use her body in order to develop, right?

What's that argument, then? I don't see why consenting to have sex should be regarded as consenting to complete a pregnancy resulting from the sex.

(I personally don't accept that argument as a valid reason to prohibit abortion, but it points out the difference between pregnancy and other cases where one human needs the use of another's body to survive.)

Not at all. Suppose a child needs a life-saving kidney/blood transfusion/bone marrow donation. Its mother is the only potential donor match. Do you think it would be reasonable to claim that the mother consented to make that donation when she consented to have the child? If not, why would it be reasonable to claim that a woman consents to complete a pregnancy when she consents to sex?

Posted by: Jason | October 22, 2007 6:35 PM

#42

Here's the link mentioned earlier:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Posted by: PuckishOne | October 22, 2007 6:44 PM

#43

@laurelin #36
I still don't see "survival outside the womb" as a valid point to distinguish, as a baby that is about to be born could (and would) survive outside the womb if you let it. Why the distinction right there, if it's essentially exactly the same being? There's no difference in brain structure or content or bodily being, so what's the real distinction there? Breathing? Because we don't use breathing as a personhood distinction later on in life - if someone stops breathing and they're resuscitated, we don't think of them as a completely different person. So why should birth be considered the line between being a person and not a person?

That's correct that people who don't get tissue donations die - but we're talking about people who need someone else's organs, not someone who needed them and didn't get them. Yes, a dead human being is not an individual, nor is a dead fetus. But what about a live person who needs it, or a live fetus inside their mother? You're claiming that one is an individual and one isn't. I'm saying that your current opinions on personhood later on in life (based on my assumption regarding your beliefs about a person who needs an organ donation) are contradictory to the line that you've drawn for fetuses.

@Jason #41:

Do you think it would be reasonable to claim that the mother consented to make that donation when she consented to have the child?

There's a difference between having a child, which is the expected result from sex, and being the only donor match for a child which needs a kidney transplant, which occurs extremely rarely - one should be an expected consequence of the action, and the other is caused by uncommon circumstances that are out of the mother's control.

My point was that they're two completely different circumstances: in one, having a living thing be dependent on your body is completely expected and mostly under one's control, whereas in the other it's not. I'm not saying that we should use that as the deciding factor in whether or not an abortion should be allowed - I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that having a living thing dependent on your body to survive doesn't decide whether or not it's an individual or whether or not it's within your rights to refuse to allow it to depend on you.

I think the deciding line is where it is for every other time we assign personhood: in brain function. People are dead not when their heart stops beating (as it often does for surgery patients) or when they stop breathing (as happens when people need to be resuscitated), but when the brain stops functioning in a particular way that we assign sentience and individuality to. Exactly where that line is could be up for debate (is someone who is unresponsive but shows EEG function similar to a responsive person still an individual or not?), but it's the line that everyone uses for human beings after birth, so why would it be a different one before?

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 22, 2007 7:40 PM

#44

Eric Davison,

There's a difference between having a child, which is the expected result from sex,...

Huh? Since when is having a child "the expected result from sex?" The vast majority of sexual acts do not even produce a pregnancy, let alone a child. The premise of your argument here is just false.

My point was that they're two completely different circumstances: in one, having a living thing be dependent on your body is completely expected and mostly under one's control, whereas in the other it's not.

Also false. Having a child (that may need a donation of organs or tissue from you to survive) is obviously just as much under your control as having sex (that may subsequently produce a pregnancy).

I'm not saying that we should use that as the deciding factor in whether or not an abortion should be allowed - I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that having a living thing dependent on your body to survive doesn't decide whether or not it's an individual or whether or not it's within your rights to refuse to allow it to depend on you.

I understand that you're not advocating the criminalization of abortion. But your argument that abortion is relevantly different from the refusal to donate life-saving blood or tissue just doesn't work. I agree that the two situations are not the same, but they don't differ in the way your argument requires them to.

Posted by: Jason | October 22, 2007 7:54 PM

#45

I don't think anti-abortionists have their opinion because they want to "control women". It seems far more plausible that they just have a moral intuition against killing things, which most people do have.

Posted by: Brendon Brewer | October 22, 2007 8:05 PM

#46

Eric Davison's posts provide a perfect confirmation for the cartoon.

Posted by: Sailor | October 22, 2007 8:22 PM

#47

Brendon -

Please reconcile your perspective with the general absence of "pro-lifers" in the antiwar movement, and their abundant presence among the wars' supporters.

For extra credit, perform the same exercise regarding the political groupings around the death penalty and public health programs for children.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 22, 2007 8:24 PM

#48

If we agree that a fetus two weeks before term is an individual with rights, then when did that designation take place?

A fetus two weeks before term is not an individual; it's only one component of a pregnancy.

The dividing line is delivery, namely the clamping of the cord. That's when a fetus acquires the ability to circulate blood, breath, excrete, etc. [And to be clear, a 1 day neonate in the NICU and a 90 yo in the ICU have nothing in common with a fetus in utero. Both the NICU/ICU patients can, say, breath; they don't because they're temporarily incapacitated . A fetus in utero cannot, and does not, breath.]

Posted by: ema | October 22, 2007 8:31 PM

#49

Ema: Sometimes excretion does take place before delivery... ew. :)

Posted by: LM | October 22, 2007 8:32 PM

#50

Also, a fetus already circulates its own blood... it doesn't spontaneously develop a circulatory system at birth. Maybe I'm not understanding what you meant.

Posted by: LM | October 22, 2007 8:33 PM

#51

It's not a moral intuition against killing 'things'. Carrots are things and are still alive when eaten.

That moral intuition you speak of, is actually more along the lines of squeeing over small animals with large eyes and a head/body ratio similar to a human baby.

Humans are not programmed to have strong emotional attraction to an actual example of the pharyngula stage of any animal, including a human one. There's no inclination to cuddle it, touch your nose to its scalp or start making high pitched babbling sounds.

Most arguments over abortion are at an intellectual level and do not address the underlying unspoken emotional basis for our point of view and yet the emotions are obviously there. Much advertising is addressed at the emotional level. Humans spend a surprising amount of time hiding their irrational motivations from themselves.

Optimal results for the human species for the forseeable future will not be achieved by maximizing birth rates. Outbreeding the competition may have been an obvious thing for a warrior priest to encourage in his tribe, thousands of years ago. Now it is a crime against our species and every other species on the planet.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 22, 2007 8:44 PM

#52

These arguments are tiresome in the extreme. Does the bible condone abortion? That's supposed to matter? Because, guess what, fundi boys and guys, the bible may be silent on abortion, but is ain't silent on killing your own kid. Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 clearly states you can have your disobedient son stoned to death. And if you think this little rule is amoral, then you know that you need something else, not just the Bible, to determine morality. And if you need to use this extra-Biblical morality in the case of Deut 21: 18-21, then you need to use in regards to Exodus 21:22, regardless of how you interpret it.

So my question is, was anyone in biblical times put to death for killing their own kids? Anyone? Under any circumstances? Cause I can't think of a one. Shoot, we don't even fault Jehovah for killing his son Jesus, now do we?

Posted by: Ryogam | October 22, 2007 8:45 PM

#53

@#45:

So those individuals who have a "moral intuition" against killing things are stolid vegetarians then, right? And they always capture spiders they find in the house and release them outside unharmed, right?

And they see that according to their reservations about killing fetuses, they should also forgo that steak on the table, which came from an animal with more conciousness, sentience and capacity to feel pain than a human fetus could ever have, right?

Oh wait, no, people who claim to be pro-life really aren't. They don't ever seem to give a good godd*mn about people (especially children) already existing, so why do you think they care so very much about fetuses? Hint: It isn't because they wuv the pwecious widdle baybeez so much as they love having control over others.

Posted by: Shigella | October 22, 2007 8:48 PM

#54

Pierce (#47): Thank you!

Brendon: We're waiting...

Posted by: Learning | October 22, 2007 8:59 PM

#55

If I recall, a living man contributes a living sperm to the living egg within a living woman. All of the man's and woman's ancestors were alive at the time that their living cells joined to create them, and their child carries the means to repeat the process.

Please, tell me once more, when does life begin?

This was my first reaction when I became aware of the "debate" about when (human) life begins. That would be some time before Roe v. Wade. Seemed to render the question moot then, seems to now. There can be no serious debate about when a human is biologically alive; has been since Ur-ancestor.

The argument at large is simply an attempt to answer a question without merit, that is, when is the "soul" installed along the production line? When does "our" god breathe the breath of life into lungs full of fluid? And how closely can we frame the question around the perceived "cuteness" or familiarity of a fetal face? And how can we use this to get everyone to agree that our beliefs need to be accommodated into the law of the land, forcing everyone to our glorious truth?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 22, 2007 10:00 PM

#56

@Jason #44:
Okay - let's set aside the argument that because pregnancy is the natural biological result of sex, it should be an expected result of that. I only brought that up as a side point. I will concede that I gave a poor example of the distinction between pregnancy and organ donation. Do you disagree with my argument that there is more to the distinction of "personhood" than birth?

@Sailor #46:
Did you read what I said, or just glance briefly before commenting? Did you read the article I linked to? I don't see how my comments confirm the cartoon at all, and I'd appreciate if you explained your comment.

@ema #48:

The dividing line is delivery, namely the clamping of the cord.That's when a fetus acquires the ability to circulate blood, breath, excrete, etc. [And to be clear, a 1 day neonate in the NICU and a 90 yo in the ICU have nothing in common with a fetus in utero. Both the NICU/ICU patients can, say, breath; they don't because they're temporarily incapacitated . A fetus in utero cannot, and does not, breath.]

I don't see the distinction. A fetus in utero at a certain point in the pregnancy can breathe, it just does not because of the environment it's in. So why the sharp distinction between "has taken a breath" and "has not"? I don't see a logical reason to choose that line for personhood or not since we don't associate personhood with breathing any other time in life. Why the special case?

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 22, 2007 10:04 PM

#57

Anyone remember that link?

You mean this one?

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 10:16 PM

#58

Anyone remember that link?

You mean this one?

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 10:20 PM

#59

Anyone remember that link?

You mean this one?

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 10:22 PM

#60

Anyone remember that link?

You mean this one?

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 10:23 PM

#61

Eric Davison,

I will concede that I gave a poor example of the distinction between pregnancy and organ donation. Do you disagree with my argument that there is more to the distinction of "personhood" than birth?

With respect to the personhood of human beings, yes. I think a mature fetus is clearly a form human life, by any reasonable definition of "human" and "life," and I think it has certain rights (such as the right not to be subjected to pain), but I don't think it's a person. I think a human person begins to exist at birth.

Posted by: Jason | October 22, 2007 10:24 PM

#62

Well, I'm about as pro-choice as it gets, and I refer to my 35-week-old fetus as my baby, and sometimes even as my daughter. Does that offend anybody here? I ask because I have offended some hardcore pro-choice (actually, I think they were pro-abortion) for using that "language."

My rationale? It's mine, I'm keeping it, so sod off! :P Nyah!

Posted by: LM | October 22, 2007 10:28 PM

#63

I think a human person begins to exist at birth.

Then what exactly is the distinction between a person and a non-person? That is, what changes at that moment that moves the fetus from non-person to person?

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 22, 2007 11:10 PM

#64

Thanks for the link. I found a new web comic! Just two minor complaints:
1) Doesn't seem to be updated on a regular basis. I don't care if it's every day or once a week. I just don't like having to check out the page daily to see a new comic.
2) There's no "first comic" button so I had to read them in reverse order.
Like I said, no big problems. It's the best laugh I've had in a while.

Posted by: Alverant | October 22, 2007 11:13 PM

#65

LM,

I'm not talking about meconium [in the fetus nutrients are delivered via the placenta and umbilical vein, not via absorption from the GI tract], but rather about placental function (gas exchange, waste disposal, etc.) and adequate uteroplacental perfusion (maternal circulation).

Posted by: ema | October 22, 2007 11:29 PM

#66

Anyone remember that link?

You mean this one?

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 11:36 PM

#67

Er, whoops. Sorry for all the multiple posts; my internet cut out and I couldn't check whether my comment got through.

Posted by: Skemono | October 22, 2007 11:37 PM

#68

Ooh, goody! Yet another abortion/right to life thread! We managed to get this one up to 400 posts.

One point that needs to be established, though, is that it is quite possible for an agnostic like myself to oppose abortion on grounds that have nothing at all to do with religious dogma or the subjugation of women.

There is the small question of the right to life of the unborn.

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 22, 2007 11:41 PM

#69

Eric Davison,

Then what exactly is the distinction between a person and a non-person? That is, what changes at that moment that moves the fetus from non-person to person?

The changes that occur through birth. A fetus is physically enclosed within and connected to its mothers body and is uniquely dependent on that physical connection for the oxygen, nutrition, hydration and warmth needed to sustain its life. And it has no, or virtually no, sensory interaction with the world. All babies are independent and sentient in ways that no fetus is. I am not suggesting that birth is the momentous event that pro-lifers typically claim fertilization is (one second, worthless tissue; the next, a full-blown human being). Birth is a threshold, the threshold that marks the beginning of personhood.

Posted by: Jason | October 22, 2007 11:43 PM

#70

Ian, it has none. Plain and simple. Sounds cold but it's not.

I actually advocate legalizing abortion up to the 18th year.

Posted by: Vitis01 | October 22, 2007 11:58 PM

#71

Vitis01 wrote:

Ian, it has none. Plain and simple. Sounds cold but it's not.

Not "cold", 'cool'. It's cool to be pro-choice here.

I actually advocate legalizing abortion up to the 18th year.

I can see that appealing to the femdamentalists. Parenthood as a human rights violation. If having to carry the unborn child is a violation of the woman's rights then so is having to raise the unwelcome brat after it's born.

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 23, 2007 12:18 AM

#72

And it has no, or virtually no, sensory interaction with the world.

I think most mothers would disagree with you on that. I don't have direct experience with it, but from what I've heard, fetuses react to external stimuli constantly - kicking, moving around, etc.

And again - I don't see how dependence negates personhood. If you say that a fetus isn't a person because it's enclosed within a woman's body, I'd say that's essentially arbitrary because you have no comparable circumstances which verify that it's a logical position. The distinction between persons as a philosophical term and non-persons has generally had absolutely nothing to do with physical position.

And again, I'll point out that while a fetus is dependent on the mother at some point, there is also a point when the fetus is in the womb and dependent, but if removed from the womb at that point it would be able to survive on its own. So again, I don't see a distinction at all there.

The distinction I see is, as I stated, brain function. The particular way our brain functions is what distinguishes us from other animals. This theory of personhood also explains why we ascribe various gradual levels of personhood to animals. Animals which appear to have emotions, appear to feel pain, appear to be aware of their surroundings, we're more likely to have moral misgivings about causing harm or killing them. The more mental faculties they have, the closer we treat them to human beings. Your "birth" theory of personhood doesn't explain that behavior at all. If all that makes something a "person" is birth, then where does the distinction between animals and humans come into play?

You've stated that birth "marks" the beginning of personhood: and again I ask, what defines a person? What is it that appears at birth that was not there before, but is also part of a coherent theory of personhood that extends beyond this particular issue?

Posted by: Eric Davison | October 23, 2007 12:24 AM

#73

Y'all are going to have to get used to the fact that personhood is (1) a matter of degree and (2) not present until well after birth. A newborn is not a rational self-conscious creature.

We do, however, have good reasons for laws against killing babies. Those reasons have nothing to do with any supposed "rights" (moral rights are nonsense on stilts, anyway). Nor do they have anything to do with embryos or fetuses.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 23, 2007 12:45 AM

#74

What is it that appears at birth that was not there before,

Cessation of complete physiological parasitism on the mother.

but is also part of a coherent theory of personhood that extends beyond this particular issue?

You're hunting for boojums, Eric.

Mazel tov if you actually manage to develop such a theory, but I'm betting against you--a lot of very smart people have gotten impaled on Arrow's impossibility theorem in the attempt.

Posted by: thalarctos | October 23, 2007 1:01 AM

#75

Eric Davison,

The distinction I see is, as I stated, brain function.

Why brain function? And what exactly do you mean by "brain function," anyway? There isn't just one kind of "brain function" that a fetus either has or doesn't have. There are many types and dimensions of mental and cognitive function. Which ones must a fetus be capable of, and to what degree, in order to qualify as a person, in your view? I think any line you draw to define personhood will be just as "arbitary" as the ones you reject.

You've stated that birth "marks" the beginning of personhood: and again I ask, what defines a person? What is it that appears at birth that was not there before, but is also part of a coherent theory of personhood that extends beyond this particular issue?

I already described the changes that occur at birth.

Posted by: Jason | October 23, 2007 1:06 AM

#76

Russell,

I basically agree that newborn babies are not full persons in the same sense that older children and adults are. But if we're going to continue to draw a fairly bright line at birth in our laws and social conventions that divide permissible from impermissible killing (as I think we should), we need to put newborns in the same basic category as children and adults. I am sympathetic to Singer's idea that, under certain conditions, the parents of severely disabled newborn babies should be allowed to kill them, but I'm not sure such a policy would be socially desirable even if it were politically feasible (which I don't think it is).

Posted by: Jason | October 23, 2007 1:17 AM

#77

Jason, I'm with Singer on this one. I don't know where you live, but in at least some parts of the world what Singer is saying a perfectly realistic political solution, as well as being, IMHO, desirable.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 23, 2007 1:28 AM

#78

Ian, please don't mistake this for a dialogue. I just want to learn how many snowflake babies with a right to life that you, personally, have adopted?

As a father of two, who was some years ago far too close to being a father of three, I don't want to hear anybody talking about rights to life in a universe where contingency makes other plans. Is a right to life anything like a right to conceive, or to carry to full term, or to live birth?

I have to go with the proposal Sagan came up with some time ago. When shall we say life begins? That was some billions of years ago, and it has budded without interruption since then. Not every bud thrives autonomously, nor should it. As for notion of when the rights of the mother to terminate a medical condition should conflict with the rights of the State to intervene in that decision, Sagan also discussed the notion of "quickening", about 20 weeks or so in.

We live in a time when a brain-damaged 12 year old is mocked by Senators and by the MSM for relying on aid from the State to pay for his rehabilitation after a prolonged coma. Why should a fetus at 20 weeks have more rights than a child whose parents can't afford medical care? At this point, insurance companies have more rights than hospitals or patients. When an adult cold left my 6 month old daughter fighting for breath, heroic measures at the hospital saved her life. Such procedures were "not authorized," so my insurance company stiffed the hospital, no doubt in a package deal that traded off various expenses it would pay for vs. those it wouldn't. Without insurance, I live in a culture where I'd be a pariah, penalized for being unable to come up with $75K, making it even more difficult to raise my children.

Don't make up imaginary rights, Ian.

Posted by: Ken Cope | October 23, 2007 1:49 AM

#79

One point

Pharyngula

Search

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Another contentious subject

TrackBacks

Comments