Boots & Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

I'm Taking My Gavel And Going Home | Home | Doyle's Gas Tax Hike

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Mexico City Legalizes Infanticide

Yipee!!! People in Mexico City can kill babies!!! Yeah for the Left!!!

Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion Tuesday, a decision likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America.

The proposal, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city’s leftist mayor.

Abortion opponents have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court, a move likely to extend the bitter and emotional debate in this predominantly Catholic nation.

“Decriminalizing abortion is a historic triumph—a triumph of the left,” said city legislator Jorge Diaz Cuervo, a social democrat who voted for the bill. “Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom.”

Posted by Owen at 2242 hrs

(0) Trackbacks

Culture + Foreign Affairs

Add | Remove

“Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom.”

Freedom for whom, exactly?

Something tells me he didn’t have the babies in mind.
Posted by on April 24, 2007 at 2254 hrs

When the staunchly Catholic start saying it’s ok to slaughter babies, there’s no doubt in my mind this world is in serious trouble!
Posted by Kate on April 25, 2007 at 0028 hrs

It’s frightening that the Left’s definition of “freedom” is an allowance to kill children in utero. But, now we know.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 0900 hrs

I’d like to have a rational discussion with you all about this, but I’m inclined to make the statement “a six-celled blastocyst is not a human being” a required starting point - and I know that you are unlikely to accept that.

Why do you suppose that the majority of American support abortion? I’m curious to know what your take on that is. What is it that they are thinking?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 0928 hrs

Why is a six celled blastocyst not a human being?
It has the DNA of a human being, if left unmolested it will grow and be born and it will look and act like a human being.

Is it because it has only six cells that it is not a human being? what if it has eight? twenty? 100? where is the cut off point between human and not human? Where is the arbitrary line drawn? and for what reason?

If there is uncertainty, isn’t it better to play it safe? if not, why not? because it is inconvenient?
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1119 hrs

if left unmolested it will grow and be born and it will look and act like a human being.

Yes. At which point it will be one. No argument there.

where is the cut off point

Yes, that is the discussion we should be having. I agree.

If there is uncertainty, isn’t it better to play it safe? if not, why not? because it is inconvenient?

It has limitations, to be sure, but might it not be instructive to examine what people find intuitively true about such things? Specifically if you present them with a clump of undifferentiated cells barely visible with the human eye, that it is not in any commonly understood use of the term a “person.”

Just so we’re clear on terminology, I don’t contest that it’s “life” or “alive” or even “human,” insofar as human means “possessing the DNA corresponding to that of the species homo sapiens. What I contend is it be given the same moral consideration as you or I, or the same protection under the law.

I don’t champion abortion rights because abortions are “convenient.” I do so because nobody is truly free unless they can reproduce only when they explicitly choose to - regardless of whether they have an active sex life or not. When I weigh the sometimes dire consequences of having unplanned children against the fate of an 8-week fetus (which measures 3/4 of an inch, is most definitely not conscious in any way, and does not even resemble a human being so much as a seahorse), I think the just and humane thing to do is to side with the pregnant woman.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1135 hrs

I’m not willing to engage in this particular debate today, but I will simply repeat a theme about the liberals that just defies reason to me: the willingness to allow the killing of unborn babies (just accept that this is my term) coupled with an UNwillingness to kill convicted capital murderers.

I mean, if you are going to go after killing one category of human (or future human), how do you reach this position?!
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1140 hrs

Dave, does it also defy reason that conservatives are all for protecting zygotes (just accept that as my term), while they are totally in favor of executing people?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1144 hrs

I don’t champion abortion rights because abortions are “convenient.” I do so because nobody is truly free unless they can reproduce only when they explicitly choose to - regardless of whether they have an active sex life or not.

So people aren’t truly free unless they can engage in child making activities without making children? So what you are saying is that people are only truly free when they are free from the consequences and taking responsibility for their actions?

Also, how exactly are those without an active sex life free to choose when they reproduce?
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1247 hrs

I’m merely trying to forestall the old “don’t want to get pregnant? don’t have sex!” argument.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1252 hrs

Um, no, Scott. I guess that has something to do with that crusty old conservative notion of holding people responsible for their actions. Meaning, your life may well be worth my protecting it - until you do enough reprehensible things to remove you from that status.

Again, I am not getting into the six-cell-versus-late-term-fetus argument. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. But really, what has an unborn (yet clearly living) child done to deserve death where a Timothy McVeigh deserves life? Please explan.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1307 hrs

that crusty old conservative notion of holding people responsible for their actions.

Holding who responsible for what, Dave?

I am not getting into the six-cell-versus-late-term-fetus argument. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to.

You say tomato, I say you’re dodging the entire crux of the issue.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1325 hrs

Why is a six celled blastocyst not a human being?
It has the DNA of a human being, if left unmolested it will grow and be born and it will look and act like a human being.

IMO this is not an entirely accurate statement. In order to “grow and be born” a blastocyst requires much more than to be “left unmolested”. It is dependent on the mother for respiration and nourishment.

In this respect, it is more akin to any of the other multitude of cells in the mother’s body than a separate entity

When the fetus is unable to exist apart from the mother, I think it is more logical to consider it to be A PART of the mother.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1339 hrs

djheru, by your logic it would also be okay to leave infants out in the elements to die of exposure.

Also, even if an unborn child is a part of the mother that doesn’t make it okay to kill the child. If you decided to amputate your perfectly healthy left arm, you’d be hard pressed to find a doctor to help you and most would question your mental state.

Sorry Scott, the don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex argument is a valid argument. Sucks, eh? If people really don’t want to get pregnant (but still get it on) there are operations to make yourself infertile. Neither of these arguments land you in ethically murky waters. Scott, you do seem to be a big fan of preventative medicine. Why are these not valid alternatives?
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1410 hrs

Owen, I think that calling abortion “infanticide” cheapens the debate and does not help to establish a common ground.

Both sides would like to see abortion become a thing of the past. The difference is that your side apparently feels that using the legal system to ban the practice is the best way for that to happen.

My side, having seen the fruits of legal prohibition in other areas, would prefer to use education and technology to eliminate abortion.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1433 hrs

by your logic it would also be okay to leave infants out in the elements to die of exposure.

No, I’m not saying that abortion is OKAY. Also, the two situations are not analogous because an infant (unlike a blastocyst) is a person. A better analogy would be:

by your logic it would also be okay to stay out in the cold too long and get frostbite, requiring the amputation of a limb

Since we are on the subject of abortion analogies, what sayest thou to the common abortion rights/ESC research analogy where you are in a burning fertility clinic and you are forced to choose between saving a petri dish with 50 blastocysts or one 6 month old infant?
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1440 hrs

Owen, I think that calling abortion “infanticide” cheapens the debate and does not help to establish a common ground.

If I think that abortion kills a human baby, then wouldn’t that necessarily make it infanticide? I’m sorry if you don’t like my terminology, but it accurately reflects my perspective on the matter. Furthermore, I am not looking for common ground. What does that mean? We all agree that it’s OK to kill babies, but only so many and in “acceptable” ways? No thanks. You can have your common ground.

Both sides would like to see abortion become a thing of the past. The difference is that your side apparently feels that using the legal system to ban the practice is the best way for that to happen.

I don’t believe that both sides want to see abortion go away. Heck, people on your side don’t even want partial birth abortion to go away. Yes, my side wants to use the legal system to ban the practice. That’s what we do in a nation of laws. But my side also goes through great lengths to change the culture and change minds. It’s a wide front.

My side, having seen the fruits of legal prohibition in other areas, would prefer to use education and technology to eliminate abortion.

That’s fine too. I support more education and better technology to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

On a side note, I wonder if your side “having seen the fruits of legal prohibition in other areas” wouldn’t mind allowing concealed carry to pass. Nah… that’s silly.
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1440 hrs

<iIf I think that abortion kills a human baby, then wouldn’t that necessarily make it infanticide?</i> So, why no response to the burning fertility clinic scenario, then?
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1614 hrs

I don’t believe that both sides want to see abortion go away.

I don’t believe both sides want to eliminate unplanned pregnancy.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1620 hrs

Scott,

There are SOOOOOOO many other ways of preventing pregnancy that your argument rings very hollow. There is also a difference between unplanned and unwanted.

Unplanned simply implies that it was an oops! My youngest sister was one of those. I am quite sure that my parents were not planning on an infant in their mid-fourties. But yet, they suffered the inconvenience and she is now 28 with a son of her own.

If a woman does not want to have children there are many chemical and surgical and physical ways for this goal to be accomplished (agreed with varying levels of success): the Pill, IUDs, patches, rings, implants, plan b, condoms, sterilization, abstinence, the list goes on. Not so many of these options were available back in the [we can’t go back to] coat hanger days.

Today, for the vast majority of abortions, it is about lack of personal responsiblity, and the “ME FIRST” mentality. Do whatever you want, whenever you want, damn the consequences. Can’t be bothered by Plan B or RU486 (not that I condone them, but better than waiting), if a pregnancy results, then take care of the inconvenience by killing it. Can’t get to a clinic during the “seahorse” timeframe, what the heck, dismember it at 6 months. Couldn’t possibly carry for 3 more months and give the baby for adoption - what about the stretch marks? Who the hell cares right? As long as we have the “freedom” to reproduce as we see fit.

With the increases in contraceptive choices - the same tunes are getting a bit old.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1649 hrs

So you support contraception? Do you support subsidizing contraception for populations for whom purchasing it is more difficult than for others? Do you support educational programming for kids to learn about such things? Do you support chaste and tasteful PSAs advertising and promoting the use of such products?

What percentage of pro-lifers do? It’s a low number. That’s what motivates me to say that I don’t believe both sides of the abortion debate honestly want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I believe one side wants to - mine - and the other side -yours - is far more interested in promoting abstinence-unless-married sexual mores.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1711 hrs

The problem is, legally there is no way to differentiate between the detestable people who basically use abortion as a form of birth control and the other cases where an abortion might not be as morally objectionable (to you).

I guess what it boils down to is when the clump of cells becomes a “person”

1. Some people take the extremist view that you are not a person until you are actually born

2. Some people take the opposite extremist view that you are a person as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg.

3. Some people take the position that the cells become a person sometime in the middle, based on when you would be able to survive outside of the womb, when you start to look like a person, etc.

Personally, I am in category 3. I think that you become a person when you are able to exist outside of the womb. If you are unable to survive outside of the womb, you are not an individual, IMO, and therefore not a person.

Please don’t bring up the what about a baby left in the freezing cold argument either. That’s different because it is an external factor (freezing cold) that would cause death.

So how about it? when does life begin and why do you think so?
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1716 hrs

I guess you could say I’m in category 3 also. At the very least I’m willing to have an honest discussion about “personhood” and the obvious fact that it develops gradually and does not happen in one moment, whether that moment be birth or conception.

My guess is that no pro-lifers are willing to have this discussion. Instead they will hit us with “if there’s any doubt, you must side with the baby” (that looks like a microscopic seahorse). So… there we will end up.

Any pro-lifers want to prove me wrong?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1735 hrs

Well if you’re talking about life then it is a scientific fact that a fertilized egg is alive. You even admitted to this in a previous comment.

You’re asking when does personhood begin. Is there a scientific way to determine this? I’m not sure but I doubt it since it really more of a philosophical question. The problem is, there’s no way to really truly know. So if we really do want to avoid killing any people, then it seems the best option is to assume that personhood begins at conception.
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1738 hrs

So you support contraception? Do you support subsidizing contraception for populations for whom purchasing it is more difficult than for others? Do you support educational programming for kids to learn about such things? Do you support chaste and tasteful PSAs advertising and promoting the use of such products?

Depends. Opposition of government funding for something is not the same as opposing it. I support people brushing their teeth too, but I don’t support a government program to provide toothbrushes to everyone.

I believe one side wants to - mine - and the other side -yours - is far more interested in promoting abstinence-unless-married sexual mores.

I’ve always been interested in this argument. Isn’t your position based on your own morality on the subject? Or are you suggesting that your position is divorced from morality? Should all government actions be completely divorced from any moral code? Or is it only “forcing your morality on society” when it’s a morality with which you disagree? Interesting…

So how about it? when does life begin and why do you think so?

Gee, I wrote an entire column on the subject.

http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/robins on/robinson_06272006.asp
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1740 hrs

I support people brushing their teeth too, but I don’t support a government program to provide toothbrushes to everyone.

Well it seems to me that if you’re morally outraged by dental fillings, you’d be for subsidizing tooth brushes rather than just outlawing dentistry and forcing people to live with toothaches.

Isn’t your position based on your own morality on the subject?

Yes, it is. I believe it is a very moral goal to ensure that people only reproduce when they explicitly choose to, independent of the fact that they may choose to be sexually active. No one should have to have an abortion or an unintended child. That’s my moral position. My problem with your position isn’t that it relies on morality, per se; the problem is that your morals are faulty and many of you are being disingenuous about what you’re after - saying it’s about “babies” when in fact it’s about sex.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1750 hrs

Yes, it is. I believe it is a very moral goal to ensure that people only reproduce when they explicitly choose to, independent of the fact that they may choose to be sexually active.

OK, then can we cease with the whole “stop pushing your morality on women!” argument?

My problem with your position isn’t that it relies on morality, per se; the problem is that your morals are faulty

OK, so we have established that you only oppose morality being a basis for law when it’s a morality with which you disagree.

and many of you are being disingenuous about what you’re after - saying it’s about “babies” when in fact it’s about sex.

That’s a rather sweeping assumption. Although I’m sure it’s true for some people, I don’t believe that it is for most pro-lifers. I know a lot of pro-lifers and their opposition to publicly financed contraception and such may be about sex, but their opposition to abortion is based on the children being killed.
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1757 hrs

Well if you’re talking about life then it is a scientific fact that a fertilized egg is alive. Determining when life begins does not really help us decide when a LIFE becomes a PERSON, as opposed to PART OF THE WOMAN’S BODY.

If the blastocyst is alive, and yet part of the woman’s body, it has no more right to life than the hairs she plucks from her upper lip or the toenails she bites off while watching Rosie pontificate on the TV

A blastocyst is alive in the same way that a skin cell is alive IMO. There is nothing that separates it from the mother to allow it to be considered an individual. It is intimately connected to the mother’s system.

I agree that conception is the “starting point” for the LIFE of the organism, but the process of that organism transitioning from being simply part of the mothers body (at the moment of conception) to being a completely separate entity (after the umbilical cord is cut) is a gradual process.

So I guess the point is not when does life begin, but rather when does life become a separate person as opposed to a part of someone else?

I think that we all recognize these points on some level, and that’s why the conundrum of deciding whether to save a blastocyst (I love that word) or an actual infant from a burning building is such an easy choice.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1811 hrs

djheru, did you even read the rest of my post?
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1837 hrs

Yes, it is a cop out. Instead of trying to answer the tough questions, lets just pick the easiest answer.

The reason that that’s not good enough is that we are weighing this question against the woman’s right to self determination. So by picking the easy answer and automatically granting full rights to the fertilized egg, you are taking away the reproductive rights from the woman.

Now, if we, as a society decide that “personhood” begins at conception, then obviously that “person’s” right to exist outweighs the womans right to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy.

However, if it turns out that that life does not become a SEPARATE person until it is viable outside of the womb, or until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, then we are needlessly restricting the right of a woman (and possibly a man) to live as she/he chooses. We aren’t just talking about a pregancy. We are talking about women (and men) being free to choose their education, their careers, their friends, their lifestyles, basically their entire path in life.

So instead of just saying “it’s too hard, lets just forget it”, I would prefer that we take the effort of thinking hard, using logic, debating with each other, refining and developing our own beliefs and basically working to create the greatest amount of freedom possilble.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1851 hrs

In other words, if it were just a matter of deciding when “personhood” begins, we could just play it safe and pick the earliest point possible and call it a day (your viewpoint).

However the other side of the equation is women whose live may be ruined by an unwanted pregnancy. Think about if you had unexpectedly gotten pregnant at the age of 18. Even if you would decide to keep the child, it is still YOUR DECISION (and the right one IMO). But we shouldn’t be forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term just because we want to protect the rights of a group of cells that are, in actuality, not a separate individual.
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1900 hrs

People have plenty of chances to freely choose to avoid pregnancy before it happens. Since there is no way to know the answer to the question of when is personhood attained. Then to avoid manslaughter (at best), the right of the living thing/possible person inside the woman to continue living must be held in a higher regard than a woman’s right to a convenient life.

Having a child and giving it up for adoption is highly unlikely to ruin a woman’s life. Killing a person before he or she is born will certainly ruin theirs.
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1916 hrs

”People have plenty of chances to freely choose to avoid pregnancy before it happens.” Not always. my two kids are living proof of that

“Since there is no way to know the answer to the question of when is personhood attained” We as a society decide when (legal) personhood is attained. Right now, that point is when abortions are no longer allowed to be performed. You would like to see that point pushed back to conception, thus outlawing abortion.

You are looking for some external authority, whether it is God, or science to tell you the answer to this moral question. I am saying that we should decide for ourselves
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1931 hrs

We are deciding for ourselves in any case. Invoking God is just a way to cop out of admitting it.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1951 hrs

Scott,

To answer your comment # 21.

Yes, I believe in contraception. I used it in varying forms on and off for the past couple of decades to plan my family.

No, I don’t believe that we should have PSAs or advertising for contraception. I have enough trouble explaining “an erection lasting more than 4 hours” from the ED commercials to my 7 year old daughter. Those ads should also be banned.

There are free and reduced cost contraceptives available through various agencies like Planned Parenthood.

I disagree with your assertion that most pro-lifers oppose contraception. You need to stop painting all of us that find abortion repugnant with the extreme brush.

To answer your next questions, I don’t think contraceptives should be given out like pez to kids in school. If I need to sign a permission slip for the school to administer Tylenol, I believe I have the right to be involved in decisions involving prescription medications. As much as the pro-abortion groups tout the privacy card “between a woman and her doctor”, I will play the same privacy card for contraception and children as being “between a child and her parents”.

I am no prude. But there needs to be a balance between Lucy and Ricky in separate twin beds and handing out condoms to middle school kids. Parents need to be given more of a say in this in the schools. Health needs to play a larger role in education - both the physical and emotional consequences. Abstinence needs to be in these discussions.

Pregnancy is only one potential pitfall of having sex. Girls especially have self-esteem issues with having sex (and maybe multiple partners) too early. They lose respect for themselves after they find out too late that sex does not equal love. Waiting isn’t just about being puritanical, it is about self-respect. That wait doesn’t even necessarily have to be until marriage, how about just until you are ready?
Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 2216 hrs

We as a society decide when (legal) personhood is attained.

I don’t care about legality, I care about truth.
Posted by Matt on April 26, 2007 at 0646 hrs

On another blog, somebody just tried to explain to me that “competing claims” to basic rights between mother and child (which she admitted was, by definition, human at conception) justified abortion, yet oddly enough, the baby was the only one who was ever supposed to make any concessions (that concession being, of course, death). The hubris of liberals who deem themselves capable of negotiating the very worth of humanity never ceases to amaze me…
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1346 hrs

As I wrote before, the issue isn’t whether it is “human,” as that seems only to indicate a DNA match with a certain species. Nor is the issue whether it is “alive.” The issue is “personhood.”

I’m fine with concessions going the other way, Calvin. What I want is for our laws to recognize that personhood is a property that -duh - develops over time, and protection under the law ought to reflect this gradation.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1352 hrs

The problem with that, Scott, is that “personhood” is a very subjective definition that is open to the whims of the times. For example, the Nazis didn’t consider Jews to be “persons.” Some people might consider people with certain ailments not to be “persons,” like those with severe mental handicaps. There was a time when black folks in America were not considered full “persons.”

Your seeking to only define “persons” as eligible for legal protection leaves open the possibility for the definition of “persons” to evolve over time and lead to gross oppression.

BTW, where is your fetish for science on this one? Isn’t having a unique DNA a good scientific distinction between two “persons?”
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1417 hrs

Translation: “this is hard and fuzzy and there’s gray area...therefore we must treat amoeba-sized clumps of cells exactly like people!” or maybe it’s “if we don’t treat amoeba-sized clumps of cells with DNA identically as your aunt Sally, we’ll become Nazis!”

Neither argument is worth a lot, IMO.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1431 hrs

Not at all. Some of us believe that those clumps of cells are people. After all, arent’ we all just clumps of cells - some bigger than others?
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1445 hrs

No, Owen. In my world people are a lot more than just large clumps of cells.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1447 hrs

You mean they might have souls?
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1453 hrs

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between “choice” and “murder” then? What week of gestation? What point of development? When the heart starts beating? When it looks like a baby? When it has all organs? When it has fingerprints? When it hits a certain size or weight? When it opens its eyes and swallows? When it can feel pain? When it is viable?

Because it doesn’t take long to get past the amoeba-sized clump of cells to a beating heart - about 21 days actually. By the end of the first trimester, there are arms, legs, fingers, toes, spine, brain. That is scientific fact, not religion, not emotion.

When in the liberal view does it stop being ok to kill a living, developing human? I am not being sarcastic here, in the conversations, the admission has been made that the (insert scientific term here) is both human and alive. I am trying to understand the objectification.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1456 hrs

Yes, but we are not physically connected to and dependent on our mothers to sustain our existence.

We are able to exist independently as individuals. That is what makes us “persons” rather than a part of another person.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1457 hrs

There’s no such thing. They have human form, thought, physiological processes. They have consciousness. A whole range of things that teeny-tiny clumps of cells do not have.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1457 hrs

#45 in reference to #41

where would you draw the line between “choice” and “murder” then? That is a very good question. I think that’s what we are trying to figure out.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1500 hrs

dj…

.. and dependent on our mothers to sustain our existence. We are able to exist independently as individuals

Ummm.... That would make it ok to kill any child up until the age of 5 or so then right? Cuz they are hardly able to exist independently.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1502 hrs

Even if you belive in Religion, most traditions believe that the soul enters the body on the first breath.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1502 hrs

Scott,

So it’s about looks ("human form")? And how do you know exactly when consciousness happens? To my knowledge, this point has never been scientifically established. If a baby at 16 weeks looks pretty much like a human and in consciousness, do you support protecting her? What about the 98-year-old man who has lost his limbs to diabetes and is in a coma? OK to kill him?

This is what I mean about the arbitrary nature of your position. You are basing it on some vague emotional standard of when you “feel” that a human is a “person.”

djheru,

I know you don’t like the argument, but it is valid… humans can’t “survive on their own” until they are at least 4 or 5 years old - if then. So it is OK to kill any kid who can’t survive a week in the woods alone?
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1503 hrs

Um, actually they are. Unlike blastocysts, they can breathe on their own, the are able to consume food, they are able to regulate their body temperature.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1504 hrs

There is a big difference between being able to “survive” on your own and being able to “exist” on your own.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1506 hrs

There’s plenty of adults that wouldn’t be able to “survive” on their own. That is qualitatively different then being dependent on another person to sustain your most basic bodily functions.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1508 hrs

Hmmm interesting… so as long as a person can breathe, they deserve protection? What if you are in a car accident and require a ventilator and a feeding tube? OK to go ahead and kill you?
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1508 hrs

Interesting parsing, djheru. So the requirements that someone must be able to breathe and eat in order to be considered a person doesn’t apply if the person has already been declared a “person” at some time in the past?
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1511 hrs

I wonder if the poor folks who liberals constantly claim couldn’t “survive” without taxpayer support are considered to be “persons?” OK to kill them all? Particularly the ones who are doped up who are clearly not in “consciousness.” Where is this arbitrary line between a “person” and “not a person?”
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1514 hrs

I am amazed by the mental gymnastics that are to rationalize the abortion position.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1515 hrs

A person who has been injured is still a person. they are not part of another person, like a blastocyst.

A drugged out person or a person who is in a coma still is not a part of someone else. No other person is required to surrender their body to sustain a comatose person.

I am amazed by the mental gymnastics that are to rationalize the abortion position. And I am amazed at the mental laziness that is required to believe that a week old clump of cells inside a person is equivalent to you or me.

I wonder, though, what any of you folks who believe that a blastocyst is the same as an infant would do when faced with the burning building scenario that I described above. Not one of you have answered that.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1528 hrs

A person who has been injured is still a person. they are not part of another person, like a blastocyst.

OK, so it’s not really about being able to exist alone or anything…

I wonder, though, what any of you folks who believe that a blastocyst is the same as an infant would do when faced with the burning building scenario that I described above. Not one of you have answered that.

The reason that nobody has answered it is because it’s a BS hypothetical question. What you are really asking is if we pre-lifers consider 30 lives or 1 life to be more worth saving. In short, the answer is 31.
Posted by Owen on April 26, 2007 at 1532 hrs

In addition to ventilator & feeding-tube-ridden folks, I guess it’s open season on anyone with a pacemaker or a dialysis machine, too. Just goes to show you the folly of the Left’s “viability” standard. There are lots of people post-birth that most of us would never consider killing (yet a couple Peter Singer-types want us to start down that road), despite the fact that they’re not “viable” on their own.

When you think about it, the womb & umbilical cord are simply biological life-support, if you will, no different then mechanical life-support inasmuch as neither speaks to somebody’s moral worth.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1541 hrs

I’m tired of this thread already. Some folks here want to play “gotcha,” others want to exhaust their opponents rather than have a meaningful discussion, still others want to make snarky jokes. Very few are actually trying to have a discussion that might reach a meaningful conclusion.

Mental gymnastics? I think we’re just trying to reflect upon and give some formalization to what most people - now and in the past - have regarded as true: that early pregnancies definitely are not human beings, but that newborns and injured people are*.

That is to say, we are merely trying to flesh out what is commonly understood. Ask someone on the street whether they’d save the newborn or the rack full of frozen embryos from the fire. They’ll tell you. Then ask someone what to do with someone in a permanent vegetative state. You’ll find out really quickly that people do understand the gradations of personhood and the differing ways we have of dealing with that in the areas of of law and medicine.

It is you who are “artificially” trying to arbitrarily make a firm line in the sand - a line that does not really exist.

* The exception being that we moderns have the benefit of technologies which enable us to deem the lives of some of the severely brain damaged as not meriting the same protections as other people.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1542 hrs

OK, so it’s not really about being able to exist alone or anything… Why are you mischaracterizing my arguments?

so you’d save the blastocysts then?
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1543 hrs

What most people - now and in the past - have regarded as true.

Somehow, I don’t think libs would consider historical consensus a compelling argument against same-sex marriage...so what’s the point of bringing it up here?

As for the man-on-the-street bit, it’s also been shown that large numbers of people would save their pet before saving a human stranger. I guess they know best, too!
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1547 hrs

Historical and present consensus, Calvin. And no, by itself it’s not compelling - if there is logical, empirical material which contradicts it. In this case we have established that there is no logical and empirical way to determine with certainty when ‘personhood’ occurs. Therefore we are left to other methods. In the case of gay marriage, we can disregard historical consensus on the basis that such prejudice does empirical harm while doing no empirical rational good.

It should be pointed out that we can in fact determine what comprises personhood. We could list those properties that together make for a person deserving our full moral consideration and full protection under the law. That’s not the hard part. The hard part is the fact that those attributes develop gradually over a period of time. It is my contention - and is also backed up by common sense, everyday behavior - that our legal system and medical ethics must also reflect this gradation.

I really don’t think this is too much to ask. This is the middle ground. It’s not abort any pregnancy at will right up to the moment before natural birth, nor is it saying that a fertilized egg has as much right to exist as I do.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1559 hrs

We could list those properties that together make for a person deserving our full moral consideration and full protection under the law.

That strikes me as dangerously subjective. All kinds of disabilities, illnesses, accidents, etc., affect people in ways that would certainly lessen some of those properties.

I don’t accept the premise that any life is entitled to a greater or lesser degree of moral consideration than another. People can only become less deserving of life by willful actions, not states of being. (And even then, I happen to have some conflicting feelings about the death penalty.)

It needs to be said that the Right and Left are coming at abortion from fundamentally different conceptions of humanity. To us, humanity is sufficient to define full personhood because we don’t believe the soul is contingent upon any one trait. Therefore, utilitarian questions, such as what a fetus is capable of, are irrelevant.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1625 hrs

I don’t accept the premise that any life is entitled to a greater or lesser degree of moral consideration than another.

That is absurd.

I suppose you are a vegan buddhist, then, right?

The fact is, as much as you might pose and posture, you DON’T think that all life is precious. I have heard some of the same people pontificating about how life is so precious write in other posts how their position at the top of the food chain allows them to kill animals at will, and how much they enjoy it.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1633 hrs

To us, humanity is sufficient to define full personhood because we don’t believe the soul is contingent upon any one trait.

And there you have it: the reason why I cannot follow where you’re going. To hinge your entire position based on belief in a religious tenet just isn’t going to work for me. It doesn’t even work for most religious folks, the majority of whom do not - as you do - ascribe full personhood to a fertilized egg.

In fact, your dismissal of “utilitarian” questions in favor of your religious beliefs may be the very core of the disagreements being had here.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1634 hrs

we don’t believe the soul is contingent upon any one trait

As I said before, a baby does not have a soul until after it is born.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1635 hrs

For followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is ample evidence in the Bible that God does not consider a fetus to carry the same weight as a person.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1637 hrs

All of which is beside the point, IMO. Making public policy based solely on someone’s religious beliefs, while casting aside utilitarian concerns, is a bad, bad idea. Secular government is a very good thing and I intend to keep it, thanks. You’re religious? You go right ahead and not have that abortion. But until you have some of those utilitarian concerns on your side, don’t start telling the rest of us what to do.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1642 hrs

I agree. I’m just pointing out that even by the authority that they claim to follow, a fetus does not have the same rights or moral weight as a person.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1645 hrs

Dj,

I meant any human life. Animal life is different in kind, not in degree.

And exactly when, pray tell, does that soul come into play? Immediately upon birth? 10 seconds? What about a delivered baby whose umbilical cord hasn’t yet been cut? Is there something magical about the change in location, or is the cord-cutting the special point? Are those kicks every mother feels false alarms?

Scott,

My religious belief in the human soul isn’t specific to the preborn - it’s why I believe in overall human rights, regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc. That’s based upon my (partially-religion based) conception of humanity.

I have simply concluded, through science, that the preborn belong in the same category.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1659 hrs

djheru, where in the bible does it say God doesn’t consider a fetus to carry the same weight as a person? Also where in the bible does it say you get your soul on your first breath? Do you really think God wouldn’t have had a problem if Mary had aborted Jesus when he was just a few cells worth of humanity?

Scott, what is your list of requirements for personhood?
Posted by Matt on April 26, 2007 at 1714 hrs

And exactly when, pray tell, does that soul come into play?

I’m sorry, once you’ve hung your hat on the “soul argument” yourself, you’ve given up all rights to calling anyone else irrational. ("Absolutely not! One hundred angels cannot dance on the head of a pin! it’s only seventy-nine!<>")

<i>my (partially-religion based) conception of humanity

Yes, good for you. You’re free to have that conception. But as I said before you have no business making these kinds of important public policy decisions for everyone else based on it.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1714 hrs

Invoking the soul makes me irrational? Hardly. Either souls exist or they do not - here, now, in the real world - regardless of what any given religion teaches about them. So we have no choice but to confront the possibility of their existence.

And if religious rationales are disqualified from the public realm, then the United States never should have been created in the first place. Go back and read the Founding Fathers.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1725 hrs

Animal life is different in kind, not in degree That is a bold assertion to make and not really backed up by science. humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the same dna. Dolphins have expressed great problem solving and communication skills.

And exactly when, pray tell, does that soul come into play? on the first breath.

As far as your defense of all human life, well, I hope you don’t brush your hair too hard. After all, those hair follicles are alive, and they are human. If you accidentally pull one out, you are taking a human life! Of course, that line of reasoning is absurd because the hair follicle is just part of your body, not it’s own separate entity. It’s part of YOUR BODY It would not be able to exist without being tied into your body.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1725 hrs

Exodus 21:22 says: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Exodus is clear that a murderer receive capital punishment, but killing a fetus is not punished with death. This is the closest the Bible comes to commenting on abortion; Judaism’s refusal to unequivocally condemn abortion stems from this.

Genesis 2:7 God made Adam’s body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the “man became a living soul” only after God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This seems to state clearly that Adam’s personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing; a fetus is only potentially human; an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was “nephesh;” it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “living soul” in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1 believes that the word’s root means “to breath.” He argues that during Old Testament times, “Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe.”

Genesis 38:24 Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar’s twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the man responsible for Tamar’s pregnancy.)

If abortion is really murder, why aren’t you advocating prision for the mothers?
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1732 hrs

and atheists have no business making these kinds of important public policy decisions for everyone else…

See it sounds silly that way too....

The question still stands then for Scott, dj, et al.

When do you draw the line? As I asked above in # 44..... The only response I received was “good question”. You accuse us of avoiding discussion, but avoid answering yourselves. Then completely shut down any conversation if anybody is a person of faith.

Since nobody seems to have a good answer, shouldn’t we err or caution on the side of life? Especially with the plethora of ways available to prevent an abortion scenario in the first place. Nobody here seems to agree on the “personhood” part, but there doesn’t seem to be any dispute regarding human life. Regardless of religious affiliation.

The mental gymnastics comment surround the gyrations and multiple scenarios being thrown about regarding being able to exist vs survive. How a newborn can neither exist or survive without a parent but is considered different from the viable child killed in a late term abortion because the mother is depressed (see George Tiller). Or how a 12-week gestation child, very close to being fully formed, but hardly viable is considered the equivalent of an infection to be eliminated - a clump of cells.

When is it OK to finally say that this is wrong for you?
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1732 hrs

I love to see people reveal their own inability to grasp simple concepts & science when they equate hair/skin/teeth/etc. with embryos. That stuff might play in intellectual kiddie pools like the Daily Kos, but it’s terribly weak elsewhere. I’ll elaborate when I’ve got time.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 1733 hrs

Is this a good enough reason for pause?

The Wall Street Journal carried an in-depth story this week entitled - “How ultrasound machines put GE at center of India’s gender debate” - which is an article on the misuse of ultrasound equipment as it relates to sex determination in India.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1744 hrs

#78 I agree 100% that aborting a fetus that is viable is wrong and should be illegal.

As far as “personhood” and when it begins, that is something that we decide as a society. The decision is made evident by looking at when a fetus is able to recieve the same legal protection as everyone else. If your side wins the cultural debate, we, as a society will be defining personhood as begining at conception.

#79 I love to see people reveal their own inability to grasp simple concepts & science when they equate hair/skin/teeth/etc. with embryos.

This, from the person who said When you think about it, the womb & umbilical cord are simply biological life-support, if you will, no different then mechanical life-support inasmuch as neither speaks to somebody’s moral worth.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1745 hrs

Either souls exist or they do not - here, now, in the real world - regardless of what any given religion teaches about them. So we have no choice but to confront the possibility of their existence.

Really? That does change a few things. Like pink unicorns? They either exist or they do not - right here in the real world - regardless of what anyone says about them. So we have no choice but to confront the possibility of their existence. Likewise with giants. And ghosts. And talking horses, witches, curses, demons, angels, underground mole-men, walking trees…

and atheists have no business making these kinds of important public policy decisions for everyone else

Everyone gets a say; I never said they didn’t. I think it is reasonable and proper, however, that public policy in a country with a secular government which safeguards religious freedom, that laws have a secular rationale and purpose. I don’t give a rats ass if you’re a Christian or a Druid; as long as you can make a secular and rational case for what you propose, fine. Religious beliefs are private affairs, not matters for public policy. That is in fact what religious freedom is about.

The only response I received was “good question”.

The only answer you seem willing to accept is one which draws a firm line: on this side you’re 0% a person, and on this side, you’re 100% a person. I’m sorry, it doesn’t work that way. We’ve been over this. The various criteria we might have to get to the core of what it means to be a person develop over a period of time. Thus our legal system and medical ethics should naturally reflect that same continuum as close as we are able to determine it. We may be aided by the science of brain development and so on. But we have to decide how to make that gradation work. There is no dark line demarcating one condition from another. Is that reason to be cautious? Maybe. But abdicating one’s responsibility to decide - which is what you do when you say a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of, say, me - is not an acceptable answer, as it does not reflect the gradations of development I keep going on about, to say nothing of the fact that it devalues the people in front of you whose personhood is not in dispute.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 1841 hrs

Of course, scott, what your eminently rational and logical response fails to consider is that their entire worldview is based on apeals to authority and absolutes…

This issue is a good example of that type of thinking.

there is no AUTHORITY to tell us when personhood begins, so we must take the absolute position that personhood begins at conception
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1956 hrs

Comparing the concept of a soul to pink unicorns and the like is easily the most absurd thing I’ve seen since I got a campaign email from Mike Huckabee. The latter is pure fiction, while the former is one of the guiding concepts behind human history. And yet you mock it instead of confronting it. Again with the liberal hubris posing as intellect....
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2150 hrs

And dj, the opposite of the authority is saying, “there is no authority, so we’ll assume we’re not taking.” I’ll take my ethics over that sense of entitlement any day, thanks.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2152 hrs

"assume we’re not taking innocent life,” that is.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2159 hrs

“...it does not reflect the gradations of development I keep going on about...”

Translation: “It doesn’t play ball by the convoluted rules I want to play by.”
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2203 hrs

Yes, Calvin, the concept of the soul does have an incredible amount of history behind it. But that doesn’t make it a sound principle upon which to rest public policy, as I’ve said before. The subjugation of women has an even longer history, but i don’t seriously see anyone suggesting that we start making discriminatory laws against them. I wrote what I wrote because your “logic” explaining why we must “confront the possibility of” its existence is absurd. Clearly it can be used to justify why we must - must - consider the possibility an unlimited number of absurd things.

A law of a secular government, one which endeavors to safeguard religious liberty of all, must have a secular purpose, a real purpose, one grounded in facts and reason, not someone’s religious ideals.

Your charge that I am trying to shape the debate according to my “convoluted rules” rings pretty hollow. As i’ve said, empiricism and common sense both reflect the truth of what I’m saying: personhood develops by degrees. As such, our laws should reflect this also.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 2219 hrs

Seems to me Dr. Mengele also endorsed that kind of “empiricism” (but I suppose I’m probably not allowed to make that kind of blunt observation).
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2232 hrs

No, Calvin, the opposite of that statement would be ”there is no authority to tell us when personhood begins, so we should decide based on reason, morality and utility”
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 2233 hrs

Mine is a secular purpose; it just recognizes that the physical realm can only go so far in finding Truth, so it doesn’t blind itself to other sources of wisdom.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2234 hrs

DJ, I was commenting on the fact that your side takes ambiguity as a license to kill; ours does the exact opposite.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2236 hrs

No, the difference is that Mengele viewed “personhood” as an attribute of a person’s race.

I am arguing that personhood is an attribute that is shared by ALL humans, albeit one that develops over time.
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 2240 hrs

Again with the Nazis. Does this mean we have reached Godwin’s law and that it’s time to call it quits here?

“Our side” takes ambiguity and tries to deal with it honestly. Your side tries to deny it entirely.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 2241 hrs

If the boot fits…

My point was that there have always been people who want humanity to be a negotiable concept. They want ambiguity because they operate most effectively in moral shadows. And in 2007 America, the torch has been passed to the Left.

Y’know what? History has never been kind to such people in the final analysis. And sooner or later (alas, probably later), this failed experiment of human arrogance and greed will take its place in such esteemed company.
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2248 hrs

Yes, I understand your point, Calvin. I see the parallel you seek to draw between me and Nazis. I just don’t buy it, that’s all.

And while you’re busy condemning everyone who sees a moral distinction between the post-born and an embryo, please include absolutely every person who ever walked the earth, past and present - with the exception of a very few moderns like yourself who, for the first time in history, argue that nearly invisible entities are human beings. And you can probably whittle that down even further, as most of you agree with us in the final analysis, as is evidenced by the thought experiment of the burning building and the embryos and the newborn. Unless you’re telling me you’d save the tray of embryos, you can count yourself among the Nazis, too.
Posted by scott on April 26, 2007 at 2256 hrs

Why is it among supposed thought-based arguments, variations of “other people say so” come into play so often?

As for the embryos-in-a-burning-building scenario, I confess that I’ve never given much thought to the scenario, so I humbly defer to Ramesh Ponnuru, who says it better than I could:

“Ellen Goodman asks whom you would save in a burning IVF clinic: the embryos or a child who happened to be there? [...] Goodman’s question about the burning building doesn’t prove the point she thinks it does. Think about another hypothetical situation: You’re in a burning building. You can either rescue a research scientist who is making great strides toward a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, or rescue four heroin-addicted fifty-eight-year-old men who have spent their lives rotating through the penal system and are likely to continue to do so. Whom do you save?”

“Let’s say you save the scientist. Are you therefore saying that it’s permissible to kill hopeless old addicts? Are you saying that such people do not have the same right not to be killed that the scientist does? Of course not. Neither Goodman’s question nor mine asks you to contemplate killing anyone. The moral question posed by the burning-building scenario is the extent to which you can show favoritism without being unjust. That’s an interesting question. But in answering it we might reasonably take account of all kinds of things - family ties, the life prospects of potential rescuees, the suffering they would undergo if not rescued, etc. - that aren’t relevant to the question: Can we kill them?”
Posted by Calvin on April 26, 2007 at 2322 hrs

Thanks dj for your answer in # 81, what about fully formed, but not viable, like say 12-16 weeks gestation? If I were more of a computer geek, I would try some slick links to actual ultrasound stills I have.

Scott - is it ok for gender selection?

I am pressing on this because that is where it is heading. This practice is already done in China and India to abort girls. I find that practice far more of a violation of women’t rights as these future women will never get a chance at a life at all. Nick also had a link to a great article on what happens in the UK - cliff notes version
One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

They lived for an average of 80 minutes - although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours.

Most of the babies were born between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, but some had been in the womb for as little as 17 weeks.
...
Most of the abortions studied were medical abortions. These involve a women being given a series of pills, taken in two doses two days apart.
...
From 22 weeks, the tablets should be preceded by a lethal injection into the baby’s heart to ensure the baby is dead before the procedure goes any further.

If these babies are born alive, it suggests they weren’t given the heart-stopping injection - perhaps because the doctor thought it would have been too traumatic for the mother. The figures follow several studies which show that babies born at 23 and 24 weeks are capable of surviving.
...
Babies born alive after abortion are entitled to medical care. However, anti-abortion campaigners claim that some are so unwanted, they are simply left to die.

full article found at....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new s.html?in_article_id=449598∈_page_id=1770
Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 2326 hrs

Why is it among supposed thought-based arguments, variations of “other people say so” come into play so often?

Because we are debating the moral values that we belive society should hold

The moral question posed by the burning-building scenario is the extent to which you can show favoritism without being unjust. No, that is not true. The question posed by the scenario is which posesses more value to the person answering the question.

I would like to pose another hypothetical. Suppose you were to encounter an intelligent alien from another planet. Suppose also that you were able to communicate with this alien, and that he had no ill intentions toward you or any other humans. Would the alien be as deserving of life as a human person?

If that is the case, it is obviously not “humanity” that you feel is deserving of “the right to life”. Is it consciousness? sentience?
Posted by on April 27, 2007 at 0028 hrs

Scott - is it ok for gender selection?

Certainly not. But there is reason enough to oppose the practice without having to claim fetal rights.
Posted by scott on April 27, 2007 at 0634 hrs

Yeah, and those values should be determined by merit, not poll number. Bottom line: I don’t care what anybody else says about abortion, and you don’t care what anybody else says about gay marriage. Fair enough.

No, your analogy still doesn’t work because “Who do you save” always involves factors that don’t speak to whether or not either would be killable in a non-emergency. Sometimes it’s a luck-of-the-draw answer no more complex than, “Who is closer to the door?” Surely that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to kill people at random! Considering the fact that pregnancies are almost never an either-or situation like that, your analogy could only concievably be used to justify abortion in life-of-the-mother cases (which I’m not conceding, just to be clear).

So lemme get this straight: you can just stick your fingers in your ear every time somebody mentions the human soul, just because it’s “religious” and therefore absurd, yet space aliens are perfectly legit for serious discourse.

You are some piece of work, fella.

But I’ll indulge that idiocy anyway: if such an alien were to exist, then it seems we would have found a second form of life uniquely deserving of rights - maybe it would be “Martianity” or something. My criteria is “Does it have a soul,” which is not difficult to discern: “Is it a member of a species inherently capable of sentient thought & moral judgment?”
Posted by Calvin on April 27, 2007 at 0743 hrs

you don’t care what anybody else says about gay marriage.

Sure I do. I’m nothing if not reasonable. If someone out there has a rational and fact-based reason why gay Americans should be denied the ability to marry one another, I’ll be happy to weigh it honestly against their own desire to live as they wish to. So far nobody has come up with any such reasons, at least not ones that don’t ultimately crumble under close scrutiny or find themselves based on someone’s non-provable religious beliefs.

The “who would you save” bit is an imperfect analogy, to be sure. But the larger point is this: everyone quiet intuitively recognizes that there is a large and meaningful difference between a just-fertlized embryo and some random person on the street. This is hardly an esoteric intellectual exercise; people’s attitudes and behavior reflect this understanding in dozens of ways. The law has also recognized this difference throughout most of human history. And science? It gives us measurable things such as brain development, consciousness, and other things we understand to be related to personhood. All of these things - every one of them - indicates that what i say is true: personhood is something that develops over time and that that destroying an embryo is not the moral equivalent of murder. Your desire to have an iron-clad answer to personhood is not supported by these things, and furthermore it tramples people’s fundamentally important desire to control their own lives and reproduction.

There. I think I’ve repeated myself enough. My position couldn’t be clearer. Nor could my reasons for rejecting your position.

you can just stick your fingers in your ear every time somebody mentions the human soul, just because it’s “religious”

As if! I spent years studying such things as a religious studies major in college. I don’t today happen to be a believer of such things, but that’s irrelevant. My issue is that laws must have a secular basis and purpose. Claiming that an embryo must not be destroyed because it has a soul is not an adequate basis upon which make laws.

space aliens are perfectly legit for serious discourse.

Unlike souls, it is rational to posit the existence of extraterrestrial life. It is, furthermore, something which can in theory be investigated by empirical means.

“Is it a member of a species inherently capable of sentient thought & moral judgment?”

Intriguing. I’m inclined to wonder what “member of a species” means to you. Possessing the correct DNA? Clearly not, as every cell in your body possesses correct DNA, but they aren’t persons. ‘Could be come a person’ isn’t going to work either, as with modern cloning techniques each and every one of those cells could become an individual person. ‘Will become a person if you let nature take it’s course’ seems pretty flimsy, too. No, your statement about “sentient thought and moral judgement” is much closer to what we’re talking about here. Although there are other factors missing, such as the feeling of investment by members of the community in that being - after all, a newborn isn’t ‘sentient’ in the sense that you or I are, nor is it capable of moral judgement. In this instance other factors have come into play, and the community (and the state) has interests in preventing infanticide that do not involve sentience and consciousness.

Yes, all of this does get pretty murky. But the fact is, people have been navigating this gray area since time immemorial. We are equally capable. More so, even, as we have a whole host of empirical evidences with which to help us make our judgments.

I should take a class on medical ethics. I would learn a lot, and my thinking on this matter would no doubt become more sophisticated - but I fear i would become even less understandable to you, as you’re already rejecting the very ideas that one can expect to be learning about in such subjects.
Posted by scott on April 27, 2007 at 0835 hrs

<i>your analogy still doesn’t work because “Who do you save” always involves factors that don’t speak to whether or not either would be killable in a non-emergency.<i>

No, it doesn’t. Assume the blastocysts and the child are an equal distance away from you, and you could save either, but not both. It’s a simple hypothetical to answer. The question is not designed to elicit which you would prefer to kill, but rather whether you honestly believe that they both have the same moral value A person that honestly believes that a blastocyst has the same moral value as an infant would choose to save the blastocysts, not withstanding Ponnuru’s silly non-sequitur that introduces the concept of the individuals worth to society based on their deeds in order to cloud the issue.

I do appreciate this debate, as it has helped me to clarify my own position on this matter. My position is, from a moral standpoint, is that the fetus attains “personhood” when it gains the most basic level of sentience, the ability to feel pain. It seems to me that that’s when Kant’s Categorical Imperative would become relevant. After some research, it appears that the fetus can begin to feel pain at about 12-14 weeks.

Therefore, my position is that abortion is morally neutral during the first trimester. I believe that it is morally wrong after that, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

My position is NOT that abortion is wrong because it causes the fetus to feel pain. Rather it is because the most basic level of sentience is the ability to feel pain. Once the fetus becomes a sentient being, it is a person with rights, IMO
Posted by on April 27, 2007 at 1040 hrs

Interesting. But what about other creatures who can feel pain. Are they the moral equivalent of you and I simply because of this fact? or is it different because they have human DNA? Surely the fact that there is no self-awareness comes into play, here, as does the potential viability of survival outside another organisms body.
Posted by scott on April 27, 2007 at 1052 hrs

I believe, at least in the united states that we make great attempts to treat other beings that can feel pain as humanely as possible. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but most people go ape-shit when they hear of overt abuse and cruelty to animals. As in all cases there are wing-nuts on both sides to that one. But to the point of killing that other being - say fluffy the cat who has cancer - we (usually) give a nice big dose of a drug to “put them to sleep”.

I appreciate dj’s honesty in his position of first trimester vs second and beyond. But if I can draw something from the many comments above, the divide seems to be with those that believe that simply because the baby is inside the mother it is not afforded any special rights because it is technically “part” of the mother. Like a parasite, not a separate being to be nurtured to the all important personhood.

There are those of us that see the ultrasounds and go - its a baby, a human baby. The heart starts beating around 21 days gestation. For me, personally, thats probably where I feel the cutoff should be.

So the goal should be prevention of fertilization, but basically anything past Plan B, or very reluctantly, RU486, should be gone. Because, in the vast majority of the cases, abortions are performed because the woman couldn’t be bothered with the responsibility of contraception and the subsequent inconvenience of a pregancy and child.
Posted by