Fetal rights

[ruby sparks]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

As I see it, the only thing that changes which makes a substantial difference is that the fetus exits the woman's body. At that point, there is no doubt the situation is different. The woman is no longer carrying inside her another human being. In many (though not all) important respects, there are arguably and imo no longer two competing rights. Whether this change of circumstances alone is what should determine the rights of that other human being or not...I'm not sure.

Because saying that whether the entity is inside the woman's body or not is the only thing that matters would (in some cases does) mean that a prematurely-born baby that developed for only 22-24 weeks should be awarded certain rights (protection from harm or death for instance), but an unborn fetus that has developed for 36 weeks (or 39 if the pregnancy runs on beyond 36) shouldn't be. In other words, it says that the rights have nothing at all to do with the status of the entity itself. Which I think is a bit problematical.

Imo, the number of late term abortions (after, say, 24 weeks) is so small, and the number of even those where there are not reasonably justifiable exceptional circumstances is such a small (tiny, even) proportion of that subset, that in places where the 24-week limit (or something similar) is in operation (in other words most of the countries that have liberal abortion laws and access to abortion) that to talk of pregnant women's rights being infringed in those instances is imo overstated. In other words, the laws in, say, most if not all of western Europe seem reasonable and for the most part work well. The law requiring women not to abort after 24 weeks unless there are justifying circumstances (risk to health and/or life of mother or fetus for example) is surely not unreasonably onerous.

 

[Elixir]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

Sentience for one thing. But more important, a baby is a living breathing human rather than a parasitic growth depending on another organism's metabolic functions for its continued growth.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sentience for one thing.

???

Explain that one. Are you telling us that people become self aware by coming out the birth canal?

 

[Elixir]

Sentience for one thing.

???

Explain that one. Are you telling us that people become self aware by coming out the birth canal?

Unless you have memories the precede your birth, then ... yes.

 

[Gun Nut]

Doctors are not killing millions and millions of babies immediately before birth ("near birth abortions"). But if they were, I would find that to be indeed be up there in moral depravity with the holocaust. Using birth itself as the dividing line is as senseless as using the initial meeting of sperm and egg.

.. and the reason this simply is not happening is because there is no actual problem with abortions that needs fixing...

But if you push for the line being birth rather than sometime before it while the unborn is nearly the same, then aren't you pushing for that actual problem existing?

No. For the reasons I said. There is no existing or historical problem in the US of mothers-to-be suddenly deciding on the day they are expecting to abort the fetus. This just isn't something that is happening so it does not require a law to protect the not-yet-born from a non-existent threat.
Furthermore... how the hell is not criminalizing something the same as "pushing for it".. that's just insane. There is no law on the books that say you can't bang your head repeatedly against the wall until your teeth fall out. Is the government pushing for people to smash themselves in the face because of their failure to criminalize the activity, in your estimation?

 

[Gun Nut]

Sentience for one thing.

???

Explain that one. Are you telling us that people become self aware by coming out the birth canal?

Unless you have memories the precede your birth, then ... yes.

This is an interesting take as well... memories... Babies do not form memories for some time... people are not capable (brains are not sufficiently developed yet) of remembering their birth... or quite some time thereafter. I believe (I could be wrong about this) that the guidelines for when to stop breast feeding aligns with when babies start to form long term memories. So regardless of the human-like biological activity we can measure in a fetus, the thing is not done becoming human yet.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sentience for one thing.

???

Explain that one. Are you telling us that people become self aware by coming out the birth canal?

Unless you have memories the precede your birth, then ... yes.

I don't have any memory preceding my birth. I also don't have any memories shortly thereafter. How do you know newborns are sentient? As Gun Nut points out above, I'm not so sure they are able to form memories. Also, is forming memories how you define sentience? I thought it was self-awareness. Can one be self-aware without forming memories?

And if you believe that self awareness comes to be via leaving the birth canal, how does that work physiologically? I've never heard this claim before.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Unless you have memories the precede your birth, then ... yes.

This is an interesting take as well... memories... Babies do not form memories for some time... people are not capable (brains are not sufficiently developed yet) of remembering their birth... or quite some time thereafter. I believe (I could be wrong about this) that the guidelines for when to stop breast feeding aligns with when babies start to form long term memories. So regardless of the human-like biological activity we can measure in a fetus, the thing is not done becoming human yet.

In a previous thread on abortion we had somebody seriously arguing that you should have lesser empathy and compassion for children up until a certain age. Which of course goes directly against human instinct.

 

[southernhybrid]

I seriously doubt that any woman has wanted an abortion late in the third trimester, unless her life is in mortal danger or the fetus is nonviable or suffers from a condition that will only allow it to live for a few days or weeks. When I was in nursing school in the mid 70s, heroin addicted babies were literally allowed to die in the neonatal unit where I had my OB training. That seemed cruel, and I only mention it as an example as to how far we have gone from allowing very damaged babies to die to trying to save premature infants who are sometimes less than 20 weeks in development. That also seems cruel to me, as these infants will likely suffer from a lot of serious problems. Imo, hospice care would be better than using an enormous amount of medical resources in an attempt to save a barely viable infant. We only hear about the successful cases, and rarely if ever hear about all the premature infants that die after very aggressive treatment. It's sad either way, and I do understand it when parents want everything possible done to save their newborn infant.

As far as abortion goes, let the woman and her physician be the ones who make that decision. I can pretty much promise you that no physician is going to agree to abort a healthy fetus late in the third trimester, and few would do it late in the second trimester unless the mother's health was being impacted. The vast majority of women who choose abortion, do it in the first trimester. I've known several women who chose abortion. They all made that decision in the first trimester and none of them had any regrets.

I like the old goal of making abortion, safe, legal and rare. If all women had good access to cheap effective birth control, there would be far fewer abortions.

 

[Elixir]

And if you believe that self awareness comes to be via leaving the birth canal, how does that work physiologically? I've never heard this claim before.

I'm sure you wish I was asserting the emergence of some physiological aspect of sentience as a physical result of passage through a birth canal, because that would be a ridiculous assertion that would allow you to dismiss the notion the fetuses are not self-aware out of hand.
Don't get too hung up on that though... more important is the fact that a living breathing human is not a parasitic organism.
Yes, at 24 weeks or so, a fetus exhibits avoidance behavior under certain stimuli. Those who desire primacy over women's bodies treasure that as an indication that fetuses experience pain. But they neglect to consider - so do planaria.

 

[Gun Nut]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

Religiously motivated answer: "It takes the gift of breath from God, giving it a spirit"
Rational answer: "It becomes an individual"
Legal answer: "You have to draw the line somewhere that everyone can see and agree upon"

 

[ruby sparks]

... more important is the fact that a living breathing human is not a parasitic organism.
Yes, at 24 weeks or so, a fetus exhibits avoidance behavior under certain stimuli. Those who desire primacy over women's bodies treasure that as an indication that fetuses experience pain. But they neglect to consider - so do planaria.

Calling a fetus a parasitic organism is a bit ropey, imo. And I don't get the comparison with planaria, or any other organism that can experience pain. Nor is desiring primacy over women's bodies necessarily involved in this.

 

[Elixir]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

Religiously motivated answer: "It takes the gift of breath from God, giving it a spirit"
Rational answer: "It becomes an individual"
Legal answer: "You have to draw the line somewhere that everyone can see and agree upon"

Nice neat and clean encapsulation there, GN. Unfortunately, lines "that everyone can see and agree upon" are the unicorns of rationality.
Even selling the idea that the "breath of God" confers "spirit" to evangelicals is an iffy proposition.

 

[ruby sparks]

Legal answer: "You have to draw the line somewhere that everyone can see and agree upon"

Sure. Here, and in many developed countries, it's agreed to be 24 weeks.

Well, not here, exactly. Here is NI which has some of the least liberal abortion laws in the western world. I meant the rest of the UK.

 

[Elixir]

... more important is the fact that a living breathing human is not a parasitic organism.
Yes, at 24 weeks or so, a fetus exhibits avoidance behavior under certain stimuli. Those who desire primacy over women's bodies treasure that as an indication that fetuses experience pain. But they neglect to consider - so do planaria.

Calling a fetus a parasitic organism is a bit ropey, imo.

Yes, and intentionally so. It's like calling an egg a tumor, but still a functional analogy (not a metaphor).

And I don't get the comparison with planaria, or any other organism that can experience pain.

It is offered in response to the common trope that pain-avoidance behavior is an indicator of humanity. It's not. And while planaria exhibit what some would call a "pain" response in avoidance of certain stimuli, that is pure anthropomorphism of the same variety that they apply to fetuses.

 

[RVonse]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

Sentience for one thing. But more important, a baby is a living breathing human rather than a parasitic growth depending on another organism's metabolic functions for its continued growth.

I would have said sentience is much more important than the independence.

The sentience is what separates humans from the other animals. We routinely kill and consume other animals and do not consider that murder. And that is not because those animals were independent from the womb. Its because animals themselves are judged to be different than humans even though biologically we are all mammals.

The sentience or lack thereof is what really matters.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What fundamentally changes in the moment of birth?

Sentience for one thing. But more important, a baby is a living breathing human rather than a parasitic growth depending on another organism's metabolic functions for its continued growth.

I would have said sentience is much more important than the independence.

The sentience is what separates humans from the other animals. We routinely kill and consume other animals and do not consider that murder. And that is not because those animals were independent from the womb. Its because animals themselves are judged to be different than humans even though biologically we are all mammals.

The sentience or lack thereof is what really matters.

What do you mean by "sentience"?

 

[Sarpedon]

The whole point about 'experiencing pain' is bullshit. It shows a lack of understanding on how the brain works and what the term 'experience' encompasses.

Every human being has had the following experience: they have touched something hot, and found their hand or whatever leap back involuntarily, and only a split second afterwards, felt the burning pain.

Given the fact that we have all had this happen, I don't understand why people don't understand that the avoidance of a harmful stimulus and the experience of pain are in fact TWO SEPARATE THINGS. The fact that they are often experienced at the same time does not diminish this fact, which every person should know firsthand.

Virtually all animals capable of motion (as well as many protists) are capable of the first. The second, the so called experience of pain is likely only possible among animals capable of memory. It requires a feedback loop between the sensory centers, the reasoning centers and the emotional centers, and serves the function of reminding the animal not to do that again. Animals with less developed brain parts devoted to these functions would have a lesser ability to experience pain. It is quite likely that humans experience pain much more greatly than any other animal, because of our advanced brain capacity.

An organism recoiling from a harmful stimulus is not evidence that it is experiencing pain. It is evidence that its autonomic reflexes are functioning properly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I like the old goal of making abortion, safe, legal and rare. If all women had good access to cheap effective birth control, there would be far fewer abortions.

While I don't find how often do something happens relevant to if it should be allowed, I agree with the above that I quoted, especially the final sentence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm sure you wish I was asserting the emergence of some physiological aspect of sentience as a physical result of passage through a birth canal, because that would be a ridiculous assertion that would allow you to dismiss the notion the fetuses are not self-aware out of hand.

I want hoping anything. I was merely trying to decipher what you meant when you wrote that sentience emerges when the baby goes through the birth canal. So you didn't mean that literally. And I was also wondering why you went to that instead of the argument about women having control over their bodies etc.

Why does it matter if the baby / fetus is sentient or self aware or can form memories? Is that the measure you use to determine if it/he/she should have some degree of a right to live, that then is to be weighed against mother's bodily autonomy?