Fetal rights

[ruby sparks]

.... pure anthropomorphism of the same variety that they apply to fetuses.

I'm not sure about that. There seems to be general scientific agreement that late term fetuses can likely feel pain. I also read that very late term fetuses (at 33 weeks) can apparently hear, and will respond to the mother's voice in particular.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What do you mean by a "right to live"? You mean we have a right to be alive? Where is that written in the Bill of Rights? The only thing i can find is:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

But that's in reference to governmentally imposed judicial powers, not codifying that someone has a congressionally mandated, constitutionally protected "right" to be alive.

So you must be referring to some sort of god-backed "right," in which case, there can never be an abortion. God simply takes them in the ineffable manner that He decides upon.

In regard to trying to determine some "viability" standard, it should necessarily only be measured by natural means. Iow, without modern science's assistance. If the baby could not survive on its own without any help from any other sentient being, then it is not "viable" and should only be considered a vestige of the woman who can in turn do whatever the hell she wants to do with it.

 

[Sarpedon]

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?

And what do you propose instead? And why weigh anything against it at all? Why not an absolute statement: All human beings have the right to autonomy over their own body? If YOU propose that a WOMAN'S bodily autonomy is a thing that can be bartered away, a thing that is less valuable than something else, what value do you propose to put on it? And are you, a man, willing to bear up to the same value placed on your body, as a logical extension?

 

[RVonse]

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?

Yes.

It is exactly why you can shoot a deer or a bear and not feel bad about it. And it is exactly why we will (in the future) be able to destroy or mutilate a robot without remorse.

 

[RVonse]

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?

And what do you propose instead? And why weigh anything against it at all? Why not an absolute statement: All human beings have the right to autonomy over their own body? If YOU propose that a WOMAN'S bodily autonomy is a thing that can be bartered away, a thing that is less valuable than something else, what value do you propose to put on it? And are you, a man, willing to bear up to the same value placed on your body, as a logical extension?

Yes. Men lose their freedom through the slavery of child support. It is not tied directly to their body but it is surely enslavement just the same. And unlike the gestational 9 month period, the freedom is lost for 18 long years.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

Yes.

It is exactly why you can shoot a deer or a bear and not feel bad about it. And it is exactly why we will (in the future) be able to destroy or mutilate a robot without remorse.

What do you mean by "sentience"?

 

[RVonse]

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?

Yes.

It is exactly why you can shoot a deer or a bear and not feel bad about it. And it is exactly why we will (in the future) be able to destroy or mutilate a robot without remorse.

What do you mean by "sentience"?

Self awareness and knowledge of their position in the universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

In simpler terms. The Mercury astronauts were very aware of the dangers and risk of spacecraft travel. Whereas the chimps who rode the same vehicals had no such awareness of their perils. Not every man would be brave, having courage, or adventurous for the ride. But every chimp would be more than willing to sit in the capsule for a small snack. That's the difference.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

It his honestly not an easy question to answer, which is why I am asking you. I don't think I would use the ability to form memories. Sentience as in self-awareness? That seems better. But even then, you've got people who are unconscious or in a coma who are not self-aware and I woudn't say they cease having a right to live, especially if they are likely or almost certainly going to come back to self-awareness (as a baby will gain it shortly as well).

And why weigh anything against it at all?

Eh? I weigh the woman's right to control her own body against the unborn's right to life because they conflict.

All human beings have the right to autonomy over their own body?

I do hold that as an absolute statement. But I also have to weigh that against other competing rights and interests. The right to your bodily autonomy to swing your fist stops at my head. There are people who would argue that the right to a woman to engage in sex for money should be stopped or that a man's right not to be drafted to a war should be. In the case of abortion you've got the competing interest of an unborn's life, and the later on in development of that life the harder it is for me to justify killing it in interest of the mother's bodily autonomy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What do you mean by a "right to live"?

What's complicated by that? We mean a right not to be killed by somebody else. Societies have a tendency to extend that right, morally and legally, to fellow human beings.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What do you mean by "sentience"?

Self awareness and knowledge of their position in the universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

In simpler terms. The Mercury astronauts were very aware of the dangers and risk of spacecraft travel. Whereas the chimps who rode the same vehicals had no such awareness of their perils. Not every man would be brave, having courage, or adventurous for the ride. But every chimp would be more than willing to sit in the capsule for a small snack. That's the difference.

That difference does not work, for a number of reasons. But for example:

First, let us consider the human astronauts vs. chimps case. It is not true that every chimp would be more than willing to sit in the capsule for a small snack. In fact, nearly all chimps in the world would avoid getting into an unfamiliar place like that. The reason the chimps were willing to get on board those vehicles is that they were made familiar with those places, and tricked by people they trusted into believing that those were safe places.
However, it would be pretty easy to do the same to, say, children under the age of (for example) six. It would be immoral, but it would be easily doable (at least, leaving aside moral reservations).
So, in this regard, chimps are at least no worse than human children under the age of six.

In addition to that, adult humans could be tricked as well. For example, imagine evil scientists doing that to, say, some members of a previously uncontacted Amazon tribe in the sixties. If they manage to gain their trust, they could fool them into believing it is safe. In fact, if they raised humans from scratch, they could more easily deceived them as adults. Evil, but surely doable.

Second, self-awareness is likely had by several non-human species, as the mirror test indicates. Now, maybe that's not conclusive. But it's surely more likely than not, and there are other lines of evidence.

 

[Gun Nut]

.... pure anthropomorphism of the same variety that they apply to fetuses.

I'm not sure about that. There seems to be general scientific agreement that late term fetuses can likely feel pain. I also read that very late term fetuses (at 33 weeks) can apparently hear, and will respond to the mother's voice in particular.

"feel" is a loaded word. The science is that they can detect pain... how they feel about it requires a theory of mind, which does not develop until well after birth.
I agree with Elixir that this is a form of anthropomorphism... like Veganism, in my opinion (an ideological eating disorder). A response to repeated stimuli (hearing the same voice) can be seen in plants as well.

 

[Gun Nut]

What do you mean by a "right to live"?

What's complicated by that? We mean a right not to be killed by somebody else. Societies have a tendency to extend that right, morally and legally, to fellow human beings.

My argument is that a fetus, regardless of developmental stage, is not a "fellow human being" until born. So I do not disagree with what you said... just the scope you apply.

 

[Gun Nut]

What do you mean by a "right to live"? You mean we have a right to be alive? Where is that written in the Bill of Rights? The only thing i can find is:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

But that's in reference to governmentally imposed judicial powers, not codifying that someone has a congressionally mandated, constitutionally protected "right" to be alive.

agree... but it is less complicated than that. Life begins at birth... not at some indeterminate point of development.

So you must be referring to some sort of god-backed "right," in which case, there can never be an abortion. God simply takes them in the ineffable manner that He decides upon.

disagree.. God was clear that only that which takes breath is alive. I am baffled by the religious position that exists.

In regard to trying to determine some "viability" standard, it should necessarily only be measured by natural means. Iow, without modern science's assistance. If the baby could not survive on its own without any help from any other sentient being, then it is not "viable" and should only be considered a vestige of the woman who can in turn do whatever the hell she wants to do with it.

agree. With the ability to produce "test tube babies" in the lab using an egg, sperm, and lots of equipment, the "viability standard" is moot. Viability exists BEFORE conception. So... every sperm would be sacred, as they say.

 

[ruby sparks]

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?

And what do you propose instead? And why weigh anything against it at all? Why not an absolute statement: All human beings have the right to autonomy over their own body? If YOU propose that a WOMAN'S bodily autonomy is a thing that can be bartered away, a thing that is less valuable than something else, what value do you propose to put on it? And are you, a man, willing to bear up to the same value placed on your body, as a logical extension?

It is often said that if men got pregnant, there would never have been such a fuss about the rights and wrongs of abortion. I think there is likely some truth in this, and I tend to agree that for some people (perhaps mostly men) not allowing abortion IS about oppressing women, in a nutshell. There are whiffs of patriarchy. And religious woo for that matter (and the two overlap, because the religious woo is often patriarchal in essence).

But, that does not mean that this is the case for all men who have an opinion on it, nor indeed all women who have an opinion on it (since the sides of the debate do not fall neatly along gender lines). Some people, for whatever reason, separately from gender politics and religion, simply really do care about protecting the unborn.

So let's imagine that men get pregnant. You are asking if a man (well, Jolly specifically) would agree that it is reasonable that after a certain stage in development (nominally at 24 weeks for the purposes of discussion) he not be permitted to abort unless there are justifying circumstances (chiefly risk to his life or health or that of the fetus or eventual child). And for me the answer is yes, I think I would consider that reasonable. I can't think of a good reason to argue against it, other than if the justifying circumstances pertain. I would feel highly irresponsible otherwise. I am assuming that I had access to an abortion at an earlier stage, obviously.

In other words, I would accept that my rights to bodily autonomy have reasonable limits.

Of course, as someone else already said, the number of cases where a late term abortion is even sought, let alone carried out, in the absence of justifying circumstances, is vanishingly small, so to some extent we are dealing in something that is largely hypothetical. Woman are basically not going around having late term abortions on a whim, or just because they have changed their minds. I doubt if that would even be substantially wrong to say about abortions at any stage.

 

[southernhybrid]

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.

As of 2013, there were only four doctors in the US who were qualified and willing to do late term abortions, as defined by an abortion once the fetus has been present for at least 20 weeks. I did a lot of reading about this earlier today. Late term abortions are very expensive and more complicated than early term abortions. The cost is about 10K, or more. I read the account of one of these physicians who said that she did consider the fetus a baby, as she wanted to be brutally honest with herself. Almost all of these abortions, which make up less than 1.4 percent of all abortions in the US, are due to either a nonviable fetus, danger to the mother if the pregnancy is continued or in very rare cases, another reason.

The doctor in the narrative that I read said that one of her patients had been raped, but it took her a long time to come to terms with the fact that she was pregnant and then it took her awhile to raised enough money to pay for her abortion. These things aren't as simple as some might believe. I support the right of women to make these decisions. Pregnancy itself is a high risk condition, which shouldn't be forced on any woman, if she has personal or health reasons for ending the pregnancy.

You may see it as ending the life of a potential human. I see it as terminating the pregnancy of a woman for either health reasons, highly personal reasons of a nature that is none of my business, or for her unwillingness to continue a pregnancy that will result in a terribly damaged infant, who has either no chance of survival or no chance of having a decent life. There are times when these conditions aren't determined until well past the 20th week of gestation. If you think it's wrong for a woman to end a pregnancy due to a fetus that has a serious or life threatening condition, then people like you should volunteer to raise these children. I've known some wonderful mothers who chose to give birth to an infant with Down's syndrome, a condition that can either result in mild to moderate cognitive impairment or total dependency with other organs involved as well as the brain. It should be a woman's right to decide if she's up to the task of raising and supporting a child who may not live to adulthood or may have to be totally dependent throughout her life. We already have enough children who are unwanted, and neglected that often end up in foster care, where they are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect. Who are we to judge what women decide to do regarding situations that involve pregnancy? It's complicated and imo, there's no clear line to be made that determines what's right and what's wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's a small curve ball regarding the gender politics. What if, allowing abortion effectively reduced women's freedoms, in at least some ways, some of the time? There are, I believe, some pro-life feminists (I think they call themselves pro-woman feminists on this issue) who take a line not far away from this. What I mean is, does it suit men (in at least some cases) to be able to say to a pregnant partner, 'but nowadays you can get an abortion'. Note that one fairly common reason women give for having an abortion is lack of support from their partner (ie the biological father) to continue the pregnancy.

My daughter, who happens to be a self-identifying feminist, wrote an essay for her university feminist module this year asking a related question, of whether the female contraceptive pill had in fact actually liberated women. The scenario is similar. What happened, it seems, after the female pill was widely available, is that women were (a) expected and sometimes pressured to have more casual sex and (b) take the necessary precautions. In a way, for some, possibly many women, men effectively hijacked the liberating potential of the pill and turned it to their own advantage.

I don't think I want to make a big play on this, because woman say they have abortions for many reasons other than that someone pressured them to do it. Many of the reasons have to do entirely with exercising their own free choices. I think that at the end of the day, one would have to assume that women can exercise full agency. I only mention it because I wonder if it points up how complicated the gender politics issue is in real life.

 

[Gun Nut]

I would accept that my rights to bodily autonomy have reasonable limits.

You wrote a lot of thoughtful things, but I quote only this one line... please do not be offended... your entire post was worthy of dissection / discussion. Hoping others will, but I am running out of time on this computer today.

Can you provide a hypothetical example of a situation where your bodily autonomy has a reasonable limit that does not involve reproduction?
I thought of "Trespassing" laws related to private property, and I thought of our penal system... two cases where your body is limited in where you may take it... but I haven't convinced myself that they are applicable. I also was thinking of an act that is a crime, but is not punishable... suicide. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would accept that my rights to bodily autonomy have reasonable limits.

You wrote a lot of thoughtful things, but I quote only this one line... please do not be offended... your entire post was worthy of dissection / discussion. Hoping others will, but I am running out of time on this computer today.

Can you provide a hypothetical example of a situation where your bodily autonomy has a reasonable limit that does not involve reproduction?
I thought of "Trespassing" laws related to private property, and I thought of our penal system... two cases where your body is limited in where you may take it... but I haven't convinced myself that they are applicable. I also was thinking of an act that is a crime, but is not punishable... suicide. Not sure what to make of that.

I guess the reasonable limits always pertain to situations where my rights conflict with the rights of others. Or at least I can't think of any example off the top of my head which is not that. By and large I think it's fair to say that I can do whatever I want to myself so long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. I stand to be corrected.

So I guess the case of abortion seems to hinge (again) on whether the fetus should have any rights or protections. So my argument is either circular or at least depends on awarding the fetus those rights.

I don't think there is any cast-iron case for awarding those rights. It may always be a matter of opinion, or at least it may always be a matter for individual jurisdictions. All I can say is that in most developed countries, there is a limit at or near 24 weeks where the status of the fetus itself is deemed to change at least somewhat, and that this seems to work fairly well and seems to be reasonable, all things considered, and I agree with it.

Regarding useful analogies, I have almost come to the conclusion that there aren't any when it comes to pregnancy. It is, I sometimes think, a unique issue.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I would accept that my rights to bodily autonomy have reasonable limits.

You wrote a lot of thoughtful things, but I quote only this one line... please do not be offended... your entire post was worthy of dissection / discussion. Hoping others will, but I am running out of time on this computer today.

Can you provide a hypothetical example of a situation where your bodily autonomy has a reasonable limit that does not involve reproduction?
I thought of "Trespassing" laws related to private property, and I thought of our penal system... two cases where your body is limited in where you may take it... but I haven't convinced myself that they are applicable. I also was thinking of an act that is a crime, but is not punishable... suicide. Not sure what to make of that.

It's reasonable (under some circumstances) to prevent you from deliberately infecting yourself with a deadly and highly transmissible airborne disease, as a means of protecting third parties. And if you are infected, under some circumstances, it's reasonable to forcibly quarantine you.

But imagine it's a disease that only mildly affects humans (if at all), but causes an extremely painful slow death in dogs. It would still be reasonable to stop you from getting infected, in a way similar to animal cruelty laws.

More than that?
Well, suicide is not a crime here. But I think it would be reasonable for the law to make it illegal (under some circumstances, obviously not all) for someone with people in charge to commit suicide (and allow the police to forcibly stop them), as they would be abandoning those they have in charge. That might be linked to reproduction usually, but it does not need to be: if someone got people in charge via adoption, that could be one such case.

And it's reasonable not to let you be a mule to transport heroin for further distribution, arresting you if you put bags of heroin in your stomach.

I'm not sure whether any of the above fits the sort of thing you were looking for. But these are or would be reasonable restrictions, not necessarily related to reproduction.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

As of 2013, there were only four doctors in the US who were qualified and willing to do late term abortions, as defined by an abortion once the fetus has been present for at least 20 weeks. I did a lot of reading about this earlier today. Late term abortions are very expensive and more complicated than early term abortions. The cost is about 10K, or more. I read the account of one of these physicians who said that she did consider the fetus a baby, as she wanted to be brutally honest with herself. Almost all of these abortions, which make up less than 1.4 percent of all abortions in the US, are due to either a nonviable fetus, danger to the mother if the pregnancy is continued or in very rare cases, another reason.

The doctor in the narrative that I read said that one of her patients had been raped, but it took her a long time to come to terms with the fact that she was pregnant and then it took her awhile to raised enough money to pay for her abortion. These things aren't as simple as some might believe. I support the right of women to make these decisions. Pregnancy itself is a high risk condition, which shouldn't be forced on any woman, if she has personal or health reasons for ending the pregnancy.

You may see it as ending the life of a potential human. I see it as terminating the pregnancy of a woman for either health reasons, highly personal reasons of a nature that is none of my business, or for her unwillingness to continue a pregnancy that will result in a terribly damaged infant, who has either no chance of survival or no chance of having a decent life. There are times when these conditions aren't determined until well past the 20th week of gestation. If you think it's wrong for a woman to end a pregnancy due to a fetus that has a serious or life threatening condition, then people like you should volunteer to raise these children. I've known some wonderful mothers who chose to give birth to an infant with Down's syndrome, a condition that can either result in mild to moderate cognitive impairment or total dependency with other organs involved as well as the brain. It should be a woman's right to decide if she's up to the task of raising and supporting a child who may not live to adulthood or may have to be totally dependent throughout her life. We already have enough children who are unwanted, and neglected that often end up in foster care, where they are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect. Who are we to judge what women decide to do regarding situations that involve pregnancy? It's complicated and imo, there's no clear line to be made that determines what's right and what's wrong.

Suppose we take a hypothetical scenario where a pregnant woman, of sound mind, decides, very late in the pregnancy, that she does not want to have the baby. Let's assume there are no fetal abnormalities and that the woman has no condition which will make the delivery any more risky than it is in a country where the standard of care is very good. It's not even that her relationship or financial status has changed for the worse (her supportive partner is still with her and they are fairly well off). The woman has, let's say, simply and decisively, changed her own mind, albeit late in the day. And also, she would not want the baby to be offered for adoption either.

Well, when I think about that situation, even then I do, I admit (and this may contradict some things I have already said) find it hard to fully support a law that says she can't have an abortion. But it wouldn't, I don't think, be on the basis of the woman's bodily rights, it would be because, at the end of the day, who benefits from essentially making her have the (now unwanted) baby, that has to get through a life, and die at the end of it? In other words, I am more concerned about the person who would be born.

I guess the flaw in that is that the same question could be asked about a one hour-old infant. What if the same hypothetical woman changed her mind at that point, for the same reasons (whatever they were, she simply did not want the child to live, even if it could be adopted, or for her to be a mother to it)? Would that be ok (assuming the baby could be killed totally painlessly)? Obviously, something like post-natal depression could be a relevant factor, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it isn't.

I am being very hypothetical, obviously. I do not know if there has ever been even one actual case like the one above. If you say that it's pretty much a pointless scenario if it never happens, I won't disagree much.

There are 'lesser' scenarios which do happen, albeit rarely, such as the one and only case in the UK that was prosecuted, in 2007* (see link below), and another 'lesser' type might be abortions done for arguably 'trivial' reasons (such as a hare lip) but even with those there are at least some legal justifications (for example medical experts say that a cleft lip or a cleft palate can be a sign of more serious defects).

Finally, regarding your last sentence about rights and wrongs, I do think that it's possible to find some things (actions by the pregnant woman) that are wrong, such as taking copious amounts of class A drugs all through a pregnancy, but those mostly have to do with consequences if the baby is born, and so are slightly different to the question of fetuses and abortion. The only way it could relate to fetuses would be if the fetus suffered.




* "Mohamed, from Levenshulme, Manchester, is believed to have fallen pregnant in July 2005 while having an affair with a taxi driver. Prosecutors believe she travelled to Liverpool in February 2006 [fetus was at 32 weeks] for an abortion because the baby was illegitimate.

The court heard how Mohamed, a Somalian national, had suffered a difficult upbringing and remains illiterate and innumerate."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552651/Jury-convicts-mother-who-destroyed-foetus.html

Even in that case, it is debatable whether punishing the woman served much purpose. The judge accepted that she was a good mother to her other children with a stable home life. So in the end, although a jury found her guilty, her sentence was suspended (she did not go to jail).