Human Development and Abortion Laws

[The True Scotsman]

I'm having trouble coming to a position on what point of development abortion should be illegal (or what point we start to consider a ball of cell a human). My main problem with the issue is that one person might say "this ball of cell is 'human' at this point in development" while another might say "no, it is a 'human' at this point in development." Whose to say who is wrong and who is right? My main worry on this issue is that any position on it will be arbitrary to the point where it is indefensible. Any thought?

 

[Neally]

The development of the fetus is a continuum with no clearly defined measurable instant that it becomes human with regard to protection of the right to life. In light of that, many would argue that the best course is to err on the side of protecting the fetus earlier than later.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm having trouble coming to a position on what point of development abortion should be illegal (or what point we start to consider a ball of cell a human). My main problem with the issue is that one person might say "this ball of cell is 'human' at this point in development" while another might say "no, it is a 'human' at this point in development." Whose to say who is wrong and who is right? My main worry on this issue is that any position on it will be arbitrary to the point where it is indefensible. Any thought?

I like the approach Desirism (or Desire Utilitarianism) takes. The question isn't about whether or not something is human or potentially human. It's closer to what many people mean when they talk about consciousness or suffering, but those terms are problematic. I think when we think it has desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled, it is an entity deserving moral consideration.

Legally, we draw lines all the time. I think the idea of the first trimester is that we are reasonably certain that by that time the fetus does not yet have the neural development needed to have desires that might be thwarted or fulfilled. It doesn't mean that 1 day into the second trimester, the fetus magically has that capacity. It's a somewhat arbitrary line (of the sort the law draws all the time) that errs on the side of caution. We're probably unnecessarily treating a lot of 2nd trimester fetuses as if they deserved moral consideration as a trade off of accidentally doing the opposite once in a while.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The development of the fetus is a continuum with no clearly defined measurable instant that it becomes human with regard to protection of the right to life. In light of that, many would argue that the best course is to err on the side of protecting the fetus earlier than later.

I swear I hadn't read your post before writing mine. GMTA.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm having trouble coming to a position on what point of development abortion should be illegal (or what point we start to consider a ball of cell a human). My main problem with the issue is that one person might say "this ball of cell is 'human' at this point in development" while another might say "no, it is a 'human' at this point in development." Whose to say who is wrong and who is right? My main worry on this issue is that any position on it will be arbitrary to the point where it is indefensible. Any thought?

I'd just like to point out that you appear to be equating "human-ness" with "inalienable right to life." Just because someone is a person, does not necessarily mean it should be illegal to kill that person. There are plenty of legal reasons to kill a person - war, self-defense, as punishment, etc. And there are plenty of legal reasons to let a person die - lack of duty to rescue, substituted judgment regarding quality of life, etc.

So, I don't think defining personhood really gets you very far in staking out a moral position on abortion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd just like to point out that you appear to be equating "human-ness" with "inalienable right to life." Just because someone is a person, does not necessarily mean it should be illegal to kill that person. There are plenty of legal reasons to kill a person - war, self-defense, as punishment, etc. And there are plenty of legal reasons to let a person die - lack of duty to rescue, substituted judgment regarding quality of life, etc.

So, I don't think defining personhood really gets you very far in staking out a moral position on abortion.

I agree.

Also, we routinely extend moral consideration to non-human entities, so this "human-ness" approach isn't very useful.

Again, I recommend Desirism.

NB: I think the study of morality should be like the study of language. We should recognize that morality like language is an innate capacity for using a conventional system. Just as it's not necessary to understand transformational grammar to use language, one needn't use something like Desirism to "do" morality. I think it's most useful as a description of what goes on in our minds. If Desirism generated a conclusion that "felt" wrong to me, I would not accept that conclusion, but rather see what's wrong or needed tweaking with Desirism. Part of the reason I think Desirism is one of the best descriptions of what our minds do is that most of its conclusions are ones that "feel" right to me. (The same way an utterance "sounds" right or wrong, and that is the test of whether or not a theory of generational grammar is useful to understand how our minds "do" language.)

Law isn't the same as morality, but it is meant to reflect some basic standard of our conventional morality. The law intends to leave undecided any moral question that it possibly can. (That's one way of understanding what "freedom" means.) Even if we didn't know anything else about fetal development, the fact that a significant portion (a majority in fact) of the population doesn't think first trimester abortion (in a normal pregnancy) is inherently wrong means that the law shouldn't make that decision for us.

ETA: The True Scotsman, if you haven't run into Desirism before, I'd recommend the Atheist Ethicist blog. Fyfe has at least a couple of essays applying Desirism to abortion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another poor argument is, "Abortion stops a beating heart." If that comprised any kind of moral argument then we should all reject killing animals for food and also any kind of heart surgery that requires stopping the heart.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm having trouble coming to a position on what point of development abortion should be illegal (or what point we start to consider a ball of cell a human). My main problem with the issue is that one person might say "this ball of cell is 'human' at this point in development" while another might say "no, it is a 'human' at this point in development." Whose to say who is wrong and who is right? My main worry on this issue is that any position on it will be arbitrary to the point where it is indefensible. Any thought?

Welcome to the world of moral politics! Enjoy the decades-long arguments that result in no real shift in anyone's positions, as well as the bubbling rage that sometimes boils over and gets people shot to death in their own churches. Make sure to wipe your feet at the door.

 

[MikeMangum]

Welcome to the world of moral politics! Enjoy the decades-long arguments that result in no real shift in anyone's positions, as well as the bubbling rage that sometimes boils over and gets people shot to death in their own churches. Make sure to wipe your feet at the door.

Yes and no. This specific argument is so entrenched, and causes so much rage, largely because it has been removed from the realm of electoral, compromise politics, at least in the US. Abortion doesn't seem to cause nearly the same level of passion in European countries, where it is usually allowed, but only up to some cutoff point - in other words, a compromise.

When people feel they have no option to effect policy via normal electoral channels, they become frustrated. Blame Roe v Wade.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Yes and no. This specific argument is so entrenched, and causes so much rage, largely because it has been removed from the realm of electoral, compromise politics, at least in the US. Abortion doesn't seem to cause nearly the same level of passion in European countries, where it is usually allowed, but only up to some cutoff point - in other words, a compromise.

When people feel they have no option to effect policy via normal electoral channels, they become frustrated. Blame Roe v Wade.

I would agree and disagree here. Abortion definitely has become removed from compromise politics, but purely BECAUSE it's a separation issue. If one of your platform issues separates out large portions of your base to vote for you based on that one issue with very high purity, then it's an issue you want to focus on. Abortion is divisive in this matter because it's been brought up and fought over for years. There can be no compromise on the matter due to the way the issue has been framed. It's brilliant, evil politics to have framed the issue in this way.

 

[casebro]

.... Make sure to wipe your feet at the door.

On the way out, right?

 

[casebro]

Generally, the line is drawn at "able to survive out side the uterus".

But I think the same standard should be applied to accidental fetus-cides.

And I think men should have the right to a "legal abortion" for two trimesters after being informed of a pregnancy. A piece of paper that says"so far as he is concerned, he is the father of NO baby".

 

[MikeMangum]

I would agree and disagree here. Abortion definitely has become removed from compromise politics, but purely BECAUSE it's a separation issue. If one of your platform issues separates out large portions of your base to vote for you based on that one issue with very high purity, then it's an issue you want to focus on. Abortion is divisive in this matter because it's been brought up and fought over for years. There can be no compromise on the matter due to the way the issue has been framed. It's brilliant, evil politics to have framed the issue in this way.

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I'd just like to point out that you appear to be equating "human-ness" with "inalienable right to life." Just because someone is a person, does not necessarily mean it should be illegal to kill that person. There are plenty of legal reasons to kill a person - war, self-defense, as punishment, etc. And there are plenty of legal reasons to let a person die - lack of duty to rescue, substituted judgment regarding quality of life, etc.

So, I don't think defining personhood really gets you very far in staking out a moral position on abortion.

If we were to consider a fetus at all points of development a human, is there anything in our legal system that would justify killing it?

 

[The True Scotsman]

I like the approach Desirism (or Desire Utilitarianism) takes. The question isn't about whether or not something is human or potentially human. It's closer to what many people mean when they talk about consciousness or suffering, but those terms are problematic. I think when we think it has desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled, it is an entity deserving moral consideration.

That's probably the best distinction one could make on this issue.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

With this particular case, I would concede that I may be. The two are muddled on this topic, especially in the United States. I understand that it's a divisive issue in other nations as well, but not "firebomb abortion clinics" divisive, as far as I know. What I'm getting at is that when you have a clearly divisive topic such as this, it's a generally prudent political move to place yourself (or your party) firmly on the side of what you believe to be the side that your base is on.

I'm not saying that I think abortion is divisive purely because of politics. Definitely not. I'm saying that politics has latched onto it because of its divisiveness, then played it up through increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric over time to the point where the original issue at hand isn't even the topic being debated. You go from "At what term should a woman not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy" to "Is abortion comparable to the Holocaust?" And the whole debate is swirled off into a ridiculous tangent.

 

[EatatJoes]

I'm pro-choice, at whatever time for whatever reason. Why? It's my body. Sounds so cliche, I know, but it's simply the truth. How can you grant an entity rights that resides inside of another human being without taking away the right to autonomy of that human?

Let's say this entity is a human, it feels pain the moment of conception, it can think, even telepathically communicate with the mother to discuss sleeping arraignments, call it a "child", "baby" whatever you wish, heck let's say that this entity can exist outside of the womb at 8 weeks. This doesn't negate the fact that this entity is residing inside of another human being. The government needs to stay the hell out of this issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Generally, the line is drawn at "able to survive out side the uterus".

That's not true. Most early second trimester fetuses are not yet viable.

But I think the same standard should be applied to accidental fetus-cides.

Why? Morally and legally an accidental death is very different from an intentional killing.

And I think men should have the right to a "legal abortion" for two trimesters after being informed of a pregnancy. A piece of paper that says"so far as he is concerned, he is the father of NO baby".

Man can't get pregnant, so it makes no sense to say men should have the right to an abortion.

Are you suggesting that the father can compel a woman to have an abortion? Wouldn't that be an abrogation of the woman's rights?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm pro-choice, at whatever time for whatever reason. Why? It's my body. Sounds so cliche, I know, but it's simply the truth. How can you grant an entity rights that resides inside of another human being without taking away the right to autonomy of that human?

Let's say this entity is a human, it feels pain the moment of conception, it can think, even telepathically communicate with the mother to discuss sleeping arraignments, call it a "child", "baby" whatever you wish, heck let's say that this entity can exist outside of the womb at 8 weeks. This doesn't negate the fact that this entity is residing inside of another human being. The government needs to stay the hell out of this issue.

While I sympathize with your position, I disagree that it's that simple. At some point a baby that is still utterly dependent on others for its existence becomes an entity capable of having desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled. It often happens that our desires come in conflict with one another, and then we have various ways of resolving who wins these conflicts.

As mentioned, with abortion for no reason but the mother's preference, we err on the side of caution by drawing the line at the first trimester. Up to that point, we're reasonably certain we're not dealing with an entity that merits moral consideration (doesn't have desires that may be thwarted). Then there's a gray area where we're not sure whether or not that entity merits moral consideration, and at the other extreme we have cases where both parties in the conflict definitely deserve moral consideration. An example of this last case is, most clearly, adult conjoined twins. We certainly wouldn't allow one twin to decide to make a decision unilaterally that is likely to kill the other twin for the first twins preference only.

With fetuses and babies, it's much more complicated. We find a mother guilty of a crime (and morally blameworthy) even for neglecting to take care of a born baby. Yet we know the baby won't be independent for many years. I reject the idea of dependence or "part of" another's body as sufficient reasons to discount the possible moral consideration of the fetus/baby's interests.

Again, I think Desirism gives us the correct standard. It's not when the baby is disconnected from the woman's body, or when the baby is independent. It's not even when the brain is fully formed (something, I gather, that also doesn't happen for years after birth). Instead, it's about the ability of the baby to have desires that might be fulfilled or thwarted. This corresponds roughly with the traditional idea of "quickening"--when the baby seems to make volitional movement, but since it's one of those legal lines, we draw the line safely to the early side when we're reasonably confident that it hasn't happened yet.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

largely because it has been removed from the realm of electoral, compromise politics, at least in the US.

I think that's proper. I think what the "pro-lifers" claim is "compromise" is merely a series of attempts at eroding the woman's rights.

Do you think abolitionists, for example, should have sought "compromise" on slavery? It's a moral question.