Human Development and Abortion Laws

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also note that the approach Desirism offers also accounts for when we should allow late-term abortions. In cases of normal pregnancies, we draw the first trimester line, but in cases of microcephaly or anencephaly and the like, we allow later-term abortions (all the way up to the so-called "partial birth" abortions about full term). It's not because the fetus isn't a human or a potential human or dependent (or even necessarily not viable). The only thing that's different is that we believe the fetus in these cases lacks the neurological development to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled.

The same approach also works well on Terry Schiavo-type situations.

 

[EatatJoes]

JoetheJuggler - This will seem like I am skirting the issue but that is not my intent. We can discuss the morality of the issue if you (or anyone else) likes but the government should have no say on the issue. Once the child is outside of the womb, it can be treated as an individual and granted rights as one. I do most certainly understand that the child is wholly dependent on others. However, when the child is inside the mother, that child is basically a medical condition and legally should be treated as one.

It was my understanding that we have fairly liberal abortion laws. One can abort without "medical reasons" before 20 weeks, that is in the second trimester. It is also my understanding that women aborting "just because" past viability (which is now 23 weeks) is rare and not worth legislating.

 

[casebro]

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

Seems to be a non-sequitor? I'd say that since they can't survive, it's OK to abort. That is where I draw the line between a woman's rights and the "baby's".

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?

No. I'm saying since the man can't make the woman abort, he should be able to avoid child support by having a "legal abortion" that says he is a non-father. No need to pressure the woman in to having a surgical procedure- she can have her baby, or not. I just think men should have the same options.

How come a woman's right to privacy extends to whether or not she is a mother, but a man's right to privacy doesn't extend to whether he is a father?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JoetheJuggler - This will seem like I am skirting the issue but that is not my intent. We can discuss the morality of the issue if you (or anyone else) likes but the government should have no say on the issue. Once the child is outside of the womb, it can be treated as an individual and granted rights as one. I do most certainly understand that the child is wholly dependent on others. However, when the child is inside the mother, that child is basically a medical condition and legally should be treated as one.

But why not? Why shouldn't we have laws on this issue? What about adult conjoined twins? If one decides to kill the other, don't you think we should have laws that criminalize that?

ETA: What makes the cutting of the umbilical cord (or being "outside the womb") so significant? Does something magical happen at that instance, and the baby wasn't worthy of moral consideration an hour earlier but is after this point?

It was my understanding that we have fairly liberal abortion laws. One can abort without "medical reasons" before 20 weeks, that is in the second trimester. It is also my understanding that women aborting "just because" past viability (which is now 23 weeks) is rare and not worth legislating.

That's roughly how I'd characterize the law in the U.S., except I wouldn't call it especially liberal--especially the issue of "compromises".

We prohibit spending government funds for abortion. There have been any number of laws requiring parental consent for young women seeking abortion. The latest thing in Missouri was an attempt to pass a law that would require a woman seeking an abortion to listen to pro-life propaganda and look at an sonogram of the fetus. (How strange is that? Can you imagine if we required bypass surgery candidates to look at images of their diseased hearts and listen to Christian Science propaganda trying to talk them out of the surgery?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seems to be a non-sequitor [sic]? I'd say that since they can't survive, it's OK to abort. That is where I draw the line between a woman's rights and the "baby's".

It's not a non sequitur. I was arguing that viability doesn't make a good standard for where to draw the line.

ETA: Though I should add that the court did talk about viability in its argument in Roe v. Wade. They tied the state's interest in the prenatal life to increased chances of viability in the 3rd trimester. Another reason I don't think it's a good standard is that as technology improves, the probability of survival has increased at earlier stages. The question as to whether or not there is an entity worthy of moral consideration shouldn't depend on changes in technology. I mean, it's not a question of triage, where the probability of survival of one person affects that of another.

And you contradict yourself when you say this is where you draw the line but later say that it's only when the baby is "outside the womb". Those are two VERY different lines.

 

[Loss Leader]

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?

Sure. Substituted judgment. Start from the premise that sane people have a right to choose to die. And there are very good reasons that someone might want to die - total paralysis, intense pain, the prospect of a longer, more agonizing death otherwise.

Now consider the totally different legal theory of substituted judgment. When a person is too young, sick, or unconscious to make his own decision, someone who loves him can make the decision for him. My son wanted halloween candy for breakfast. He had a bagel with cream cheese. I substituted my judgment for his because his little five year-old judgment, frankly, sucks.

The merger of the two concepts of he right to die and substituted judgment allow for cases when a loved one can substitute her judgment for an incapacitated parent to refuse medical treatment and allow that person to die.

End of life decisions have been made for thousands of elderly people, but also many younger people with debilitating injuries, and even babies.

So, a mother choosing an abortion is substituting her judgment for her fetus and determining that it the baby knew the crap life that was coming his way, it's in his best interests to opt out of it. The book Freakonomics provided evidence that woment who abort their babies are generally very, very good at determining if they'd make good mothers.

While you may disagree with some or all that I've written, or where to draw the line, the fact remains that this is the basic legal framework underlying abortion.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Sure. Substituted judgment. Start from the premise that sane people have a right to choose to die. And there are very good reasons that someone might want to die - total paralysis, intense pain, the prospect of a longer, more agonizing death otherwise.

Now consider the totally different legal theory of substituted judgment. When a person is too young, sick, or unconscious to make his own decision, someone who loves him can make the decision for him. My son wanted halloween candy for breakfast. He had a bagel with cream cheese. I substituted my judgment for his because his little five year-old judgment, frankly, sucks.

The merger of the two concepts of he right to die and substituted judgment allow for cases when a loved one can substitute her judgment for an incapacitated parent to refuse medical treatment and allow that person to die.

End of life decisions have been made for thousands of elderly people, but also many younger people with debilitating injuries, and even babies.

So, a mother choosing an abortion is substituting her judgment for her fetus and determining that it the baby knew the crap life that was coming his way, it's in his best interests to opt out of it. The book Freakonomics provided evidence that woment who abort their babies are generally very, very good at determining if they'd make good mothers.

While you may disagree with some or all that I've written, or where to draw the line, the fact remains that this is the basic legal framework underlying abortion.

I don't believe that is so. Is it legal to kill terminally ill children who are experiencing painful symptoms? No. I don't see how a fetus would be any different if we are considering it to be a human.

 

[Neally]

So, a mother choosing an abortion is substituting her judgment for her fetus and determining that it the baby knew the crap life that was coming his way, it's in his best interests to opt out of it.

Bad criteria to base ethical judgments on, for it allows a mother to determine if her child should be put to death if she decides its life will be crap. Are you okay with the mother deciding at a week old that the baby should be put to death? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years?...

While you may disagree with some or all that I've written, or where to draw the line, the fact remains that this is the basic legal framework underlying abortion.

As pointed out above, this so called legal framework doesn't hold up when you work out the scenarios. I don't think that the ethical considerations that apply to our legal system of abortion is based on this concept.

 

[Cactus Wren]

ETA: What makes the cutting of the umbilical cord (or being "outside the womb") so significant? Does something magical happen at that instance, and the baby wasn't worthy of moral consideration an hour earlier but is after this point?

It's no longer battening on another body. It is biologically independent: it breathes its own air, intakes and digests its own nourishment, maintains its own body temperature. It will not die if someone else takes over its care.

 

[Loss Leader]

Is it legal to kill terminally ill children who are experiencing painful symptoms? No.

You're wrong. A parent can choose to withhold treatment from a terminally ill child. A parent can choose to treat a child's pain without regard to the dangers of the pain medications, effectively shutting down respiration.

It's not exactly plunging a knife into the kid's chest, but the result is the same. When the parent, with some general guidelines from society, reasonably believes that it is in the child's best interests to die, the parent can take actions that result in the death of that child.

Bad criteria to base ethical judgments on, for it allows a mother to determine if her child should be put to death if she decides its life will be crap. Are you okay with the mother deciding at a week old that the baby should be put to death? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years?...

Parents make those types of decisions for their sick children every day - at ages of 1 month, 1 year and 5 years. "Put to death" is a bit emotionally charged for no reason that aids in the discussion.

As pointed out above, this so called legal framework doesn't hold up when you work out the scenarios. I don't think that the ethical considerations that apply to our legal system of abortion is based on this concept.

You're only partially right. First of all, I wasn't asked whether this legal framework is the only one in place. I was asked if, when you consider a fetus a person, "is there anything in our legal framework that would justify killing it?" I answered with a set of legal concepts that justify the intentional death of a fetus.

However, actual abortion law is founded on a much murkier and ever-shifting set of principles. Courts have shied away from declaring a fetus a person and then analyzing the matter from there because of the emotional baggage that accompanies the word "person." There is, wrongly, a popular belief that personhood implies an absolute right to life. As a consequence, many courts have employed some level of balancing test wherein the right to control of one's body is weighed against an "emerging" right to life.

This legal analysis suffers, in my opinion, from its own moral cowardice. It leaves unanswered a difficult question that doesn't go away just because courts ignore it. Still, I believe it is the legal theory that actually undergirds the legality of abortion, whether spelled out in judicial writing or not.

 

[Neally]

You're wrong. A parent can choose to withhold treatment from a terminally ill child. A parent can choose to treat a child's pain without regard to the dangers of the pain medications, effectively shutting down respiration.

It's not exactly plunging a knife into the kid's chest, but the result is the same. When the parent, with some general guidelines from society, reasonably believes that it is in the child's best interests to die, the parent can take actions that result in the death of that child.

Parents make those types of decisions for their sick children every day - at ages of 1 month, 1 year and 5 years. "Put to death" is a bit emotionally charged for no reason that aids in the discussion.

Clearly there is a significant difference in a mother allowing a terminally ill child to die, and killing a healthy baby, which is why your framework fails to add anything to the ethical considerations of abortion.

 

[The True Scotsman]

You're wrong. A parent can choose to withhold treatment from a terminally ill child. A parent can choose to treat a child's pain without regard to the dangers of the pain medications, effectively shutting down respiration.

It's not exactly plunging a knife into the kid's chest, but the result is the same. When the parent, with some general guidelines from society, reasonably believes that it is in the child's best interests to die, the parent can take actions that result in the death of that child.

But with abortion you aren't just letting the fetus die by refusing medication, breathing machine use, etc, rather you are actively hindering a natural process, affectively killing the fetus, which, if left alone, the fetus would have developed naturally (most likely) into a fully developed human.

 

[Loss Leader]

Clearly there is a significant difference in a mother allowing a terminally ill child to die, and killing a healthy baby, which is why your framework fails to add anything to the ethical considerations of abortion.

First of all, I'm almost positive that you're using the word "ethical" wrong. Second, I never even suggested that I was creating a moral justification, let alone an ethical one. All I did was provide a framework of existing legal concepts that allow one human to, in effect, kill another. Whether it "fails to add anything" or not, it exists.

But with abortion you aren't just letting the fetus die by refusing medication, breathing machine use, etc, rather you are actively hindering a natural process, affectively killing the fetus, which, if left alone, the fetus would have developed naturally (most likely) into a fully developed human.

Not entirely true, is it? The fetus is not going to be "left alone" under any circumstance. It is sitting inside somebody else. That person is their breathing machine. That person is their medication. Allowing the fetus to "develop naturally" is impossible without forcing some other person to expend her energies, health, and emotional wellness on that fetus.

So, I am absolutely all for removing the fetus intact from the mother and allowing natural processes to take hold. At the time that the 12-week fetus is removed from the mother, my understanding is that it would be gravely, gravely ill, would suffer greatly, and would die unquestionably. At that point, the mother should be allowed to choose to withhold medical treatment and nutrition from the 12-week old.

Problem solved.

 

[Neally]

Second, I never even suggested that I was creating a moral justification, let alone an ethical one. All I did was provide a framework of existing legal concepts that allow one human to, in effect, kill another. Whether it "fails to add anything" or not, it exists.

Okay, well yes we know there are laws that permit abortion as there are laws permitting the death penalty, killing in self defense, etc . The topic is the about the morality considerations of abortion.

 

[Loss Leader]

The topic is the about the morality considerations of abortion.

First of all, I was responding to a specific question asked by the opening poster:

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?

Second of all, even if we were to limit all discussion only to those things raised in the opening post, the topic still wasn't about the morality considerations of abortion.

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?

See? No mention of morality whatsoever.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's no longer battening on another body. It is biologically independent: it breathes its own air, intakes and digests its own nourishment, maintains its own body temperature. It will not die if someone else takes over its care.

But that doesn't distinguish a fetus (dependent on another body) from conjoined twins.

Also, does it follow that ANY entity that is biologically independent, breathing its own air, etc. merits moral consideration? What about brain dead people (those with no functioning cerebral cortex, but a functional brainstem, like Terry Schiavo)? Would you say it's wrong to kill them by not feeding them?

Does it also follow that a human who lost the ability to breathe on its own or to take in and digest its own nourishment does NOT merit moral consideration? There are plenty of people with functioning adult minds in that situation.

I don't think the standard you're offering is very useful. It would lead to what I would consider abominable conclusions. (That it's OK to kill a patient who can no longer breather without a respirator and it's not OK to stop keeping Terry Schiavo's body alive.)

 

[quixotecoyote]

But that doesn't distinguish a fetus (dependent on another body) from conjoined twins.

Also, does it follow that ANY entity that is biologically independent, breathing its own air, etc. merits moral consideration? What about brain dead people (those with no functioning cerebral cortex, but a functional brainstem, like Terry Schiavo)? Would you say it's wrong to kill them by not feeding them?

Does it also follow that a human who lost the ability to breathe on its own or to take in and digest its own nourishment does NOT merit moral consideration? There are plenty of people with functioning adult minds in that situation.

I don't think the standard you're offering is very useful. It would lead to what I would consider abominable conclusions. (That it's OK to kill a patient who can no longer breather without a respirator and it's not OK to stop keeping Terry Schiavo's body alive.)

I agree with your position, but I'm not sure about the methodology.

It seems like you're saying, "Here are the positions that I think are moral. Now come up with a framework of morality that justifies my positions."

I'm not sure that's a useful approach.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're wrong. A parent can choose to withhold treatment from a terminally ill child. A parent can choose to treat a child's pain without regard to the dangers of the pain medications, effectively shutting down respiration.

It's not exactly plunging a knife into the kid's chest, but the result is the same. When the parent, with some general guidelines from society, reasonably believes that it is in the child's best interests to die, the parent can take actions that result in the death of that child.

But this is not really analogous to abortion. It would be more analogous to a pregnant woman not taking proper pre-natal care. Sadly, that approach doesn't always result in a miscarriage, but often in the birth of a sickly baby.

You can't kill a terminally ill child the way you can kill a first trimester fetus. The thing lacks whatever we require to give it moral consideration. We conclude that we can terminate such a fetus for any or no reason at all. It's not the same for a terminally ill child.

The primary intent of DNR orders or aggressive pain-killers is to avoid unnecessary suffering precisely because we think such a child does merit moral consideration.

This legal analysis suffers, in my opinion, from its own moral cowardice. It leaves unanswered a difficult question that doesn't go away just because courts ignore it. Still, I believe it is the legal theory that actually undergirds the legality of abortion, whether spelled out in judicial writing or not.

I don't know that it's "moral cowardice". I think the Roe v. Wade thinking was on the right track, but it relied too much on viability rather than that something else (ability to suffer, some people would say; consciousness, others say; volitional movement or quickening in more traditional terms; or the ability to have desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled, by my preference). But legal decisions aren't quite the same as philosophical moral conclusions. Anything a court says beyond the case in front of it is really dictum. If a court can answer a case without answering the bigger moral questions, then it ought to.

Similarly, the law doesn't ever have to answer the question, "Why is murder bad?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with your position, but I'm not sure about the methodology.

It seems like you're saying, "Here are the positions that I think are moral. Now come up with a framework of morality that justifies my positions."

I'm not sure that's a useful approach.

That's not *quite* what I'm saying. [ETA but it is pretty close.] I think a rational, philosophical approach to morality can be great--especially for making arguments on controversial issues (issues where our moral conventions aren't clear). But I think morality really is a innate mental capacity to internalize a conventional system that was highly adaptive for living in complex groups. I think it's like language. I think even someone untrained in logic can make moral decisions and spot something that is "wrong"--just as someone untrained in linguistics can recognize an unacceptable utterance as something that "sounds" wrong.

You don't have to be a logician to "do" morality, but you should be a logician to make good arguments.

I think in a way all these logical systems (like Desirism) can do is to describe what's going on in our minds. Again--a lot like language. If the system comes up with something that sounds wrong, I wouldn't feel compelled to accept that "wrong" conclusion. Instead, I'd look to tweak that system (or abandon it for a better logical system) so that it models what our minds do perhaps more accurately.

ETA: Let me say it a different way. Everyone with a normally functioning brain (this leaves out sociopaths, psychopaths and so on) can and does internalize the conventional morality. I don't believe there is any objective or absolute morality beyond human convention. In areas where we haven't yet come to a strong consensus on what is the convention, there isn't some deity or "The Universe" that has the right answer that we just need to discover. (And I do think the claim that there is some objective morality beyond human understanding smacks of supernaturalism. It's similar to the notion that language was a gift from God rather than a mental capacity for internalizing a conventional system that we evolved because it was adaptive.) Instead, we argue and discuss the matter and try to reach that consensus. In many cases these decisions are pretty arbitrary--in which case we may never reach a consensus, but sometimes they have selective advantage or disadvantages. In that case, over a longer period of time, natural selection helps us reach consensus.

On the issue of abortion, our lack of a strong consensus suggests that a free society leave the choice to the individual as much as possible. So, from a legal standpoint, erring on the side of avoiding condoning murder, we should try to leave the choice up to the individual.

 

[Cactus Wren]

I don't think the standard you're offering is very useful. It would lead to what I would consider abominable conclusions. (That it's OK to kill a patient who can no longer breather without a respirator and it's not OK to stop keeping Terry Schiavo's body alive.)

How, exactly, does the observation that a fetus is biologically dependent upon and battening on the physical resources of a single individual lead to the conclusion that it's "OK to kill a patient who can no longer breather {sic} without a respirator"? (Hint: How many people can attend to a respirator? How many people can provide bodily resources for a specific fetus?)