LOL sorry, Justin. (Or not.)

The only point where I'd disagree with you is that the question of when a fetus becomes a person is not a question of fact. It depends on how we define "person," and that's a question of value. We know all the pertinent facts or at least most of them, but we can't agree about that value question.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The only point where I'd disagree with you is that the question of when a fetus becomes a person is not a question of fact. It depends on how we define "person," and that's a question of value. We know all the pertinent facts or at least most of them, but we can't agree about that value question.

I don't like calling it a question of 'value', either (and 'fact' isn't a word I'm happy with, to be fair). It strikes me as a question far more fundamental than either fact or value -- since it is ultimately about the nature of the asker himself.

As I mentioned above (in that first series of answers where I got there before you did ), I think the name for that field of questions is 'metaphysics'. I don't know what the word in that field is that corresponds to 'fact' or 'value' in their respective fields. Maybe there isn't one?

In any case, the question of 'is a homo sap fetus a person' is answerable purely as a deduction from the primary metaphysical question of 'what is a person?', as applied to the purely-factual question, 'what is a fetus?'. If we can establish an answer to the first one that we can agree on, then (since the second one is something we already agree on, as do we on what constitutes homo sapiens) the whole mess resolves itself to a single rational conclusion.

----
-edit-
Don't get me wrong.. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Well, you have a point that "question of value" isn't necessarily a good phrase to describe it. But what I mean is that there is no objective way to determine a final answer. It comes down to what one considers important and so depends on subjective values judgments even if it is in fact a logical derivation of those judgments and not an immediate judgment in itself.

I have a mental/emotional concept of what constitutes a person because those are the things that matter to me. I consider it wrong to cause suffering. But some others have a more biological/nativist concept where DNA is the central principle. Which of us is right? There's no objective way to say. We can say things about where the human mind and feelings come from, and about DNA and how it operates, and prove these things using scientific method, but not about which of them is more important.

The abortion debate relates in this way to what I suspect will be the key issue of the next 2T, assuming as I do that the coming High will see an explosion of either human genetic engineering or artificial intelligence or both. Is someone whose DNA has been altered from natural human genetics still a human being, or, more exactly, still a person? How about a self-willed artificial intelligence that has no DNA at all? I rather suspect the lines will be drawn in the same way as about abortion.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Except that you argument presupposes the fact that what is growing inside her is not a person. And the part about the woman not belonging to society isn't exactly true in the way you want it to be. As mentioned above, a woman is considered to be enslaved to her minor children in the sense of being personally responsible for their care. This is not only a legal, bu also a cultural near-universal -- enough so that it is safe to consider it likely a fundamental fact of who we are as creatures.

So if your presupposition is in fact not correct... if the thing growing inside a woman's body is a person (and further, the class of person 'minor child' who is reliant on her to sustain its life)... then extending the period of her enslavement to the child back to include some time prior to its emergence from her body as a relatively-more-viable entity would be a conclusion perfectly in accord with 'right', defined with respect to the nature of us as humans and as people.

It really all comes back to that issue of what constitutes 'person'. And based on the answer to that question... both disparate conclusions can necessarily follow.

You seem to be the one not getting the issue. You cannot reasonably decide questions of fact (or whatever approximation of fact our answer would give) via the tools of politics. That's not what they are for.

-----
-edit-
dammit. Brian beat me to it this time.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That may be how a pro-lifer would use it. (Actually, never mind the "may be," because I've seen them do that.) It's not how I'm using it. I am not a "pro-lifer." I believe that abortion should remain legal and draw a very hard line between early and late-term abortion. When I say that late-term abortion should be illegal except in medically-necessary circumstances, I mean exactly what I say and nothing else. I am not using that as excuse to conflate the issue so that all abortions are associated, because that is not going a place I want to go.

A woman's body, like a man's, does not exclusively belong to any one person including herself. I don't buy that argument at all. No rights are absolute and unqualified by obligations to others. It's always a trade-off, a balancing of one versus another. Parents have a powerful obligation to support their children, and you can call that an obligation to society or to the children themselves, either one is arguable, but when children are brought into the world a huge obligation is created. At some very early stages, a child is inside the mother's body. That does not change the obligation; it exists as soon as the developing fetus becomes a "person." The question is entirely about when that happens.

I believe abortion should be legal in the early stages of pregnancy because I don't believe that a developing organism without a functioning cerebral cortex should be considered a human being, and so a woman's right to determine for herself whether she will become a mother is not compromised at that stage by obligations to a child. In the early stages, abortion is just an extension of contraception, a way to prevent a child from being. As long as abortion is legal and available in the early stages of pregnancy, a pregnant woman has plenty of time to resort to it and outlawing late-term abortion except for medical reasons would not be a serious hardship.

But I recognize that some people believe, for whatever reason, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and it's consistent with that belief to say that abortion should be outlawed, period. If I thought an embryo at conception was a person, I would advocate that abortion be outlawed. Since I don't, I don't.

You can rationalize until you are blue and continue to try to ignore the obvious. A collection of cells/fetus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, just like any other organ or parasite requires the woman to survive. A child is detached from a woman. Whether or not the parents care for it or not, it can be removed from the home and cared for by the state or some other sympathetic entity. Therefore it is part of society. A woman's body is not a possession of society. (Supposedly we outlawed that form human ownership with the abolition of slavery.) So any argument attempting to regulate the bodily functions of a woman is woefully transparent.

Again, the fact remains that woman will continue to have abortions as they have since the beginning of time. So the question remains are the lives of working class women -- who cannot easily fly to enlighten countries -- worth less? The self-indulged direction of this conversation seems to answer the question.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... a metaphysical* disagreement.
--
*I think that's the right name of the branch of philosophy that includes questions of 'what is a "person"?'

Black and white thinkers are not able to distinguish between a 20 year-old woman with her life ahead of her, and a zygote. Simplicity of concept, a binary right-wrong world is a much easier world to live in. Inconvenient nuance can be dispensed with.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Again, the fact remains that woman will continue to have abortions as they have since the beginning of time.

And many will look at the pictures of cells/fetus/whatever you want to call something that has arms, legs, head, eyes, and reacts to pain and feel they have committed murder.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Again, the fact remains that woman will continue to have abortions as they have since the beginning of time.

And many will look at the pictures of cells/fetus/whatever you want to call something that has arms, legs, head, eyes, and reacts to pain and feel they have committed murder.

James50

Murder is a legal term that has nothing to do with what a woman does with her own body (though many would like to pretend it is not).

But again, continue to try to evade the point and the confounding issue...which is:

...are the lives of working class women -- who cannot easily fly to enlightened countries -- worth less?

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's exactly why people become vegetarians!

As a vegetarian put it to me one time - never eat anything that has a face.

(BTW - I am not a vegetarian although many of my friends are. And I wanted to ask the guy later - did he eat oysters?)

James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Murder is a legal term that has nothing to do with what a woman does with her own body (though many would like to pretend it is not).

Don't talk to me. Talk to the women who have done it.

James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You can rationalize until you are blue and continue to try to ignore the obvious.

You are being both obtuse and insulting. I am not rationalizing and I am not ignoring the obvious. I simply, and only in small part as pertains to the ultimate result, disagree with you. Disagreement is not ignorance, and it is as obnoxious for you to suggest otherwise as for a believer in Austrian economics to do so (as they frequently do).

A collection of cells/fetus/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, just like any other organ or parasite requires the woman to survive. A child is detached from a woman.

That's your definition, and it is not self-evidently the correct one. As I said above, my own core values require calling anything with a mind and feelings a person, whatever its physical circumstances. That a late-term fetus (up to a point prior to birth) requires its mother's body to survive has no more significance than the equally true fact that you and I require the support of a modern civilization to survive. Complete independence is a fiction.

Whether or not the parents care for it or not, it can be removed from the home and cared for by the state or some other sympathetic entity.

The state can indeed do this, but the parents can also be subject to civil and criminal penalties for child neglect.

A woman's body is not a possession of society. (Supposedly we outlawed that form human ownership with the abolition of slavery.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

You are using the word "possession" here (which is your word, and has not been used by me except in response to you) as if it and complete absence of any obligation were the sole possibilities. This is a logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma." A person having obligations to society does not make that person society's "possession."

Again, the fact remains that woman will continue to have abortions as they have since the beginning of time. So the question remains are the lives of working class women -- who cannot easily fly to enlighten countries -- worth less? The self-indulged direction of this conversation seems to answer the question.

Considering that I have never, either here or elsewhere, advocated making all abortions illegal, this is another logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Considering that I have never, either here or elsewhere, advocated making all abortions illegal

Nor do I. I am not in favor of any laws on abortion beyond what we have now. There are simply too many varieties of human experience and condition to make a rigid rule.

On the other hand, I am insistent about calling abortion what it is - it is the spilling of human blood. It is a carnage. It is destroying life at its most vulnerable. If we can be honest about that, the behavior will take care of itself. Talking about cells and zygotes is nothing but euphemism.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

On the other hand, I am insistent about calling abortion what it is - it is the spilling of human blood. It is a carnage. It is destroying life at its most vulnerable. If we can be honest about that, the behavior will take care of itself. Talking about cells and zygotes is nothing but euphemism.

You are making the same mistake that Summer In The Fall did: you are accusing me of patterns in my thinking that don't exist.

Spilling human blood? I do that whenever I cut myself shaving. (Or I did before I grew my beard.) Destroying human life? That's done with every injury, and women in childbearing years do it once a month. Spilling human blood, destroying human life, these are irrelevant as literal statements and become pertinent only as metaphors for killing a person. And in my sincere, honest, non-euphemistic opinion, abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, although it is indeed spilling human blood and destroying human life, is no more the killing of a person than is the loss of blood cells when I cut myself shaving.

As I said above, my own core definition of personhood revolves around thoughts and feelings. A creature capable of thinking and feeling is a person. A living organism that cannot do these things is not a person. As such, an embryo at conception is not a person. That is not a rationalization, it is not a euphemism, it is a completely honest and straightforward statement of exactly what I believe.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Spilling human blood, destroying human life, these are irrelevant as literal statements and become pertinent only as metaphors for killing a person.

Yes.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Yes.

IOW, you're equivocating: You're saying that because it is *literally* something that we use *metaphorically* to mean "killing people," therefore it must *be* killing people. You're ignoring the distinction between literal and metaphorical; you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Similarly:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

IOW, you're equivocating: You're saying that because it is *literally* something that we use *metaphorically* to mean "killing people," therefore it must *be* killing people. You're ignoring the distinction between literal and metaphorical; you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Similarly:

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Not at all. I was agreeing with Brian that I did not mean it in the literal sense, but in the metaphorical sense of killing a person. Killing a baby in the womb is not the same thing as a nick while shaving.

James50

Enough of this abortion waste of time.

"Let's check in with the Angry Town Halls"

August 2009 was the beginning of the end of the Democratic House majority. Tea Party activists showed up at town hall meetings, cameraphones in hand. They snagged video of their members melting under loud, tough, occasionally baseless questions. The video made it quickly onto Fox News; Democrats quickly stumbled and claimed it was all staged.

How's the summer of 2011 looking? It's not exactly a reversal of fortune. Republican members are opening up their meetings, but there's no onrush of liberal anger. There's a little bit, yes, but it still looks to be conservatives leading the questions.

Not a bad August for Republicans, really.

Several youtube videos embedded in the article on Slate by Dave Weigel. He is pretty much your definition of a progressive democrat.

Still looking for the near invisible left wing insurgency.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's your definition, and it is not self-evidently the correct one. As I said above, my own core values require calling anything with a mind and feelings a person, whatever its physical circumstances...

If the terms bother you, exchange them for whatever ones you like. The "obvious" point of using the word "child" is to distinguish it from a woman's body. You can continue to cry about personhood, societal obligations or whatever tickles your fancy, but none of it detracts from the fact that one exists irrespective of a woman's body and the other is wholly dependent on it -- because it is a part of it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...That a late-term fetus (up to a point prior to birth) requires its mother's body to survive has no more significance than the equally true fact that you and I require the support of a modern civilization to survive. Complete independence is a fiction.

I think you know that this is bullsh*t. How does regular, every day abortion equate to forgoing ALL of modern civilization? Now if you are using rarely sought after "late-term abortions" to conflate the argument of abortion which I have already stated is a ploy then like the rest of your ad hominems and tangential polemics it's not worth the energy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...As I said above, my own core definition of personhood revolves around thoughts and feelings. A creature capable of thinking and feeling is a person....

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You are being both obtuse and insulting. I am not rationalizing and I am not ignoring the obvious...

Yes, you are. EVERYTHING has thoughts and feelings. That was the point of the vegetarian comment. That's why this is a matter of legality, not religion, i.e. your unique definition of personhood. (And you might be interested in knowing about Jainism where they are forbidden from eating carrots and potatoes, mentioned not in hyperbole. My freshman roommate was a Jain.) So to claim that an extension of a woman's flesh has the same standing under the law as the woman carrying that flesh is a form of subjugation/slavery/whatever-you-want-to-call-it masquerading as rights.

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Murder is a legal term that has nothing to do with what a woman does with her own body (though many would like to pretend it is not).

Don't talk to me. Talk to the women who have done it.

James50

"They" are not the ones here spouting talking points--you are. Take responsibility for your own behavior.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

none of it detracts from the fact that one exists irrespective of a woman's body and the other is wholly dependent on it -- because it is a part of it.

So what? To me, personhood is what matters, and the ONLY thing that matters. I don't care a fig that a late-term fetus, which I consider a person, is biologically dependent on its mother's body, just as I don't care a fig that an embryo at conception, which I don't consider a person, has a full and complete set of human DNA, as an anti-choice person might argue. To me, both of those facts are total irrelevancies signifying nothing at all.

I think you know that this is bullsh*t.

I know that you know no such damnfool thing, as you cannot "know" something that is false. It isn't bullshit. No equivalency needs to be made. As I said, the dependence of the fetus on the mother is, for me, a complete and total irrelevancy signifying nothing at all. Pointing out that everyone is dependent on civilization is merely a helpful explanation of why I feel that way. The important fact, though, is that I do feel that way. End of story.

EVERYTHING has thoughts and feelings.

A rock does not. A bacterium does not. The majority of living organisms do not. More complex and evolved animals, arguably, do -- there's a case to be made for vegetarianism on that basis. But an embryo at conception does not.

"They" are not the ones here spouting talking points--you are. Take responsibility for your own behavior.

You are an obnoxious asshole. Take responsibility for yours.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So what? To me, personhood is what matters, and the ONLY thing that matters. I don't care a fig that a late-term fetus, which I consider a person, is biologically dependent on its mother's body, just as I don't care a fig that an embryo at conception, which I don't consider a person, has a full and complete set of human DNA, as an anti-choice person might argue. To me, both of those facts are total irrelevancies signifying nothing at all.



I know that you know no such damnfool thing, as you cannot "know" something that is false. It isn't bullshit. No equivalency needs to be made. As I said, the dependence of the fetus on the mother is, for me, a complete and total irrelevancy signifying nothing at all. Pointing out that everyone is dependent on civilization is merely a helpful explanation of why I feel that way. The important fact, though, is that I do feel that way. End of story.



A rock does not. A bacterium does not. The majority of living organisms do not. More complex and evolved animals, arguably, do -- there's a case to be made for vegetarianism on that basis. But an embryo at conception does not.



You are an obnoxious asshole. Take responsibility for yours.

Well boys and girls, this is what misogyny sounds like...I rest my case.

James -- understood. (I'd suggest not using the metaphor so you don't come off as equivocating. Just say you believe it's "killing a person" -- less confusing that way.)

Brian and Justin, I think there's room in this argument for consideration of just how much we expect parents (in this case, necessarily mothers) to sacrifice in order to "keep their children alive." It's one thing to sell your labor to pay for your offspring's bed and board. It's another to allow your offspring to live inside your body. And let's not forget that even today, childbirth is still more of a risk to the mother's life than an abortion.

The distinction reminds me of the philosophers' thought experiment about seeing someone on the railroad tracks and there's an oncoming train. It's one thing to flip a switch that will send the train elsewhere, saving the person. It's another to have to physically push them out of the way of the train, risking your own life in the process. We may judge the person who doesn't act, but should we prosecute them for murder? For that matter, should we have Good Samaritan laws at all?

I also think of breastfeeding as an analogy. A breastfeeding mom "turns her body into a milk factory" (ever had a breastfeeding friend or partner complain she was "sick of feeling like a dairy cow"?). And it's pretty well established that breastfeeding is, all else being equal, better for a baby than bottle feeding. (8 IQ points better, IIRC.) But it's not always possible. Even when possible, it's not always practical. It can require heroic and exhausting efforts on the mother's part -- efforts which take her energy away from doing other things for the baby.

So...should we require mothers to breastfeed unless it's impossible? Should mothers who don't breastfeed have to prove they couldn't? Maybe we shouldn't go that far -- maybe they should just have to prove it would be extremely impractical. Maybe a mother should just have to prove that in this particular case, on balance, it wouldn't be in the baby's best interest. (Just like these days, depending on the state she lives in, a woman may need a court hearing to be allowed to have an abortion without her parents/husband being notified.)

I think in the case of breastfeeding, most people would agree that it's too complicated to be subject to simple, black and white laws. That instead, the decision to breastfeed should be between the woman, her doctor, and depending how seriously she takes the advantage (hey, at the mean, 8 IQ points is the difference between "slightly slow" and "college material"!), her conscience. (OK, I'm stretching the analogy a little here. But the point is --)

That we can trust the vast majority of mothers to make the best decision for their families.

Likewise, some people feel that way about (even late-term) abortion. (I remember a poll in England in which that was the majority view: That abortion "should be between the woman, her doctor, and her conscience.")

When it comes to abortion, we can trust the vast majority of pregnant women to make the right decision for their situation. We don't need the law to butt in. (Said the newly minted "big-gummint lib'ral" to the anarchist... Well, I did used to be a libertarian, and one of the recently posted political quizzes did still call me Ayn Rand...)

...

I also notice most of the people in this discussion are guys. I don't think we should just shut up -- everyone's entitled to an opinion, and we may as well articulate ours -- but still...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

True. Personhood shifts the question, however, to one of a trade-off of rights -- which is, itself, a very sticky situation. After all, pretty much all cultures hold to the norm that it is right to hold parents captive to the needs of their already-born minor children (whether by meeting those needs themselves, or by arranging for those needs to be met by another). So the idea of extending that period of captivity back in time to cover whatever period prior to birth the fetus is determined to be a 'person' isn't really a qualitative shift. It's just an adjustment of boundaries that are already there.

Even those commitments have an escape clause that pregnancy fundamentally lacks -- the option to give custody to someone else. With present technology, the fetus cannot be reliably extracted and implanted into someone else or a suitable artificial womb. By the time the the fetus is ready for birth, removing the fetus is dangerous to both (and frankly, at that point, why not have a regular birth?).

Also, there is a qualitative difference. One might ask, what's the real difference between an 8-1/2 month fetus and a newborn? Looking at the young human being, not much. But the 8-1/2 month fetus is inside a woman, and her presence definitely changes the moral circumstances. The pro-life position relies upon believing that the presence of the woman is of no consequence.

Of course, regarding women as being of no consequence is rather par for the course among social conservatives.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So being able to conclusively (or at least as conclusively as epistemology permits ) answer the person/nonperson question would leave us at worst no further from a solution than we are now, and might potentially be the solution itself.

Certainly, prior to personhood (whenever that is), there is just no case at all for the pro-life position. My point was that the case for the pro-life position is weak at any point prior to birth, and just becomes outright insane when you apply it to a pre-implantation fertilized egg (which is what one must do to oppose the morning after pill or IUDs). And pro-life activists do want to ban those things, even if the Rani doesn't want to believe it.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

And it's pretty well established that breastfeeding is, all else being equal, better for a baby than bottle feeding. (8 IQ points better, IIRC.) But it's not always possible.

This a complete aside, but if the effect is only 8 points than that effect is absolutely not well-established. The IQ scale uses 15 points per standard deviation, which means than an 8 point effect would be lower than 90% confidence, the lowest threshold ever used in statistical studies. In short, the measured effect is small enough to have occurred by chance. Also, there's a major confounding variable in such studies. Long-term breastfeeding requires parents willing and able to provide a high degree of attention to their kids -- a factor which is known to have an impact on future outcomes. There's also the problem that IQ tests are not stable over the long term. Longitudinal IQ tests show that a person's score at age 5 can be very different their score at age 10 or 15 or later (by more than a standard deviation). So, all told, an 8-point effect is insignificant (both in the statistical and the vernacular sense).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That was the point of what I said. The fundamental metaphysical question, "what is a person?" is the only way we're going to come to a solution to the problem.

IMO the problem is that tying abortion to personhood leads to justifying infanticide, because infants are not fully sapient. Indeed, critics of abortion make that very argument, that if "personhood" is the criterion, then infanticide should be legal.

I prefer tying abortion to the fact that a fetus is essentially a parasite of the mother. IMO it is wrong to kill a human being, but it is not wrong to stop another human being from parasitizing your body. Thus, I believe that abortion should be totally legal up to the 3rd Trimester, and then after that only if the life of the mother is threatened or the fetus has a deformity that will cause it to not survive after birth.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I believe what they say they want to do over what you say they want to do.

Opposition to the morning after all pill can be found via a quick search and while it is hard to find public statements calling for bans on the IUD, you will find forums where women are advised not to get IUDs (or have them removed) because they can cause abortions. There is also the telling fact that many religious denominations (notably Catholics) oppose the use of contraception. Just read this article.

The idea that there is no one at all who would like to see contraception banned is impossible to maintain, even if we allow for some opponents who would just call contraception a personal choice.