> I can't help noticing that references to the unborn in these threads have
> been extremely abbreviated. The only clear one I can remember is Carrol's
> analogy to an appendix. An abortion is not ethically different than an
> appendectomy, so a fetus is the moral equivalent of an appendix. William
> Burroughs gave us talking assholes, and now we have appendices with the
> potential to breathe, cry, pee, etc. We have fancy machines to watch them,
> take pictures of them. If you want a child, you're a mother and the fetus
> is a person. If it dies in childbirth, it is not uncommon to bury them and
> put up gravestones. "Here lies 'Michael' . . . " If you don't want a
> child, then you're not a mother, you're a woman with a wiggly appendix, or
> something.
Even if a fetus is a person the rights of the mother override that of a fetus. Suppose you woke up in a hospital bed with your circulatory system plugged into the circulatory system of a famous musician. The musician dies if disconnected before nine months. Does the musician have a right to your body? Would it be wrong for you to disconnect? (this is Judith Jarvis Thompson's example). Further, having rights entails an obligation namely to respect others rights, something a fetus cannot do. To have a right to x requires being able to desire x and having a desire requires having a concept of x,(i.e. understanding what x is), something a fetus cannot have.
The nature of the fetus, it's inherent rights, or lack thereof,
> depends on what a couple of other people who happen to be its originators
> think. ('Parents' won't do. Can't be parents without a child, and then
> we're in trouble again.) Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
>
> Another reference hinged on a women's right to control of her own body,
> which entailed a right of "disposal"! The connotation is obvious and
> probably was unintentional, but it points up the impulse to look away from
> the question. In practice, of course, actual 'disposal' of fetuses is a
> very touchy matter, not least for the pro-choice among the populace. If a
> fetus is an appendix, then it could easily go into the garbage with stuff
> you found rotting in the refrigerator.
Where do you think aborted fetus's go? They get flushed down the toilet. I once found an aborted fetus in a garbage bag in the hall of a squat. Not pretty. I bet the insides of the mother weren't pretty either. I'd be surprised if she could give birth after a homejob like that. Is that what pro-lifers want?
> There was Yoshie's point about objectification of women, or denial of their
> personhood, which is entirely well-taken when we speak of any limits to
> "choice" or "[un]reproductive rights." But nobody spoke to denial of the
> humanity of the unborn.
Doesn't having humanity require at least self-consciousness? The ability to form concepts and the like? Would you ascribe humanity to a toad or a stone? The rights of the unborn take precedence over the rights of the mother and her body?
>
> There was a fascinating twist on this issue in a previous debate on LBO. A
> disability activist took negative note of the use of abortion as a means of
> de-selecting fetuses judged 'disabled' from childbirth. Abortion for
> purposes of sex selection is also a well-known practice. But if a fetus is
> an appendix, than an imperfect fetus or a female fetus is an imperfect or
> female appendix, so no problem. No? Yes? If for the sake of argument,
> parents made such decisions with no implications for the disabled persons
> among us, then would this be acceptable or not? As CC says, abortion is
> just another form of birth control. The right to 'choice' is the right to
> act on motives we would find repugnant.
Sometimes. What about rape and incest?
>
> Out of curiosity, I wonder how this blob of ectoplasm known as a fetus is
> regarded. What do people think it is exactly, or philosophically? Is it
> like an appendix, a second-class Siamese twin, or what?
>
More importantly, what is a person? If in your set of criteria or necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a person, would those criteria apply to a fetus?
What is the difference between a person and a stone? A person has self-consciousness, needs, desires, emotions.... A stone does not have these attributes. Does a fetus?
Sam Pawlett