Yoshie said: "Then, logically, Max, Michael Keaney, etc. must end up saying, "well, a fetus is human, the killing of a human is murder, so abortion is murder, but murder is sometimes OK, and I'll help a woman in my life to murder a fetus whether it's legal or not." If you define a fetus is human, you ought to reach the logical conclusion implied in this definition. "
I agree. I think I've done that and I've tried to say so.
Sam P said:
>>
"Even if a fetus is a person the rights of the mother override that of a
fetus.
>>
This is the first straight answer to my question. The issue is whether this override is *always* legitimate.
>>
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).
>>
mbs: not a very good example for your argument. No the musician has no right to my body (tho if I was comotose with no hope of revival, that to me would raise a question). But the musician does have a right to whatever medical science can do for him if he is disconnected from me. By this analogy, a fetus in the womb would have the right to a shot at an incubator, or whatever new gadget comes along.
>> . . . 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.
>>
mbs: Ajit answered this.
>>
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?
>>
mbs: wherever they go, my point was that most people CARE about where they go, how they are 'disposed' of, and this reflects widespread ambivalence regarding the 100% view of choice. (Since only one percent of pregnancies go past 21 weeks, according to AGI, you could call me 99.5% pro-choice, though I doubt that would mollify anyone who is 100%.) An aborted fetus is perceived as akin to a corpse, and respect for the dead (and for the feelings of their survivors) is ubiquitous.
>>
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?
>>
mbs: Two different questions. I -- and most people, I venture to say -- would ascribe humanity to a fetus. Funny thing is, as above, this expression does not find the open air until the abortion is consummated.
>>
Sometimes. What about rape and incest?
>>
mbs: No problem. These pregnancies can and usually are terminated early. The hard case is if by accident they are allowed to progress very far. Then we've got a difficult problem, no question about it. But it involves choosing whose rights are supreme, I would say, not whether to get an appendectomy.
>>
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?
>>
mbs: I don't have an elegant or precise definition. All I can say is that the bright line that is currently the standard -- before and after birth -- makes no sense to me. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out where the line is not located.
Chuck said:
>> . . .
I assume you find my refusal to engage these sorts of discussions with
a passionate belief system repulsive. That is, my arguments are
somehow inhumane. . . .>
mbs: yes.
>> Are you asking how could I not be caught up in the tragedy of it all? The
frank answer is I am a cold hearted son of a bitch.
>>
mbs: Join the club. I don't think I've been particularly melodramatic. I'm not wringing my hands over this. I've paid for two abortions in my life. I never think about what or who might have been (both were in the first trimester).
>>
It rarely occurs to anyone in these debates that they are enacting and
reproducing power struggles between themselves and the institutions of
authority that in the concrete, absolutely control them. They consider
it a moral dilemma over choice. But the choice is not theirs to
deliberate. It is always, already been decided by institutional
authority." (CG)
>>
mbs: Institutions promulgate rules which constrain, to some extent. But on the ground, there is still some scope of choice about whether or not to abort, and of course standing outside the situation, we can talk about changing these rules or not, for good or for ill.
>>
. . . Everybody I've know who had an abortion or went to term, didn't think
of themselves as free to decide--they felt imprisoned, determined
somehow in advance. In that sense there was no moral dilemma, but
rather all sorts of practical questions. . . . >>
mbs: I don't understand this at all. Of course, one can be confronted by an array of unappealing choices. That's the rule more than the exception. But there is still free will. We are not 100% dehumanized.
>>
I thought you were joking. An appendix? Sure. It's an appendix, or a
second class Siamese twin. A fetus is living tissue. In that sense it
is an appendix. What is it you want to hear in answer to this
question?
>>
mbs: My point was to ask whether it was any more human than a zit. You say no. Others say yes, but the mother's rights override the baby's. Both views can be defended. I think the latter makes more sense, even though I disagree with it, and the former is evasive.
>> . . .
On a personal level, I am absolutely hostile to any debate about moral
questions, precisely because I have known many people who have died
pointless, suffering, and horrible deaths--in full view of public
institutions, authorities charged with caring for and preventing such
atrocities. The excuses were always some regulation or other that
masked money. These experiences have lead me to believe any question
about moral or ethical conduct is always about money or power or both.
For me, moral debate is just a sop for the protected bourgeois sensibility. Some medium to indulge the feelings of those with the privilege to feel. In fact, I think these arguments form a kind of authenticating lotion, a palative of reassurance that our sensibilities and feelings have social and political meaning in the world. They don't.
It is probably that thought, that you find repulsive.
>>
mbs: You're right on that last point. Sounds nihilistic to me.
Finally, re: Kristin Lukin, I don't doubt for a second that how abortion and pregnancy are regarded through history is shaped by malign, ruling institutions, including capitalism and patriarchy. It is useful to appreciate the origins of ideas one evaluates or holds, but in this case I don't think the history decides the issue from an ethical standpoint.
In this case, in fact, institutions go both ways on the matter, as others have remarked. There are reactionary intellectual traditions, social forces, and institutions underlying both choice and the pro-life position.
mbs