For the record this is already legal in some states in the U.S. -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0 — Moliere
And if that is your position, I don't see how you consistently hold that a mother doesn't have the right to kill her child after its birth, as there really isn't anything significantly different between a fetus whose head is crowning at the edge of the cervix and that same baby just a few feet further away, fully outside the birth canal. To call one a citizen entitled to protection and the other the woman's chattel based upon it's physical whereabouts seems arbitrary, considering both are identical down to the cellular level. In fact, the newborn infant is still attached by umbilical cord to its mother for a few moments.As for my take, I don't think states should be making such decisions. I agree with those who say that abortion is a weighty moral decision, but I don't think it should be prevented prior to birth by the power of the law. I think that it is something which a woman should be able to choose in accordance with their own moral compass and life circumstances (it is a moral choice only if it is a choice, after all). — Moliere
I clicked on your link which supposedly provided a basis for your argument that abortions in some states were legally permissible for 8 1/2 month fetuses. I didn't go through checking out every state listed, but I just choose Colorado. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-abortion-laws.html . It was as expected, which is that abortion is illegal in such instances except to save the life of the mother. That is, it's a bit of a misstatement to say that some states openly allow abortions well into the 3rd trimester without pointing out this detail. — Hanover
In fact, if you look at all the laws in all the states, they all adhere to the trimester framework, offering different levels of protection to the fetus depending upon its level of development. They adhere to that framework because it's the system set out by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. You'll note that in the link I cited above, Planned Parenthood only performs abortion up to the 19th week.
A few stats for you: 91% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks), 9% in the second trimester, and .01% in the third trimester. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html . The point being that no one really believes or practices 8 1/2 month abortions, other than probably in some really extreme circumstances, like a true life and death decision has to be made to save one or the other.
And if that is your position, I don't see how you consistently hold that a mother doesn't have the right to kill her child after its birth, as there really isn't anything significantly different between a fetus whose head is crowning at the edge of the cervix and that same baby just a few feet further away, fully outside the birth canal. To call one a citizen entitled to protection and the other the woman's chattel based upon it's physical whereabouts seems arbitrary, considering both are identical down to the cellular level. In fact, the newborn infant is still attached by umbilical cord to its mother for a few moments. — Hanover
So, I checked out that link that you provided. I see that Hanover has gone above and beyond refuting your argument on it's own terms, although, as I go on to show, that isn't necessary to refute your statistics-based argument that there's a lack of consensus (presumably regarding the appropriate legal status of aborting an 8 1/2 month old foetus, as that's what's relevant here, because that's where we disagree). Your linked statistics actually indicate that there is a consensus in the U.S. that it should be against the law to abort a foetus after 28 weeks. This is evidenced by the fact that, in accordance with the link that you provided, it is against the law in every state in the U.S. except 9. That's 41 states with an estimated population of 281 million vs. 9 states and D.C. with an estimated population of 28 million. — Sapientia
I did intent to look up the science in order to better explain why an 8 1/2 month old foetus is sufficiently advanced to rightly judge it to be (or that it ought to be) illegal to perform such a late-term abortion under the relevant conditions (cf. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, Offences against the Person Act 1861, et al. Over here, it's a statutory offence named child destruction). However, although it would be interesting, I doubt whether it's necessary. The viability point alone seems like good enough grounds for justification.
I disagree that 8.5 months is the only important point to garner there. My point is to show that the line is drawn at various stages of development. You'll find behind each line-drawing some kind of justification -- heart beating, brain development, "feeling pain", or birth.
Stuff like that.
And, no, there is no consensus. People feel quite differently about the issue, in fact. — Moliere
And how you justify that feeling is what's more important, I'd say. You can't just go about assuming that science has spelled out when humans are human and that happens to coincide with the moment when you feel comfortable while simultaneously claiming to have engaged the topic and have an examined viewpoint. — Moliere
I have addressed viability in this thread. Viability changes with both technology and location. In fact, imagine a time in the future where we could just collect sperm and eggs from people and grow humans in a test-tube. Would that, because these are viable, require us to grant the rights of citizenship and the protection of the state to sperm, eggs, zygotes? — Moliere
Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. It's not like as soon as we dip below the 49% chance of survival that we should give up, or even feel like it is permissible to give up on the life of a fellow human. That would be a moral failure. We should strive to preserve human life, even if the chances are against us. As such, even if a fetus were not viable -- say, a 20% chance of surviving -- yet, were human, we should strive to keep said person alive in spite of the low chances of survival simply because they are human. In all cases. This is what we do with humans in the hospital, unless they have a DNR. If the fetus is a human at some point, then shouldn't we do the same in this case? — Moliere
I don't think they are identical -- first, I would say that our cellular structure doesn't define who we are. — Moliere
Second, having a separate body is a huge, non-arbitrary difference. — Moliere
Lastly, I would say that we already agree that there is no point where the before and after has very large differences. A citizen is a conglomerate of attributes -- there's no magic formula which designates this from that. — Moliere
Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. — Moliere
*shrugs* I suppose? My point is in showing that 3rd trimester abortions are legal. Up to 8 1/2 weeks. That didn't seem to be understood in this conversation.
Personally, no, I don't care about the qualification -- but others do. And, even with the qualification, that's very different from the absolute that I presumed was being proposed. — Moliere
I never disputed that the line is drawn at various stages of development, nor that the justifications differ. That does not entail that there is no consensus. So, in the context of our disagreement, your point is irrelevant. There is evidently consensus in the most relevant sense in the context of our disagreement, which is about the legal status of abortion at approximately 37 weeks. Your own statistics show that it's illegal in 41 out of 50 states (that's 82%) beyond 28 weeks, let alone 37 weeks! Yet you deny that that in any way reflects a consensus? — Sapientia
You were the one that provided the numbers in an attempt to show that there is no consensus. That failed, so now you've changed tack, and are saying that it's the content and "feeling" behind the numbers that is more important. Well, I don't agree in the context of our initial and primary disagreement, which is over whether or not abortion should be legal right up until birth. The policy representing at least 82% of the U.S. is that abortion is illegal subsequent to 28 weeks. You can't simply sweep that under the rug - especially given that you were the one to have presented these statistics in an attempt to support your own position. — Sapientia
One thing I have not claimed is that "science has spelled out when humans are human", yet you've nonetheless suggested that that is what I've assumed. How about you stick to what I've actually claimed? I did speak of advanced life, and I did so intentionally with the hope of avoiding this superficial issue of "personhood" or "humanness". I'd rather just avoid such terms if it's going to be problematic. It's a living thing, yes? A foetus of the species homo sapien, aged approximately 37 weeks, and relatively advanced? One thing that science can tell us is whether or not a typical 37 week old foetus is viable, and to what degree. — Sapientia
From a pragmatic standpoint, that doesn't really matter. What matters is how we can best solve the current situation, and we only have access to what we currently know. We can't look into a crystal ball. What would be the point of discussing such a hypothetical future scenario? We're talking about what the law should be, and I don't think that philosophical speculation of the sort that you seem to want to engage in will help matters. — Sapientia
It is a practical standard, I think. We might have to settle for that in the absence of a better alternative. But if you think you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. Your proposal would only make things worse, and considerably so. — Sapientia
And if you genuinely feel that way, then why on earth are you advocating that abortion should be legal up until birth? That's a performative contradiction if I ever saw one.
Being "embodied" - having a unique cellular structure - doesn't define us? No one else has your cellular structure -- (which incorporates your history of experiences), so what else would define you? — Bitter Crank
What, if not a body, is a fetus? By 24 weeks it looks pretty much like a baby body. — Bitter Crank
So, how far can we extend this ambiguity indefinitely? "Hey kid, you're 24 years old, you've got a degree: get a job or it's off to the abortion clinic with you." — Bitter Crank
If a newborn--premature or not--is on the table, or if the person was just fished out of the river, or has a gunshot wound, "viability" just means they have a biological future. If the drowning victim has been in the water too long, life for them is no longer viable. One can try resuscitation all day, but once life has departed, is not viable, it's not coming back. If the lost blood can be replaced quickly, the gun shot victim's life may be quite viable. A premature baby (lets say 28 weeks) is probably viable with very good care. If such care isn't available, then viability does not exist. — Bitter Crank
EDIT: Take California's statue, for instance -- this pretty clearly states that it's a decision between the doctor and the patient. Would you agree? — Moliere
So, what's your take on California's law then?
EDIT: To remain clear, so it doesn't seem like a bait or anything -- I read it, and yes it does say viability at the end. In good faith, no less. But there's something very different in this particular law -- one, "life of the mother" isn't an issue. And, two, "viability" is done on good faith. — Moliere
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.
(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the
following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus
was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.
),"Viability" means the point in a pregnancy when, in the good
faith medical judgment of a physician, on the particular facts of the
case before that physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the
fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application
of extraordinary medical measures.
So, even if the fetus is viable, if it poses a threat to the mother you're good[?] — Moliere
And even if the continuation of the pregnancy does not pose a threat to the mother's life, if the fetus is not viable, then the abortion is not illegal? — Moliere
"Good faith", from my familiarity, just means "on your word" -- so if someone sets up an operation to sting a particular doctor, say, and records the doctor stating "I know that this fetus could live, but we're going to do it anyways!" you'd have a strong case against that particular doctor. But otherwise? You have a hard time proving it, at least. I am only familiar with this term from contract negotiations, though, where management basically just has to show up to the meetings to be counted in good faith. Maybe it's different, here. — Moliere
It seems, then, that you are pinning "sufficiently advanced" on "viability"? — Moliere
Suppose you have some topic, and within that topic there are 8 opinions with an even distribution. You might then say that 1 such opinion is certainly outnumbered by all the other opinions. And therefore has a consensus against it.
But the devil is in the details, so I would say. — Moliere
A fetus is living, without a doubt. Metabolism and all. And it is a fetus of the species homo sapien. But what is "relatively advanced"? That's where I'd say disagreement lies. — Moliere
From a pragmatic standpoint it certainly does, because "viability" has already changed drastically within the past century.
The point of the future scenario is to demonstrate how the principle of viability can fall into error. — Moliere
The reason why, so I would say, is that we should try and save humans even if they are not viable. This is the right thing to do. — Moliere
Considering how many third-term abortions there are, I rather doubt that. It's not a very common occurance. It's not something entered into lightly, either, at least if the Guttmacher Institute is to be believed. — Moliere
Because I don't believe that third term fetus' should be treated the same as the rest of us who have grown and developed, have a separate body, a history, relationships, and experiences which have formed who we are (so that we even are a who). — Moliere
In the ideal of all ideals, I'd prefer the question of abortion's legality to be settled by women only. But, I'm not sure how you'd implement that. — Moliere
Decriminalize and then tax most drugs — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.