What I don't understand is why this idea of bodily autonomy should so outweigh all concerns about harm to the fetus even given the political considerations you've outlined. I can think of thought experiments, and I'm sure you can too, where bodily autonomy could justifiably be compromised to avoid some greater harm. So, even if I granted that the fetus were to be considered part of the woman's body, given that it could suffer terrible pain in circumstances such as I proposed above, how is the absolute maintenance of the principle of bodily autonomy an overwhelming counterbalance to this suffering?

The locus of morality is the individual person and in the relations between individuals. I think bodily autonomy is basic to a person and to being a free member of society. I think the very idea that anyone else has a say over what a person does with their own body is a denial of this basic element of personhood and renders the subject of such coercion less free than others, renders them less fully a subject in their own right.

Obversely, the idea that a fetus is just a mini-person is a consequence of a vulgar scientism that completely misses how human society works.

I think this sounds confused.

What do you mean?



Could you outline those values, then? And support them?

How do we know fetus' feel pain?

Actually, scratch that. Let's assume fetuses feel pain. Would you have no problem with an abortion of an 8.5 month old fetus being aborted if it were given anesthesia?

The locus of morality is the individual person and in the relations between individuals. I think bodily autonomy is basic to a person and to being a free member of society. I think the very idea that anyone else has a say over what a person does with their own body is a denial of this basic element of personhood and renders the subject of such coercion less free than others. — jamalrob

I think you must start your argument with the prefatory statement Assuming that a fetus is a part of, as opposed to contained within, a woman's body. That statement I think will ferret out enough people that many won't find the rest of your thesis useful. This isn't to say that your qualification isn't arguable; it's just that it doesn't really seem at all realistic (to me at least).

As I say, I don't see any substantial difference between part of and contained within in this context. It all comes back to personhood: they probably do differ importantly if we're talking about one person contained inside another.

I think this sounds confused.

What do you mean? — Moliere

I mean what I said. I don't know why you find it confusing. If you think that there ought to be women-only authorities over issues which effect mostly women, but also men, then presumably you apply the same reasoning if you swap the gender roles. Do you or don't you? I find your position objectionable either way, but I was focusing on a particular criticism about your presumed feminist values, and whether you apply your reasoning in a fair and consistent manner.

Could you outline those values, then? And support them? — Moliere

The value of an unborn human. It's a human in that it is a member of the human species, and you are discriminating against it based on the mere fact that he or she is unborn. At 37 weeks of age, it has developed certain qualities that distinguish it from a zygote, and render it similar - more similar, I'd say - to those of a newborn.

I don't know how well I can support these values. It largely depends on your own values and emotions, and I don't know how subject to change they are.

Well, if you think about a 37-week-old foetus in comparison to a zygote shortly after fertilisation, then it should be clear that it has developed over time relative to that initial stage. I would say that it has developed quite significantly, and in significant ways.

I know that in order to back up those claims, I'll have to elaborate, and provide evidence, but I'm reluctant to do so, because I want to get it right; and, like I said, I need to do some more work. — Sapientia

Fetal development was first studied by John Hunter in the mid 18th century. Since Hunter, medicine and biological science has pretty well worked out the development of the fetus -- not in the detail of C. elegans (a 900 cell nematode) but quite thoroughly.

Google search it. This site gives brief week by week descriptions of development.

I mean what I said. I don't know why you find it confusing. If you think that there ought to be women-only authorities over issues which effect mostly women, but also men, then presumably you apply the same reasoning if you swap the gender roles. Do you or don't you? I find your position objectionable either way, but I was focusing on a particular criticism about your presumed feminist values, and whether you apply your reasoning in a fair and consistent manner. — Sapientia

Sure, why not? On the surface I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's worth noting historical context, etc., and even in today's world of supposed equality that men hold more positions which write policy, though.

The value of an unborn human. It's a human in that it is a member of the human species, and you are discriminating against it based on the mere fact that he or she is unborn. At 37 weeks of age, it has developed certain qualities that distinguish it from a zygote, and render it similar - more similar, I'd say - to those of a newborn.

I don't know how well I can support these values. It largely depends on your own values and emotions, and I don't know how subject to change they are. — Sapientia

I agree that the unborn have value. I don't think many believe otherwise. My position is largely in regards to the power of the state, and what it should cover by law. There's a big gulf, in my view, between what ought to be legal, and what ought to be in the moral sense.

Hence why I say that it's not a decision to make lightly -- but it is still a decision that should be available without legal barriers.

Sure, why not? — Moliere

Because it's unfair and discriminatory. Perhaps you're ok with that, but I'm not.

It's worth noting historical context, etc., and even in today's world of supposed equality that men hold more positions which write policy, though. — Moliere

If that's a problem, then we might benefit from more women in such roles, so that it's more gender-balanced. But your position is more extreme. You want to tip the scales to one end, or rather, break off the other end - which is the problem that we already face. You aren't for equality of genders, you're for superiority of one gender over the other - which is not a good point of view with regards to the sorts of issues that we've been discussing, and is far from ideal. It represents unfairness and discrimination.

I agree that the unborn have value. — Moliere

But not enough to legally protect them from being unjustly killed.

My position is largely in regards to the power of the state, and what it should cover by law. There's a big gulf, in my view, between what ought to be legal, and what ought to be in the moral sense. — Moliere

That's where you run into performative contradiction, I suspect. If you think that it's wrong, then you should endorse safeguards.

Hence why I say that it's not a decision to make lightly -- but it is still a decision that should be available without legal barriers. — Moliere

We're worse off, as a society, without those barriers. It's a worthwhile sacrifice of liberty if it prevents those who take advantage of that liberty to unjustly kill other members of the human species. On what grounds, besides those already covered by law, do you think that anyone would be justified in killing a 37-week-old foetus? The "my body, my decision" to unjustly kill it simply doesn't cut the mustard. It's a selfish, narrow-minded, ill-considered, and damaging view. Nor do these attempts to dehumanise.

The woman's body does not include the fetus. It contains the fetus. — Baden

i think this is the right view. The fetus has a genetic make-up that is not the same as the mother's. The fetus makes claims on the mother's body (for nutrition, warmth, disposal of waste, etc.), and sheds it's cells, some of which end up circulating in the mother's blood, and which are identifiable as "not belonging to the mother". Male brain cells have been found in the brains of mothers, decades after delivery. (Fewer male cells in the brain was correlated with an increased incidence of

The fetus has an ambiguous, sort of adversarial, relationship with the mother. The fetus soaks up as much of the mother's substance as it can (to develop) and often causes biological problems for the mother. We don't know exactly what being born is like for the infant, but for the woman it can be quite unpleasant.

The whole reason for the placenta is for the mother and fetus to keep each other at arms length, so neither is over-exposed to the other. However, the placental barrier isn't perfect. There is traffic, at least from the fetus to the mother, and it isn't clear yet what the fetal cells might do for, or to, the mother.

Because it's unfair and discriminatory. Perhaps you're ok with that, but I'm not. — Sapientia

I disagree that this would be unfair and discriminatory.

Suppose you have 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner democratically. They eat different things. They would be effected by said decision differently. It doesn't make sense to apply a rule universally if people are effected differently by said rule.

If that's a problem, then we might benefit from more women in such roles, so that it's more gender-balanced. But your position is more extreme. You want to tip the scales to one end, or rather, break off the other end - which is the problem that we already face. You aren't for equality of genders, you're for superiority of one gender over the other - which is not a good point of view with regards to the sorts of issues that we've been discussing, and is far from ideal. It represents unfairness and discrimination. — Sapientia

It's not superiority, it's acknowledging that people are effected differently -- and assigning say on that basis.

Ideally, of course. In real life, where practical concerns are of importance, I don't know how you'd implement such a rule.

But not enough to legally protect them from being unjustly killed. — Sapientia

That's not true. 1) I don't think killing a fetus is unjust tout court. I think it's something which people have to weigh within their own circumstances, pragmatically. I'd be hesitant to call such an action, prior to birth, unjust without some argument.

That's where you run into performative contradiction, I suspect. If you think that it's wrong, then you should endorse safeguards — Sapientia

I don't think that it's wrong. It's not black and white. And, I disagree with your later point emphatically. It's not the role of the law to make people good.

We're worse off, as a society, without those barriers. It's a worthwhile sacrifice of liberty if it prevents those who take advantage of that liberty to unjustly kill other members of the human species. On what grounds, besides those already covered by law, do you think that anyone would be justified in killing a 37-week-old foetus? — Sapientia

Numerous. In the end, I don't think the fetus counts as a person with rights. It is a clump of cells. Cells which have value, but nowhere near the same value as an actual person -- which the mother clearly is. Your proposal sacrifices the actual rights of citizens for what? The supposed inference that killing a fetus at such and such a time is unjust. But that's what you'd have to back up, I think. I recognize that you wish to take your time -- but then, I don't know if you can also say that an action is unjust when you simply don't know your position.

The "my body, my decision" to unjustly kill it simply doesn't cut the mustard. It's a selfish, narrow-minded, ill-considered, and damaging view. Nor do these attempts to dehumanise.

Your last sentence is right out of the Catholic playbook :D. "Calling a baby a fetus is dehumanizing"

I don't think that my position is selfish, narrow-minded, ill-considered, nor damaging. Which would include allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy at 37 weeks for any reason they deem necessary.

I just trust women to make the right decision on such moments, pragmatically, and would rather they make the decision in the circumstances that they know rather than bureaucrats (who are mostly male) making said decision in board rooms far away from said circumstances.

Which would include allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy at 37 weeks for any reason they deem necessary. — Moliere

I find statements like the above pretty shocking.

Anyway, it's been interesting, but I think I've reached the point where arguing with you any further seems pointless. That's not meant as a slur, I just doubt it'll be productive, and I lack the will to persevere.

No worries. I don't mean to be a drain. I only wished to defend my position -- I certainly didn't expect to persuade, as I mentioned.

Let's assume fetuses feel pain. Would you have no problem with an abortion of an 8.5 month old fetus being aborted if it were given anesthesia? — Moliere

I'd have just as much a problem with that as with an infanticide under anaesthesia. The reason I brought up the pain issue was to test whether those on your side were willing to cede any autonomous rights at all to the unborn. If you cede that the fetus cannot justifiably be subjected to pain without some proportionate counterbalance then the "It's a woman's right to do anything she wants with her own body" stance no longer holds water.

Obversely, the idea that a fetus is just a mini-person is a consequence of a vulgar scientism that completely misses how human society works. — jamalrob

I never claimed the fetus is just a mini-person. I've said time and time again, the "person" debate will get us nowhere. There is no agreed definition of "person" to work with. But it doesn't have to be just a mini person to have some rights. Even animals have rights. The fetus is human; under normal circumstances it will develop into a fully grown person; it can feel pain; it has a brain; it has a nervous system; at 8 1/2 months it is fully viable. It's not just a piece of meat. It's one the most sophisticated organisms on the planet at any stage of its development. To say that we can do what we will with it needs more justification than simply the fact that we want to maintain some woolly idea of autonomy based on the very questionable premise that it's part of the woman's body.

Aside from the 38th and 1/2 week question, there seems to be some agreement among prenatal fetal specialists that a fetus can definitely not feel pain before the 24th week, and probably not until somewhere during the third trimester. Why? The nerves paths that deliver pain messages between the body and the brain haven't been completed. These nerves can't transmit pain until they reach through the length of the spine, from the spinal cord, through the thalamus, and on into the cerebral cortex. Pain requires consciousness. Presumably, by the last couple of weeks the fetus is conscious (they respond to stimuli), and does feel pain.

Very few abortions are performed as late as 24 weeks. If a 6 month old fetus was to be aborted, there are two routes to deal with pain: the first is that a drug can be injected into the amniotic fluid that will stop the heart. The other route is that anesthesia can be given to the mother, which will apply to the baby as well.

It's worth noting, as one surgeon observed, that if anti-abortion advocates are concerned about pain at 20 weeks (or later), why aren't they concerned about pain during child birth -- an experience that we have every reason to suppose is quite painful for the baby. An anti-abortion spokeswoman said, "Well something happens during birth that prevents pain."

What fetuses more certainly experience is stress from events outside the womb (the mother is in an accident, for instance). What is seen in the fetus at such times, and during fetal surgery, is at least a stress response. Narcotics and other drugs are given to reduce stress. Would an unmedicated fetus at 35 weeks experience stress and pain from an abortion? Almost certainly -- and they will experience stress and pain during delivery too.

It seems to me reasonable to say, "a woman has a right to decide--for whatever reason--to abort before a specific stage has been reached. Let's say the end of the second trimester is the deadline. After the 24th week, incrementally higher barriers have to be surmounted.

What sort of things would justify a late term abortion? (out of my depth here) Tumors, possibly? Some women develop uterine tumors during pregnancy--benign fibroid (muscle cell) tumors. They are not malignant, but they can cause serious problems during a pregnancy. Maybe that sort of thing would be a cause for a later term abortion (especially if the fetus was deformed).

I don't know about others, but I know about myself -- I don't think a fetus has rights. There's nothing "sufficiently advanced", or "most sophisticated" about it, factually speaking. I don't think scientific description works in these terms. I think that there's an additional layer of meaning your imputing to scientific facts. I am doing the same, but I'm also not claiming some kind of scientific priority or knowledge about what fetus' experience as much as I am making a decision on the basis that at least, after birth, a fetus has its own body. Prior to that I find it difficult to to say the fetus has any kind of rights, or a good justification for being imputed rights, or for being considered like some sort of citizen. Well after, perhaps -- and yes, animals do have rights. By all means, I think that that discussion is most relevant here.

But keep in mind that we also kill animals. Not just in some absent minded manner, either -- but we have whole industries set up to maximize the production of animals for the purpose of meat consumption.

I never claimed the fetus is just a mini-person. I've said time and time again, the "person" debate will get us nowhere. — Baden

Where do you want us to get to? I certainly don't want to find a middle ground. I think personhood is precisely what matters.

There is no agreed definition of "person" to work with. But it doesn't have to be just a mini person to have some rights. Even animals have rights. The fetus is human; under normal circumstances it will develop into a fully grown person; it can feel pain; it has a brain; it has a nervous system; at 8 1/2 months it is fully viable. It's not just a piece of meat. It's one the most sophisticated organisms on the planet at any stage of its development.

The claim that fetuses feel pain is somewhat controversial, because pain is much more than mere nociception:

The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal. Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain.
—Stuart Derbyshire, Can fetuses feel pain?

The notion of viability seems equally troublesome. And I don't think the existence of a brain and nervous system counts in any way against the right of the woman to terminate. The issue is moral and political, and cannot be decided by biology. In my opinion, the evidence you mention functions in the public debate primarily by encouraging a conception of the fetus as being essentially a newborn baby, thus as a sentimental appeal. If this is uncharitable with respect to your own use of the scientific evidence, even so you are using it in the service of a moral and political view, because it does not speak for itself. I don't treat people morally because they have brains and nervous systems, but because they are people who each have a place as individuals in society.

As for rights, I think the notion of animal rights is nonsense, and I can't see any sense in which fetuses or even newborn babies have rights, though in the latter there is a duty of care (as there is with animals).

To say that we can do what we will with it needs more justification than simply the fact that we want to maintain some woolly idea of autonomy based on the very questionable premise that it's part of the woman's body.

I am saying that abortions should be allowed up to birth, that the interests of the woman must take priority over any interests we attribute to the fetus on the basis of biological development. I am not saying that it's ok for people to do what they want with them.

The principle of bodily autonomy is no more woolly than pain and viability. Extending the principle that nobody should be forced to undergo a medical procedure, no woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy and undergo childbirth.

I don't treat people morally because they have brains and nervous systems, but because they are people who each have a place as individuals in society. — jamalrob

We treat people morally - unless we're sociopaths - mostly because we're built that way. If we need a philosophy book for much of our moral behaviour, we're in no better a position than those who feel they need a holy book for it. Philosophy is of course useful in very contentious cases on which intuitions vary. And abortion in general fits the bill well. But super-late-term abortion - not so much. There is consensus that it's wrong to kill 8 1/2 month old fetuses because we recognize that these younger versions of ourselves are very like ourselves. And empathy works largely on the principle of similarity. It also works on the principle of avoiding the greater harm which is why this:

no woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy and undergo childbirth. — jamalrob

doesn't hold much water in these cases where the major harm - the complete destruction of one human being, the fetus, is balanced against the minor harm - the inconvenience of completing the birth. It's only when the latter minor harm becomes a major harm (generally for medical reasons) that the case is even debateable. That's as it should be. But of course If you can argue empathy out of yourself on the basis that this or that human being is not (yet) a person, this line will mean nothing to you just as to someone who does empathize with late term fetuses is not going to be swayed by any of your arguments.

It's only when the latter minor harm becomes a major harm (generally for medical reasons) that the case is even debateable. — Baden

Are we going to debate whether it's debateable now? I'm debating it, and lots of other people take my position--though unfortunately less people now than a few decades ago, I think.

That's as it should be. But of course If you can argue empathy out of yourself on the basis that this or that human being is not (yet) a person, this line will mean nothing to you just as to someone who does empathize with late term fetuses is not going to be swayed by any of your arguments.

Obviously I can say something very similar with respect to the freedom and autonomy of the woman. Aside from that, you're right that we won't convince each other, but I don't care about that, as I'm not trying to convince you. That's not what debates are for.

under normal circumstances it will develop into a fully grown person — Baden

I missed this. Obviously it applies to early-stage embryos too, so it doesn't support the special treatment of late-stage fetuses.

It's part of the package. The fetus just happens to have a lot more in its package than the embryo.

I don't treat people morally because they have brains and nervous systems, but because they are people who each have a place as individuals in society. — jamalrob

We treat people morally - unless we're sociopaths - mostly because we're built that way. If we need a philosophy book for much of our moral behaviour, we're in no better a position than those who feel they need a holy book for it. — Baden

Here you seem to misunderstand me, and I'm not surprised, because if you don't know what a moral agent is or understand its significance, and you don't know what personhood is, then it's inevitable that you'll fail to see that treating people morally because they are people "who each have a place as individuals in society" and treating people morally "because we're built that way" are the same thing. My "because" does not imply a process of reasoning.

You're the one misunderstanding things. Maybe go read back over my earlier comments. Or possibly explore my posting history. I haven't suddenly forgotten what moral agency is and as I've said before, personhood is not something we're going to settle today. Anyway if this is all you've got, good luck.

it should be illegal to have an abortion after 28 weeks (except those exceptions) — Sapientia

Can I ask why it should be illegal, and what the exceptions are or should be?

If the answer to the first question has anything to do with the fetus being a human being or person with its independent interests and rights, I don't see how there could be any exceptions. That is, I don't see how such abortions could ever be justified, unless murder is justified in some cases.

It's interesting that there isn't much discussion here of the reasons women have for getting late abortions. In fact there isn't much discussion of the women at all except as temporary vessels (with obligations that trump their own interests).

So here's another angle. Can we all agree, for whatever reasons, that earlier abortions are better than late ones, and that public policy ought to be directed towards reducing the need for late abortions?

Well, there's evidence that restrictions on late abortions are counter-productive:

Most women who seek abortion late do not realise they need to do so earlier. If abortion was made harder to access in later pregnancy than it is currently, the main outcomes would be that women would have abortions later still; would become ‘abortion tourists’ and seek abortion in another country; or would have to continue unwanted pregnancies.
—Late Abortion: A Review of the Evidence [PDF]

I don't think any of those are good outcomes.

@jamalrob beat me to the punch, but I'd like to link another paper -- I couldn't find the one I wanted, and jamal's actually covers what I was looking for, but these are interesting too --

Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions
Reasons Why U.S. Women Have Induced Abortions


The example I like to use is from The Godfather, part II. In it Kate has an abortion. I can't remember all the details, but the main reason is because the father of her child is a gangster and she doesn't want the child to grow up in that environment. It's also something of an assertion of power over her husband, a breaking away. An extraordinary circumstance? I don't believe it's quite as extraordinary as the movie might portray -- looking at the second link you'll see that "having relationship problems/don't want to be single" is the fourth most frequent of the most important reasons given. The top three are -- "Not ready for a(nother) child", "Can't afford a baby now", and "Have completed my childbearing"

Any of those reasons, as far as I am concerned, are adequate for the legal right to obtain an abortion -- and I wouldn't look at it as unjust, either.



I'd liken the fetus more to an organ than to a citizen. We transplant livers. They have different cells in the transplant and before they find their home within someone else. A fetus has different stages of development, one of which actually separates the fetus from their mother. It is an organ whose job is to become a human being who will, scientifically at least, contribute to species fecundity.

Only in an ideal sense. I recognize the difficulties in real life of implementing something like that. But, in general, I believe that those who are effected/affected by policy should be the ones who have say -- and abortion policy is one of those that clearly effects/affects women more than men. — Moliere

I don't know of any other situations in typical democracies where affected parties are afforded more votes than those not so affected. Take driving under the influence laws, for example. If we're trying to arrive at better laws to deter drinking and driving, I'd certainly wish to hear from those who have been injured or affected by drunk drivers, and I'd like to hear from drunk drivers themselves and the judges who sentenced them. I don't think though that only their views count or that they are necessarily the most enlightened views. If I don't drive at all, I still get a say in how drivers license laws are designed.

I don't believe that only women can meaningfully debate the abortion issue. I'm stating that in an ideal sense I think that policy should be set by women. — Moliere

For the reasons I've already said, I don't think this makes a whole lot of sense, as if women have some advanced sense of right and wrong in these matters and that aborting a fetus or denying an abortion only affects women. And, of course, even if it did only affect women, that hardly means that unaffected women better empathize than men with affected women, especially those women who have never experienced the issue first or second hand.

This whole setting standards of who gets to vote is troubling for thousands of other reasons.