At this point, considering that you haven't been able to defend your position and have pleaded ignorance and a desire to take your time in coming to a decision, I think it apt to point out that you are just talking about your opinion -- your unjustified belief. — Moliere

Fortunately, @Bitter Crank has provided information. He provided a link a few pages back. It can be used to get at least a rough idea of how far along the line counts as developed enough to make abortion a bad idea, and from that, one has a basis for arguing in favour of legal exclusions.

Probably for similar reasons that you seem to want to draw the line further back -- because you have to draw the line somewhere, and birth is safely before we are dealing with a human in the sense you mean the word, and it is directly after a significant event. — Moliere

Yes, of course you have to draw the line somewhere. But drawing it at birth isn't safely before we are dealing with a human at all - only in your sense where you define being human post-birth. There is a reason why it's against the law here in England, most of the U.S., and elsewhere. Don't you think that that might have something to do with it? To be on the safe side, it makes sense to go further back than birth.

Not by my reasoning. — Moliere

Your reasoning is in conflict with scientific literature.

The fetus doesn't have anything at all. — Moliere

That's absurd. At 26 weeks, it even has fully formed eyebrows and eyelashes.

There is no separation between the fetus and the mother. — Moliere

Doesn't matter. There is if you separate them. They are separable. And at 38 weeks, the foetus is viable, meaning that if you were to separate it, it'd have a good chance of survival, and we both know what happens if it survives long enough. A gall bladder won't grow into a child, and then an adult.

So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother. — Moliere

It is at that stage. It's more odd to treat the vagina or umbilical cord as if they have the power to grant humanness. I'm not sure which one you think it is, since you've inconsistently switched between birth (which happens by passing through the vagina) and separation (which happens by cutting the umbilical cord).

The fetus is more like an organ than a human. — Moliere

It's more like a human organism than a human organ. It is a human organism. The difference between us and him or her (since it has a gender at this stage) is one of degree; not one of kind.

I did say that this is an analogy when I introduced the comparison. They are obviously not identical. — Moliere

I know that it's an analogy. I'm pointing out it's faults. In light of these faults, it fails to justify your position. Better luck next time. ;)

It is at that stage. It's more odd to treat the vagina or umbilical cord as if they have the power to grant humanness. I'm not sure which one you think it is, since you've inconsistently switched between birth (which happens by passing through the vagina) and separation (which happens by cutting the umbilical cord). — Sapientia

This looks like a perverse reduction of childbirth to a mechanistic process, ignoring its human significance. Clearly, birth and separation are part of the same event (or process if you prefer). It's an event in which a new person is initiated into the human world, into society. This is what matters to morality, not any mechanical stipulations or biological facts.

And I think it's quite silly to say that in regarding birth as the basic cut-off point we are being arbitrary. You may not agree that birth is where it's at, but it's hardly arbitrary. Birth is the centrally important, ultimate event of a pregnancy, the moment when a person comes to be, or begins to be, and the moment the mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation have all been leading up to. For many it is the most significant, most life-changing moment of their lives.

There is a new person in the world: this is what birth means, what makes it significant in all human cultures. Biological facts and medical procedures are subsumed by or subservient to the social and cultural, particularly when we're talking morality.

Your reasoning is in conflict with scientific literature. — Sapientia

Which scientific literature tells us when something ought to be treated as a bearer of rights?

Last I looked, eyebrows and lashes were not the indicators of whether or not someone has rights. If you shave those off, and you are human, you'd still have rights, yes?

But if you are not human then you are not a "you", and therefore it becomes mighty difficult to possess anything.

From your perspective I'm dehumanizing what is human. From my perspective, though, you are personifying what is not human in the sense that it is a separate organism or person with rights and so forth. All that happens much after birth.

So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother. — Moliere

How do ordinary people not versed in the fine points of philosophy actually treat their own (and others') fetuses?

They begin by making room for them. They change the spare bedroom into the nursery. If they know the sex of the fetus, they will decorate the room in sex-appropriate colors. (Shame on them for gendering wall paper! The oppressive bastards.) If it is their first fetus, they buy some specific furnishings: the crib or the bassinet, a little sink size bath tub, little blankets. They debate whether to use disposable or cloth diapers. People give the parents, and even the fetus, gifts--like little mobiles that will be suspended over the crib for the future baby to watch, or rattles, in gendered colors of plastic. Parents read books about raising what? Children. They look at long lists of names, and so on.

Why do these things on behalf of a blob of tissue that is indistinguishable from a liver? Would one name one's gall bladder?

They do these things because ordinary people, not versed in the fine points of philosophy, count the fetus as an individual being (unique and discreet, separate from the mother) whose impending presence is already dominating the lives of the parents. Pregnant women proudly complain about how hard their baby is kicking them.

People behave this way because long experience has taught us that when these indifferent blobs become babies who are always unique, unpredictable, and arrive in this world ready to engage us. The continuum on which the nursing baby and the kicking fetus are situated is obvious to nearly everyone (except those versed in the fine points of philosophy, apparently).

How do ordinary people not versed in the fine points of philosophy actually treat their own (and others') fetuses? — Bitter Crank

I think it would depend on how you define "ordinary people". Not only do they do what you are saying, they also seek out abortions. Yes? And said process is never easy, whether they go through with the birth or the abortion.

The finer points of philosophy -- whatever those might be -- merely allow us to grapple with our own beliefs and question them, if we are so inclined, and justify our beliefs or some other belief if we find our beliefs are unjustifiable. The finer points of philosophy may attempt to answer why it is acceptable to do such and such -- but these ordinary people you speak of, whom I presume are not versed in philosophy, don't just play the role you're setting out for them. They also seek out and obtain abortions.

If the actions of ordinary people justify our beliefs, then it would seem to me that both your belief and my belief are justifiable.

Birth is the centrally important, ultimate event of a pregnancy, the moment when a person comes to be, or begins to be, and the moment the mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation have all been leading up to. — jamalrob

I'm not discounting the unpleasantness of pregnancy, but the "mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation" aren't what make birth significant. It's the fetus's months of bodily change from fertilized egg to completed newborn that make birth significant. Without a baby, the end of a pregnancy would be just the conclusion to an unpleasant illness.

You are putting too much emphasis on "the woman's pregnancy" and too little on "the future child's pregnancy." Children is why people go out of their way to get pregnant. Otherwise, children are the result of sex, and as such are more and less welcomed. (It is both: more and less welcomed.)

I have previously argued that "a life" and personhood begins at birth, not before. Birth means emergence, and is a logical time to change status. This discussion has led me to change my mind on this, and think that personhood begins to form in the womb. Not at conception -- though one can say "a life" is initiated at conception. Personhood in a fetus isn't nothing and then all. It forms as gradually and as swiftly as a brain forms.

Of course, a brain isn't complete at birth, and actually isn't fully developed for two decades, or so -- rather a long time to delay granting personhood.

I would locate personhood in a complete and functioning brain as part of a functioning body. 12 weeks? No person hood. 20 weeks? No personhood. 28 weeks? No personhood. 38 weeks? Not quite complete personhood. Birth? Not quite completely developed brain and all, but you're on your own now, kid, as both a citizen and a tax deduction.

At the other end of a life, the loss of a functioning brain (brain death or profound irreversible coma) is the end of personhood.

At the other end of a life, the loss of a functioning brain (brain death or profound irreversible coma) is the end of personhood. — Bitter Crank

Just to make clear, I wouldn't say this. Someone who has lived a life has a separate body, a history, and many relationships, rights, and so forth, even after death. Or if someone is in a coma, for instance, or has brain damage. Since it isn't the state of the brain or cellular structure which defines personhood, under my theory, neither does the deterioration of the brain deny a person their rights, property, and so forth.

They also seek out and obtain abortions.

If the actions of ordinary people justify our beliefs, then it would seem to me that both your belief and my belief are justifiable. — Moliere

Yes, they do seek abortions. And I endorse the legitimacy of people aborting fetuses before the third trimester. Our difference seems to be limited to abortion during the last trimester, and the difference the third trimester makes in this decision.

At least two references above demonstrate that almost everyone already practices what we are preaching: abort early or don't abort at all. Whether this pattern is a result of practitioners' refusal to perform abortions after a certain point, or whether people do not seek abortions after a certain point, don't know. Probably some of both.

Yes, they do seek abortions. And I endorse the legitimacy of people aborting fetuses before the third trimester. Our difference seems to be limited to abortion during the last trimester, and the difference the third trimester makes in this decision. — Bitter Crank

People seek out abortions in the third trimester, though. So, even then, if the actions of those unversed in the finer points of philosophy are justifiers for our beliefs, then my belief is as justified as yours. Both positions are acceptable according to the metric you are proposing.

Someone who has lived a life has a separate body, a history, and many relationships, rights, and so forth, even after death. — Moliere

They will have a hard time exercising their rights after death.

I don't believe so. We have wills, for instance, and methods for distributing property properly after someone dies.

Reminds me of the Israeli lobby trick - you highlight Israeli war crimes so you must be an anti-semite. In this case, you highlight bad reasons for abortion so you must be anti-woman and anti-left.

It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. — jamalrob

The idea that we should ignore the possibility @Sapientia raised or others like it and thus abrogate our responsibility to the fetus because it might suggest some women are irresponsible is pathetic, frankly.

Reading further, I guess the conversation has moved on. It's not a left vs right issue as far as I'm concerned anyhow, it's a rights vs rights issue.

The Supreme Court never enunciated any fetal rights in Roe v Wade or in any abortion case that followed. All analysis dealt with the state's right to regulate versus the woman's right to choose, with the state's rights increasing progressively in each successive trimester. That is, no court has ever declared a fetus is endowed with Constitutional rights.

That is not to say that no law has ever protected the sanctity of the fetus. In particular, there are extensive federal regulations dealing with fetal research and handling fetal tissue. Such rules specifically declare that the fetus has special worth, which one certainly does not see when gall bladders and the like are discussed. That is to say, your position is not at all consistent with law (or common ethical views).

There are rules which regulate gall bladders as well. No? I wouldn't know, but I would be surprised if organs had no laws which regulate them.

I don't think they are on par, myself. I would hold a fetus as more special than a gall bladder. But I would also not count a third trimester abortion as some kind of moral wrong, either.

The removal of a gall bladder is a decision made between a patient and a doctor. Abortions, in that sense, should be the same. This doesn't mean that the removal of a gall bladder should carry the same ethical weight as an abortion -- but, likewise, it doesn't mean that an abortion is a moral wrong which the state has an interest in stopping.

I agree with notions of respect towards fetal tissue, by the way. I just don't think the power of law should be involved in the decision to have an abortion prior to birth.

The fetus doesn't have anything at all. There is no separation between the fetus and the mother. So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother. — Moliere

Oh ffs. The fetus has its own DNA along with a separate brain, nervous and immune system. And there is a specific barrier called the placental membrane separating fetal blood from the mother's blood and their immune systems from each other so the mother's immune defences don't attack and reject the fetus. No bodily organ has different DNA and a different immune system to its host. I can't believe I have to actually point this out. I mean, if you are so totally ignorant of the basic biology of a pregnant woman, then you are in no position to give an opinion on what is and is not part of her body, or to offer any meaningful view on what the implications are.

"From an immunologic point of view, the fetus is an alien....And your body is programmed to mount an assault on foreigners." — Dr. Randi Epstein

Link

So can we now drop this utter nonsense that the fetus is just part of the woman's body?

All this only follows if we follow your assertion that our cells make us something which has or owns. You may believe that people are defined by having a unique sequence of DNA, or that having something is constituted by the "immunological point of view", but I don't.

I don't think an organism's unique biological makeup gives them rights, experiences, etc. And I see no reason, then, to not consider the fetus as a part of the mother -- considering that that there is a continuation between the two, and there is no organism placed within a physical and social environment for it to develop in and have experiences.

Which seems to be a theme here among you three --

You reject my answer to the question, "When does a fetus have rights?". I ask for one from you, but get none. Sometime later one of you pipes in about how what I'm saying doesn't make sense, but your critique only follows if you implicitly answer the question, "When does a fetus have rights?" -- which is no better than begging the question, in this context.

Of course if we assume that I'm wrong then I'll be wrong. And if we assume that you are right then you will be right. But, thus far at least, all the reductio's have implicitly believed some kind of answer without proposing one.

Can't we just agree to disagree, rather than presuming that science is on our side, that our beliefs are obviously right, and that those who disagree are obviously without compassion, absurd, strange, outside the norms of morality, etc. etc.?

I don't require you to agree with me. It seems rather strange that you require me to agree with you when you don't even propose a reason for your objections, but rather just assume that it's obvious and normative and moral, and continue to express your strong disagreement with my assertions based on that assumption.

[DNA, immunology, etc.]

So can we now drop this utter nonsense that the fetus is just part of the woman's body. — Baden

More silliness. Do you seriously believe @Moliere and I don't know all that already? There's little point in our debating a rabid fanatic. Calm down and treat your interlocutors with some respect or else go away. We're not taking the piss; we really do believe what we're saying.

And I see no reason, then, to not consider the fetus as a part of the mother -- considering that that there is a continuation between the two — Moliere

Can't you see the circularity here?

"I see no reason...not to consider the fetus as part of the mother [because] there is a continuation between the two" (i.e. the fetus is part of the mother). Whether or not there is a continuation is the issue under debate. There is a connection obviously through the umbilical cord and across the placental barrier. I've just demonstrated why this is not a bodily continuation because an organism that does not contain your DNA and has a full set of organs of its own and is (in the case of late fetuses) viable on its own is not your body. On your side you have no argument at all. All you are saying is it's part of her body because it's in her body.

which is no better than begging the question, — Moliere

Which is what you've been doing.

More silliness. Do you seriously believe Moliere and I don't know all that already? There's little point in our debating a rabid fanatic. Calm down and treat your interlocutors with some respect or else go away. We're not taking the piss; we really do believe what we're saying. — jamalrob

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. You weren't mentioned. The idea that my position represents that of a rabid fanatic because when I'm presenting the science is ludicrous. And telling me to go away is pathetic. You are not immune to being passionate in your arguments either as is evident from this post and plenty of others.

This is getting tedious.

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. — Baden

What you described is really basic stuff. It would help you understand our case--if you actually want to--if you assume we know stuff like that and try to interpret our positions in a better light. If you don't know how to apply the principle of charity you shouldn't be here.

You weren't mentioned.

You mentioned the position that the fetus is part of the woman's body, which I claimed and which you responded to. I'm part of that debate.

The idea that my position represents that of a rabid fanatic because I'm presenting the science is ludicrous.

But that's not what I said. This is simple intellectual dishonesty. I could quote the examples of fanaticism from your posts, but you know exactly what they are so I won't bother. You're not in this for the debate, but because you are raging.

And telling me to go away is pathetic. You are not immune to being passionate in your arguments either as is evident from this post.

But I said you should go away if you don't treat your interlocutors with some respect, not if you get passionate.

EDIT: What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate.

Can't you see the circularity here?

"I see no reason...not to consider the fetus as part of the mother [because] there is a continuation between the two" (i.e. the fetus is part of the mother). Whether or not there is a continuation is the issue under debate. There is a connection obviously through the umbilical cord and across the placental barrier. I've just demonstrated why this is not a bodily continuation because an organism that does not contain your DNA and has a full set of organs of its own and is (in the case of late fetuses) viable on its own is not your body. On your side you have no argument at all. All you are saying is it's part of her body because it's in her body. — Baden

Why is it not your body? Mayhaps because a body, in your view, is defined by cellular characteristics?

You consider these things relevant. I can see that. But I don't. And, besides, if you were consistent than you would move your line back from the third trimester -- considering that the zygote also has a unique set of DNA from the mother, would therefore be alien and, in your view, separate from the mother.

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. — Baden

I did? It just isn't even relevant. It does not matter that the fetus has DNA that differs. It does not matter that the immunological perspective treats the fetus as an alien. Because these things don't define what has rights.

But I said you should go away if you don't treat your interlocutors with some respect, not if you get passionate. — jamalrob

If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, have a look through your own post history. As for fanaticism, if it's fanaticism to passionately oppose a view that would give new born babies no more rights than animals or that would consider the killing of 8 1/2 month fetuses who pose no threat to the life of the mother perfectly OK, I plead guilty. If I go too far I'm happy for any of the mods not involved in the conversation to edit my posts. That hasn't happened so far and I doubt it will to be honest.

Now, to be fair, I can understand why you are passionate in your disagreement. If you are right I am basically condoning murder of innocent children for the sake of convenience. Catholics feel the same way. So the conversation is clearly balanced in my favor in terms of remaining light, since I don't believe that this is the result of my conclusion, where you do believe that.

But I would at least encourage you to look into the foundations and history of your beliefs (the whole "killing a fetus is murder" is, historically speaking, very recent -- it has always been serious, but it has rarely been equated to murder until recently). And, of course, I will defend mine if called into question -- especially on a philosophy forum of all places.

But I wanted to extend an olive branch. I do actually enjoy these conversations. Like I said, it's one of my favorite topics in philosophy for the very reason that people really do care about it.

No, I'm sure you know that's not what I mean by fanaticism. This is really the most important bit from my last post:

EDIT: What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate.

Catholics feel the same way. — Moliere

Honestly Moliere, I don't know why you keep mentioning Catholics with me except as some kind of odd attempt to tar me with religious beliefs I don't have. I only came into this debate to argue about super-late-term abortions. Hanover and Sapientia aren't Catholic either to my knowledge nor are the vast majority of people who oppose your views.

What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate. — jamalrob

Yes, people do get annoyed on issues like this as they do on terrorism and other life and death stuff. I know you do, so please stop playing the holier than thou. For my part, I'll try to be nicer to @Moliere.

Thanks.

What you described is really basic stuff. — jamalrob

Except for DNA, which is acidic stuff. ;-)