Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child » Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Abortion: the rights of the fetus/child

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/09/07 - 06:42 PM: Subject: Abortion the rights of the fetus/child	#1
I recently spent some time discussing this issue and came up with a way of analyzing the situation that I like. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or objections to treating this question in the matter. First off I'd like to divide the question into two subquestions, the first is what is my personal view on the matter i.e. would I choose to terminate a pregnancy and what I believe that society's role should be. Since I don't think the first one is all that important because it's scope is too narrow and uninteresting, I will only address the second question. Firstly, I think it is indisputable that society has an obligation to protect it's members (individuals) from harm when possible. In the case where harm must be inflicted, the society must weigh the harm caused to its members in every course of action it can decide. The first question that should then be asked is "When does a fetus become an individual?". Some say at the moment of conception, others at the moment of birth but I contend it is at the moment of viability. This is defined as the earliest possible moment when the fetus could theoretically (with reasonably high probability) survive (and not be brain dead) outside the womb with medical assistance. It is true that this number is not very concrete but I don't believe that it would be so hard for the association of medical doctors in that society to go through their records and come up with a number (5 months perhaps) that would be cut-off. While it is true that the number may be different for each person, a case by case analysis is not practical and thus this would need to be the compromise. Why should viability be the cut-off? I would say that an individual is a sapient human being capable of surviving and functioning with the help of the society. Before the moment of viability, the mother and the fetus are not separate entities since the fetus is incapable of life without the mother. So I would say that the mother should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy for the same reason she should have the choice to pierce a ring through her ear. She is harming herself and not an individual, it is her choice. At the moment of viability, the baby inherits all the same rights as the mother and she loses the choice to decide to terminate the child. The child, being an individual at this point because it no longer needs the mother to function and live in the society, cannot be harmed unless there is a strong medical reason for it. If the pregnancy must be stopped after the point of viability for medical reasons, the society must do what it can to minimize the harm to both of its members and therefore instead of aborting the fetus, they can simply attempt to deliver the child earlier and provide it with the best medical attention it can. If you oppose this view because you think abortion should be unrestricted and allowed up until the point when it is medically unsafe to do so, please explain why the child should not be entitled to the society's protection. Arguments based on religious views are not welcome because they will not be productive. I respect the view that abortion should not be performed because it says so in the Bible but this statement is either a stopping point to a discussion or a stepping stone to the discussion on why you think religious values should be enforced by society and it's not one I'd like to get into.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/10/07 - 11:43 AM:	#2
I guess abortion must be a tired topic these days.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/10/07 - 08:06 PM:	#3
I think your argument comes at the problem sideways. A society is defined by its membership. It then sets up the rules regarding that membership. I don't think it is undebatable about whether a society must protect all its members, otherwise you would need to protect people on death row, ((in countries where it is still allowed, like America)), or it would be unconstitutional for a society to send its citizens into dangerous situations like battles or space -- or even ridiculous extremes like arresting people for harming themselves by smoking, drinking, or eating fatty foods. You are "helping" society define membership. No society, currently in this world, defines membership based on viability. They usually define based on citizenship and cooperation with the rules of that society, (thus enabling the citizens to treat non-citizens and criminals with diminished sets of rights). You can't rely on sentience as an indicator, since it isn't well defined or codified. If you could come up with a code that didn't include bonobos, chimpanzees and dolphins as memberships based on sentience, how could you include unborn fetuses under the same definition? A newborn baby might not even pass a sentient test as its brain is still developing. Viability alone is hard to define. Lets say a child is born with a severe birth defect that is not feasible to correct and will probably die within a few months. Is it viable? Does it lose its rights as soon as these circumstances are known and can it be "put to sleep"? Then you get into the argument of "how long a life is 'viable'"? Maybe I would consider my grandfather no longer "viable" when the doctors say he only has 6 months to live. Going back to society/citizenship. If a Canadian woman gives birth in America, then by American law, the child is automatically eligible for American citizen. But if, at the last moment, the child is born on Canadian soil, the child is not eligible for American citizenship. Notice in this complicated case, the "society" only has rights over a child at the moment of birth. In other countries, you might also get situations where a child is born with multiple citizenships or no citizenship at all, (stateless). If viewed from this point of view, I think a society doesn't have any jurisdiction over the protection of a fetus before birth. From personal experience, I find the idea that society can force a woman who had been raped to bear and care for the resulting pregnancy against her will repulsive. The same goes for molestation, incest and risks to the mother's life, like ectopic pregnancies. In these cases, what gives society the right to chose what happens to the fetus based on projecting its jurisdiction on anything viable and sentient? Until technology gets to the point that it can effectively prevent such situations from arising, it must accept that some pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated, due to the circumstances -- but there is no societal reason for allowing it, so it should always be allowed and unrestricted. That the fetus should be considered a part of the woman's body and under her volition whether to bring it to term or not. It may not feel acceptable to some people -- but they are often focused on a select group of situations. Another thing -- I think it is a misconception that society is something unique and distinct from its membership. A society serves the needs of the members and the members serves the society because the members benefit from such an arrangement. There is no distinct "society" entity. All questions about society's role must be answered in terms of the members that are affected. I don't accept that there are any objective rights, except those which members give themselves. The question that must really be asked is how an unwanted child will affect the members of that society. The proper defense of abortion is in stating the harm or benefit that having children that may not be as wanted as others.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/11/07 - 02:19 AM:	#4
swstephe wrote: I think your argument comes at the problem sideways. A society is defined by its membership. It then sets up the rules regarding that membership. Well I think that the claim that the innocent child of a member of the society should also be a member and be deserving of certain rights is all that debatable. swstephe wrote: I don't think it is undebatable about whether a society must protect all its members, otherwise you would need to protect people on death row I agree with your point of view here and I'd like to amend what I wrote to add that any member who has not forfeited his rights by acting in a certain way prohibited by society should be entitled to it's protection. I don't agree with killing people as a means of punishment but I can understand that the harm caused to a person who has committed a grave crime would not be equally weighed to that caused to an innocent person. swstephe wrote: ((in countries where it is still allowed, like America)), or it would be unconstitutional for a society to send its citizens into dangerous situations like battles or space -- or even ridiculous extremes like arresting people for harming themselves by smoking, drinking, or eating fatty foods. Sending people into battles is done because the weighing of the harm caused to the various members has been done. The space example is not appropriate because the people choose to go knowing the risks involved. swstephe wrote: You are "helping" society define membership. No society, currently in this world, defines membership based on viability. They usually define based on citizenship and cooperation with the rules of that society, (thus enabling the citizens to treat non-citizens and criminals with diminished sets of rights). I am sure that no government in this world determines membership at the point of viability but I think that in this case they should. Why should the one individual have the right to end the life of another? Past the point of viability, the child no longer needs the mother to survive and yet she should be permitted to kill the child? Why stop at birth? Why not allow mothers to end the life of undesirable children within the first few years of their life? swstephe wrote: You can't rely on sentience as an indicator, since it isn't well defined or codified. If you could come up with a code that didn't include bonobos, chimpanzees and dolphins as memberships based on sentience, how could you include unborn fetuses under the same definition? A newborn baby might not even pass a sentient test as its brain is still developing. Sapient human beings cannot be chimpanzees, bonobos or dolphins. I don't understand the need to use the term "unborn". I don't see why it matters whether the child is still within the womb or not, the child would not need to be able to pass a sentience test at the moment of birth but be capable in the future of passing it. This is only to require that viability be defined in such a way that the life of the fetus is not that of a vegetable coma-like state. The point where the fetus could theoretically live without the mother and be what we would call a sapient human being. swstephe wrote: Viability alone is hard to define. Lets say a child is born with a severe birth defect that is not feasible to correct and will probably die within a few months. Is it viable? Does it lose its rights as soon as these circumstances are known and can it be "put to sleep"? Then you get into the argument of "how long a life is 'viable'"? Maybe I would consider my grandfather no longer "viable" when the doctors say he only has 6 months to live. I had already agreed that we would not be the best to decide such a thing and that in Canada and the USA there are medical associations that could help decide this. In the case with the severe birth defect, the harm to the mother, the child and the mother's wishes for her child must be taken into consideration. These are exceptions and such exceptions should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Another example is when conjoined twins need to be separated to allow one of them to survive. I don't think the existence of these difficulties invalidates this approach. swstephe wrote: Going back to society/citizenship. If a Canadian woman gives birth in America, then by American law, the child is automatically eligible for American citizen. But if, at the last moment, the child is born on Canadian soil, the child is not eligible for American citizenship. Notice in this complicated case, the "society" only has rights over a child at the moment of birth. In other countries, you might also get situations where a child is born with multiple citizenships or no citizenship at all, (stateless). If viewed from this point of view, I think a society doesn't have any jurisdiction over the protection of a fetus before birth. I don't think that these silly notions of citizens are really that important to this discussion. Also, it is illegal to kill someone in the USA no matter what this person's citizenship is. They won't let you off the hook just because you can prove the person you killed isn't a citizen because they were born in Canada. The fact is the child living within the mother is capable of living without the mother and this fact alone should remove the mother's right to end the child's life. The difference is that if the child needs the mother to survive then she is simply withdrawing her help but if the child no longer needs the mother, she is actively ending the life of the child. swstephe wrote: From personal experience, I find the idea that society can force a woman who had been raped to bear and care for the resulting pregnancy against her will repulsive. The same goes for molestation, incest and risks to the mother's life, like ectopic pregnancies. I agree with this point, that a woman should not be forced to endure a pregnancy in these cases but only provided she has been responsible enough to seek the abortion within the first several months before viability. After that point, the child can live and to end it's life is to actively kill a human being. swstephe wrote: In these cases, what gives society the right to chose what happens to the fetus based on projecting its jurisdiction on anything viable and sentient? Until technology gets to the point that it can effectively prevent such situations from arising, it must accept that some pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated, due to the circumstances -- but there is no societal reason for allowing it, so it should always be allowed and unrestricted. That the fetus should be considered a part of the woman's body and under her volition whether to bring it to term or not. It may not feel acceptable to some people -- but they are often focused on a select group of situations. I agree that abortion should be allowed but only as long as the mother is responsible for providing the child with life because without her it cannot live. If ever there is a situation where the mother simply cannot carry the child to term after viability and to do so would cause immense psychological and social harm to her, it could be possible to simply deliver the child early. Why kill it when they could simply deliver it? swstephe wrote: Another thing -- I think it is a misconception that society is something unique and distinct from its membership. A society serves the needs of the members and the members serves the society because the members benefit from such an arrangement. There is no distinct "society" entity. All questions about society's role must be answered in terms of the members that are affected. I don't accept that there are any objective rights, except those which members give themselves. The question that must really be asked is how an unwanted child will affect the members of that society. The proper defense of abortion is in stating the harm or benefit that having children that may not be as wanted as others. I agree with you but again I'd say that the child, at the point of viability, should be considered a member. And thus the harm to that child would need to be factored into the equation. From reading your response, it seems clear that your position is that of allowing abortions up until the moment the child is delivered? Do you think it is ethical for a woman in labor to change her mind and ask the doctor to go in with the blender rather than the forceps? I would never argue to remove a woman's right to choose whether she would like to have a child but as soon as the child is viable, it is no longer a choice on whether or not to have a child but whether or not to end the child's (that she has in fact had) life.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/11/07 - 04:52 AM:	#5
mrousseau wrote: Well I think that the claim that the innocent child of a member of the society should also be a member and be deserving of certain rights is all that debatable. Notice "innocent child". In most societies, innocent/guilty have different rights, and child/adult have different rights, (even in America, children may not vote, seek work, sign contracts, etc -- not that they should, but apparently society can treat children differently than adults). I'm going a bit around the subject -- if you agree that a fetus has the same rights as a child, can a child have the same rights as an adult? If not, what is the objective criteria? I'm just saying that, currently, most societies determine membership and rights based on jurisdiction which is based on citizenship. In order to claim that a society must protect or extend rights to a person, they must first objectively determine by what criteria they have jurisdiction over the fetus. I am trying to make the point that currently society acquires its set of rules from a historical/philosophical/theological basis and may need major restructuring in order to be extended in a rational, objective manner. mrousseau wrote: I agree with your point of view here and I'd like to amend what I wrote to add that any member who has not forfeited his rights by acting in a certain way prohibited by society should be entitled to it's protection. I don't agree with killing people as a means of punishment but I can understand that the harm caused to a person who has committed a grave crime would not be equally weighed to that caused to an innocent person. You are basing the extension of rights purely based on innocence. Why doesn't America extend its right of protection to innocent Sudanese children? Because American jurisdiction doesn't reach Sudan. Only Sudan has jurisdiction over its citizens and has the responsibility over protecting its members. As a fetus doesn't obtain citizenship until birth, it doesn't automatically deserve protection. mrousseau wrote: Sending people into battles is done because the weighing of the harm caused to the various members has been done. The space example is not appropriate because the people choose to go knowing the risks involved. But soldiers are member of citizens and "innocent", (as in -- not convicted of a crime). If the rule on sapient human beings who are viable is all that is required to demand society's protection, then even they should be protected. Since I am claiming that citizenship is the only established criteria for rights, then I would also add the innocent adults, children and fetuses who are being deliberately endangered by sending invading armies would also mean that all invasions would be immoral. mrousseau wrote: I am sure that no government in this world determines membership at the point of viability but I think that in this case they should. Why should the one individual have the right to end the life of another? Past the point of viability, the child no longer needs the mother to survive and yet she should be permitted to kill the child? Why stop at birth? Why not allow mothers to end the life of undesirable children within the first few years of their life? Currently governments protect citizens. Citizenship is generally conferred at birth, so a child becomes protected immediately upon birth. Currently, no individual has the right to end the life of another, but a society may confer its right upon others in certain circumstances, (death penalty, war, police actions). That's the way things currently seem to work. I would rather see a reversal, where only individuals, not society, has a right to end their own lives -- and all the consequences, (voluntary war actions and the death penalty would be abolished, but abortion and euthanasia would be allowed). mrousseau wrote: Sapient human beings cannot be chimpanzees, bonobos or dolphins. I don't understand the need to use the term "unborn". I don't see why it matters whether the child is still within the womb or not, the child would not need to be able to pass a sentience test at the moment of birth but be capable in the future of passing it. This is only to require that viability be defined in such a way that the life of the fetus is not that of a vegetable coma-like state. The point where the fetus could theoretically live without the mother and be what we would call a sapient human being. Actually, I had mistakenly thought you only said "sapient", but my comment still stands -- what objective attribute of human beings give them rights not conferred to other beings that might be sapient. It is possible that a codified definition of sentience could turn out to be inclusive of other intelligent species -- or computers. If viability and sentience are the only attributes for determining social protection, you would have to include any animals that might be declared sapient. You also mention "future" ... and it isn't impossible for some of those animals to evolve to the point where they can pass the test as easily as a child. I know this is a bit speculative science fiction -- I want to point out that if a society decides that it only extends membership and rights to humans, it should be careful to have a rational reason for doing so. You could compare such exclusions to ancient societies which excluded women, minorities or slaves from rights. mrousseau wrote: I had already agreed that we would not be the best to decide such a thing and that in Canada and the USA there are medical associations that could help decide this. In the case with the severe birth defect, the harm to the mother, the child and the mother's wishes for her child must be taken into consideration. These are exceptions and such exceptions should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Another example is when conjoined twins need to be separated to allow one of them to survive. I don't think the existence of these difficulties invalidates this approach. As soon as there are exceptions, then viability alone is not sufficient for rights and there are competing interests. It would be like a psychologist telling me that I don't have the right to vote because of a mental condition. It means that my being an (innocent) citizen of a country isn't sufficient criteria to determine whether my rights are being violated. Conjoined twins are already covered by citizenship rules. mrousseau wrote: I don't think that these silly notions of citizens are really that important to this discussion. Also, it is illegal to kill someone in the USA no matter what this person's citizenship is. They won't let you off the hook just because you can prove the person you killed isn't a citizen because they were born in Canada. The fact is the child living within the mother is capable of living without the mother and this fact alone should remove the mother's right to end the child's life. The difference is that if the child needs the mother to survive then she is simply withdrawing her help but if the child no longer needs the mother, she is actively ending the life of the child. I point out citizenship because there is no universal "society" in the world, at least not one that has the responsibility or right to protect anyone. Every human being is, at most, a citizen of individual citizenship. A society doesn't have the responsibility to protect the life of non-citizens and can, in times of war, order their destruction, (even innocents, children and fetuses). Until technology gets to the point where a viable fetus can be removed from the mother and brought to maturity outside her body -- then the fetus is still fully integrated with the way the mother treats her body up until the moment of birth. This may be important for cases where a mother ingests drugs, smokes or drinks alcohol during later stages of pregnancy. mrousseau wrote: I agree with this point, that a woman should not be forced to endure a pregnancy in these cases but only provided she has been responsible enough to seek the abortion within the first several months before viability. After that point, the child can live and to end it's life is to actively kill a human being. I'm tempted to think that a mother ought to be required to commit to the pregnancy at the very beginning just to make sure she gets her say. I remember a recent case where an 12-year-old girl became pregnant from her brother. It wasn't discovered for a while, then the judge delayed until it was already 28 weeks along, which would have made it technically "viable", (http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/24/incest.abortion/) ... She was able to go to a neighboring state, get the abortion and her brother was charged with rape. But I guess you can never get away from crazies and people under 18 don't have enough rights to protect themselves in such cases. mrousseau wrote: I agree that abortion should be allowed but only as long as the mother is responsible for providing the child with life because without her it cannot live. If ever there is a situation where the mother simply cannot carry the child to term after viability and to do so would cause immense psychological and social harm to her, it could be possible to simply deliver the child early. Why kill it when they could simply deliver it? I agree with you but again I'd say that the child, at the point of viability, should be considered a member. And thus the harm to that child would need to be factored into the equation. From reading your response, it seems clear that your position is that of allowing abortions up until the moment the child is delivered? Do you think it is ethical for a woman in labor to change her mind and ask the doctor to go in with the blender rather than the forceps? Not quite. A lot of what I say is devil's advocate type of stuff -- trying to challenge the implied assumptions. I am saying that a fetus is a citizen of its mother's womb until it leaves the womb and that it is an integral part of her body. I don't believe society should extend membership or rights to something beyond its reach without a clear objective attribute of its right. The only use for passing laws preventing doctors and mothers from preventing a birth is to punish those with valid reasons along with criminals. I am being a bit of an anarchist with this subject to avoid society overstepping its bounds. mrousseau wrote: I would never argue to remove a woman's right to choose whether she would like to have a child but as soon as the child is viable, it is no longer a choice on whether or not to have a child but whether or not to end the child's (that she has in fact had) life. I'm all for the technology to mature a fetus outside the womb, (which, by definition would be "viable"). Once removed from the mother's body, it could be conferred membership and protection. That is quite different than advocating that a viable fetus has membership or rights, (especially -- rights that exceed that of the mother). Some other problems that I don't have answers to: What about the father? Does the father of the fetus have the right to demand that a fetus be aborted or not be aborted, (before viability), against the will of the mother? What about the husband? Would the husband have the right to abort or not abort a fetus that wasn't his? Just curious about what weight DNA contribution and marriage have according to these rules ...
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 08/11/07 - 07:43 AM:	#6
This seems like a nice discussion so far, and at the same time, an exercise to test and expand conceptions--no pun intended. I would also like, as I believe swstephe has done, especially, in the latter post, to question the meaning or referrent for 'society' and 'viability.' I would like to ask about the basic course of nature? I do not think that nature has given us homo sapiens such early viability. That the female is the host, is without question, but to what degree is that an extension of herself, and, conversely, to what degree is that either an extension of the biological father or a separate and different individual. Regarding the 'society's protection' matter, I falter over just how worthy society at large is, to have such power to bestow a norm of thought that most clearly has historically come down to the present, based upon and stemming from inexperienced religious belief-systems, over all peoples within its geographical/economical range.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/11/07 - 11:27 AM:	#7
swstephe wrote: Notice "innocent child". In most societies, innocent/guilty have different rights, and child/adult have different rights, (even in America, children may not vote, seek work, sign contracts, etc -- not that they should, but apparently society can treat children differently than adults). I'm going a bit around the subject -- if you agree that a fetus has the same rights as a child, can a child have the same rights as an adult? If not, what is the objective criteria? I'm just saying that, currently, most societies determine membership and rights based on jurisdiction which is based on citizenship. In order to claim that a society must protect or extend rights to a person, they must first objectively determine by what criteria they have jurisdiction over the fetus. I agree that this is how most societies determine citizenship and I am not disputing the practical difficulties with what I am proposing. When I spoke of society, it was more than simply your citizenship but the collection of individuals you are currently interacting with or are in the same geographic region. swstephe wrote: I am trying to make the point that currently society acquires its set of rules from a historical/philosophical/theological basis and may need major restructuring in order to be extended in a rational, objective manner. I agree with you that the current structure is not ideal and that there are obviously many problems, especially in the USA, with influence from various religious doctrines. swstephe wrote: You are basing the extension of rights purely based on innocence. Why doesn't America extend its right of protection to innocent Sudanese children? Because American jurisdiction doesn't reach Sudan. Only Sudan has jurisdiction over its citizens and has the responsibility over protecting its members. As a fetus doesn't obtain citizenship until birth, it doesn't automatically deserve protection. America does extend it's right of protection to innocent Sudanese children when they are located within America. If an American child is within Sudan then the protection is given to that child from the Sudanese society. Regardless of the location, I believe it to be a rather universal attribute of societies in general that they protect their members and "temporary" members. A member does not need to be a full fledged member with all the trimmings to be entitled to its protection. If the argument that the fetus does not obtain citizenship until birth is to be given weight then one should also say that the United States should not protect foreigners who visit their country. swstephe wrote: But soldiers are member of citizens and "innocent", (as in -- not convicted of a crime). If the rule on sapient human beings who are viable is all that is required to demand society's protection, then even they should be protected. Since I am claiming that citizenship is the only established criteria for rights, then I would also add the innocent adults, children and fetuses who are being deliberately endangered by sending invading armies would also mean that all invasions would be immoral. They are innocent but I had addressed this issue in my initial post. In war, there is a situation where many members will be harmed. A few soldiers are sent to prevent harm to the population at large, it is out of the best interest of the whole. swstephe wrote: Currently governments protect citizens. Citizenship is generally conferred at birth, so a child becomes protected immediately upon birth. Currently, no individual has the right to end the life of another, but a society may confer its right upon others in certain circumstances, (death penalty, war, police actions). That's the way things currently seem to work. It may be that citizenship is conferred at birth, but as I have previously stated, a person does not need to be a citizen to be entitled to protection from the society. swstephe wrote: I would rather see a reversal, where only individuals, not society, has a right to end their own lives -- and all the consequences, (voluntary war actions and the death penalty would be abolished, but abortion and euthanasia would be allowed). I think we agree in principle on these things. I believe individuals should have the right to end their own lives (if they are of sound and are suffering), but I don't agree that an individual should have the right to end the life of another. Since I consider the fetus to be an individual at the moment of viability, I do not recognize the woman's right to end the child's life past this point. swstephe wrote: Actually, I had mistakenly thought you only said "sapient", but my comment still stands -- what objective attribute of human beings give them rights not conferred to other beings that might be sapient. It is possible that a codified definition of sentience could turn out to be inclusive of other intelligent species -- or computers. If viability and sentience are the only attributes for determining social protection, you would have to include any animals that might be declared sapient. You also mention "future" ... and it isn't impossible for some of those animals to evolve to the point where they can pass the test as easily as a child. I know this is a bit speculative science fiction -- I want to point out that if a society decides that it only extends membership and rights to humans, it should be careful to have a rational reason for doing so. You could compare such exclusions to ancient societies which excluded women, minorities or slaves from rights. That of being a human being is also a criteria because it allows them to become a member of the society. If other animals evolve the same cognitive abilities as humans then they will form their own society in competition with us for resources. I do not believe that inherent in all societies is the desire to protect members of a different species. swstephe wrote: As soon as there are exceptions, then viability alone is not sufficient for rights and there are competing interests. It would be like a psychologist telling me that I don't have the right to vote because of a mental condition. It means that my being an (innocent) citizen of a country isn't sufficient criteria to determine whether my rights are being violated. Conjoined twins are already covered by citizenship rules. Those exceptions are few enough that they could be dealt with, the argument that I am putting forward is only in the cases where the child will be healthy enough to live and function in society to some limited extent. swstephe wrote: I point out citizenship because there is no universal "society" in the world, at least not one that has the responsibility or right to protect anyone. Every human being is, at most, a citizen of individual citizenship. A society doesn't have the responsibility to protect the life of non-citizens and can, in times of war, order their destruction, (even innocents, children and fetuses). I believe you are mistaken here unless you claim that a visiting foreigner becomes a member of the society while they reside in the USA? swstephe wrote: Until technology gets to the point where a viable fetus can be removed from the mother and brought to maturity outside her body -- then the fetus is still fully integrated with the way the mother treats her body up until the moment of birth. This may be important for cases where a mother ingests drugs, smokes or drinks alcohol during later stages of pregnancy. Technology is such that this is possible, the moment it becomes possible is what I am calling viability. Mothers who drink and ingest drugs and so on should be charged with a crime if she does so past the point of viability. swstephe wrote: I'm tempted to think that a mother ought to be required to commit to the pregnancy at the very beginning just to make sure she gets her say. I remember a recent case where an 12-year-old girl became pregnant from her brother. It wasn't discovered for a while, then the judge delayed until it was already 28 weeks along, which would have made it technically "viable", (http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/24/incest.abortion/) ... She was able to go to a neighboring state, get the abortion and her brother was charged with rape. But I guess you can never get away from crazies and people under 18 don't have enough rights to protect themselves in such cases. It is an awful story but again if the child is viable, then why kill it instead of simply delivering it early? I used to coach a kids soccer team and one of the kids was born two months early, it is certainly possible for a 2 month premature child to live a full and healthy life. If you are prepared to end the life of an undesirable fetus past viability for reasons such as incest, why can we not kill children born in the same way? What if there is a case where the 12 year old did not seek the help in time and gave birth? The goal was to prevent all the consequences of having a child born of incest and thus it is still possible to do so simply by putting the child down in the first few weeks after birth. swstephe wrote: Not quite. A lot of what I say is devil's advocate type of stuff -- trying to challenge the implied assumptions. I am saying that a fetus is a citizen of its mother's womb until it leaves the womb and that it is an integral part of her body. I don't believe society should extend membership or rights to something beyond its reach without a clear objective attribute of its right. The only use for passing laws preventing doctors and mothers from preventing a birth is to punish those with valid reasons along with criminals. I am being a bit of an anarchist with this subject to avoid society overstepping its bounds. I'm all for the technology to mature a fetus outside the womb, (which, by definition would be "viable"). Once removed from the mother's body, it could be conferred membership and protection. That is quite different than advocating that a viable fetus has membership or rights, (especially -- rights that exceed that of the mother). I believe that society must do all that it can to have the child stay within the mother but if there is no choice, abortion past viability should not be an option. There should only be premature deliveries where the child is given all the chances it can to survive. The mother may desire to have the child out of her body but does she have the right to decide that the child should be killed in the process? swstephe wrote: Some other problems that I don't have answers to: What about the father? Does the father of the fetus have the right to demand that a fetus be aborted or not be aborted, (before viability), against the will of the mother? What about the husband? Would the husband have the right to abort or not abort a fetus that wasn't his? Just curious about what weight DNA contribution and marriage have according to these rules ... In my paradigm it plays no role whatsoever. I do feel as though if a man has decided that he does not wish to have the child (before viability) then he should be freed of the financial responsibilities of caring for the child. But in terms of aborting the child, since I view the child as an extension of the woman's body until viability, I do not recognize the claims of the father more than I would recognize the claims of society to the child. Edited by mrousseau on 08/11/07 - 03:42 PM

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 08/11/07 - 12:12 PM:	#8
Mars Man wrote: I would also like, as I believe swstephe has done, especially, in the latter post, to question the meaning or referrent for 'society' and 'viability.' I would like to ask about the basic course of nature? I do not think that nature has given us homo sapiens such early viability. Society is a tough one to define but I would simply say that it is the collection of individuals grouped together in practice by geographical and political borders with within which there is cooperation to survive and function as a whole. A Canadian visiting another country will require the help and interaction with the members of the country he is visiting to function and at the same time they will also benefit from his contribution to the society as well. A child, while not necessarily an important contributor, should be considered a member of the society that he/she is located in. Thus if the pregnant mother is Canadian and currently in the United States, both the fetus and the mother are benefiting from the cooperation with the members of the USA society. While not being citizens, they should both be entitled to the protection of the USA while they are interacting and cooperating with them. Viability is also difficult to define but I would consider viability to be the point where the child has a reasonably good chance of surviving and becoming a cooperating member of society if it were removed from the womb. One important point is that a child that is born premature and has grave health consequences requiring it to be bed ridden or paralyzed can still contribute to society. But if the child will be born brain dead or incapable of any form of communication with the rest of the members then perhaps it should not be considered viable. Due to the difficulty of establishing the moment during pregnancy where this occurs, it should be left to the experts and medical associations to decide at which point modern medicine can intervene and take the role of the mother to care for the child. Mars Man wrote: That the female is the host, is without question, but to what degree is that an extension of herself, and, conversely, to what degree is that either an extension of the biological father or a separate and different individual. While I do sympathize with the wishes of the father, due to the invasive nature of any laws that would attempt to regulate what a woman can or cannot do with her body, I do not feel that allowing fatherly claims to a child that cannot live without the mother is prudent. While the father's DNA is required to conceive the child, the mother is the only one that can carry it to term and must go through a very invasive physical transformation to do so. It is the nature of this physical transformation which gives her the right to allow it to happen to her body or not. Until the child has reached the point where it no longer needs the mother, she should be permitted to decide that she does not want to undergo this transformation and to terminate the pregnancy. Mars Man wrote: Regarding the 'society's protection' matter, I falter over just how worthy society at large is, to have such power to bestow a norm of thought that most clearly has historically come down to the present, based upon and stemming from inexperienced religious belief-systems, over all peoples within its geographical/economical range. I think that society has not only the "power" but the responsibility to act to protect its members. This has been a constant throughout time and history where in every form of government, the rulers have had the responsibility of protecting its members from the harm of others. I understand that imposing this view on every member of the society is rather intrusive on their personal belief systems but there are certain laws which are in place to prevent these personal belief systems from harming members with different sets of beliefs. Since the child's beliefs have not been established, society should simply assume that the child would not want to die which I believe is the safest bet.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 08/11/07 - 09:23 PM:	#9
Thanks for your responses there, mrousseau. Yes, I agree that there are some complicated thorny spots here and there when discussing such a matter. If you would allow me to speak my mind here, please, I wish to start off by saying that I really feel that a more streamlined flow of discussion could ensue if you were to more fully develop your terms, meanings, and referents in the OP, or in an immediately following post. A similar thing seemed to have arisen on other threads over in the Religion area. I think I have fully understood what you have said in reply to swestephe and myself. I think I can grasp your definitions and such. I will argue that self-preservation with its survival instinct is to be found in most all (if not absolutely all) life forms. With the more social animals, this would surely carry over into, and 'present' itself as being a part of, the social order--within the bounds of that social order. When a social group of chimpanzees, to provide an example, invade the territory of another social group, the males will most often kill the offspring of that other group--or at least attempt to do so. This can be understood as a natural element of self-preservation as well--the protection of ones own gene pool. What this would entail, then I will argue, is that a social group will instinctively operate--counsiously or not--to protect itself and by extension its members. What can be seen is that this does not tend, in nature, to be extended to other social groups. In case studies, for example again, the chimpanzee social group (a single band) that came upon another smaller monkey (not of the Great Ape) social group attacked and chased it off. In the process, by chance, one mother of the attacked group lost contact with her capable but young offspring. A female member of the chimpanzee group was the first to reach the (I forgot the word) young monkey, took it in her arms and climbed upwards into the tree--a natural reaction for a female animal to protect offspring. Of course, when the rest of the group had settled down from the chase and fight, and got together with that female chimp, whatever number of them ate the young monkey. A tigress which had caught a female baboon which, most sadly we can feel, had almost just given birth to a young one, killed then ate the mother leaving the little helpless new born just kind of sitting there beneath the tree. Later, as it was observed, a pack of hyenas crept in to take advantage of the helpless and unable to even run away, it seems, young baboon. The female tiger, most interestingly, came down and took up the newborn, washed it a little--as cats do--and then kind of stretched out and seemed to go to sleep with the newborn by her side. IF she ate it the next day, the report did not say. The point again--although we are not Great Apes (almost) nor tigers--is that the phenomenon of self-preservation is operating in the role of a female when dealing with the instinct to protect its own. This once again, can be seen as a way to assure the passing on ones own genes. This can also be understood as being a very strong compelling force in nature. ¹ These above examples also go to show that there is a natural limit to that extension. We, being the big-brain carriers of the bunch, have tried to work our way out of and above nature itself. I see that as being good in some ways, bad in others. The aplication is that while we can claim that self-preservation is naturally inherent in a social group (among non-social group animals, I'm not so sure it is true) upon and towards that same social group, it appears to mostly (not absolutely) carry over to other out-social-groups in the sense that (especially) the female's instinct to protect her offspring is very compelling. In the male, it appears to mostly cause concern about offspring possibly fathered by that male--even within the same group. I will argue, therefore that in human social groups, just as in the non-homo sapien social groups, just as among the Ache, Hazda, Yanomamo and others, all the way up to any possible social group on the face of the earth today, the very same thing is the essence of the nature or make-up of self-preservation within a single social-group which does not, for the most part, extend upon and towards out-social-groups. Our big brains have pumped out a lot of concepts that our fellow animals have not and likely never will be able to pump out, however. We have come up with expressions, additions and amplifications of nature, putting them into laws, moral precepts, and culture. In this setting, though the ultimate casual explanations are there, it can be understood that since the degree or quality of sentience that our big brains have come up with generally tell us that it's wrong to kill most animals (including humans) without a really good reason, this matter of abortion's being wrong has come up. *My conclusion* then, at this point, is on two points in the discussion: Firstly I will hold 'society' to be the entire aggregate group of social animals throughout all history. Our modern geo-political setups are but a nano spark of a moment compared against that background--even being the one in which we are operating now. Then I will hold infantincide, as shown by several studies, to be more common in society ² than many today would like to admit to, and yet quantitatively uncommon enough--and therefore not quite as concerning a matter as some would like to prop it up as being. I argue, then, that our modern social groups do not have the natural right to step into the zone of personal, individual actions regarding the decision to abort a pregnancy, and force a 'cut off' limit beyond which I woman can not legally abort a pregnancy before delivery. I will argue for more open sex knowledge/education for safe sex and/or pregnancy prevention methods. 1. Part of this is also due to pressure not to forgo a chance at having offspring--the female's capacity is fixed where as the male--in the harem format groups especially, have a very large number of possible offspring. 2. That includes early human societies as well--holding theories by Sarah Hrdy and others to yet hold up.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/11/07 - 11:45 PM:	#10
mrousseau wrote: I agree that this is how most societies determine citizenship and I am not disputing the practical difficulties with what I am proposing. When I spoke of society, it was more than simply your citizenship but the collection of individuals you are currently interacting with or are in the same geographic region. But it sounds like you are arguing for an authority above society, one that grants life a value beyond what society assigns it. Currently, the only societies with the ability to enforce legislation are at the national level and are limited to citizenship and physical location. mrousseau wrote: I agree with you that the current structure is not ideal and that there are obviously many problems, especially in the USA, with influence from various religious doctrines. Sanctity of life is a typical religious concept. The value of life is derived from the supernatural source of life. In a secular or mixed society, an appeal to the supernatural wouldn't be justified. A secular or mixed national society can only make arbitrary rules of interactions between its members. mrousseau wrote: America does extend it's right of protection to innocent Sudanese children when they are located within America. If an American child is within Sudan then the protection is given to that child from the Sudanese society. Regardless of the location, I believe it to be a rather universal attribute of societies in general that they protect their members and "temporary" members. A member does not need to be a full fledged member with all the trimmings to be entitled to its protection. If the argument that the fetus does not obtain citizenship until birth is to be given weight then one should also say that the United States should not protect foreigners who visit their country. Actually, America isn't required to protect Sudanese children. If the Sudanese government demands that their citizens be returned, (to a situation of certain death), America must comply until the children make an appeal for refugee status, (a kind of pseudo-citizenship). If American children are threatened by the situation in Sudan, then America would send in transports to extract them from Sudan by virtue of their citizenship, (even if they never set foot in America before). The point I am making is that citizenship/membership is enough to grant a viable fetus rights. No need to bring in viability as some super-authority. mrousseau wrote: They are innocent but I had addressed this issue in my initial post. In war, there is a situation where many members will be harmed. A few soldiers are sent to prevent harm to the population at large, it is out of the best interest of the whole. But if viable life is sacred to the point that it overrides arbitrary rights assignment, then a society can't send soldiers into war or risk harming civilian non-citizens. Anything that might lead to death is a greater concern. If, however, rights are arbitrary, then society can send soldiers when needed and protection of society overrides the value of life in exceptional cases. mrousseau wrote: It may be that citizenship is conferred at birth, but as I have previously stated, a person does not need to be a citizen to be entitled to protection from the society. To conclude this point, you need to show that someone who is not a citizen and not physically located in the country is entitled to the protection of any other society. mrousseau wrote: I think we agree in principle on these things. I believe individuals should have the right to end their own lives (if they are of sound and are suffering), but I don't agree that an individual should have the right to end the life of another. Since I consider the fetus to be an individual at the moment of viability, I do not recognize the woman's right to end the child's life past this point. If life has intrinsic value, then nobody should be allowed to end their own life and should be kept alive as long as viable. If technology ever got to the point where someone could be kept alive indefinitely, (even under the most horrific circumstances imaginable, then the society would be obligated to do it). If society is allowed to make judgment calls on life, then life is a subjective, arbitrary value. Personally, I don't want society making judgment calls on my life, so I prefer a society that doesn't have any right over my life or death at all and leave me to decide. mrousseau wrote: That of being a human being is also a criteria because it allows them to become a member of the society. If other animals evolve the same cognitive abilities as humans then they will form their own society in competition with us for resources. I do not believe that inherent in all societies is the desire to protect members of a different species. Actually, we already do protect members of different non-sentient species based on their value to society and individuals. Depending on the region, dogs and horses can be protected and even receive some partial rights to life and quality of life. Society even expends resources to protect these human-friendly domesticated species. We can kill them, as individuals, when necessary, because the are incapable of reasoning or communicating their preferences and they may even be considered property despite emotional attachments. mrousseau wrote: Those exceptions are few enough that they could be dealt with, the argument that I am putting forward is only in the cases where the child will be healthy enough to live and function in society to some limited extent. If viability is the only criteria, then function in society isn't a factor. I actually prefer function in society. In one way of looking at it, society has already invested far more into the mother than the fetus, before birth, so the mother ought to logically have the preference in rights and protection from society. mrousseau wrote: I believe you are mistaken here unless you claim that a visiting foreigner becomes a member of the society while they reside in the USA? I'm a visiting American in a foreign country. I am expected to follow the local laws, not American laws. I was in Singapore back in '91. A teenage American boy was bored one day and decided to vandalize some expensive cars, (in Singapore, there is a 300% import tax on cars and all cars are imported -- so those cars were close to US$1 million in value). The punishment for his crime was caning. Bush Sr. argued that the boy was under-aged and that caning is cruel and unusual punishment. He lost the argument and the teen got caned anyway. Despite being a citizen, he was a partial member of Singaporean society and should have obeyed Singaporean laws. (Later, Bush Sr. visited Singapore and declared how modern, clean, and friendly the country was). mrousseau wrote: Technology is such that this is possible, the moment it becomes possible is what I am calling viability. Mothers who drink and ingest drugs and so on should be charged with a crime if she does so past the point of viability. If a man or a non-pregnant woman can not be charged with a crime for drinking or ingesting a drug, (potentially endangering their own innocent, viable, lives), but not the fetus -- what attribute of the fetus places its rights above that of the mother? mrousseau wrote: It is an awful story but again if the child is viable, then why kill it instead of simply delivering it early? I used to coach a kids soccer team and one of the kids was born two months early, it is certainly possible for a 2 month premature child to live a full and healthy life. If you are prepared to end the life of an undesirable fetus past viability for reasons such as incest, why can we not kill children born in the same way? What if there is a case where the 12 year old did not seek the help in time and gave birth? The goal was to prevent all the consequences of having a child born of incest and thus it is still possible to do so simply by putting the child down in the first few weeks after birth. I guess I grew up in a different cultural background. I felt more concern over the rights of the 12-year-old girl over her own body and future life. From my experience, the act of childbirth creates a psychological bond that is much greater than the trauma of an abortion. I guess I also felt pity, knowing how American society would reject such an undesirable situation if allowed to continue. mrousseau wrote: I believe that society must do all that it can to have the child stay within the mother but if there is no choice, abortion past viability should not be an option. There should only be premature deliveries where the child is given all the chances it can to survive. The mother may desire to have the child out of her body but does she have the right to decide that the child should be killed in the process? In that case, it is perfectly valid to say that the mother has no rights over the fetus. The fetus belongs effectively belongs to the society and the mother is simply the vessel. I hope that technology gets to the point, someday, where pregnancy can be abolished and a fetus can be grown in artificial vessels. Then gender distinction can be abolished and humans won't be treated like society's "property" anymore. Until that point, we can just hope to avoid as many exceptional situations as possible.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.