Should abortion be legal until the moment of birth?

[Nicky]

That's another good point: Should the government be involved in this at all? It's easy to say that something should be illegal when you don't agree with it. But maybe you're right, and the choice should be left up to individual hospitals/doctors, who would still have to face these questions:

There are very few women who actually get these done, and they do it via the hanger method or by inducing labor and then killing the baby (which is murder) because full-term abortions are illegal. But if a woman is really gung-ho about getting an abortion that late in the game, for whatever reason, it's probably safer for her to get it done in a hospital under the care of an MD, rather than do it while she's home alone. (However, given that nice visualization from Ninth Doc, I wonder if any doctor would actually perform an abortion so late in a pregnancy, unless it was an actual emergency.)

I brought this up in my AI class today and my prof. said that the rate of full-term abortions would go up if it were legalized. Whether that (cynical) view is true or not, I don't know, but it's the same line of reasoning as, "If marijuana is legal more people, will smoke it, therefore it should be illegal."

That's pretty easy to verify, since Canada doesn't have a legal limit on late term abortion. Then again, neither does China, and if your professor is feeling like being dishonest, that's the example he'll go with instead of Canada, to prove his point.

[Nicky]

Getting back to the story from Britain, will anyone step up and defend this woman’s actions? Posit an innocent scenario?

No, need, she posited one herself. She said it was a still birth.

Which of these do the facts point more or less towards?

Which facts specifically? All the facts I'm aware of allow for either scenario to be true. If you have any facts that point towards one or the other, please list them.

[Ninth Doctor]

There are very few women who actually get these done, and they do it via the hanger method or by inducing labor and then killing the baby (which is murder) because full-term abortions are illegal. But if a woman is really gung-ho about getting an abortion that late in the game, for whatever reason, it's probably safer for her to get it done in a hospital under the care of an MD, rather than do it while she's home alone.

Yes it’s extremely rare, and keep in mind that the woman has waited several months, you don’t just wake up one morning nine months pregnant. Can or should the State force a woman to continue carrying the fetus that extra week, or month, now that she’s changed her mind? Sounds like that’s the way it works in Britain. Or just leave it to the medical profession?

Let’s imagine a scenario where the doctor ought to say no. Picture a woman, let’s call her Rosemary Woodhouse, she’s pregnant full term, physically healthy, due date tomorrow, and she shows up at another Ob-Gyn’s office saying that she’s just discovered that she’s carrying the child of Satan. She wants it out of her, now! I mean imagine how that brat must kick! Not to mention the horns and claws. She tells this Ob-Gyn that she wants it aborted, killed now rather than after birth, because otherwise she’d have to go hunting for the Daggers of Meggido, and old Bugenhagen has gone missing with them (ah hell, now I’m mixing up my classic 1970’s satanic movies). So, does he make like Charles Grodin and give her a sedative, call her real doctor and write it off as hormones talking, or perform the procedure?

And if he’s a real sleazebag, maybe takes an unusually big fee to do it, never mind the woman’s obvious insanity, could he later be charged with a crime? Malpractice, murder? Let’s say it turns out she’s off her lithium, and she and her husband go to the police afterwards.

Tough questions. First I need a big pay grade increase, then I’ll start giving answers.

[Hairnet]

Sounds like you're seeing the difference perfectly well. If instead your position is that the difference doesn't matter, then that's what you should say, not that you don't see the difference.

But then you'd have to present us with a whole new set of reasons for both "individual rights" (and a new name for them, obviously), and abortion rights (if you even think they're a right).

I needed to know your reasoning not my own. You didn’t communicate an elaborate thought . Like usual you communicated through a snarky, irritated, minimalist, three line post. I was trying to be considerate in asking for an elaboration of your idea before making an argument against it.

I think that individuality cannot be determined by attachment. For instance it would still be murder to kill a child attached to its mother by an umbilical cord. It would also be murder to kill your conjoined twin.

Individuality is then determined by biological dependency. If you have functioning organ systems you are biologically independent. Even if a child is still dependent on feeding from its mother and other care givers, that doesn’t make it biologically dependent. That is a different kind of dependency (economic).

In border line cases like this, the possibility must be pointed out that a mother’s gestation period may not be entirely in sync with a child’s development. This case was mishandled because there was no test of dependency. We have no idea if the fetus was dependent or not. It could have survived on its own (without the help of major life support). Or it could have died on a table. Either result would have been fine, but there was no test. What we have here is a series of evasions and dishonest behaviors.

I am sure less dramatic tests are possible other than actually giving birth. I am not a doctor, but I speculate that with our technology today we can tell if a fetus has functioning, independent, organ-systems.

What this woman did was motivated by several evasions of reality. It is obviously immoral. I also think what she did should be illegal in some sense.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Hairnet

[Nicky]

You're trying to define "individual" in terms of a concept that refers to a relationship between individuals: dependency.

Individuality isn't defined in terms of dependence. An individual is an individual no matter what his relationship is to other individuals. A concept that's useful in Politics has to be a precedent of concepts like "dependence". Politics starts with a collection of individuals, and then uses concepts like dependence to describe the relationships between them.

But what an individual has to be is someone capable of such relationships with other individuals. Applying political principles to something that's not is senseless.

Individuality is then determined by biological dependency. If you have functioning organ systems you are biologically independent.

Biology is a science. I'm no Biologist, but that statement doesn't sound like it's a part of it.

Even if a child is still dependent on feeding from its mother.

It's not. That's the whole point. If you wish to make sure that a child doesn't die, there's no need for you to force the mother into a relationship with that child. You can have a political solution to your goal: change of custody.

That's not the case with a fetus. You can't call something an individual if the only means other individuals have of establishing any kind of a relationship with it is indirect, through enslaving the mother.

[mdegges]

...keep in mind that the woman has waited several months, you don’t just wake up one morning nine months pregnant.

It's interesting to read about why these late-term abortions are even happening. I wrote it off as hormone imbalance, but there's many other factors.. one of which is waiting to get approval from a health insurance company or Medicaid.

Individuality is then determined by biological dependency. If you have functioning organ systems you are biologically independent. Even if a child is still dependent on feeding from its mother and other care givers, that doesn’t make it biologically dependent. That is a different kind of dependency (economic).

But if a fetus is still inside it's mother, it's biologically dependent on her. That's why pregnancy takes 9 months instead of 8, or 7, or 6.. the fetus needs 9 months to develop in order to become biologically independent.

[Nicky]

II am sure less dramatic tests are possible other than actually giving birth. I am not a doctor, but I speculate that with our technology today we can tell if a fetus has functioning, independent, organ-systems.

Right, but, like I said, that criteria you are setting doesn't sound very scientific. There is a reason why pregnancy lasts 9 months, that's how much it takes for a healthy child to develop.

Bringing unwanted pregnancies into the world early, based on your criteria, sounds a lot more inhumane to me than aborting them late. Not because they might be still born, but because of what tends to happen if they live

[intellectualammo]

Consider this: what is the difference between killing a fetus in the two weeks before the due date versus killing it one week before? What is the difference between killing it three weeks versus two weeks before?

Birth is a clear and objective line.

Indeed. I think that as long as the cord still has a pulse, the fetus is still functioning as a parasite feeding of a host (mommy) due to cord blood flow. So regardless of 'viability', only upon birth when that cord is clamped and cut, does the fetus (potential human being) become an actual human being and then aquires rights. Legally it would only be considered murder after the cutting, not before.

Now, say, if upon birth they wait for the cord pulse to stop, one could certainly make a case that the moment that happens, the fetus becomes and actual human being, because it would no longer be dependent upon mommy biologically.

Edited September 22, 2012 by intellectualammo

[Ninth Doctor]

So regardless of 'viability', only upon birth when that cord is clamped and cut, does the fetus (potential human being) become an actual human being and then aquires rights. Legally it would only be considered murder after the cutting, not before.

Meaning what? The mother can order the newborn dismembered and brains sucked out with a needle to make the skull collapse after it has been delivered, but not once the umbilical cord is cut? Rights are totally on/off, like a light switch? If that’s what you mean, wow…

OTOH, in Sparta among other places, this was pretty much the deal; actually back then you had much longer to decide.

[Spiral Architect]

Meaning what? The mother can order the newborn dismembered and brains sucked out with a needle to make the skull collapse after it has been delivered, but not once the umbilical cord is cut? Rights are totally on/off, like a light switch? If that’s what you mean, wow…

OTOH, in Sparta among other places, this was pretty much the deal; actually back then you had much longer to decide.

Fourth trimester abortion?

[softwareNerd]

Fourth trimester abortion?

Spartan infanticide.

[Ninth Doctor]

Spartan infanticide.

Yeah well we don’t have Spartan writings, we mainly know about them from what Athenians wrote, and we must bear in mind that they were rivals/enemies. I forget who it was, Aristo-Xeno-something I bet, who wrote about how Spartans would ritualistically cook up and eat baby baby back ribs, in lieu of the more generally accepted haruspicy methods. So, barring ancient intercity-state libel, thousands of years too late to properly adjudicate, this ought to explain the lack of infant bones in this particular midden.

You’re not trying to change the subject, right?

[Grames]

You’re not trying to change the subject, right?

Is there anything more to say on this?

Herodotus writes about the practice of exposure, putting rejected infants on a mountainside to die. So this was a practice known to the Greeks even if not as systematically practiced in Sparta as was thought. Actually, Herodotus tells a story about exposure involving a Persian royal family. Hmmm.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

How about we extend some leniency both ways, so if the mother dies during childbirth the baby can't be accused of manslaughter.

[Ninth Doctor]

Is there anything more to say on this?

I don’t think so. Does anyone question that infanticide is a well-attested ancient practice from numerous cultures? I brought it up to show that there is precedent for waiting until after the umbilical cord is cut to kill a baby, and obviously I’m not in favor of this.

How about we extend some leniency both ways, so if the mother dies during childbirth the baby can't be accused of manslaughter.

Why would that ever happen? This does bring up a point, however, the fact that newborns aren’t yet moral agents, and won’t be for years. Somewhere or other, I think it’s in one of the interviews you can watch on YouTube, Rand talks about how you can only “claim rights for your mind”; newborns, toddlers, maybe even up to age of ten, does the developing mind qualify? You can’t vote, or even sign an enforceable contract until 18…

P.S. the part about baby baby back ribs was a kind of inside-baseball joke, it might seem overly bizarre to someone not familiar with the kerfuffle I was poking fun at.

[Nicky]

How about we extend some leniency both ways, so if the mother dies during childbirth the baby can't be accused of manslaughter.

Now you've gone too far. Are you saying that if an 18 year old kills his mother by shooting her with a shotgun, we should just let him?

[Grames]

How about we extend some leniency both ways, so if the mother dies during childbirth the baby can't be accused of manslaughter.

A clever quip. I smiled.

P.S. the part about baby baby back ribs was a kind of inside-baseball joke, it might seem overly bizarre to someone not familiar with the kerfuffle I was poking fun at.

I saw what you did there and thought it was funny.

Now you've gone too far. Are you saying that if an 18 year old kills his mother by shooting her with a shotgun, we should just let him?

What the hell are you up to? I don't even .... huh?

[intellectualammo]

Meaning what? The mother can order the newborn dismembered and brains sucked out with a needle to make the skull collapse after it has been delivered, but not once the umbilical cord is cut? Rights are totally on/off, like a light switch? If that’s what you mean, wow…

Once the fetus has been delivered, if there is a cord pulse between mommy and fetus, which still pulses for like 5-20minutes or so (according to one source) after delivery, that is not a new born human, it is merely a fetus outside of the womb, because it still isusing mommy as a host, it is not completely independent of her, so it is not an actual human being, and still only a potential human being

The point is, the objective line is drawn, I think, when, biologically speaking, the fetus is no longer using mommy like a host, stops being parasitical, and lives/survies all on it's own apart from mommy, if it even can. Some require incubator (think: premies), in an incubator, it's an actual human being whether or not of it's dependency on medical equiptment, because it no longer requires a biological host, is independent from mommy in every biological/physiological way, but is unable to survive on it's own without the use of medical assistence is all.

[Grames]

Once the fetus has been delivered, if there is a cord pulse between mommy and fetus, which still pulses for like 5-20minutes or so (according to one source) after delivery, that is not a new born human, it is merely a fetus outside of the womb, because it still isusing mommy as a host, it is not completely independent of her, so it is not an actual human being, and still only a potential human being

The point is, the objective line is drawn, I think, when, biologically speaking, the fetus is no longer using mommy like a host, stops being parasitical, and lives/survies all on it's own apart from mommy, if it even can. Some require incubator (think: premies), in an incubator, it's an actual human being whether or not of it's dependency on medical equiptment, because it no longer requires a biological host, is independent from mommy in every biological/physiological way, but is unable to survive on it's own without the use of medical assistence is all.

I disagree with this. Once born, the umbilical is not longer essential to the survival of the infant, and so it should not be considered essential in your account of rights and evaluation of the independence of the infant.

[intellectualammo]

I disagree with this. Once born, the umbilical is not longer essential to the survival of the infant, and so it should not be considered essential in your account of rights and evaluation of the independence of the infant.

When there is a pulse, I would argue that it still can be a dependency, and still definately not independent/separate from it's host (mommy), regardless. Isn't that how the fetus "breathes", through the oxygenated blood supply from mommy, even once it's been delivered? Whether or not it needs it, it is still drawing from it's host, as long as the pulse continues.

With your reasoning, what then stops the line from being drawn at 'viability', being the cord supply is just superfluous then, as it could survive as an independent?

This is why I draw that line where I do and objective law should as well, I think.

Edited September 23, 2012 by intellectualammo

[Grames]

When the infant is born and starts breathing air on its own, that is the moment the umbilical cord is in fact superfluous not at 'viability', however that is defined. edit: Viability is just another kind of potential.

There is also the status of the infant's consciousness to consider. In the womb a fetus is effectively in a sensory deprivation chamber. Once born an infant's consciousness will be aware of reality through the senses in the same manner as an adult (although of course not with adult skill from the first). As the Objectivist case for rights centers on having a faculty of rationality, and that requires awareness of existence, the moment of birth is when 'the lights go on' and the infant's consciousness can begin differentiating and integrating and understanding the surroundings.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Grames

[Craig24]

When there is a pulse, I would argue that it still can be a dependency, and still definately not independent/separate from it's host (mommy), regardless. Isn't that how the fetus "breathes", through the oxygenated blood supply from mommy, even once it's been delivered? Whether or not it needs it, it is still drawing from it's host, as long as the pulse continues.

With your reasoning, what then stops the line from being drawn at 'viability', being the cord supply is just superfluous then, as it could survive as an independent?

This is why I draw that line where I do and objective law should as well, I think.

The fact that you can just cut the cord without killing or injuring the child should be a clue here.

[DonAthos]

I don't believe I have good answers for the questions here, but I'm dissatisfied with "birth" being the dividing line between an individual with rights and (as the Doc puts it) "an entity" that can be dispatched at will.

I'm recently a father. My wife and I had our child via C-section at 37 weeks, a perfectly healthy girl with no need for any special care. The idea of that child being slaughtered the moment after birth, and having that called a crime (and in fact among our very highest), versus doing the same in utero and having that be pronounced completely kosher (we could say 10 minutes before the C-section against 10 minutes after), is both nauseating in contemplation, and strikes me as utterly wrong.

And we don't necessarily need to be framing this as "the mother's right to choose"; let's say the mother's crazy ex-boyfriend or something decides to kill the child against her will. Are we saying that 10 minutes after that procedure, he would be guilty of murdering the child... but if he were to somehow trigger a miscarriage 10 minutes before, that would be what? Ordinary assault against the mother? It's not "murder" if he beats the C-section?

[Grames]

.. is both nauseating in contemplation, and strikes me as utterly wrong.

It is wrong. Morally wrong. Such nausea is justified. But the law is not about feelings, it is (or should be) about what is objective and provable and clearly understandable boundaries.

Even if 'fetal viability' were to be made the legal standard of defining personhood for murder, there would still be threshold at which 10 minutes after killing the fetus is murder but 10 minutes before is miscarriage. The threshold would merely be moved to a different time. There is no escaping the need to draw a line, or the consequences of having a line.

[DonAthos]

It is wrong. Morally wrong. Such nausea is justified. But the law is not about feelings, it is (or should be) about what is objective and provable and clearly understandable boundaries.

Even if 'fetal viability' were to be made the legal standard of defining personhood for murder, there would still be threshold at which 10 minutes after killing the fetus is murder but 10 minutes before is miscarriage. The threshold would merely be moved to a different time. There is no escaping the need to draw a line, or the consequences of having a line.

We're agreed that there needs to be a threshold, but that threshold ought to be meaningful. The question before us, I believe, is one of rights, and at what point the Doctor's "entity" is a human being who has rights. As best as I can reckon, the source of those rights cannot be simply whether "the cord has been cut." My argument as to 10 minutes before a C-section or after is not to argue against any possible boundary, but it is to insist that there is so little difference between these two specific scenarios when it comes to the nature of the child (for it is a child in both cases) that we cannot possibly have "rights" in one case and not the other.

A couple of weeks before birth, my wife had a small scare with spotting -- the placement of our child's placenta was close to my wife's cervix, so it was a rather big deal. When we consulted with our doctor, she told us to rush to the emergency room in any such case, because, based upon her development, our child was perfectly viable and could be delivered safely at any time. I don't mean to argue that "viability" ought to be the line exactly, I don't know what should, but it seems to me that this is far more meaningful than birth with respect to the nature of the child in question.

And I know that earlier you raised the point that the womb functions as a kind of "sensory deprivation chamber," and thus a child in utero is impeded from developing whatever consciousness an Objectivist might cite as the source of rights. But a couple of things:

1) You'd said this: "As the Objectivist case for rights centers on having a faculty of rationality, and that requires awareness of existence, the moment of birth is when 'the lights go on' and the infant's consciousness can begin differentiating and integrating and understanding the surroundings."

A faculty of rationality is a function of the biological reality of a human being, not a function of his surroundings. A child in the womb has the *faculty of rationality*, if not the material to put that faculty to good use, just as a just-born infant has the faculty of speech, if no knowledge of language or motor control to utilize it.

2) It's just factually wrong that a fetus "is effectively in a sensory deprivation chamber." With the caveat that I'm no expert, I'm pretty certain that children in the womb can hear in some capacity... and I don't know what other sensory abilities they might possess, nor what early consciousness may develop accordingly, but I am sure that this takes place too.

I've heard it said that some just-born children show an affinity for their mother's voice, presumably because they have heard it so often before and have developed an attachment. And soothing strategies such as swaddling, rocking, shushing, etc., work because they reproduce to some degree the child's experience in the womb, in terms of noise, motion, and other physical sensations.

Edited September 24, 2012 by DonAthos