Obviously, in and of itself, being able to remember does not make on a person, as animals can remember. However, for most of those who believe that personhood is a separate idea than humanity, the idea of consciousness and mental abilities often play into their equations, for lack of a better word, for determining personhood.
Repeatedly, science has shown us the complexity of an unborn human. The more we study them, the more advanced we find them to be. A recent study found that fetuses at the 30 week mark had short term memory. Those at 34 weeks could retrieve remembered information four weeks later.
Knowing this, is there anyone who still wants to defend the legality and morality of partial-birth abortions on late term babies? The abortion debate will not be solved presently, but can we not move forward to eliminate those procedures which are the most brutal and focus on individuals which can remember and experience pain?
The ABC News presentation on this story didn't even bother to mention that this might have something to do with the abortion debate.
:(
I guess I'm glad they presented it at all.
I don't think it's that simple. What about circumstances where the woman's physical health is really, truly in danger? What about when the fetus is so deformed (as with babies born without a brain) that no real personhood is possible? It seems to me that anti-abortion activists always shortchange or brush aside the woman's side of things.
Louis,
Do you know of any individual pro-life people who don't believe that there should be exceptions for mother-in-danger situations? (I'd be suprised, though I suppose it's not implausible that some would take a stance like that, I've just never ever heard it).
Any organizations? (I know that no Pro-life organization takes this position)
As for your example, I think "born without a brain" is to say, "dead". No real debate there. There are other congenital defects that present more complex decisions, such as where the baby is not expected to be able to live for more than a few hours outside the womb. I know where I stand on that, and I know that most, not all, but most pro-life PACs would gladly make that concession.
Let's not forget to add rape and incest. Again, the vast majority of pro-life groups and pacs gladly make that concession.
Why? Because these are red herrings. They constitute less than 2% of all abortions. Abortion exists today as birth control post-conception and a way to avoid responsibility and accountability for actions taken.
Those that don't allow for that, do so because it damages the reputability of the absolute moral position. I sympathize, but frankly, in the choice between more murders and less murders… I choose less murders.
That said, I think you will recognize and agree that a fundamentally important question as it relates to abortion is, at what point does a human become a human? Is it when the first breath is taken? Is it two days later? Is it some time quite before that? Most feel it's quite a long time before the first breath is taken… The Roe v Wade "clear bright line" between person and non-person has never been achieved (the only one I know of is conception vs. not, but I have no illusions that anything close to a majority concedes that). It is important, I hope you would agree, that we are not murdering people.
Again, I object to the term "murder" when referring to abortion as it poisons the debate and makes reasonable discussion possible (eg, "Why do you support murdering innocent babies?").
"Without a brain" was an inexact phrase. Hydroencephalism? When everything but the brain stem is missing?
I don't think it's a red herring to account for the mother's health. That's a red herring put forth by anti-abortion forces as well. Totally outlawing late-term abortions doesn't account for these instances.
There's too much absolutism and fanaticism surrounding this issue. Also, since it doesn't affect me one way or the other, I'll leave it to those it does affect the most – women. Perhaps if you conservative religionists join me in my quest for justice for gay people I'll join you in your campaign for fetuses.
I don't think it's a red herring to account for the mother's health.
You subtly substitution mother's health when the original issue was the mother's life. That is the sticking point.
In these discussion those who support the legality of all abortions do not want language that protects the mother's life, they want "mother's health." Why? Because mother's health has been used to mean anything and everything. It can be physical health, emotional health, financial health, etc. So it essentially means nothing or anything as the case may be.
Also, since it doesn't affect me one way or the other, I'll leave it to those it does affect the most – women.
By that logic, why would any straight person care about gay marriage as it does not personally affect me?
But to your point, if the majority of women opposed abortion should it be illegal? Do men not play a role in pregnancy and reproduction? Do you really want to decide all public policy decisions by this standard? How about we say that only those who pay taxes (ie they do not get all their taxes back) have a say in government spending matters? Do you really want to go down that road or is your saying "I'll just leave it to woman" a way to ignore the issue while sounding magnanimous?
Perhaps if you conservative religionists join me in my quest for justice for gay people I'll join you in your campaign for fetuses.
So your support for other public policy issues can be bought off for support for gay marriage?
You subtly substitution mother's health when the original issue was the mother's life.
I'm not "subtly" substituting anything! My post specifically mentions health and qualifies it with the words "really, truly." Why are you distorting what I said? Is it to intimidate me into submission?
By that logic, why would any straight person care about gay marriage as it does not personally affect me?
They shouldn't. They should mind their own business and their own marriages and leave us alone!
Do you really want to go down that road or is your saying "I'll just leave it to woman" a way to ignore the issue while sounding magnanimous?
No, it's my way of saying that, as a gay man, it doesn't really affect me and I've got enough on my plate. Understand?
So your support for other public policy issues can be bought off for support for gay marriage?
This is why I should stay out of the abortion debate: it does nothing but bring out the worst in people. I found your response to be full of a uncharacteristic nastiness. This is what this issue does to people. I have nothing more to say (don't bother to respond as I'll just ignore it).
Is it to intimidate me into submission?
What are you talking about? I'm not trying to intimidate you at all, much less into submission.
If you only meant issues where the mother's life was in danger, then I apologize. But you have to understand that as someone who is pro-life I have seen countless bills that were supposed to limit abortions be effectively rendered useless because of a mother's health exception. As I said, "mother's health" means essentially anything and everything. I does nothing to limit abortion as a birth control method.
They should mind their own business and their own marriages and leave us alone!
So no straight people should vote in favor of changing the legal definition of marriage?
No, it's my way of saying that, as a gay man, it doesn't really affect me and I've got enough on my plate. Understand?
I do, but I would like you to understand is that if you really thought about it you do not want that line of thinking applied to other issues. You are not passionate about abortion because it doesn't personally affect you. But what I'm saying is that we should discuss and engage policy issues based on principles not on personal impact.
There are some issues which I go against what would benefit me personally and immediately. I'm in the lower tax brackets, but I support cutting taxes on the higher incomes and opposes giving additional refunds to my own tax bracket. My principle out weights my personal gain.
I don't expect abortion to automatically be that way for you, but I would like to see you change your rationale because I don't believe you want it extended to other issues that are more personal and passionate to you.
I found your response to be full of a uncharacteristic nastiness.
If that is the case, I apologize it came across that way. That was not the tone in my head while writing it.
30+ weeks is a grey area. There is no way to know exactly when a fetus becomes a person, when a child becomes an adult. Both are processes.
Regarding memory, it depends. The severly retarded, serious cases of alzheimers and amnesia are people, though disabled. But take it to the extreme like in Terri Shaivo's case. Why was it legal to unplug her feeding tube? Because with a liquified brain, she lost all that made her a person, cognitive skills, memories, etc. In religious terms, she was an empty vessel.
You say that it is gray. My question would be, should you be able to kill a human being at any stage of development that can remember and feel pain?
If science continues to find out the advance nature of these unborn humans should we not continue to slide the personhood marker further down the line?
"If science continues to find out the advance nature of these unborn humans should we not continue to slide the personhood marker further down the line?"
Yes, we should, if the markers are clear. They are not. Take for example the markers of adulthood. Puberty? Well a 12 year old female can be in puberty but would you call her an adult? The age of 18? Well, what's that age based upon? In some countries it's 16 other's it's 18. Now when we are speaking about "personhood" the markers are even LESS clear. It's difficult to even define what a person legally is!
"My question would be, should you be able to kill a human being at any stage of development that can remember and feel pain?"
We should not be able to if the criteria used for "personhood" is simply memories and the ability to feel pain. Isn't the sum of a person actually more than just that? You are not not nearly as nuanced as I, Aaron. You don't differentiate between a human being and a person. Terri Shaivo was definitely a human being when they unplugged her feeding tube, but she was not a person anymore. She was gone by then.
Is it a knee jerk reaction for you to insert Terri Shaivo into every comment about personhood? Nobody said anything about her. My questions were about the scientific findings on unborn babies in the womb?
Shaivo is a totally different question. If someone is brain dead then wouldn't remember or feel pain, that was my question.
Isn't the sum of a person actually more than just that?
Take note of the fact that in the post I say that memories (and the sensation of pain could be added as well) alone do not make something or someone a person since animals possess those things. However those things are normal characteristics of people and those are facts about the unborn that we were not aware of until recently.
My question is about the discoveries that science is making about those in the womb, the more they discover about them, the more characteristics they possess that is similar to persons outside the womb. When is it enough?
I know I'm trying to pin down something that you do not see as being able to be pinned down, but is there not a point at which you say that this human in the womb, because they possess all of these characteristics that we formerly didn't know they had, is a person?
"Nobody said anything about her."
Actually, someone did. Me. I'll bring her into a personhood discussion if I so chose. I think she is a perfect example of a human being who lost her personhood. Terri Shaivo died long before her body did. Pro-life advocates have a tough time dealing with that fact. You yourself didn't distinguish between a human being and a person. You need to do that in order to talk about babies in the womb. You think a blastocyst qualifies as an unborn baby. I think a blastocyst is human, but not a person yet.
"Shaivo is a totally different question. If someone is brain dead then wouldn't remember or feel pain, that was my question."
Which I answered, right? The sum of a person is more than just feeling pain and memories. Instead of a liquid brain, her head trauma could have resulted in amnesia and a spinal injury where she couldn't feel anything. She'd still be a person in that scenario, yes?
"When is it enough?"
Like I keep saying, it's a grey area. It can't be determined any more than trying to pinpoint exactly when someone becomes an adult no matter how much science we know about adults. It's subjective. Here's one that will really bake your cookies, the markers for both adulthood and personhood vary from one individual to the next. Some people enter puberty at an earlier age than others. Some remember things from an earlier age than others. Some feel pain before others. So, how is it even possible to derive a one rule applies to all knowing that information?
"is there not a point at which you say that this human in the womb"
Yes, but it's ethically mushy. Not everything fits into a simple right or wrong, black or white, non-person – person framework. I'd consider myself as being dishonest if I said I knew. That's why I dismiss those who say they do know, like at conception. They don't KNOW any better than I do about when personhood begins. They just treat their belief as knowledge instead. Pro-lifers think the KNOW enough to tar pro-choicers as murderers. tsk, tsk, tsk.
I wonder Cineaste, do you think that it is important that we "get it right" in terms of making sure that no persons are murdered? Assuming so, how important, and what's an acceptable mark?
Now obviously we're not talking about an agreed upon acceptable standard, but for the sake of ease of discussion, let's give the topic of the article: memory.
Let's say that the ability to make memories indicated personhood. You rightly state that each person is different, so let's assume that people reach the place of being able to make memories at different times in the womb. Should we go on a percentage? What's acceptable to you? Like if we could say that 80% of babies can make memories in the womb at 22 weeks, does 22 weeks become a good cutoff in your mind? Should we wait for 100%? What if 1% can make memories by week 12? Should we make it 12 weeks? 10 weeks just to be sure?
Where's your threshold?
"I wonder Cineaste, do you think that it is important that we "get it right" in terms of making sure that no persons are murdered?"
There is no way to get it "right." There is no right age, it's somewhat arbitrary. I'll use the age of adulthood as an analogy for the age of personhood. Both are processes so there is no magic or scientific point in time that one can say, "BOOM! This is an adult" or "This is a person." If someone claims to know exactly when adulthood/personhood begins, they are either lying or ignorant.
It's important to get the age of consent correct, right? We wouldn't want any children to get raped. Assuming so, how important, and what's an acceptable mark?
Let's say that puberty indicated adulthood. You rightly state that each person is different, so let's assume that girls reach puberty at different ages between 10-20. Should we go on a percentage? What's acceptable to you? Like if we could say that 80% of females can make can make babies at 13 years old, does 13 years old become a good cutoff in your mind? Should we wait for 100%? What if 1% can make babies can make babies at 10? Should we make the age of consent 10 years old? 11 years old just to be sure?
What's your threshold?
Of course there is a way to "get it right".
Is that why you didn't answer further?
My threshold is 100% certainty. The original Roe v Wade decision actually called for a "clear bright line", which I think is consistent with my view. If the question at hand is "murder v not murder", I'm just not comfortable with any margin of error.
"My threshold is 100% certainty."
I thought I just showed you that you can't ever be 100% certain about when a person becomes a person. It's like being 100% certain about when an adult becomes an adult. It's wishful thinking. It would be nice to live in such a simplistic world where clear bright lines exist for these issues, but in reality, the world is more complicated than that.
"I'm just not comfortable with any margin of error."
That's too bad for you then. You seem to be comfortable with a margin of error for statutory rape, not statutory rape. In some countries the age of consent is 16, others 18. What is the real exact point of adulthood?
Conflating issues does not bring clarity or added information. It's simply a form of disembling. We're not talking about puberty or statutory rape. We're talking about murder or not murder, of children in the womb.
Or, let's clarify this: Do you think that children should be aborted up to and possibly including puberty? Do you think statutory rape is as bad a thing as ending a life? I'm kind of assuming that you understand that you're falsely creating apples to oranges situations, but let's really get it out there. Do you recognize a difference?
As far as "showing me," something… all you showed is why you're confused about personhood in general.
What you didn't show is that I, you, or anyone is incapable of being 100% sure that you will never ever abort a person.
How do you abort someone in puberty?
"…all you showed is why you're confused about personhood in general."
As we all are unless one is an ignorant fool or a liar. You don't know when personhood begins, so don't pretend you do.
"…you're falsely creating apples to oranges situations"
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I happen disagree with you. I use the age of adulthood as an analogy for the age of personhood because both are processes. So, there is no magic or scientific point in time that one can say, "BOOM! This is an adult" or "This is a person." In this respect, I think it's pretty clear that it's an apples to apples comparison.
"Do you think that children should be aborted up to and possibly including puberty?"
Why, of course! Why bother even asking?
"How do you abort someone in puberty?"
Hehe, you caught that too, Louis.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you're not being intentionally dense here (snarky, sure, but that's easy to look past).
There is a difference between these two things:
I know when personhood begins.
I know that I can be 100% sure of never aborting a person.
Right?
(As for how do you abort a teen? Abort is just another word for murder. You find that distasteful, and want to couch the argument with silly meaningless words like "abort" and "blastocyt", that's fine by me, but the confusion is yours.)
As for it being a process. You're exactly on the right track. And I think you're running into a little thing called cognitive dissonance, which is why you've failed repeatedly to see the above distinction.
There's another thing you might clarify, Cineaste, because I'm pretty sure you have an epistomological problem here:
How do you *know* what you claim to *know*, namely that no-one can *know*?
I'm quite certian that you can be certain about your own lack of certainty, but when you are certain about my certainty, it makes me very curious about your sourcing.
Here's the problem: James (and other anti-abortion advocates) are trying to seize control of the argument by redefining the meaning of the words used. Thus, he redefines the meaning of the word "abort" to mean "murder" to suit his own socio-political agenda. This is a clear distortion of the clear meaning of the word as illustrated by the absurd use of it as applied to adolescents. There is no reason for the rest of us to acquiesce to this subterfuge, and it should be met with derision and ignored.
Look, here's the point you're missing:
You think that you can't know when a person becomes a person. This leads you to the conclusion that it's okay to kill what may or may not be a person.
I think that unless you can conclusively know when a person is a person or not a person, then you should not be too cavalier about ending that life (which may not be a life, but you don't know, as you readily admit).
It's too important a question, with consequences too final, to play fast and loose with.
"It's too important a question, with consequences too final, to play fast and loose with."
I'd say that statutory rape is also a very important question, with final consequences, to play fast and loose with. Yet, some countries have an age of consent set at 18 and some at 16.
To paraphrase your sentence, "this leads you to the conclusion that it's okay to have sex with what may or may not be a child."
Oh good, so you agree that abortion should not be legal except in the case of the mother's life being in danger?
ROFLMAO!