Abortion

[Danoff]

The thing you're talking about may become human. You're granting it current human status based on what it may become in the future.

I'd parse it a little differently. A fetus is human, just like Terri Schaivo and Saddam Hussein. It's just not a human person with rights (but neither are the others).

 

[fortbo]

The thing you're talking about may become human. You're granting it current human status based on what it may become in the future.

Which is fine, as far as that reasoning goes. But you're granting it human status while it's merely a collection of cells based on the fact that it may become human. If you're going to make decisions based on what may happen in the future, you don't get to cherry pick only the nice stuff. That human could just as easily be the next Ghandi or the next Pol Pot.

You don't get to say "well, they haven't done anything yet". They're not human yet either, but that's not stopping you from granting them human rights.

Humans tend to object to prejudgement of crimes, on the basis that it's not really a crime until you actually do it. I don't see why being a human is different. You don't get human rights until you're actually behaving as a human. Wiggling around like a little parasitic slug in some poor woman's stomach doesn't quite cut it for human behaviour to me.

I respect your opinion. You have made some good points. But how could you say an unborn baby is not human? It has human DNA, which is also different from its mother's. On a cellular level it's a human. Also what would you call a premature baby? It's still human isn't it? So if a baby is not born yet it is not human?

 

[Imari]

I respect your opinion. You have made some good points. But how could you say an unborn baby is not human? It has human DNA, which is also different from its mother's. On a cellular level it's a human. Also what would you call a premature baby? It's still human isn't it? So if a baby is not born yet it is not human?

Danoff worded it better than me.

It's analytically human, if you're going by it's DNA. It's not a human, in terms of being a person with associated rights, any more than a person with catastrophic brain damage stuck in a permanent coma and being kept alive by machines is.

We don't just hand out rights to anyone with human DNA, as shown by the examples of all the people who have had their rights deliberately taken away. We hand out rights to people who can function as people (I suspect "people" may be a better word to try and make the distinction I'm trying to make).

So yes, a foetus is human. No, it's not a "person".

As someone said earlier, moral rights don't really start until the baby is self-aware, conscious and at least moderately independent, which is way, way, way after birth. Cute as they are, babies are little eating and pooping machines that if not continuously maintained tend to die pretty quickly for a good wee while after they pop out. To be on the safe side, most people just draw the line at birth because that's an easily definable moment that is always before the baby requires moral rights.

So correcting my earlier misspeaking, no, a premature baby is not a person either. Human, yes. Person, no. We grant them rights at that point for the same reason we grant other babies rights at birth, because it's convenient.


There's a parallel to abortion in the way animals are treated. A good person looks after an animal if possible, because it's the kind thing to do (and they're cute little buggers). But if it's suffering, or if it can't be kept properly, then the decent thing to do is put your animal down. It's not pleasant, but it's the right thing if an animal can't be given a real home for whatever reason.

I don't see why that same logic doesn't apply to humans. If you can't or won't give your foetus a real home and proper care after it's born, you shouldn't have it and you shouldn't be forced to have it. People tend to be a bit squeamish about bopping babies on the head after they're born like we do with puppies and kittens, so they do it early on before the baby is quite so adorable. Understandable.

 

[Omnis]

You're confusing "human" with "person". One is a biological concept, the other is legal.

Please don't say your baby isn't a human. People will laugh at you, and then they'll look at you funny.

 

[KSaiyu]

This theme of distinguishing between human and person makes me slightly uneasy. I can't argue against the logic, and truthfully it's something I would agree on some points with. But what's to stop someone in the future bringing the same logic towards the elderly. It's entirely possible that in the future someone could compare a dementia patient to the foetus described in the last few posts with a few tweaks to this argument. Instead of having the potential to be a person, this human has lived as a person and is already "dead" as a person; it's not what they have done (will possible do in the case of the foetus), it's what they are now. The "parasite" is the patient, the "host" their family that will have to give up time/money, sometimes to the detriment of their mental/physical health or potentially the society they live in as more money is diverted from health insurance for their care.

Does the host get to divorce themselves from responsibility as easily anymore?

 

[zzz_pt]

This theme of distinguishing between human and person makes me slightly uneasy. I can't argue against the logic, and truthfully it's something I would agree on some points with. But what's to stop someone in the future bringing the same logic towards the elderly. It's entirely possible that in the future someone could compare a dementia patient to the foetus described in the last few posts with a few tweaks to this argument. Instead of having the potential to be a person, this human has lived as a person and is already "dead" as a person; it's not what they have done (will possible do in the case of the foetus), it's what they are now. The "parasite" is the patient, the "host" their family that will have to give up time/money, sometimes to the detriment of their mental/physical health or potentially the society they live in as more money is diverted from health insurance for their care.

Does the host get to divorce themselves from responsibility as easily anymore?

Very creative... But I don't see the similarity between a non-person and a person.

 

[Imari]

This theme of distinguishing between human and person makes me slightly uneasy. I can't argue against the logic, and truthfully it's something I would agree on some points with. But what's to stop someone in the future bringing the same logic towards the elderly. It's entirely possible that in the future someone could compare a dementia patient to the foetus described in the last few posts with a few tweaks to this argument. Instead of having the potential to be a person, this human has lived as a person and is already "dead" as a person; it's not what they have done (will possible do in the case of the foetus), it's what they are now. The "parasite" is the patient, the "host" their family that will have to give up time/money, sometimes to the detriment of their mental/physical health or potentially the society they live in as more money is diverted from health insurance for their care.

Does the host get to divorce themselves from responsibility as easily anymore?

Dementia, probably not. They can still potentially function as a person to some degree, even if they're not quite sure whether they're coming or going.

And the family is absolutely able to refuse to look after them if they so wish, which is the social equivalent of that abortion. The difference is that a foetus immediately dies if removed from it's host, whereas a dementia patient doesn't necessarily die. If a dementia patient does die while the family isn't looking after them, that isn't a murder charge, as far as I'm aware.

It comes back to the definition of a person as being independent. Beings who are not independent live at the whim of those they're dependent on, and that's as it should be.

 

[Famine]

I respect your opinion. You have made some good points. But how could you say an unborn baby is not human? It has human DNA, which is also different from its mother's. On a cellular level it's a human.

You're confusing "human" with "person". One is a biological concept, the other is legal.

Please don't say your baby isn't a human. People will laugh at you, and then they'll look at you funny.

My liver is human. It's not a human.

This theme of distinguishing between human and person makes me slightly uneasy. I can't argue against the logic, and truthfully it's something I would agree on some points with. But what's to stop someone in the future bringing the same logic towards the elderly. It's entirely possible that in the future someone could compare a dementia patient to the foetus described in the last few posts with a few tweaks to this argument. Instead of having the potential to be a person, this human has lived as a person and is already "dead" as a person; it's not what they have done (will possible do in the case of the foetus), it's what they are now. The "parasite" is the patient, the "host" their family that will have to give up time/money, sometimes to the detriment of their mental/physical health or potentially the society they live in as more money is diverted from health insurance for their care.

Does the host get to divorce themselves from responsibility as easily anymore?

Terri Schiavo

If you only knew how many people wished to no longer be classed as human (while they're still able to choose for themselves) so that killing them would not be classed as a crime...

 

[KSaiyu]

Very creative...

Thanks. Combination of 5 days off work and forgetting to buy my silverstone ticket whilst my partner bought hers months ago

But I don't see the similarity between a non-person and a person.

You not seeing it doesn't stop others in the future.

Dementia, probably not. They can still potentially function as a person to some degree, even if they're not quite sure whether they're coming or going.

And the family is absolutely able to refuse to look after them if they so wish, which is the social equivalent of that abortion. The difference is that a foetus immediately dies if removed from it's host, whereas a dementia patient doesn't necessarily die. If a dementia patient does die while the family isn't looking after them, that isn't a murder charge, as far as I'm aware.

It comes back to the definition of a person as being independent. Beings who are not independent live at the whim of those they're dependent on, and that's as it should be.

Dementia has a wide prognosis. You're lucky when they can still "function as a person to some degree", but my experience suggests these are indeed the "lucky" ones. It's no exaggeration to say that with some sufferers they are no different to the creatures in The Walking Dead. Also the murder charge is something I'm not 100% on, but you will be charged with something (we term it as "safeguarding" when we have concerns about the care provided to a patient admitted from the community).

If you only knew how many people wished to no longer be classed as human (while they're still able to choose for themselves) so that killing them would not be classed as a crime...

Unfortunately I do. One of the hardest parts of my job is caring for patients who ask to die but you have to ignore as you can't determine if it's the confusion talking or the person. Bringing back The Walking Dead, I sometimes wonder what the difference is between that guy who cares for his zombie daughter and what we as carers are doing, and why it is noble to prolong suffering in this world but ludicrous in a TV show. Almost 90% of doctors would opt for an advanced directive witholding resus at end-of-life for themselves. It's a pet peeve of mine when pro-lifers can't accept that you can be against abortion on demand but believe in assisted suicide provided a person has capacity.

Still I digress.. so far no-one has said anything to stop this scenario being plausible in the future: The "host" wants to terminate the "parasite".

 

[Famine]

Unfortunately I do. One of the hardest parts of my job is caring for patients who ask to die but you have to ignore as you can't determine if it's the confusion talking or the person. Bringing back The Walking Dead, I sometimes wonder what the difference is between that guy who cares for his zombie daughter and what we as carers are doing, and why it is noble to prolong suffering in this world but ludicrous in a TV show. Almost 90% of doctors would opt for an advanced directive witholding resus at end-of-life for themselves. It's a pet peeve of mine when pro-lifers can't accept that you can be against abortion on demand but believe in assisted suicide provided a person has capacity.

Still I digress.. so far no-one has said anything to stop this scenario being plausible in the future: The "host" wants to terminate the "parasite".

We've been posting pictures of Terry Schiavo - the point being that it happens now.

 

[Imari]

Dementia has a wide prognosis. You're lucky when they can still "function as a person to some degree", but my experience suggests these are indeed the "lucky" ones. It's no exaggeration to say that with some sufferers they are no different to the creatures in The Walking Dead.

Sure. I'm not that familiar with the most extreme symptoms, but looking at Wikipedia it does seem like the worst ones might as well have had their brains removed. Shall we just say that the worst ones are completely incapable?

Also the murder charge is something I'm not 100% on, but you will be charged with something (we term it as "safeguarding" when we have concerns about the care provided to a patient admitted from the community).

If someone accepted care of that patient, sure. In a certain sense, it's a contract to safeguard that person's wellbeing. As that person is incompetent, it would be rude to just ditch them without consultation with the appropriate authorities.

Surely someone can't be forced to accept care of their family member though?

If say, my mother develops severe dementia and needs care, I shouldn't be able to be forced to take care of her just because no one else will. Maybe I have a high-powered job, a bunch of kids, a wife who already requires care and so on. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I just can't in good conscience accept the responsibility because it will either drive me into an early grave, or I'll have to neglect one of the people I'm supposedly caring for.

Ditto if someone has accepted care of someone, I'd imagine they'd have to be able to give it up with the proper notice if their situation changed. People can't be forced to take care of other people just because the government says so, that's when they start slipping them pills and ground glass and stuff.

I admit that I have no idea how all this stuff works in the real world, but I'd hope it follows the rule that you can't make people accept responsibility for someone else's life. They have to accept it willingly.

 

[DK]

A life as Terri Schiavo (or Tony Nicklinson) sounds like hell on Earth to me. I don't want to put my family through years of anguish as they wait for something to cure me or for my brain to come back to life. Locked-in syndrome just seems like a disease that a North Korean/Nazi torturer would invent.

@fortbo, I'm willing to guess that due to your views on abortion, you vote Republican. To me, it seems callous to completely outlaw abortion (as you seem to suggest) simply because only a minority of women die during pregnancy and childbirth in the USA - they're still dying, by the way. It seems especially callous when, as an assumed Republican, your party supports slashing all sorts of welfare provisions - and if a single woman is left disabled by her pregnancy (which you force her to carry to term), I'm going to assume that there will be next to no supports for her besides private charity.

Here's a basic list of health risks during pregnancy. Not all of them can be shrugged off as easily as a common cold.

 

[KSaiyu]

We've been posting pictures of Terry Schiavo - the point being that it happens now.

It is. My point is are we willing to accept a shift in attitudes so far that we can have a Josie Cunningham type indifference to life in the not so far future?

Surely someone can't be forced to accept care of their family member though?

If say, my mother develops severe dementia and needs care, I shouldn't be able to be forced to take care of her just because no one else will. Maybe I have a high-powered job, a bunch of kids, a wife who already requires care and so on. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I just can't in good conscience accept the responsibility because it will either drive me into an early grave, or I'll have to neglect one of the people I'm supposedly caring for.

Ditto if someone has accepted care of someone, I'd imagine they'd have to be able to give it up with the proper notice if their situation changed. People can't be forced to take care of other people just because the government says so, that's when they start slipping them pills and ground glass and stuff.

I admit that I have no idea how all this stuff works in the real world, but I'd hope it follows the rule that you can't make people accept responsibility for someone else's life. They have to accept it willingly.

No you can't be forced to. Your mother would come under the care of social services in the UK. My original post compared the host to being a family member or the state (or whoever takes the responsibility of care for your mother). Does the state have the right in the future to terminate your mum because of economic reasons?

 

[Famine]

It is. My point is are we willing to accept a shift in attitudes so far that we can have a Josie Cunningham type indifference to life in the not so far future?

You're going to have to translate that.

Ultimately if someone responsible for the care of the life of another who cannot care for their own life chooses not to care for that life any more, I have no problem with them doing so - whether they are a pregnant mother, a parent or a carer.

 

[zzz_pt]

You not seeing it doesn't stop others in the future.

You already saw something I don't.
I just hope that in the future if someone sees that same parallelism you did, there will be people calling him/her to reason.

 

[Imari]

Does the state have the right in the future to terminate your mum because of economic reasons?

Yep.

If they can't/won't look after her, and I can't look after her, and nobody else can look after her, and she can't look after herself...I guess that's evolution in action.

Probably not, as she's well past child-bearing age, but I'm comfortable enough with the concept. It would suck if it was someone close to me that this happened to, but I'm not about to get all up on the government for not looking after my dirty laundry.

(I'm not going to get into the whole taxes and I've paid them for X amount of healthcare. Let's just assume that the government has cared for my mother to a reasonable value well in excess of what me, my mother and anyone else associated with her would have paid in health taxes, so they're off the hook in terms of "owing" us financially.)

 

[KSaiyu]

I suppose it's hard to feel like this is progress for humanity. Another fear is that as our attitudes shift, so to do the number of people with similar attitudes going into healthcare. It's disconcerting to see a minority of current nursing student's ideas on patient care and their job role. It's worse to imagine this becoming the majority.

 

[Famine]

I suppose it's hard to feel like this is progress for humanity.

In what way is more freedom and personal choice not progress?

Another fear is that as our attitudes shift, so to do the number of people with similar attitudes going into healthcare. It's disconcerting to see a minority of current nursing student's ideas on patient care and their job role. It's worse to imagine this becoming the majority.

I don't see how allowing people to choose for themselves how they live will generate an attitude shift in healthcare professionals away from caring about health...

 

[KSaiyu]

In what way is more freedom and personal choice not progress?I don't see how allowing people to choose for themselves how they live will generate an attitude shift in healthcare professionals away from caring about health...

In the course of a thread we've progressed to being fine with, should the technology be available, aborting because of the foetus's eye colour.

 

[Famine]

In the course of a thread we've progressed to being fine with, should the technology be available, aborting because of the foetus's eye colour.

That neither answers how increased freedom and personal choice isn't progress, nor why that would necessitate a change in the attitude of healthcare professionals away from the care of health.

 

[Joel]

Yep.

If they can't/won't look after her, and I can't look after her, and nobody else can look after her, and she can't look after herself...I guess that's evolution in action.

What you are advocating for here is essentially eugenics, and that's probably not a path you want to start down.

That goes against the very justification for publicly funded health care in the first place. It's usually justified as being a human right, and the logic is that we fund it publicly so that everyone has access to health care regardless of their economic situation because of it being a right. If it's only up to a certain point, how can you justify it at all? To guarantee health care as a right implies that we have an unconditional claim on the labour of doctors and nurses (what do we usually call that?) as it's our right to receive their services. How can we turn around and say you have an unconditional right to someone's labour but only up until a certain cost?

Where do you draw the line when someone no longer has a right to health care? When does the cost/benefit justify letting someone's "dirty laundry" be thrown out? When have we spent enough money that we strip them of their right to health care?

 

[DK]

It is. My point is are we willing to accept a shift in attitudes so far that we can have a Josie Cunningham type indifference to life in the not so far future?

I seriously don't think Josie Cunningham is representative of all women seeking abortions. She almost seems like a lazy caricature dreamt up by a Daily Mail columnist.

 

[Danoff]

I suppose it's hard to feel like this is progress for humanity. Another fear is that as our attitudes shift, so to do the number of people with similar attitudes going into healthcare. It's disconcerting to see a minority of current nursing student's ideas on patient care and their job role. It's worse to imagine this becoming the majority.

Don't confuse rights with job requirements.

My house doesn't have rights, but if I pay someone to house-sit for me, they're liable if they burn it down. A parent in a brain-dead coma or who has lost most of their mental faculties becomes someone who no longer has all of their rights. Their child may pay someone to parent-sit for them, and if that person kills the parent, that person is liable. Not because the parent had all of their rights, but because it violated the will of the guardian and the contract under which they were employed.

Once again, human beings do not have rights simply because they have human DNA. Lots of entities without rights have human DNA: sperm, a liver, a fetus, an insane person, someone in prison, someone who has been executed for heinous crimes, someone who exists in a persistent vegetative state, someone who's brain have suffered massive trauma and cannot function normally. All of these have one common theme - the lack of a threshold of cognitive ability. You get rights because you think, and not until you think, and not once you demonstrate that you can't think. It's all terribly consistent and uncomplicated, and it answers questions about abortions, animal rights, elderly care, and criminal justice in one beautiful principled rule.

I understand that you may have questions about how this might be implemented, and it seems that you're concerned about the elderly. Ask your questions, you'll probably like the answers.

How can we turn around and say you have an unconditional right to someone's labour...

You can't, that's slavery.

 

[Famine]

That goes against the very justification for publicly funded health care in the first place. It's usually justified as being a human right, and the logic is that we fund it publicly so that everyone has access to health care regardless of their economic situation because of it being a right. If it's only up to a certain point, how can you justify it at all? To guarantee health care as a right implies that we have an unconditional claim on the labour of doctors and nurses as it's our right to receive their services. How can we turn around and say you have an unconditional right to someone's labour but only up until a certain cost?

Where do you draw the line when someone no longer has a right to health care? When does the cost/benefit justify letting someone's "dirty laundry" be thrown out? When have we spent enough money that we strip them of their right to health care?

It rather seems like that's the point - they don't have the unconditional claim on the labour of healthcare professionals... The line is zero.

That doesn't mean doctors and nurses can't care for someone if they want to.

 

[Joel]

It rather seems like that's the point - they don't have the unconditional claim on the labour of healthcare professionals... The line is zero.

That doesn't mean doctors and nurses can't care for someone if they want to.

You can't, that's slavery.

I agree that we don't have an unconditional claim, but usually when this topic gets traced back the justification for public health care is that it's an unconditional human right (thus implying an unconditional claim on those services).

That's what I was getting at, I'm arguing against the premise in @Imari 's post that the state is justified to stop providing care for someone if the cost/benefit becomes too high. How can one say that we have a right to health care which implies an unconditional claim on that labour, but then revoke it because it's too expensive? The whole idea of public health care from a moral standpoint stands upon the idea that health care is a human right, if we can revoke that right because it costs the government too much money, how do we even justify it in the first place?

I don't mean to turn this into a debate on public health care or if health care is a right (as I think we're on the same page on that one), but I don't see how you can simultaneously hold the belief that we should have publicly funded health care but also believe that if it costs too much money people can be put out to pasture by the public health care system.

 

[Danoff]

I agree that we don't have an unconditional claim, but usually when this topic gets traced back the justification for public health care is that it's an unconditional human right (thus implying an unconditional claim on those services).

I can't really comment on the rest because the first part is wrong. Health care cannot be a right - and you have neatly identified exactly why... slavery.

 

[Joel]

I can't really comment on the rest because the first part is wrong. Health care cannot be a right - and you have neatly identified exactly why... slavery.

Like I said, we're on the same page here. My point is that the logic behind the idea that your "dirty laundry" can be thrown out by the state's health care system is internally inconsistent whether or not it's flawed.

 

[BobK]

Once again, human beings do not have rights simply because they have human DNA. Lots of entities without rights have human DNA: sperm, a liver, a fetus, an insane person, someone in prison, someone who has been executed for heinous crimes, someone who exists in a persistent vegetative state, someone who's brain have suffered massive trauma and cannot function normally. All of these have one common theme - the lack of a threshold of cognitive ability. You get rights because you think, and not until you think, and not once you demonstrate that you can't think. It's all terribly consistent and uncomplicated, and it answers questions about abortions, animal rights, elderly care, and criminal justice in one beautiful principled rule.

I agree with all this except for criminals; they can still think. Some of them are quite clever, in fact. However, they've deprived others of their rights and thjat's why they've lost their rights.

Sidestepping the issue of those who commit victimless crimes, of course; they shouldn't be criminals in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with all this except for criminals; they can still think. Some of them are quite clever, in fact. However, they've deprived others of their rights and thjat's why they've lost their rights.

They have demonstrated an inability to understand the importance of the rights of others. I consider rights infringement a mental failing.

 

[Imari]

What you are advocating for here is essentially eugenics, and that's probably not a path you want to start down.

No, it's really, really not eugenics. Eugenics is improving the genetic stock of the population. Nothing I have suggested in any way improves the genetic stock of the population, either by design or unintentionally.

That goes against the very justification for publicly funded health care in the first place. It's usually justified as being a human right, and the logic is that we fund it publicly so that everyone has access to health care regardless of their economic situation because of it being a right. If it's only up to a certain point, how can you justify it at all?

You're aware that money is not infinite, right?

Health care is only available up to a certain point. If the government has to choose between spending a million dollars to keep my vegetable mother alive for a week, or spending it vaccinating 100,000 children then I hope they do the sensible thing and spend it on the vaccinations.

Everyone has access to health care, not everyone has access to unlimited money for care.

To guarantee health care as a right implies that we have an unconditional claim on the labour of doctors and nurses (what do we usually call that?) as it's our right to receive their services. How can we turn around and say you have an unconditional right to someone's labour but only up until a certain cost?

You're aware that time is not infinite either, right?

There are only so many doctors, nurses and hospitals. Why should my mother monopolise the time of one doctor to keep her vegetable self going, when that doctor could be spending that time saving dozens of lives?

I'm aware it's an emotional decision when it's someone close to you. And people should rightly push to have their family and friends receive benefits for as long as possible. But you've got to be able to recognise that publically funded health is not a license to receive free medical care in perpetuity.

Where do you draw the line when someone no longer has a right to health care? When does the cost/benefit justify letting someone's "dirty laundry" be thrown out? When have we spent enough money that we strip them of their right to health care?

You're right, those are tough questions. They need to be determined on a case by case basis, by qualified experts who can evaluate whether the cost involved in continuing the care is worthwhile, be that cost in money, time or other things.

We do this now with other limited resources like transplantable organs. I'm not sure what's in short supply, but say there's not enough hearts. They give the hearts to those people most likely to respond positively, and get the most benefit out of it. I don't know what criteria they use to do so, but they do. Some people die for want of a heart.

You can't just wish everyone a heart, just as you can't wish everyone the for full, free care of all invalids. In a system with limited resources, someone has to make the tough decisions.