RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Benefits to Women of "Egg-As-Person" Laws? Hmmmm...We Didn't Think Of That!

By Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor

August 19, 2009 - 9:25am

Published under: | | | | | | | | | | |
Jodi Jacobson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Jodi Jacobson's picture

It seems that in our concern about the negative implications of "egg-as-person" laws for women--you know, loss of autonomy for the woman as a person, loss of access to contraception, abortion and any medical intervention that might save her life but adversely affect her fertilized egg, loss of legal rights to do anything that might *potentially* adversely affect a fertilized egg because she might *potentially* be pregnant at any moment between the years of 11 and 55--we have overlooked some potential benefits.

Courtesy of our friends in the feminist blogger/journalist communities in Colorado and throughout the U.S., here are some potential benefits and some additional negative implications of recognizing zygotes, or fertilized eggs, as persons.

Women could:

  • Drive in the high-occupancy or carpool lane at all times
  • Get a federal dependent tax deduction from the moment of fertilization
  • Demand to be served two-for-one meal restaurant specials
  • Collect Social Security and Medicare nine months early
  • Blame the "egg" for any misdeed or crimes; cop only to being an unwilling accessory
  • Sue their egg(s) for pain and suffering

 

On the other hand, there are some as-yet unconsidered implications for those zygotes and their "hosts."

  • Eggs could appear as aggrieved parties on "Judge Judy."
  • The possibility of carrying a fertilized egg could leave women subject to being charged for two seats by an airline (for her and her "egg") (but no extra peanuts!).
  • Ultrasounds could be subject to invasion of privacy complaints by eggs.
  • The "truth truck" could be sued for defamation of character.
  • A fertilized egg could sue for wrongful imprisonment in a womb.
  • Age discrimination law age ranges would need to be rolled back 9 months.

 

It's all those unintended consequences....

Feel free to add your own.


Jodi Jacobson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
208 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
Hahaha THIS. Hilarious. But

Hahaha THIS. Hilarious. But also very, very creepy. Women need, NEED to have more rights than that of a collection of an embryo, fetus, etc. If not, then we are little more than test tubes - make the baby, then throw away the tube. Life magically begins at birth no more than it magically begins at conception; to me life begins with a functioning brain, as science says when a brain is no longer functioning, that is where life ends. But even so, until it is no longer a part or extension of my body, it's my body and it's MY right-to-life. Life doesn't magically begin at birth, but the law that recognizes it as a life does, and so it needs to stay. Great piece!

****

If the anti-choice movement was really pro-life, they would be pro-choice.

Submitted by jenkcarl on August 19, 2009 - 8:48am.
I noticed with some

I noticed with some amusement that in one of the eggs-are-people-too-bills which failed to pass (the ND one?) the situation in which a blastocyst was not a person was for the purposes of census counts.

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 19, 2009 - 12:50pm.
Quickening

It might be difficult, but name and ID would need to be issued at conception. How else is TSA supposed to check it against the terrorist database?

 

I'm reading "When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973" by Leslie J. Reagan. The prologue brings up a very interesting point about how people define pregnancy: it was only recently that insemination and implantation have been considered (by some) to be the difference between pregnant and not-pregnant. Prior to that, a Western woman considered herself pregnant at "quickening" (the first time she felt movement), but not before. The condition of "pregnancy" centered on the detectable change in the woman's body, and had little to do with her male partner's role in donating the sperm that met the egg many weeks before.

 

The recent focus on defining pregnancy at the instant of fertilization has a lot to do with waning patriarchies struggling to maintain relevance and control by insisting that pregnancy is all about the sperm part of the process.

Submitted by cycles on August 19, 2009 - 2:27pm.
Power and Control

You are right on this.  I will certainly check the book. It is all about power and control.  

Submitted by silviahall on August 21, 2009 - 11:46am.
ideological narrative: gender conflict or science?

Certainly, pregnancy was traditionally associated with quickening if one is willing to look to times when the understanding of the mechanism of human reproduction was primitive.  Does that mean that associating pregnancy with changes in the female body was part of a view that gave a priveleged position to the status of the women?  Obviously not- early thinking also presumed that the female body was passive and that the male contribution was active.  (Hence analogies with argiculture: associating wome's bodies with a field to be plowed and sperm with seed that was planted in it.)

 

It makes much more sense (if one is not looking to justify preconceived notions about gender attitudes) to conclude that the emphasis on earlier stages in reproduction has been a result of advances in scientific understanding.  Quickening was emphasized because it was observable  evidence of life that was different from that of the mother at a time when movement was still inextricably connected to ideas of what the essential nature of life was (the soul or 'anima' being the 'animating principle) and because hormonal changes were not yet scientifically detectable.

 

When hormonal changes were discovered and tests were developed, then that became the standard.

 

The present tension between emphasizing fertilization and emphasizing implantation is better understood as a conflict between those who prioritize a scientifically accurate beginning point to the human life cycle and those who prioritize change for which there are empirical tests.  In other words, it is about theory versus pragmatism.

 

You can (and I'm sure will) interpret it as a struggle between forces of patriarchy and empowerment of women if you are so predisposed- but you should remember that if you do so, then you are actually focusing on motives which you attribute to people (sometimes accurately, but sometimes not) rather than to the substance of the debate.  In other words, it is not a theory which deals with the debate, but which deals with the roles you assign to the debators.

 

 

Submitted by Larry J on August 21, 2009 - 5:04pm.
Funny you should mention

Funny you should mention science, Larry, given the astounding pace at which maternal science is advancing. For example, we know that breastfeeding acts as an "abortifacient."

Scientists are fairly certain that upwards of 2/3rds of all fertilized ovum get "flushed."

Scientists are just now uncovering the role that stress plays in early miscarriage...(in the initial study, 90% of the women with elevated levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, miscarried in the first three weeks.

In other words, it is about theory versus pragmatism.

If the substance of the debate is when the developing BEF is considered to be alive...there is no dispute. But you and I both know, Larry...that the dispute is over the "legal personhood" of fertilized ovum. And just as BEF science is advancing, so too is maternal science. You are on a collision course here...and I suggest you carry the "personhood" argument through to the logical conclusions.

 

 

 

 

Submitted by ahunt on August 21, 2009 - 6:30pm.
Collision Course

I suggest you carry the "personhood" argument through to the logical conclusions.

 

It may intrigue you to learn, ahunt, that I think about you and the arguments you make at odd times in the day.  (I don't know, maybe that thought will distress you.)  At any rate, I give your ideas a lot of consideration.

 

Today, for example, while I was walking around the MIT neighborhood, I thought about your 'logical conclusion' arguments and I found myself wishing there were some way to persuade you that many of those who are looking for ways to foster respect for the lives of the unborn actually want women to lead lives of freedom and fulfillment.  Some of us actually hold women in as high a regard as you do.

 

Take a moment, please, and think about the fact that there are already millions of women who predicate their behavior on the belief that any unborn child they bear (or might be bearing) has as much right to life as they do.  I'm sure you don't suppose that these women are so crippled by scruples that they refuse to breast feed, or mourn over their menstrual periods, or avoid any pursuit that might prove exciting or interesting.  No.  They don't put ridiculous or unreasonable constraints on their own behavior.  They do, however, respect life and are cognizant of the possibility that they might be carrying life. 

 

Why, then, do you assume that we as a society would throw common sense to the wind if we ever made it our goal to improve survival rates for the unborn?  When I think about some of the conversations we've had I have to shake my head over the fact that you think we must choose between two stark extremes: thoroughly degrading women or completely denying the intrinsic worth of the lives of the very young.

 

There is a middle ground.  A rational, sensible, well-intentioned, generous and open-minded middle ground.  I'd love to be able to figure out what would motivate you to start looking for it.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 21, 2009 - 8:55pm.
Uh Paul...last I checked,

Uh Paul...last I checked, you are opposed to "fertilized ova as person" legislation. Larry and others are not. Why is that, do you think?

Instead, you appear to envision a world where women voluntarily remove themselves from participation in public life, and severely limit thier activities in private life...on behalf of an ova that may or may not be fertilized.

Your middle ground consists of: A) If women would just think like you, behave the way you  want them to behave, believe what you believe, then women will be rational, sensible, well-intentioned, generous and open-minded. And B) You seek to define the best interests of women and the BEF as one in the same. Can't be done...rationally.

 

Submitted by ahunt on August 21, 2009 - 9:39pm.
ahunt- rationality

I consider the difference between irrational and rational to be that one both prohibits logical contradictions and uses empirical evidence and the principle of parsimony to justify objective claims, whereas the other does not.  Your claim that the interests of prenates (or z/e/f's) and women who are reproductive mature must rationally be in conflict with one another is likely to be true IF you are a hedonistic utilitarian.  Not everyone is. 

 

Then again, on the basis of hedonistic utilitarianism, the welfare rights of the poor and the property rights of the wealthy are always in conflict when one considers taxes and entitlement programs.  If you are a liberal, then when the benefit to the less powerful is greater than the loss of benefit to the more powerful, then you prioritize the right of the less powerful.  I assume therefore that generally you would favor increasing the tax rates on the wealthy to provide services for the poor.  If one accepts that a right to life for prenates exists, then the same principle would prioritize their right over that of the biological mother.

 

Food for thought.

Submitted by Larry J on August 21, 2009 - 10:33pm.
Babble much?   Your

Babble much?

 

Your claim that the interests of prenates (or z/e/f's) and women who
are reproductive mature must rationally be in conflict with one another
is likely to be true IF you are a hedonistic utilitarian.  Not everyone
is. 

 

No. I claim that the interests of the BEF and the woman is rationally in conflict if the woman does not wish to be pregnant, does not want to give birth, does not want a (another) child,  and does want an abortion. Clear now?

Submitted by ahunt on August 21, 2009 - 10:45pm.
Defining Interests

Again with the rudeness ahunt? 

 

Didactic I'd own up to, but not babbling!

 

I know what you said.  I was clear on that.  You don't seem to understand what I was saying.  You talked about the woman and the prenate having interests which were in conflict.  You are assuming that one's interests are merely a matter of either fulfillment of desire or having greater 'satisfaction' or 'happiness'.  That is a hedonistic utilitarian view.  There are other philosophical views which do not place a premium on such subjective psychological states.

 

Do you understand now what I said?

Submitted by Larry J on August 21, 2009 - 11:13pm.
You are assuming that one's

You are assuming that one's interests are merely a matter of either
fulfillment of desire or having greater 'satisfaction' or 'happiness'.

 

Project much? The facts are that women choose abortion for all kinds of reasons, and to reduce their motivations to personal fulfillment and/or happiness denies the reality of women's lives and experiences.

Submitted by ahunt on August 21, 2009 - 11:44pm.
Reasons for abortion...

women choose abortion for all kinds of reasons, and to reduce their motivations to personal fulfillment and/or happiness denies the reality of women's lives and experiences

 

The decision to abort is made by the mother, but the motivation to abort can come from all kinds of people and all kinds of situations.

 

I don't win friends, here, by saying this but every child who's ever been aborted had a father -- and fathers make a big contribution to the motivation to abort, or to bring to term.  It seems to me that fathers who advocate for their unborn children do more to bring down the abortion rate than men who do no more than remind women of their 'responsibilities'.

 

Let me repeat myself and point out that if men had a heart-to-heart conversation with their partners before having sex and made it clear how important it was to them that they not have a child die in a procured abortion, couples would be forced to expand their ideas about what is meant by 'satisfaction' or 'happiness'

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 22, 2009 - 5:32pm.
"Project much?" -  Nope. 

"Project much?" -  Nope.  I don't.

 

ahunt- Do you fulfill some deep seated need to compensate for intellectual inadequacies by being snide? (Just wondering)

 

You brought up conflicting interests of the woman and the prenate. 

 

You could say that her actions might have benefits to others, but her interests (her own interests) can only (by definition) be egoistic, even if that only implies psychological egoism: it is still her own personal fulfillment and desire.  The behavior could be one which is altruistic, but her interests (which YOU brough up, not I) cannot be anything other than personal.

Submitted by Larry J on August 22, 2009 - 10:05pm.
but her interests (which YOU

but her interests (which YOU brough up, not I) cannot be anything other than personal.

 

So what, Larry?  Permit me to point out that there is no
experience in the life of a woman more intensely personal than
pregnancy.

 

So far, you have claimed that recognizing the conflicting interests of the the BEF and the woman constitututes "utilitarian hedonism" (and in the future, you may want to avoid "only/if" statements. Bad form, and in the case of abortion, demonstrably false, as you yourself have noted the possibility of altruism), equated the involuntary use of a woman's body with "taxing the rich," and you are now attempting to diminish the real life circumstances and experiences of women as "egoistic," with all the baggage the term carries. 

And you do all of this by regurgitating the jargon of Philosophy 101/ Psychology 100. You'll have to forgive me if I find it impossible to take you seriously.

Submitted by ahunt on August 22, 2009 - 11:02pm.
  So what, Larry? 

 

So what, Larry?  Permit me to point out that there is no
experience in the life of a woman more intensely personal than
pregnancy.

 

 

Now who's making a sentimental argument?

 

 

So far, you have claimed that recognizing the conflicting interests of
the the BEF and the woman constitututes "utilitarian hedonism" (and in
the future, you may want to avoid "only/if" statements. Bad form, and
in the case of abortion, demonstrably false, as you yourself have noted
the possibility of altruism),

 

 

What 'only/if' statement?  I don'r know  what you're refering to with that?

 

I acknowledged the possibility of altruistic action or behavior but not
interest.  You brought up the issue of the woman's personal interests, which
must be egoistic, even if it is only psychological egoism.  You could
say, "she could act because she's concerned about a child that is
already born."  Fine.  If we are still talking about 'her interests',
then you cannot say that her interests are that of the child that is
already born anymore than I can say that her interests are that of the
unborn.  Rather, her interests may be that she not act in a way that would make her "feel" that she had caused harm or failed to benefit one or the other. 

 

 

equated the involuntary use of a woman's
body with "taxing the rich,"

 

 

That's exactly right.  They are analogous in that you are compelling something from one individual for the benefit of another because the proportionate benefit to one vastly outweighs the proportionate disadvantage to the other.  (A partial loss of freedom for approximately 1% of the life of one versus a total loss of nearly 100% of life for the other.)

 

 

and you are now attempting to diminish the
real life circumstances and experiences of women as "egoistic," with
all the baggage the term carries. 

 

 

*sigh* There is a difference between egoism as a description of character and psychological egoism.  Moreover, you are trying to make a rhetorical move that I'll not let you get away with.  You began by pointing to a conflict between the interests of one individual and another- and when I pointed out that giving priority to narrowly defined personal interests is a feature only of certain belief systems (like utilitariamism), then you try to take the 'egoism' term out of one context and treat it as if it were from the other.

 

And you do all of this by regurgitating the jargon of Philosophy 101/
Psychology 100. You'll have to forgive me if I find it impossible to
take you seriously.

 

 

Yes- that's a cute meme you and your friends have: Phil 101, indeed.

 

I'll repay your snide remark with a complement.  If I were still teaching Phil 101, I would take your remarks seriously. 

 

On the other hand, if you had been in one of my 300 level courses, I'm not sure if I'd give many of you better than a 'C'.  

Submitted by Larry J on August 23, 2009 - 1:10am.
Oh Larry, it's sad to see

Oh Larry, it's sad to see someone so much in need of validation that they would misrepresent themselves with big whopping lies. You should try talking to girls your own age.

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 23, 2009 - 11:40am.
bitter much?

I take it that that's supposed to imply that I'm what- a teenager? Is that supposed to be clever or something?  You are really making an ass of yourself, you know that?  I'm old enough to be president but younger than any we've ever elected.  I get the impression that some of the frequent commenters here are a good deal older (e.g., pop culture references to 'Archie Bunker'), so maybe you're old enough to be my mother and are laboring under the misconception that I should be deferential to you in spite of your bilious remarks. 

 

Or maybe your mind went there because you are the one who's only a teenager.  I haven't seen enough of your writing to tell yet.  (I only taught for two years, but that was long enough to become appalled at how so many young people today are dependent upon spell-check and tend to have poorer grammar than ESL students who apply themselves.)  Your attitude that you are somehow entitled to be impertinent and condescending despite the fact that you've yet to say anything intelligent is something that can be found amongst many incoming freshmen.

 

Colleen, it's become apparent that you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, and you think that insulting people is the best way to shut them up.  That's what's really sad. 

 

If you've got nothing better to do than just try to silence people with personal attacks, then you're actually lowering the quality of the discourse here.  (Which doesn't bother me.  It isn't my site, but it may trouble you or your friends.)

 

Submitted by Larry J on August 24, 2009 - 12:10am.
Again with the rudeness

Again with the rudeness ahunt?

Larry,
You've been condescending and abusive since you started posting here. We're used to this from the men of the religious right. We understand that this is how you guys talk to women when we dare to express an opinion you disagree with.  We understand that you have deeply held beliefs about our place in relation to you. We've all had men like you as bosses, neighbors, co-workers and so on.
I am not complaining, an honest objection would do no good and would only encourage you and exacerbate your behavior. But I would like to point out two things:

  • 1. you're the last person with any right to whine about rudeness.
  • 2. Disagreeing with you is not "rudeness".

PS Coughing up what you managed to learn in philosophy 101 does not make you look smart or educated. Nor does it grant you any of the authority you so desperately crave and are clearly not entitled to. Hope this helps

 

<i>The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.</i>

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 22, 2009 - 11:23am.
to colleen

Well now- so you're saying that it's equal opportunity rudeness, I guess?

 

I guess you can interpret things your way (I'm condescending and abusive) and I'll interpret them my way (you are rude and hypocritical).

 

Add prejudiced too, since you are 'prejudging' me as a member of the religious right, when you could see from the above comments that I've already said I'm not.

I'm actually an atheist.

Not that it's really any of your business.

 

I don't object to your disagreeing.  I object to your being rude, which you are.

 

If you can't find a better way to respond then that doesn't speak well either of you or the merits of your position.

 

And Colleen, you either have very thin skin and don't know what abusiveness is, or else you think that people who disagree and don't take kindly to the unmerited superior attitudes of others just 'get what they deserve'.  Furthermore, if you think that I am seeking validation from you, then you are seriously deluded.  

 

With best wishes for you and yours.

 

 

Submitted by Larry J on August 22, 2009 - 10:42pm.
Well now- so you're saying

Well now- so you're saying that it's equal opportunity rudeness, I guess?

No I'm saying that you've been rude and abusive and controlling since you started posting here. I don't believe that shallow intellectual pretensions and whining about the lack of respect you receive here is going to be an effective way to control the conversation. It just makes you look stupid.

Best wishes

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 22, 2009 - 11:34pm.
You've made your feelings

You've made your feelings clear.  In future, I wil make no attempt to be polite to you.

Submitted by Larry J on August 23, 2009 - 1:15am.
How will anyone be able to

How will anyone be able to tell the difference?

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 23, 2009 - 11:42am.
How? My responses to you

How? My responses to you will be no different than your comments to me.  Do you just get of on flaming commenters who disagree with you or something?  Maybe you need to grow up a bit or at least think of something worthwhile to add to the discussion.

 

Perhaps the 'Pro-life=Taliban', bumper sticker style observation is as sophisticated as your thinking gets.  That isn't even a good bumper sticker: it doesn't merely insult the pro-life movement, but trivializes the suffering and degradation of the women who live(d) under Taliban rule.

 

I'm sure that they'd really appreciate the implications that: 'Yeah, not being able to vote or own property or get an education or a divorce or go out in public by myself- those are bad, but I could be okay with all of it if ONLY there were a legal right to abortion.'

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

You'd be better of with an old stand by like, 'if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.'

Submitted by Larry J on August 24, 2009 - 2:35am.
Interests in conflict

You talked about the woman and the prenate having interests which were in conflict.  You are assuming that one's interests are merely a matter of either fulfillment of desire or having greater 'satisfaction' or 'happiness'.  That is a hedonistic utilitarian view.

Women and prenates have biological interests which are in conflict.  Every calorie and molecule of oxygen used by the prenate is used at the woman's expense.

There are other philosophical views which do not place a premium on such subjective psychological states.

Certain the "philosophical view" that zygotes have an absolute right to life at the expense of the woman in whom they MAY implant is a philosophical view that completely ignores the "subjective psychological state" of the woman in favor of the "subjective psychological state" of the philosopher who is promoting this sentimental myth.

 

Submitted by crowepps on August 22, 2009 - 2:04pm.
Sentimental Myth

Certain the "philosophical view" that zygotes have an absolute right to life at the expense of the woman in whom they MAY implant is a philosophical view that completely ignores the "subjective psychological state" of the woman in favor of the "subjective psychological state" of the philosopher who is promoting this sentimental myth.

 

crowepps,

 

Two arguments against the Pro-Life position keep coming up on this 'site: 1) Pro-Lifers are simply nasty men who want to subjugate women and 2) It's downright ridiculous to consider a z/b/e/f a human being.

 

I'm happy to engage in either of these arguments, and I can always count on colleen to propose argument #1, but I'm glad you bring up argument #2 from time to time.

 

Take it from me, Pro-Lifers lose any argument that centers around 'subjective psychological state'.  Z/b/e/f's simply don't have any kind of subjective state that the rest of us can identify with.  Once you buy into the childish notion that the reason you have to give people their rights is because, otherwise, it would 'hurt their feelings', you give up any chance to argue the Pro-Life side of the argument.  (Well, you can argue it but you only end up looking like a jackass.)

 

Zygotes don't have feelings.  Blastocysts don't have feelings.  Embryos don't have feelings.  Fetuses don't have feelings in the sense we do.  Guess what??  Neonates don't have feelings either!  We have feelings of affection and tenderness when we notice how cute and cuddly and adorable neonates are -- but their brains are too immature to have any kinds of feelings about us (or about themselves).

 

Somehow or another we've gotten around to the idea it's morally repugnant to end the life of a neonate.  This hasn't always been the case.  It's only been in the last ten thousand years or so that society has objected to infanticide.  Before that it was commonplace and acceptable.  What caused the change?  People did.  Grownup, walking around people with subjective states of their own.

 

Neonates can't 'fight for their rights' anymore than zygotes can -- but we've decided to give them their rights anyway.  Neonates count because we count them.  We could count others as well, and we will.

 

My right to life shouldn't depend upon my cognitive abilities, nor should it depend upon the value I have to others, nor should it depend upon the degree to which others have invested in me.  My right to life ought to depend upon the fact that I have a living human body -- and those who have living human bodies ought to be treated like human beings.

 

That's the idea I posit.  The other ideas about 'subjective states' are ridiculous.  Mothers have subjective states, their unborn children do not.  

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 22, 2009 - 6:04pm.
Paul, Perhaps you missed it

Paul,

Perhaps you missed it but I've often pointed out the absurdity of the ridiculous claim that zygotes are 'persons'. Likewise I hardly limit my criticisms of the religious right to the abusive men your religion produces as a natural result of it's dogma..

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on August 22, 2009 - 7:06pm.
to paul

Take it from me, Pro-Lifers lose any argument that centers around
'subjective psychological state'.  Z/b/e/f's simply don't have any kind
of subjective state that the rest of us can identify with.  Once you
buy into the childish notion that the reason you have to give people
their rights is because, otherwise, it would 'hurt their feelings', you
give up any chance to argue the Pro-Life side of the argument.  (Well,
you can argue it but you only end up looking like a jackass.)

h

This whole thing about 'interests' and 'subjective psychological states' and 'egoism' seems to have taken on a life of its own.

 

I'm worried that I've given you the wrong impression.  The original comment I made was in response to the claim that the interests of a woman who wants to have an abortion and the interests of the fetus are in conflict.  I said that if you are a hedonistic utilitarian then that is true, but that it need not be true if you are not one.  The reason that I said this is that the initial remark assumed that if someone desires a thing (an abortion in this case) then it is in their interest to have it and interefering with their getting it is counter to their interests.  My point was that the remark assumes one's interests to be the same as having what one desires- and that is true if you are a utilitarian.

 

I wasn't (as I'm afraid you may have come to think) proposing that the fetus had any desires.  If you grant that it has rights or interests, then you would do it on the same basis as someone who was in a coma but could recover- namely you presume that they prefer survival to death.  I'm not a weirdo imagining embryos with little thought bubbles that say, "please don't kill me."

 

I was also no trying to say that women who have abortions are motivated only out of selfishness (which seems to be the latest complaint).  I was just saying that if one is talking about the interests (narrowly defined so that they cannot be different from one's desires) of an individual, then that interest is psychologically egoistic even if the behavior it engenders is altruistic.  (After all, altruistic behavior is only in one's narrowly defined self-interest insofar as it brings about feelings of satisfaction.)

 

Personally, I think this way of looking at what is in one's interest is entirely too narrow, and it can be in one's interest to be denied the thing which you desire.  On an account like that, it is possible for the interest of the fetus and the woman desiring to abort it to not be in conflict (even if she is unaware of the fact).

Submitted by Larry J on August 23, 2009 - 3:46am.
For your own good

Personally, I think this way of looking at what is in one's interest is entirely too narrow, and it can be in one's interest to be denied the thing which you desire. On an account like that, it is possible for the interest of the fetus and the woman desiring to abort it to not be in conflict (even if she is unaware of the fact).

It doesn't seem to me that elevating the interest of others (the zygote/the government/society) in the pregnancy above that of the person who actually is carrying the physical penalities and at the inherent risks of the experience can be easily justified by the ancient and traditional rules of "we know better than you do what's in your best interests" and "when you let people make their own decisions they always choose badly"."

 

The problem is that the urge to interfer is also based in psychological egoism, especially a PASSIONATE compulsion to do so, and it doesn't really matter whether that focus arises from fear of mortality, desire to affirm ones own intrinsic value by elevating the lowest common denominator of 'human' as the only necessary qualification, inability to handle ambiguities, personal or societal sexual repressions, attitudes toward gender societal roles or even the classic Freudian conflictual relationships with Mom and Dad.

 

There are a number of posters on here who repeated claim that those on the 'other side' are basing their position on unhealthy psychological states and/or debased emotions merely because of the position they have taken on public policy. Whether or not those states are healthy or not can't be diagnosed over the internet, but certainly I don't think anyone here can truthfully claim that they themselves don't HAVE emotions or psychological issues about this controversy.

 

It certainly is way, way over the line to
'diagnose' women who are total strangers as unable to discern their own best interests based on the fact that some man who has never and will never be in the same position doesn't agree with their decision.

Submitted by crowepps on August 24, 2009 - 2:43pm.
I can agree with a great

I can agree with a great deal of what you wrote in that comment.

1) I agree that both sides are motivated by subjective value judgments.
2) I agree that assigning moral or psychological labels to the opposition merely for disagreeing is a dubious tactic and probably a bad thing to do.
3) I agree that if one is to take away an individuals freedoms, then there must be a very significant reason for doing so.

Each of these cuts both ways, though. #1 just shows that the issue is not resolvable by appealing to facts. It doesn't tilt in your direction or mine. #2 is a problem, but neither side has "clean hands" on that issue. #3 doesn't favor your side either given that there are two individuals whose freedoms are in conflict, and even if for some reason "individual" is a label you won't give to the unborn, taking a human life is significant.

Submitted by Larry J on August 28, 2009 - 12:55am.
#3 doesn't favor your side

#3 doesn't favor your side either given that there are two individuals
whose freedoms are in conflict, and even if for some reason
"individual" is a label you won't give to the unborn, taking a human
life is significant.

 

You equivocate. Either there are a) two individuals, or b) not. If there are not two individuals, then the conflict of freedoms is between bodily autonomy and squatters rights. If there are two individuals, then the conflict is between bodily autonomy and access to sustaining resources. The first is a birthright...the second depends on the will of the "sustainer."

Submitted by ahunt on August 28, 2009 - 10:42pm.
WTF?

Equivocate?

 

How is it equivocating to say that YOU (not I) might deny that there are two individuals.  Of course I say that there are!

 

In any case, whether or not one has a legal right to an elective medical procedure is a matter for the state to decide- regardless of the "will of the sustainer".  My point was merely that EVEN IF one does not give the status of individual (as I do), then you could STILL prohibit it's killing.  (We do this with endangered animals, for example.)

Submitted by Larry J on September 7, 2009 - 12:00am.
A) As it happens, what the

A) As it happens, what the state "decides" has historically proven useless when up against the will of the "sustainer." Prohibit away, and let us know how that works out.

B) Humans are comparable to "endangered (non-human) species? You sure you want to go there?

Submitted by ahunt on September 7, 2009 - 8:45pm.
Subjective psychological state

Z/b/e/f's simply don't have any kind of subjective state that the rest of us can identify with.

I was speaking of the "subjective psychological state" of the ProLife activist who disregards the actual biological processes that take place and the reality of the z/b/e/f and insists on visualizing that fertilized egg as an eensy teensy baby even though its chances of reaching the completed state of born and living 'baby' are slim.

Neonates count because we count them.

Exactly. YOU count them. Others don't. You insist that the fact that you personally count them is a morally and intellectually superior position to that of those who don't. The human capability to insist that the results of ones own mental calisthenics should control the lives of others is infinite.

My right to life shouldn't depend upon my cognitive abilities, nor should it depend upon the value I have to others, nor should it depend upon the degree to which others have invested in me. My right to life ought to depend upon the fact that I have a living human body -- and those who have living human bodies ought to be treated like human beings.

I absolutely agree with you here, right up to the point where you demand that other people should be forced to support you in any way whatsoever.

Submitted by crowepps on August 24, 2009 - 2:04pm.
Surprised by your comment.

Neonates count because we count them.

Exactly. YOU count them. Others don't. 

 Who, in this day and age, doesn't count neonates? I brought up the case of neonates because, to my knowledge, we had reached a point where everyone has agreed to treat them as if they have human rights.

  The only way I know to look for common ground is to start where there is agreement.  Are you suggesting that we don't yet have agreement about neonates? 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 24, 2009 - 6:57pm.
Neonates

Neonates, or for those who perfer clarity, BABIES from birth to four weeks, are definitely considered to have 'human rights' if they are healthy. There is however the problem of those who are NOT healthy, and who are quietly 'not resuscitated', and who therefore are not considered to have 'human rights' as vigorous as those of the healthy. In addition, the 'human rights' of the neonate don't seem to me to be generally agreed upon when people are advocating that infants born in the United States should no longer receive automatic citzenship through being born here or when people are advocating that the children of illegal immigrants should be refused medical care or schooling and that attempts to access these benefits should be the occasion for the entire family to be promptly deported back to whatever horrible conditions they have fled.

 

There is and always has been a huge, absolutely STUNNING gap between what 'we' think about ethical questions and morality and protecting human rights and how 'we' follow through in the real world, except for the persistence of the traditional solution, "Let Joe do it." 'We' can talk about the value of neonates or even zygotes until the cows come home, but the two of us are not women of reproductive age so we have to keep in mind at all times that our discussion is about what OTHER people should be doing and the 'common ground' we are trying to reach is the place at which we agree about how much 'we' should be interferring with their lives.

Submitted by crowepps on August 25, 2009 - 12:29pm.
crowepps, You must realize

crowepps,

 

You must realize how much I enjoy talking with you!  You're smart and passionate and you care about so many of the things I care about.  I have noticed, however, that our conversations tend to expand -- that is, they seem to roam around and take on more and more subject matter without ever coming to a resolution on any single point.

 

Just look at your last post.  By my count, you made points on six different issues that cover a wide range of controversy.  In some cases we are in general agreement, but in other cases we have pointed differences.  I wonder if we could both try to establish how near (or how far) are our points of view.

 

YOUR POINTS (AS I UNDERSTAND THEM): 

 

1) Paul uses confusing fancy words when he could use simple words that everyone understands.  We agree on this!  I first encountered the word 'neonate' when my daughter was born and, recently, I have been reading a lot of books about cognitive psychology -- especially by the Harvard (formally MIT) professor Steven Pinker.  He spends a lot of time examining the question of which human traits are acculturated and which are 'inborn'.  He uses the word neonate a lot because he's a scientist who studies newborns.  

 

I use the word because Pro-Lifers are generally accused of using emotion-laden words like 'baby' so I try to see how far I can get using technical terms: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant.  If I use the word ' baby' (or child) to refer to those people I leave myself exposed to the criticism that I'm simply playing on people's emotions.  Even though I include all these people in my understanding of who deserves human rights, I want to remain mindful of the fact  that they are different from each other in many ways.

 

2) Sick neonates don't get cared for the same way that healthy ones do.  We agree that this is the way it is, no doubt we disagree on the question of whether it's the way it ought to be.  I'm of the opinion that it's positively immoral to give people substandard health care based on the fact that they are sick (or that they are very young, or very old).  I agree with the position of the bishops of my church which is that the issue of inadequate healthcare for the young, the old, the disabled and the sick is a Pro-Life issue.  I'm concerned about those matters in the same way that I'm concerned about abortion.

 

3)  Immigrants are mistreated in this country.  You and I and the bishops all agree on this point.

 

4) There's a gap between what people say and what they do.  Yep.  Because I talk a lot I tend to be circumspect about the things I do.  Knowing about things like morality, ethics, justice, fairness is useless unless your knowledge informs what you actually do.  My sister and I were talking about Sen. Kennedy earlier today. She said, "He was the face of compassion to a lot of people, and that's what being a Catholic is all about." I said, "That's what being a human is all about."Kennedy didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk. That's what counts.

 

5) The perspective that matters visa vis care for the unborn is the perspective of fertile women.  We have a major disagreement there.  My position is that pregnancy is a condition that affects two people, not just one.  The perspective of the mother counts, and the perspective of the child counts even more.  

 

I wish I could convey to you, crowepps, the fact that I'm totally aware of how much easier life would be if breathers counted and non-breathers didn't.  I'm as appalled as any Pro-Choice advocate is by the fact that there are far too many children born in this overcrowded world of ours and far too many children born to parents who have no business having children (or as many children as they have.)  It's not just fertile women who benefit by a liberal attitude toward abortion.  I benefit by a liberal attitude toward abortion.  We'd have a much, much happier world if there weren't so many unwanted children.  I think about this a lot.

 

6) Pro-Life attitudes interfere with the lives of women, Pro-Choice attitudes do not.  I was thinking, just today, about a comment you made to me about my instructing women how they should think and how they should feel.  I hope you realize that if I were instructing women about how they should think and feel relative to how they might benefit my life I'd take a very different tack than I do.  My understanding is that living in community with other human beings requires us to be able to put our own interests aside and to sometimes do what's not in our interest because we need to think, and to feel that other people's interests count as well as our own.  This is inevitable wherever there is morality.

 

I'd like you to consider changing the focus of your critique from "The Pro-Life position is wrong because it interferes with the lives of fertile women" to "I agree that the moral imperative ALWAYS interferes with people's lives -- but let's discuss whether a prohibition against abortion is moral." 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 28, 2009 - 5:13pm.
 I hope you realize that if

 I hope you realize that if I were instructing women about how they
should think and feel relative to how they might benefit my life I'd
take a very different tack than I do.

 

The problem here is your implicit assumption that a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy has a moral obligation to care about what you and others think. Not her problem.

 

My understanding is that living in community with other human beings
requires us to be able to put our own interests aside and to sometimes
do what's not in our interest because we need to think, and to feel
that other people's interests count as well as our own.

 

What I'm not clear on...is how a woman who chooses an abortion is in any way harming the interests of other people in her community.

Submitted by ahunt on August 28, 2009 - 6:01pm.
ahunt, we're getting to the heart of the matter

The problem here is your implicit assumption that a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy has a moral obligation to care about what you and others think. Not her problem.

 

We're almost there: but it isn't so much that she has a moral obligation to care about what other people think, it's that she has a moral obligation to care about how her decision will affect the concerns and interests of other people.  What she has to be particularly concerned about are the concerns and interests of a person who doesn't yet have opinions about anything -- namely her child.

 

You say, "Not her problem".  We very much disagree.  I'm sure we agree that it's her CHOICE, but I strongly contend that she's morally obligated to be mindful of her child's interests when she makes that choice.  I also believe that the father of the child is morally obligated to advocate for that child and to do whatever is possible to make sure that he takes up the burden of parenthood and takes the pressure off the mother.

 

Fathers, in my opinion, are more likely than mothers to try and skip out on the responsibilities of parenthood.  More abortions could be prevented by straightening men out than by straightening women out.

 

What I'm not clear on...is how a woman who chooses an abortion is in any way harming the interests of other people in her community.

 

Can't you anticipate what I will say, or are you just being cute?  Obviously, the community itself determines who's 'in' and who's 'out'.  That's why immigration is such a hot button issue, and why all of us have a moral obligation to speak out about immigrant rights.  Are the very young 'in' or are they 'out'?  If we decide that they're 'in' it's pretty obvious how the decision to abort is harming their interests.

 

I'm trying very hard, ahunt, to persuade you that you and I have no disagreements about the equality of women or the right of people to opt out on being a parent if they don't want children.  Our disagreement is about who should be included when we use words like 'community' or 'society' or 'human race'.  The whole battle is about who ought to be counted.  Once we come to some consensus about who needs to be counted, we can discuss how those who are counted can be protected.

 

You and I are ahead of the unborn in terms of age and in terms of accomplishment (I know enough about biology to know that you have to accomplish a great deal, developmentally, before you can live outside the womb).  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to be your position that you think there's a 'minimum requirement' of age and/or accomplishment that needs to be met before a person deserves to be treated as a member of the human race.  How is that not ageist?

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on August 29, 2009 - 1:48pm.
Why "ageism" doesn't apply

 

It is sexist/classist to deny a fertile woman the obtion to accept or reject any pregnancy, free of society pressure. The woman has to give too much to expect she should feel morally obligated. You're sexist/classist to insist that the ethical problem of "ageism" trumps the ethical problem of "nature's sexism" and the sex & class discrimination of most cultures. It's more imperive to solve the sexism/classim problem before addressing ageism. Pragmatically, you're trying to enforce the patriarchy -- though I thank you that you are trying to do this "voluntarily" by trying to shame women into thinking correctly, so still I think you should identify your group as "anti-recriminalization" rather than "for choice". Many women who feel they deserve equality will reject this (myself included).

 

If there's a pressing ethical problem the blame should be set with nature, not women who want to be treated equal -- & with modern medical technology we have a chance, if we could stop the patriarchy from putting up barriers.

Submitted by Julie Watkins on August 29, 2009 - 2:43pm.
I don't want to put words in

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to be your
position that you think there's a 'minimum requirement' of age and/or
accomplishment that needs to be met before a person deserves to be
treated as a member of the human race.  How is that not ageist?

 

A) My definition of "accomplishment" involves deliberate effort. Perhaps you mean "development?" And B) I'll see your "ageism" and raise you "sexism."

 

It seems to be your position that women deserve to be treated as members of the human race pre-puberty and post-menopause. The life in between is defined solely in terms of reproductive capacity. How is this not sexist?

Submitted by ahunt on August 29, 2009 - 5:20pm.
This is what I'm talking

This is what I'm talking about...

 

It seems to be your position that women deserve to be treated as members of the human race pre-puberty and post-menopause. The life in between is defined solely in terms of reproductive capacity. How is this not sexist?

 

You know Paul said nothing of the sort.

 

as to:

 

I'll see your "ageism" and raise you "sexism."

 

you know the response- I'll see your (temporary) 'loss of freedom' and raise you (permanent) 'loss of life'

Submitted by Larry J on September 7, 2009 - 12:04am.
Why is it that you use the

Why is it that you use the term ZBEF and fetus, but you don't like Paul's use of neonate or my use of contragestion?  For that matter, how is it not a double standard to object to pro-lifers talking about 'unborn babies', but then turn around and talk about rights for 'eggs' instead of zygotes. 

Submitted by Larry J on September 6, 2009 - 11:44pm.
Not sure who you're talking too here

I occasionally use the term ZBEF when I'm responding to a post in which the term is used, and do so entirely so I can be sure the person to whom I am responding and I are talking about the same thing. Some of the terms are handy shorthand (ZBEF - all stages of development) some of them are obscure (neonate - newborn baby) and some are of little utility (contragestion - at this point entirely speculation). I do try to distinguish 'egg' from 'fertilized egg' when I use those terms.

Submitted by crowepps on September 8, 2009 - 12:20pm.
the ProLife activist who

the ProLife activist who disregards the actual biological processes that take place and the reality of the z/b/e/f and insists on visualizing that fertilized egg as an eensy teensy baby even though its chances of reaching the completed state of born and living 'baby' are slim.

I see. There are uninformed pro-lifers. There are uninformed pro-choicers too. Merely thinking that there ought to be a moral equivalence between a newborn and the unborn, that doesn't mean that the person who makes the judgment is uninformed. (In my experience, most people take it as an article of faith that believing so is only possible if you are uninformed.) There are biological similarities as well as differences. I'd be judging people unfairly if I assumed that pro-choicers must be unaware of the similarities.
Do you consider 'baby' to be a scientific or medical term like 'embryo' or 'zygote'? I don't. Even if it were, then it wouldn't be exclusively so. I don't think that there is anything incorrect about calling the unborn babies- it is merely controversial. How is it any better or worse than talking about a fetuses as 'masses of tissue'? Each use of language offends without being incorrect.
Why is the probability of natural death so important to you? Do you make a moral distinction between killing a healthy person and a person with a serious illness?
I think that likelihood of survival is morally significant only in very rare situations (like triage) when it is certain (or nearly certain) that life will be lost. That is one reason that I don't object to 'life of the mother' exceptions.

Exactly. YOU count them. Others don't. You insist that the fact that you personally count them is a morally and intellectually superior position to that of those who don't. The human capability to insist that the results of ones own mental calisthenics should control the lives of others is infinite.

Don't you see that both sides are equally guilty of that? It is not as if laws allowing one individual to take the life of another are somehow value neutral. 

 

Your point would be well taken if the topic were assisted suicide laws, but it isn't.

Submitted by Larry J on August 28, 2009 - 1:26am.
Equally guilty

"Exactly. YOU count them. Others don't. You insist that the fact that you personally count them is a morally and intellectually superior position to that of those who don't. The human capability to insist that the results of ones own mental calisthenics should control the lives of others is infinite."
"Don't you see that both sides are equally guilty of that? It is not as if laws allowing one individual to take the life of another are somehow value neutral.

No, both sides are NOT equally guilty of that. The ProLife side insists that its own ethical/moral/religious conclusions should be imposed on other people by law. The ProChoice side says instead that abortion should neither be illegal OR mandated but that instead the person's involved in each individual situation should be able to make their own decisions based on their own ethical/moral/religious beliefs.

 

It is a huge waste of society's available dollars for medical care to spend money doing the necessary ceasarian deliveries of nonviable anencephalic fetuses instead of the far cheaper second trimester abortions but if that is the choice a woman makes based on her own personal beliefs, her right to make that choice should be supported and the rest of us need to resign ourselves to chipping in to pay for that through our taxes or our health insurance premiums.

 

In my personal opinion, people who have more than four children place an undue burden on the rest of society for medical care, support, education expenses, etc., but if that is their choice based on their own personal beliefs, their right to make that choice should be supported and the rest of us need to resign ourselves to chipping in to pay for that through our taxes or our health insurance premiums.

 

The presumption that ones own ethical beliefs and group customs are 'the norm' and that society should fund ONLY that norm fails to recognize that once the gate is breached and government gets to be involved in making reproductive decisions, there are OTHER ethical sets and groups with customs who can also attempt to legislate laws to enforce THEIR different and even opposing 'norm'.

Submitted by crowepps on August 28, 2009 - 2:40pm.
Exactly as guilty

Cripes.  I think you really don't see it.  Pro-choice people are forcing their moral views on others too.  Either we accept that there is a right to life prior to birth, or we accept that there is a right to end pregnancy.  We can't do both.  You want to stick society with laws based on your morality just like I do.  Surely you see that?

 

The fact that the abortion is happening in the body of a someone who shares your principles doesn't absolve you.  You're still forbidding harming someone because you don't value them.  You're still preventing people who think like I do from protecting them.

 

That the killing occurs in the body of someone who approves doesn't change that you've made your moral principles the basis of law rather thsn mine.  It's as if the south had won the civil war, and told abolitionists that slave owning was merely an option: "If your values forbid it then don't own one, but don't interfere with my rights because I disagree.  We don't wish to impose our values on others, but criminalizing slavery would impose your values on us."

Submitted by Larry J on September 7, 2009 - 12:22am.
Never reach agreement on this issue

Cripes. I think you really don't see it. Pro-choice people are forcing their moral views on others too. Either we accept that there is a right to life prior to birth, or we accept that there is a right to end pregnancy. We can't do both. You want to stick society with laws based on your morality just like I do. Surely you see that?

And you really can't see that there could be a difference between my personal morality and the decision I would personally make if in that situation and what I think the law should enforce on strangers, but instead insist that society SHOULD have the ability to use the law to impose the personal morality of part of the group onto those who disagree on the basis that the small group can't tolerate existing in a society where others are allowed to make choices different than their own.

 

My position is that in an area where large groups of people disagree, the law should recognize the right of each person to make their own choices as it does now. Your position is that in an area where large groups of people disagree, the law should impose your beliefs and your choices on everyone else.

 

Bringing up slavery isn't a good argument for your side, since you are enforcing that argueable "right to life before birth" through the involuntary servitude of the pregnant women.

Submitted by crowepps on September 8, 2009 - 11:22am.
Not information, SENTIMENT

I was not talking about those ProLifers or ProChoicers who are informed or not informed because information does not trump 'belief' and people have an infinite capability to view the same facts and distort them to fit their beliefs. I was making the point that SOME ProLifers hold their beliefs on the grounds of SENTIMENTALITY and that definitely should not control the actions of others. As an example, and acknowledging that you agree with me on this point, in the case of ectopic pregnancy some ProLifers insist that the only 'moral' way to eliminate this threat to the life of the mother is remove the TUBE in which it is present because that is more 'gentle'. Since at that point what is being removed is still a mass of cells whether the removal is 'gentle' is totally irrelevant except to someone who is regarding the issue sentimentally. The same issue comes up with many of the situations in which complications of pregnancy are a threat to the mother including the issue of the fetus being DEAD - some insist that the fetus must be removed intact even though that substantially raises the risk to the mother because of sentimental beliefs about how a corpse should be treated. And, by the way, I never said that I personally don't feel that the death of the zygote or fetus or the decision to abort is significant or insignificant. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the significance that I personally place on that death or abortion should control other people's behavior and my answer in that issue is that neither I nor anyone else can make that choice for other people.

Submitted by crowepps on August 28, 2009 - 3:00pm.
biological interest?!

If there is a biological interest, then presumably it would involve the propagation of the species.  Unless reproduction endangers the life of the parent, from a biological perspective there is no conflict of interest.

 

All value claims are ultimately subjective, so in that regard my view of what is ethical and yours are both subjective.  Of course, there's nothing sentimental about my view, but there are sentimental views which come to the same conclusion.

 

I was just trying to point out that there are theories of value which aren't focused on people's subjective experiences and desires.

Submitted by Larry J on August 22, 2009 - 10:33pm.
12345next ›last »