Abortion, Potential Persons and the Slipery Slope

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies...

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”....They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

This is the fundamental problem with the objection to abortion that foetus's are not "people" but are merely "potential". The argument can be used far too broadly and can justify the killing of a newborn child. So my question to those who use the "potential" argument, is how do you distinguish between a newborn and a foetus, keeping in mind that Oxford professors can't seem to manage it.

[KevinC]

I think that is really stupid of those medical ethicists, why weren't the parents able to make up their minds during the window you have for abortion? I don't think this decision is about whether the child has the right to life or not, it's whether its parents are competent enough to make decisions. One could, and probably should, argue that if you've chosen to have sex without protection you are aware of the consequences and should have to deal with them.

People are becoming way too used to not facing the consequences of their actions and it needs to stop. Justifying an escape from those consequences is just evading the real problem we have.

[KevinC]

Fair point, I was using a completely different context from the paper; although mine was broader and more encompassing then theirs allowing for less interpretation and more clarity of thought on the actual cases where the fruits of this debate would be useful.

With the views of the authors of the paper stating that they support killing infants in the same circumstances as we currently allow abortions(in places that do) I stand by my initial statement of them being stupid. I think approaching the situation(of whether it is ok to kill newborns) should be done on an individual case basis but beyond that should be taken from "the actions that lead to the situation" point of view rather than from "how does this compare morally to abortion?" point of view. I think the approach lends itself to abuse and any information of value that it could possibly provide is outweighed by the controversy that is sure to follow. But perhaps that's a problem I have with a lot of philosophy in general, thinking about thinking quickly turns into utter non-sense because it quickly runs away from any referent based in reality.

For me a good example of why this thinking in isolation causes problems is because we need to relate the thoughts to reality to make sense of it, thus we relate killing a new born to killing a person or killing a foetus which again don't have much context allowing a ridiculous amount of context to be added that then produces a huge variety of responses. I suspect the results are not supposed to be taken in isolation but rather to be thought of in the broader context of situations where killing a newborn could be shown to be beneficial for all involved but how many laymen are going to do that? Why don't they restrict themselves to thinking about the issue with regards to the broader context in which the issue arises in real life thus setting the entire debate up in a neat frame? It is frustrating when philosophers go into subjects like this without a well defined frame that incorporates the broader context of the issue.

[KevinC]

I wish more people would respond to valid retorts such as yours better, when we get defensive we only make things worse. I also think being what is deemed rude, curt or frank is a good thing, hiding behind soft language that doesn't offend weakens our ability to communicate effectively.

Taken from the world perspective the Earth can only maintain a finite amount of people, so it's imperative we keep our species numbers under control otherwise we will end up depleting our resources, so I agree with you there. I do think there are better ways of addressing the population issue than merely making abortion legal though.

[Jackson Gandour]

Again, you are missing that both crimes still involve an actual action, not a potential action. Even if we ignore that, you see that attempted murder is not the same as murder, just as a potential person isn't the same as an actual person. And conciousness is crtitical to the right to life, that is how we can take brain dead people off life support!

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Again, you are missing that both crimes still involve an actual action, not a potential action.

 

Yet you are ignoring that they are judged focusing on their potential. IE they only become crimes because of what they had the potential to become.

Even if we ignore that, you see that attempted murder is not the same as murder, just as a potential person isn't the same as an actual person.

It is not the same as first degree murder, but it is the same as second and below, sentencing wise.

And conciousness is crtitical to the right to life, that is how we can take brain dead people off life support!

 

You would not take a brain dead person off life support if you knew that barring currently unknown natural causes, or human intervention, that person would be alive and well again in nine months time.

Also, stop conveintly ignoring the argument that has proven you wrong. IE that the state does accept potential into law with regard to the right to vote and citizenship.

[Alix Laya]

And conciousness is critical to the right to life, that is how we can take brain dead people off life support.

Being brain dead and being without consciousness are two different things.  Brain dead means no activity, no further development, and no hope of coming out of it.  That's all.  Babies can't be put into that same class.  That's not all for them.  That's just the beginning.  They'll develop, and they won't stay without consciousness forever.  People who are brain dead have lives like line segments while babies have lines that are like rays.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I should clarify "capacity for consciousness".

[Rebekah]

I've seen a few recent articles about "after-birth abortion" ethics (if you could call it that). The ethics that they use are the same that could justify, not only the infanticide that  they are suggesting, but also to the genocide of the mentally handicapped. 

This article says: "an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." Don't some people not care if they die? Looking forward to heaven, or just being all around empathetic? This would also bring to question some personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder. What about people on hallucinogens that think they can fly and won't dye? Are they not people for a few hours? Either way, this one attribute makes no sense to define if one is human or not.

Another article attempting to justify this claim that personhood is defined by knowing that something is desirable or undesirable, which is present even in utero, shifting and kicking when uncomfortable and showing stress when the mother is under stress. If you pinch a newborn, it will cry because this action is undesirable. 

The whole thing makes no sense and is beyond sickening. There is one very simple way to avoid this. It is the ultimate birth control: to not have babies if you don't want them - stop having sex. If the issue lies with the disabled children, it is still wrong to kill them. A diagnosis doesn't always damn a person (so to speak. Not literally or so harsh) and even if it is severe, the parent should take responsibly for their child or make the decision to give it to someone that will take care of it. Even the severely handicap have a life - they can be some of the nicest people.

I feel like someone should campaign for "World Suck-enlarger abortions"... "Well, all they are messing up are eco system, lowering our IQ's, and trying to kill people... lets just kill them!" Not really (obviously), but it is still beyond frustrating... 

[Lori S.]

Personally, I think this is a silly argument.

The right to a legal abortion has nothing to do with the moral or legal status of the embryo/fetus.  It has to do with the *location* of that embryo/fetus, which is inside of a woman's uterus.  The question isn't whether we have the right to kill embryos/fetuses, but whether women should be forced to remain pregnant against their will.

We have no right to kill embryos or fetuses willy-nilly.  There is exactly ONE person who has the legal right to decide to terminate a pregnancy: the pregnant woman.  This isn't about anybody's right to kill embryos, but about a woman's right to determine whether she wants to sustain a particular embryo with her own body or not.

I've been pregnant three times.  One of the pregnancies was unplanned.  I continued that pregnancy because, on a personal moral level, I think abortion is wrong, and that if it's at all possible, we should nurture life rather than end it.  However, I know that pregnancy can be a physically and emotionally grueling experience, as well as something that can leave you unable to work or care for your family (with my first, I spent a couple of months on and off bedrest).  I also know that when abortion is illegal, women have illegal abortions at rates just as high as they have legal abortions when abortion is legal.  Illegal abortions can and often do leave women injured or dead and, as somebody interested in preserving life, I see illegal abortion as a serious moral evil.

Women should have access to safe, legal abortions.  That's not because we have some inalienable right to kill embryos/fetuses, because embryos/fetuses have no moral worth, or because embryos/fetuses aren't real persons.  It's because women have the right, like everybody else, to bodily determination.  You can't be forced by the government to donate an organ to somebody even if they will die without it; you can't even be forced to donate blood to somebody to save their life.  Similarly, women should not be forced by the government to donate their reproductive, respiratory, excretory, and circulatory systems to an embryo or fetus against their will.

So my point, I think, is that I think it's probably unwise to approach the question of abortion from the angle of personhood or the fetus's moral status, because that isn't the issue.  The issue is a woman's personhood and moral status, and whether or not the government should force her to continue a pregnant against her own will and the dictates of her own conscience.  While I'm personally opposed to abortion, I do not in any way support the government having that power.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It's because women have the right, like everybody else, to bodily determination.

Here is the issue. Why don't fetuses have that right?

[Lori S.]

If the fetus had another fetus inside of it, using its organ systems for its sustenance, then it would have the right, if it could make any kind of decision, to not sustain the life of that other fetus.  

If it were possible to extract an embryo or fetus from a woman's body without killing it, then I'd say absolutely the woman should not have the right to kill it, but simply to have it removed from her body.  Right now, though, removing an embryo from a woman's body means that it dies.  That's sad, but there is simply no justification for using state power to require women to continue pregnancies against their will.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If it were possible to extract an embryo or fetus from a woman's body without killing it, then I'd say absolutely the woman should not have the right to kill it, but simply to have it removed from her body.  Right now, though, removing an embryo from a woman's body means that it dies.  That's sad, but there is simply no justification for using state power to require women to continue pregnancies against their will. 

Yes there is. The justification that if you remove it, you will kill it. Why on earth is it's right to life somehow unimportant here.