Fight Fire with Fire

[Hauldren Collider]

I seem to recall you being anti-abortion, loinburger.

[loinburger]

I support abortion in the first trimester, think it should be illegal in the third trimester, and am undecided on the status of the second trimester fetus. I don't believe in souls or anything like that, so somebody's personhood is entirely a function of brain activity. The first trimester embryo has no brain activity to speak of and therefore isn't a person (is morally equivalent to somebody who is brain dead), the third trimester fetus has sufficient brain activity to be considered a person (i.e. there isn't sufficient difference in the third trimester fetus's brain and the newborn's brain for us to say that the fetus isn't a person while the newborn is - we ought to treat them as being equivalent), and I've read conflicting accounts on the state of the second trimester fetus.

[Elok]

See, I don't get that. If mental activity by itself qualifies for personhood, and the mental activity of a newborn is enough to qualify, then why aren't most animals people? Pigs, for example, are at least comparable in intellect to a newborn human, if they don't exceed it. Sure, the baby has the latent capacity to vastly outstrip the pig--learn language, use tools, and so on--but if all you're going on is present capability it's hard to argue that the mostly-blind baby with minimal body control and a fairly basic set of responses is a "person" while a pig, vastly superior in every measurable and observable way, is dinner.

[Jon Miller]

I support abortion in the first trimester, think it should be illegal in the third trimester, and am undecided on the status of the second trimester fetus. I don't believe in souls or anything like that, so somebody's personhood is entirely a function of brain activity. The first trimester embryo has no brain activity to speak of and therefore isn't a person (is morally equivalent to somebody who is brain dead), the third trimester fetus has sufficient brain activity to be considered a person (i.e. there isn't sufficient difference in the third trimester fetus's brain and the newborn's brain for us to say that the fetus isn't a person while the newborn is - we ought to treat them as being equivalent), and I've read conflicting accounts on the state of the second trimester fetus.

Seems obvious to me.

In the US that makes me pro-life and in Chile it makes me pro-choice (but they would use a worse word).

Elok, there is more ability in an infant human than any animal despite the animals being more skillful or what have you. But this isn't what Loinburger is arguing for. (from your interpretation he would be arguing that a certain level of retarded wouldn't be human, which he isn't)

He is arguing for 'human stuff' + 'brain activity' = human. Any animal misses on the first, even aliens or sentient AI miss on the first, it is purely a way to deal with humans and has the advantage of being the same definition at the beginning of life as end of life (and working in the intermediate places too) and being scientific/not religious and so on.

JM
(but I actually do come down on the side of thinking that 2nd trimester is human)

[loinburger]

See, I don't get that. If mental activity by itself qualifies for personhood, and the mental activity of a newborn is enough to qualify, then why aren't most animals people? Pigs, for example, are at least comparable in intellect to a newborn human, if they don't exceed it. Sure, the baby has the latent capacity to vastly outstrip the pig--learn language, use tools, and so on--but if all you're going on is present capability it's hard to argue that the mostly-blind baby with minimal body control and a fairly basic set of responses is a "person" while a pig, vastly superior in every measurable and observable way, is dinner.

It's a question of whether we're one continuous person or whether we're a discrete series of people. In the former case, the dumbass newborn is the same person as the hopefully not-such-a-dumbass adult, and so the newborn's present dumbassery isn't an issue - it is morally equivalent to the adult (with a few common sense exceptions, e.g. the newborn is not yet at a developmental stage where it is capable of premeditated murder). In the latter case then the dumbass newborn is distinct from the hopefully not-such-a-dumbass adult, and so the dumbass newborn should be accorded the same (or fewer) rights as the smarter pig. I believe that the first interpretation is far less problematic and is also more in better agreement to the societal definition of what a "person" is - for example, the latter interpretation might mean that it's morally permissible to kill us while we sleep (or in a more extreme case, to kill us while we're comatose or under general anesthesia) because even though we used to morally qualify as a person and can be expected to once again morally qualify as a person we do not presently morally qualify as a person.

So long story short: it's immoral to kill a newborn if it would be immoral to kill that newborn after it has grown into an adult, because they're the same person.

[giblets]

A Miscarrying Woman Was Denied Medication Because of “Conscience”


Earlier this month, in my piece about the Purvi Patel “feticide” case in Indiana, I predicted increased harassment of women who are miscarrying, on the suspicion that they're trying to obtain misoprostol to induce abortions. (Because the drug expels the contents of the uterus, misoprostol can be used both in abortions and to treat incomplete miscarriages.) That day has come already to Milledgeville, Georgia, where Brittany Cartrett claims that a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for misoprostol that her doctor prescribed for her miscarriage.

Cartrett explains on her Facebook page:

After discussion with my Doctor, we decided to go the less invasive route and choose a medicine that I could take at home to help miscarry naturally, especially since my body wants to hold on to the little miracle. I get a phone call from the doctor stating that the #Walmart in Milledgeville, GA (yes the one I used to work at) doesn't feel comfortable with filling this prescription. She was going to call and figure out what is going on and call me back. Well about 5 minutes later she calls and says, "They won't fill it. They won't tell me why. But they won't fill it." So we find another place to fill it and I thank her. ....They WON'T fill it. Not that they CAN'T. But they WON'T. Now, I have another prescription there that I have to get. So I go up to Walmart and I get my prescription and the #Walmart pharmacist comes to me for my consultation and asks If I have any questions. I tell her yes, but not about this one. I ask her why they refused to fill the other prescription I had. She looks at me, over her nose and says "Because I couldn't think of a reason why you would need that prescription." ..... Excuse me?! I tell her my reasons for needing it, and she says "Well, I don't feel like there is a reason why you would need it, so we refused to fill it."

WGXA followed up with Walmart and found pharmacist Sandip Patel, “who said he was aware of the situation and also said that pharmacists have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.” Georgia law has broad provisions allowing pharmacists to refuse service based on “conscience.”

Abortion-inducing medications are troubling for the anti-choice movement, because they blur the biological difference between miscarriage and abortion; many miscarriages are only resolved through the very same interventions used to terminate pregnancies at will. As Cartrett's alleged experiences suggest, the blurring creates suspicion. Appointing a bunch of busybody pharmacists as informal judges over whether you are emptying your uterus for the right reasons is a terrible idea that only compounds the pain of a miscarriage. But it's unavoidable if we continue taking away women's discretion over their own pregnancies—even when those pregnancies are over.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/14/miscarrying_woman_denied_medication_misoprostol_can_be_used_for_both_abortion.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

[regexcellent]

Anyone who uses the term anti-choice is a blowhard.

The abortion debate is only about whether or not you think a fetus, or a fetus at a particular stage of development, is a moral person. Anyone trying to distract from this is either dishonest or stupid.

[Thoth]

Anyone who uses the term anti-choice is a blowhard.

The abortion debate is only about whether or not you think a fetus, or a fetus at a particular stage of development, is a moral person. Anyone trying to distract from this is either dishonest or stupid.

bulll****.

[giblets]

Anyone who uses the term anti-choice is a blowhard.

The abortion debate is only about whether or not you think a fetus, or a fetus at a particular stage of development, is a moral person. Anyone trying to distract from this is either dishonest or stupid.

No, if you believe a fetus is a person that doesn't mean you have the right to appropriate a woman to support that person's interests.

[Ben Kenobi]

The justification for an abortion is the same as the justification for any other medical procedure, and likewise if you were to arbitrarily assign personhood to somebody's love handles then I would still support their right to liposuction.

If that were true then you'd be a clone of your mother.

[Ben Kenobi]

so somebody's personhood is entirely a function of brain activity

Why brain activity? What makes it a superior standard as compared to say, genetics?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, if you believe a fetus is a person that doesn't mean you have the right to appropriate a woman to support that person's interests.

Sure you do. What do you call child support?

[Ben Kenobi]

He is arguing for 'human stuff' + 'brain activity' = human. Any animal misses on the first, even aliens or sentient AI miss on the first, it is purely a way to deal with humans and has the advantage of being the same definition at the beginning of life as end of life (and working in the intermediate places too) and being scientific/not religious and so on.

The better standard is the one biology actually uses. Human DNA = Human. Answers all the other objections cleanly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Abortion-inducing medications are troubling for the anti-choice movement, because they blur the biological difference between miscarriage and abortion; many miscarriages are only resolved through the very same interventions used to terminate pregnancies at will.

This is akin to a legal system not distinguishing between SIDS and homicide. We make this distinction all the time.

[regexcellent]

No, if you believe a fetus is a person that doesn't mean you have the right to appropriate a woman to support that person's interests.

No, if you believe a fetus is a moral person then it follows deductively that killing it is not okay for the sake of not having to endure the pregnancy. This is in particular true when you consider that the more "alive" the fetus is, the less of the pregnancy there is left to complete anyway.

If you believe a fetus is not a moral person, then absolutely you should not expect the woman to have to endure the pregnancy.