Interesting, because I'm one who says it is always a morally weighed decision, but I'd also say that your description "counts" as moral weighing, given the moral universe you live in. Thinking about something in moral terms shouldn't mean one has to think of abortion as evil: surely stuff like not wanting to be locked into an 18-year relationship or how the hell you'll support yourself counts as moral thinking.

Anyway, that's rude of me, b/c of course I'm second-guessing your own interpretation. Mea culpa. Just using you to clarify my own thinking on the thing.

As for me, I'm thankful every day that I haven't been in a position where I'd have to make a decision like that.

While I was using birth control, I was using one, not terribly reliable, method, and probably wasn't using the utmost of care.

Another data point against "pulling out".

You go, LB.

The moral weighing came in when she said that a presentient fetus has no moral status. This may not have seemed like a complicated decision, because to sane people like you and me it is just obvious that actual sentience is a necessary condition for moral status.

Perhaps, though, this should be more a sympathy/solidarity thread than a philosophical analysis thread.

Great post, LB.

1: Well, that's one way to look at the rhetoric. What I get edgy (or, at least, hypocritical feeling) about is rhetoric that seems to concede that abortion is always a terrible evil, but that sometimes individual circumstances are such that the alternative would be worse, and there's no way to allow the relevant circumstances through without laws protecting everyone's right to end a pregnancy.

That makes me jumpy, because nothing truly terrible would have happened to me if I hadn't been able to have one. I would have managed to live indoors, the kid would have gotten fed somehow, I would have done something for a living.

Did you guys all see that Emily Barzelon article from the NYT magazine on the "post-abortion syndrome" movement? Very creepy.

I agree with my esteemed colleague Mr. Drymala.

4: No, no, philosophical analysis is what I was going for. I'm sincerely not torn up about the decision at all -- I'm pretty unconflicted about the moral issues. And given that people here generally like me, I feel a little exploitative putting out a personal story on the assumption that the response will be warm and affirming. Anyone who wants to get negative should go for it.

7: There was a TAPped article a while back about this.

Anyone who wants to get negative should go for it.

Thanks for the go-ahead, babykiller.

Any time.

On the philosophical side, I find the subject of fetal sentience fascinating, and wish I had time to investigate it more. I've seen good evidence for fetal sentience as early as 18 weeks, which would give the fetus moral status similar to that of a dog. A dog that you woke up one morning and found yourself surgically attached to.

But what if the dog was a violinist?

I think that a ten week embryo -- in fact, any fetus in at least the first two trimesters -- is not sentient

but cute
elephant fetus

10.--The TAP article is good, but the NYT Magazine article describes very vividly one prison ministry that just unnerved me. A "counselor" goes in, sets up a giant ritual of mourning, asks the women to imagine themselves as mothers of perfect, holy children in heaven, and then encourages them to explain the confusion and pain in their lives as a result of their abortions. The legal ramifications of this movement are disturbing enough, but this sort of "ministering" seems outright unethical.

Yeah, I get very angry at the pathologizing of the hyped-up emotional trauma it must cause on a woman to have an abortion. I think it's a way of introducing punishment back into the equation. "Can't get off scot-free for playing, not in God's world!"

I'm sure I/we would have felt exactly the same way, done the same thing, and had the same judgment looking back, had that happened to us at the same stage of our relationship. I remember reading a piece right about then by Barbara Ehrenreich, that made some of these same points, about her own abortion and its relative lack of moral difficulty, and that convinced me. She's been an important influence on my thinking for over thirty years.

which would give the fetus moral status similar to that of a dog.

Word.

I saw that NYT Magazine piece over the weekend, but I couldn't read it -- it made me too angry. Thank you for posting this, LizardBreath.

But man, did I not want to be pregnant. I did not want to be locked into a minimum eighteen-year relationship with someone I'd been dating for a couple of months. I did not want to be responsible forever for someone who didn't exist yet. I didn't want to be physically pregnant.

I'm going to presumptiously guess that you wouldn't mind getting asked some questions for the cause of furthering understanding. Because this is something
I've never quite understood. (FYI, I grew up pro-life and personally probably still am, but have made a very deliberate political judgement that the only acceptable public and social policy is pro-choice. I suppose I'm like Kerry that way.) Of all of your moral considerations, it seems like the one that matters most is the desire not to be pregnant for 9 months. I guess what I don't understand is why all the other considerations are usually the first on the list. (Not just yours, but other people's.) My understanding is that a new healthy white baby is still quite easy to get adopted. So beyond the 9 months of extreme unpleasantness, why do people automatically worry about the rest of it even when they don't have to?

Now don't get me wrong. I totally get why not wanting to be pregnant for 9 months is a major, major consideration, and that pregnancy is a major imposition on a woman's body and autonomy unlike any other. But to me it seems like that is the overriding consideration, the only immovable consideration, and well worth having a choice for--I don't actually see how it even needs the rest of the list. And the rst of the list seems much more negotiable to me. From the rest of your post it sounds like if you could magically be certain that a baby would be whisked away and perfectly taken care of with no more effort on your part, you still would have wanted an abortion, precisely b/c pregnancy is itself so physically difficult. So I'm not trying to get at *your* actual choice at all. But I've never quite understood why the fact that an apparatus does exist to make sure babies can sometimes get magically whisked away increasingly seems off the plate of considerations, when it would boil the choice down to its essential "are you willing to be pregnant for 9 months and accept all the risks and responsibilities that entails?". I mean, I really just wonder--is there some secret family-transmitted knowledge about how adoption works in this country that 3rd generation Americans have and I don't, and this is why people are so unwilling to consider it?

Hope I've worded that okay. . .thanks for considering the question.

uh, adoption is not a magic whisking.

biology takes care of the fact that you will have some whopping big emotional attachments to a baby that you carry to term, and giving it up for adoption will be wrenching. far more traumatic than the emotions of abortion.

furthermore, i can easily imagine not wanting to have a child of mine out there & adopted. both because one may feel strongly about how one wants a one's own child raised, and also because it's increasingly common for adopted children to find their birth parents and contact them and initiate a relationship. very complicated stuff.

http://gymno.blogspot.com/ - her entry back on 1/17 speaks to this.

Apparently a very common answer that women give as to why they had an abortion is that they didn't want to be a mother. It speaks to the transformation that will (usually) occur over the course of the pregnancy, of the woman into a mother, a (potentially) deep identity change. There's (usually) no clean whisking away of the fetus.

For myself, while I wouldn't want to go through an unwanted pregnancy, it's more important to me not to bring a life into the world that I couldn't be responsible to. I do not believe, fundamentally, that a baby given up for adoption is "magically whisked away." That's a child who will wonder who and where its genetic parents are. Some countries and states have even written legislation to protect a child's right to know its parents' identity, although I don't know how ironclad or consistently applied these rights are.

Wow, we *all* picked up the "magic whisking away" phrase.

I think that line of thinking is tempting and appealing to many people, depending on their own experience, but I think it carries with it a fairly thick-headed ignorance, perhaps willful, of what those 9 months might be like. A pregnant woman isn't in stasis for 9 months and then ding! there's a baby in her arms. It's a year of her life in which career, the rest of her family, the rest of her life, etc., may be affected in ways she cannot or does not want to tolerate. Adoption is a great solution for people for whom it works. It doesn't work for everyone. Pregnancy doesn't work for everyone. If you've made the calculation that the only acceptable policy is a pro-choice policy then you're obviously capable of realizing why abortion might not work for you but is going to be the best choice for someone else; extend that capacity to the question of why carrying to term isn't the best choice for someone else.

"... Morally, I think that a ten week embryo -- in fact, any fetus in at least the first two trimesters -- is not sentient and is not a person or anything else with rights, and that ending a pregnancy does not have moral significance with respect to the rights or interests of the fetus."

I have no problem with abortion but I don't agree with the no rights or moral significance part. I would for example have a big problem with a woman taking thalidomide because she thinks babies with no limbs are cute.

21 - People who have a child out of wedlock and give it up for adoption are sometimes, though certainly not always, stigmatized. It's hard to keep a pregnancy under wraps to avoid unwarranted stigmatization (that might not be a word).

"A Democrat is a Republican whose daughter needs an abortion. A Republican is a Democrat who just got mugged."

Someone else battle 27 with the illogic of that statement. I'm feeling testy.

I agree that adoption is not "a magic whisking" but it's the best possible solution and should be required rather than an abortion.

extend that capacity to the question of why carrying to term isn't the best choice for someone else.

Yes, I totally get that--that was what I was trying to make clear in my second graf. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I totally get that being pregnant is crazy scary hard nigh impossible if you're not enthusiastically into it. And I totally get that there are 10,000 reasons why, even if you could see yourself surviving that 9 months and coming out intact, *not* being able to put a baby for adoption afterwards (b/c it would be socially unacceptable, say, or b/c you were quite sure the baby wouldn't get adopted properly) would be a huge weight on one side of the choice scale.

What I was trying to get at--what I was hoping to get a little help with in the "capacity" department--is more along the lines of what mmf! was saying. Which I still dont' get. But would like to. If, however, I should slink away, I'll do that instead.

babies with no limbs are cute

Twisty babies!

I have been a lot more conflicted over abortion since Mrs. A. and I had an (early) miscarriage, and then a baby. The "sentience" stuff sounds very cocky to me.

Still think abortion should be legal, b/c I think many would get an abortion whether legal or not & I am not inclined to punish women who seek abortions, let alone endanger their lives. And I certainly appreciate LB's "lesser of the evils" analysis. Never had to make that choice, thank heavens. I just think I would've found it a difficult one.

While I tend to think that the choice to have an abortion is a morally significant one (although I try to avoid use of that slippery term, "sentience"), I don't think it is a moral decision that involves anyone but the pregnant woman. When and until the state figures out a way to magically remove the fetus from a women who no longer desires to be pregnant without any medical intervention (transporter?), it is nobody's business but the pregnant woman. The state has no right to hijack a preganant woman's body, no matter how noble its goals.

Sorry, James B. Shearer, but "The Woman" has the final say around here -- if "The Woman" wants to take thalidomide because she thinks babies with no limbs are cute, then you can't interfere. Just be content with current law that outlaw chopping off of a BORN baby's limbs.

but it's the best possible solution and should be required rather than an abortion.

In this country dude, you don't get to mandate what people do just because you think it's "best".

I would for example have a big problem with a woman taking thalidomide because she thinks babies with no limbs are cute.

A baby isn't a fetus.

LB, I'm glad you posted this. I also had an abortion and experienced zero problems. I understand the vast majority of women having abortions do not have devestating psychological and/or emotional problems due to the abortion. I get very annoyed by so-called counselors, ministers, etc. telling troubled women that their problems all stem from their abortions.

I would like to see more notice made of the positive repercussions of abortion. But how to do so? There was the Ms magazine 'I had an abortion' thingie (which I signed). Having an abortion and turning out fine is hardly newsworthy when compared to, e.g., the minister in the linked NYT article. Her story's got sexual abuse, death, drugs, alcohol, rape, attempted suicide. I can't compete w/that.

Pregnancy doesn't work for everyone.

For sure. I worked in OB/GYN research for some time; I'd go for a trespassing & self-defense argument. It's there in my property, I don't want it there, I told it to get out, it didn't, I'm entitled to do something about it.

Yes 36. Way to untangle that puzzler.

Charlie 2.0 is perhaps the very best argument for abortion.

Great post.

My 0.02$ anecdote: a friend in college got an abortion. She was smart, competent, using birth control, and in a field where let's say she could be expected to understand the timing of fertility; the (male) doctor who did the procedure mocked her for getting pregnant because of that last. This was a while ago and no doubt a wild anomaly but I'm still angry.

Or at least an argument for a Charlie 2.1.

Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking scary even apart from the whole parenting thing.

I don't know. I have conflicts about even early term abortions but they're not well articulated, and may just be latent Catholic guilt, which certainly shouldn't be imposed on anyone else.

I also hated the idea of unwanted pregnancy in situations when it would not, objectively speaking, have been all that disastrous. LB articulates something that's often overlooked--what if you're in a relationship with a great guy, but it's the wrong time I worried about this in college: I thought I might eventually want to marry my boyfriend. (this proved correct). I didn't want to screw it up--not that he would have run off, we may have gotten married, but that is not a great way to start. And he felt more about abortion like she and a lot of folks here did--it would have been my choice, of course, but I couldn't help be aware of that, and I think the effect on the father's life is a legitimate consideration.

I've dealt with this by being ultra-paranoid side about birth control--two methods, always & emergency contraception if one fails (latent Catholic guilt has limits)--and the combo of that & luck has gotten to me to an age where it would just screw up short time plans and timing & I would just have the kid. But I still worry about finding out about a disability etc., especially 2nd trimester or later.

31 - It wouldn't be a bad idea to say why you think adoption is the best possible option.

I like to adopt babies and then cut off their limbs, so that I can avoid the moral quandary of thalidomide.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to say why you think adoption is the best possible option

Unfortunately it would be, as his response is unlikely to be at all helpful.

annie:

Same reason I prefer Child Protective Services taking a BORN child and placing her in foster care rather than filicide.

Killing horses?

As long as you ship the limbs to Iraqi babies that need them, I see no problem with this.

more along the lines of what mmf! was saying

I'm not telling you to slink away. I will make that plain momentarily. What I'm saying is that there is no way to quantify all the reasons why the pregnancy itself might be anywhere on the scale from "undesired" to "imminently dangerous" and even if they could all be enumerated and measured it would still be impossible to really understand some of them without experiencing them first hand. I'm not flaming you, I'm trying to say that in my opinion the explanation is that explanations are probably pointless because the situation itself is at such a remove from most conversations about it and I'm trying to build a bridge by recognizing the thought you've already put into it.

On the other hand, I wish Charles would be run over by a truck. See? I'm not flaming you, Ile. I don't want you to be run over by a truck.

As I said, heebie-geebie, luckily (for us at least) current law outlaws chopping off of a BORN baby's limbs.

49: Charlie believes the state is better positioned to make such important parenting decisions than the parents themselves are.

The NYT magazine article was indeed creepy. No doubt that having an abortion is often a traumatic experience; aside from the hormones, if a woman has always believed an abortion murders a baby, and then she has an abortion, she's going to have to reconcile that somehow. But the article seemed to present the therapy strategy as blaming everything that went wrong in one's life after that on the abortion. That's deeply fucked up. Not every woman who has an abortion ends up in jail for heroin possession, jeez.
--
On LB's post, which is excellent. I think LB's wrong to characterize her decision to have an abortion as a non-morally weighted decision. She didn't see herself as committing a crime equivalent to murder; but I don't think that's what the 'serious decision' rhetoric entails. And it was a serious decision; all the reasons LB gives for having the abortion are serious reasons. None of them are of the strawbabykiller 'baby shit doesn't match my prada bag' variety. I think that's all 'serious decision' entails, not that the woman seeking an abortion actually believe her reasons are good enough to justify a 'murder.' (And, it opens a good discussion: if a 24-year-old upper-middle-class college grad doesn't feel like she can raise a child alone, who can?)

Baby limbs are like a magic penny;
Hold them tight and you won't have any.
Lend 'em, spend 'em and you'll have so many,
They'll roll all over the floor...

I like to adopt babies and then cut off their limbs, so that I can avoid the moral quandary of thalidomide.

First smile I've had today, I think. Sick bastard that I am.

Charlie 2.0: you are banned.

Note to others - this is due to continued trolling by Charlie 2.0 and not because he is saying things on this thread that are not pro-choice. We accept a variety of opinions and productive debate. Trolling is not permitted.

Charlie 2.0: you are banned and we ask that you stop commenting on this blog.

I've got the impression that there is a generation gap among liberals on abortion, not on the right itself, but on being especially conflicted about it. Boomers, even from Catholic backgrounds, don't seem to me particularly bothered about it, while quite radical young people do. And my first guess as to why is that because the whole issue was largely hidden and not-talked-about when boomers were growing up, we arrived at adulthood without having been propagandized, which young people haven't.

Known or suspected filicides (killing one's own child), be my guest to articulate a "moral" defense of any:

Cameron John Brown - Suspected of killing his four-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key by pushing her off a cliff to avoid paying child support.

Lucius Sergius Catilina - The notorious Roman insurrectionist was said to have murdered his only son to persuade Aurelia Orestilla to marry him.

Neil Entwistle - Was charged in the January 2006 killing of his baby daughter Lillian in Hopkinton, MA.

Marvin Pentz Gay, Sr. (deceased) - Shot his son (singer) Marvin Gaye during an argument in Los Angeles, California, in 1984. He was sent to a rest home for the rest of his life.

Susan Smith - Drowned her two sons Michael and Alex in a maroon Mazda Protegé in Union, South Carolina, in 1994. She was sentenced to life in prison in Union, South Carolina, in 1995.

Andrea Yates - Drowned her five children in a bathtub in 2001, in Clear Lake City, Texas, due to postpartum depression and other mental disorders. She was sentenced to life in prison in Gatesville, Texas in 2002, but the sentence was later overturned.

Bradford Bishop bludgeoned his three children, spouse and mother to death in 1976. He was indicted for murders and remains at large.

Debora Green burned two of her three children to death in an arson attack, out of fear she would lose custody of them to her estranged husband Michael Farrar. Sentenced to life imprisonment.

Ivan IV of Russia (Ivan the Terrible) - Killed his son and heir to the throne in a rage.

Peter the Great of Russia - Had his son tortured to death, being present at several of the torture sessions and allegedly participating in some of them.

Ernest I. Jeffries - Killed his infant daughter by slamming her to the floor with his raised arm from a standing position, similar to a football player 'spiking' a football.

Jerry Branton Hobbs - Inflicted 30 stab wounds against his daughter Laura Hobbs and her best friend Krystal Tobias.

Thomas Dewald - Drowned his two children, aged 10 and 12, in the lake near his parents' cottage.

Rohini Maharaj (deceased) - Killed her two sons by carbon monoxide poisoning in the garage and then committed suicide.

Ronald Clark O'Bryan - Poisoned his son on Halloween 1974 with cyanide-laced candy for $20,000 of life insurance money. Executed in 1984.

Christina Riggs - She was sentenced to death by lethal injection for killing her two children Justin and Shelby.

Sharon Amos - A prominent member of the Peoples Temple church in Guyana (who was not present at Jonestown, but rather at Guyana headquarters in Georgetown) slit the throats of her two children and then herself after hearing the news of mass suicide from Jonestown over the ham radio.

Jozsef Barsi - On July 25, 1988 child actress Judith Barsi's father entered her bedroom and shot her in her head. Judith's mother heard the gun shot and came running down the hall where she was met by her father; he then shot his wife. He then drenched the bodies in gasoline and set the house on fire before finally shooting himself in the garage.

Josef and Magda Goebbels - On May 1, 1945 poisoned their six children before committing suicide.

Yeongjo, king of Korea (r. 1724-1776), ordered the death of his son, Crown Prince Sado, in 1767. The crown prince had murdered people within the royal palace and was most likely mentally ill. He obeyed his father's order to climb into a rice chest, where he subsequently suffocated to death.

Selim I, sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1512-1520), had all possible competitors for the sultanate assassinated, including two of his brothers, his nephews, and all of his sons but one, Suleiman I.
Ptolemy XII of Egypt had his daughter Berenice IV and her husband beheaded in 55 BC. This was after she had dethroned him and poisoned her sister, Cleopatra VI.

China Arnold murdered her newborn daughter by using a microwave oven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide#Known_or_suspected_filicides

Banned as in you blocked his IP?

48 - I thought the invitation should at least be made. I admit that I didn't expect Charles's explanation to be very helpful. But I also don't find bare declarations helpful; I want to squeeze a real explanation out of the person. I'm not well-versed in the back-and-forth of these kind of comment discussions, so I defer to the conventional wisdom re: them.

Oh, O.K. Becks. I was just answering heebie-geebie's question. Have a nice life then.

I out-trolled a troll! AND I didn't get banned!

(it'd be poetic if I got banned for taunting the troll, but please don't, because I like it here very much thank you.)

heebie-geebie is brained!

I don't see why 27 is objectionable to anyone, other than being kind of off-topic.

27: I think the philosophical solution here is that it's the *future infant/person* that has the right to not to have been natally mutilated (whether with thalomide or alcohol), but the fetus doesn't have any right to have its development continue into a real person. In fact, I'd argue that it'd be positively *immoral* to continue the development of a fetus that is known to have some extremely painful and expensive genetic disorder. (Down syndrome would be in the grey area there.)

What does that mean? Do I have to send my brain to the Iraqi babies?

Yes. All the little bits of it.

63 - Thank you for leaving graciously, Charlie 2.0.

To the rest of you -- sorry to disrupt the thread with this unpleasantness.

Took you long enough. Neener.

Thanks, Becks.

I don't think he brought a single pastry after the first thread he trolled.

Kevin Drum has a big excerpt and link to this post up. We may be seeing some new people around here for a little while...

Here's the slight moral difficulty I have- in high school we had a pregnancy scare (just slightly late, it turned out, and she usually has longer cycles anyway) and we discussed what we would have done if it had been real; fortunately never had to make the choice. Now we have two completely planned kids, and from the first positive test (2 weeks*), first heartbeat by ultrasound (8 weeks), first audible heartbeat, first movement, etc., we considered it to be our child because we wanted it and had planned for it to happen. Could we have made a distinction between that and a terminated pregnancy, if it had been necessary in the past? Is it more difficult to have an abortion after having a planned pregnancy? I imagine that's less common, though still fairly usual (don't want / can't afford / unhealthy to have another kid).

* 2 weeks post conception- how f'ed up is it that at conception you're technically 2 weeks pregnant according to the usual counting method?

I *think* more than half of abortions are by women who already have children. This doesn't speak to the planned/unplannedness of the prior children though.

The filicide list is sort of perversely fascinating.

"Ronald Clark O'Bryan - Poisoned his son on Halloween 1974 with cyanide-laced candy for $20,000 of life insurance money. Executed in 1984."

I mean, what a creative sick fuck.

It's just because they determine your due date by the date of your last period because that's the easiest, uh, marker.

72- Ezra and atrios too, I hope this doesn't get ugly.

Way back to 21: Jackm and mmf pretty much covered how I feel about adoption. The way I'd put it is that because I terminated the pregnancy, no child of mine that I have responsibilities to was born. If such a child had been born, I would have been responsible to see that it was well cared for for the rest of its life, and I can't emotionally see adoption as a way to manage that -- wonderful as I'm sure the vast majority of adoptive parents are, I wouldn't be around to make sure that they were, in fact, living up to the responsibilities I'd transferred to them.

This is a great post, LB. I was raised Catholic and thus pro-life (and witnessing a gruesome plastic baby and baseball bat demonstration of abortion by a priest in first grade). Thankfully I came through it pro-choice and guilt-free. What I think is so important about your story is that it is your story. If the stats I have are correct, 1 in 3 American women will have had an abortion by age 45. That's a lot of stories, some like yours, and some not, all important and worth hearing.

On a quite unrelated note that I'm reminded of, at the school I taught at we had an AIDS assembly, and the speaker asked if anyone in the audience had HIV/AIDS and was willing to speak up. In the auditorium one 13-year-old girl raised her hand. Needless to say, her bravery was inspiring to me and my students. The speaker concluded by saying that the silence around the disease is the deadliest thing for the people suffering, and getting stories out in the open is one of the healthiest things, for individuals and for culture. And I think this is true with abortion, where the numbers and the number of stories don't match up. So I applaud your bravery at sharing your story.

I had an abortion the year between my sophomore and junior year in high school. I've never regretted it - in fact, I thank god that it happened in summer, when I had a paycheck to pay for it.

I've never felt guilt or bad about it at all. My biggest worry is my family, who I can't imagine being at all understanding about it, finding out. I also don't tell many people. I'm not ashamed, but I fear other people's reactions, and I don't want to deal with them.

I've always felt like that when I decided to have an abortion, it was this very empowering moment in my young life. I was 16. I got knocked up the first time I had sex - I actually was stupid enough to buy the "I'll pull out baby" line. But, the guy was 19, and was a virgin too, so he probably believed the line himself. But, when I decided and had an abortion, I actually took responsibility for myself and my future. I went to a high school with a very high rate of teenage pregnancy - a lot of the girls were pregnant because they never made a choice either way - after all, you don't have to "choose" to stay pregnant. You'll stay pregnant in the absence of any decision at all. A lot of them just didn't face what was happening at all.

So, I look back at that decision as a time when I decided who I was going to be. And, 16 years later, I'm college eductated, have an awesome job, a lovely apartment, and no kids. Which believe me, is still just fine with me.

I always tell people when they insist that they'd never have an abortion, that you just don't know until you are in that situation.

I didn't want to be physically pregnant

Thinking of the two occasions when I've been party to an unplanned pregnancy, this rings true. I get the sense that if there isn't the counterbalancing motivation of wanting to carry the child, the physical unpleasantness of the experience overwhelms.

The best part of having been there once is that, the second time someone calls and says 'guess what?', you know. The surprising part was to find that the staff at the hospital are very supportive of the man in these situations. I thought I'd be glared at; instead, there was this aura. Of fertility, or something. Or maybe that's just what it's like when people are kind at you.

It's worth mentioning that I had no say in the process at all. Not that I would have asked for one, but it's something to bear in mind if you're thinking of fertilising someone, like, by accident. And this experience (of being out of control) confirmed my view that 'wanting to have a say' is a component of anti-abortion politics.

So, politically useful as it is, I get a little edgy about rhetoric that stipulates that abortion is always a strongly morally weighted decision.

You did, however, file a lawyer's brief explaining that if abortion were a morally weighted decision, most of the extenuating factors applied in such cases wouldn't have applied to you. Just to make everything clear.

This is a song you have all heard before, but I will sing it anyway. Why do many who are pro-choice continue to regard abortion as a 'morally weighted' decision'? Where the rubber hits the road here is the claim that ending a pregnancy does not have moral significance with respect to the rights or interests of the fetus, and perhaps more centrally, how sure one can be about this.

A fetus is not the only entity that lacks some of the qualities that are often taken as indicative of full and complete human rights - rationality, the ability to suffer, the ability to form a coherent life plan, the potential to develop any of the same. Children, the retarded, infants, higher apes, other animals all these 'fall short' in some way of adult human capabilities. So what place do each of these entities occupy on the continuum of moral worth? Is it a continuum, or are there certain binary switches? These are areas of enormous debate and controversy, and substantial cultural variation. Many sophisticated societies considered infanticide licit; now almost all deter it with severe criminal penalties. 200 years ago, almost no one (in the West) believed higher mammals possessed rights; now this is a position with substantial support. Perhaps we feel comfortable with a moral theory that assigns a value of zero to a chimp's life. Or perhaps we feel comfortable with a moral theory that draws an absolute distinction between ending the life of a fetus at 10 weeks and ending the life of a premature baby at one day. The question is how confident we should feel about our theory.

baa just wants to cut limbs off of chimps.

Shut up, hooker.

If I were pregnant with a chimp, I would not abort it. That's just the kinda moral-high-road gal I am.

84: C'mon you big, black son of a bitch. YEAH!

baa, I'm not sure what you intend with 82, but in this context, I think it muddies the waters. Early-term abortion doesn't seem like it falls in a grey area--it's a pretty easy call on the "moral entity" scale.

Or feed them thalidomide.

I have the world's most gigantic headache, so, not a lot to say except:
Is it a continuum, or are there certain binary switches?

These aren't mutually exclusive and exhaustive, or rather, you could believe in a continuum of consciousness yet believe that personhood only attached at a certain level of consciousness. (Think of it like a limit in calculus. Or something.)

Children, the retarded, infants, higher apes, other animals all these 'fall short' in some way of adult human capabilities.

An important and well-trod difference between this and the unborn is, of course, the rigid physical dependence on the mother for support & sustenance.

U r a dirty whore

Okay, I recognize the moral quandary, but can we still kill retarded infant apes? Because if that's wrong, I'm not sure I want to be right.

perhaps we feel comfortable with a moral theory that draws an absolute distinction between ending the life of a fetus at 10 weeks and ending the life of a premature baby at one day.

A premature baby is no longer a physical part of the mother, which distinguishes pregnancy from those other cases. As bright-line rules go, "born vs. unborn" is a fairly decent one.

In regards to the emphasis on the moral weight of the decision, I think it's both a tactical emphasis (to fend off charges of being a pack of libertine babykillers), as well as a way for people who are personally uncomfortable with abortion, but don't want to see it criminalized, to express their discomfort.

Not everyone thinks this way, however, and part of what I take it LB is doing with the post is trying to change that attitude.

82: I welcome the sort of discussion baa wants to have, and often lead such discussions in philosophy courses. However, I suspect that if conducted fairly and rationally, it will lead in a direction that only me and Peter Singer feel really comfortable with. You are going to see the rights you want to accord animals reach burdensome levels, and rights accorded fetuses and even newborn infants decline. And if you want to give more rights to newborns, you are going to have to give even more rights to animals.

For sociopaths, murder of "born" people is not "a morally weighted decision" either.

As long as we can still eat animals, I'm cool with giving them equal rights.

The more I read from anti-abortion activists, the fewer qualms I have about infanticide.

Right. If you're talking about actual ability to reason or suffer, then carnivory is going to be illegal long before abortion.

Oh boy, it's Al! I knew being linked by Drum would bring nothing but good!

In re: 89, insert an "in ur womb, verbing ur objects" joke here.

A lot of the reasons women give for having an abortion are absolute shite. Frankly I could care less and would rather they keep their 'I wanted to keep my figure and go clubbing' reasons to themselves. Abortion is and should remain legal because woman and not the state control their bodies. End of Story

98: That's what I was thinking. Perhaps "Im in ur commentz, beratin ur dirty horez"?

Suddenly I'm against blogospheric popularity. O, for the hermetic solipsism.

Well, it amused me, anyway.

No one cares if you care or not, W.C.

We're sorta glad that you don't, but no one really gives a fuck.

Hi, Al! It's been awhile since I've been you.

Emerson, feeder of trolls. Don't feed anyone a fetus by mistake, John.

LB, I think you misspelled Juarez.

Hi, John! Are you going to argue that sociopaths who murder "born" people are making "a morally weighted decision"?

Sorry, Al, I've been warned.

Hey, LB, I just wanted to say thanks for a very good and thought-provoking post -- good enough that I'm willing to post a comment while on vacation in Grand Cayman. I'm sorry to miss the discussion, but there's an umbrella drink with my name on it...

Oh good fucking God on a rice cracker.

109.---Yeah, seriously.

mrh, if you're tempted to comment again from your tropical paradise, don't mention your tropical paradise setting, ok?

Oh good fucking God on a rice cracker.

Isn't the eucharist conventionally made from wheat flour?

That's not the GOOD fucking God.

I tried to cum over here as soon as Kevin posted the link, but your server must have been really busy.

If you're Mormon, it's usually WonderBread.

Not only conventionally -- I think it's obligatory. I seem to recall a story about a Catholic with severe gluten intolerance who couldn't work out any alternative way to take the Eucharist.

ew, gross!

Oh 109 wasn't directed at mrh. Just an all-purpose curse.

111: Yes, but if it's rice, then it's better for swearing.

116 -> 113

I'm trying to control myself.

Congregationalist runs to little cubes of Pepperidge Farm, and tiny shots of grape juice.

I would for example have a big problem with a woman taking thalidomide because she thinks babies with no limbs are cute.

Gosh, lucky that NEVER EVER HAPPENS, then.

I seem to recall a story about a Catholic with severe gluten intolerance who couldn't work out any alternative way to take the Eucharist.

The wine counts just as fully.

Funny anecdote: So, the chapel in college wanted to use a crumbly peasant bread instead of the usual wafers, and that was deemed acceptable as it did contain gluten. Problem was that the bread, while tasty, was very very crumbly. If you're actually believing everything, then that means when it crumbles onto the carpet, there's little bits of God in the rug.

You can't just vacuum up little bits of God. So we had to switch back to wafers until the girls kitchen-tested a few more bread recipes.

Go ahead, American Hawk -- let 'em have it, with both barrels!

The grape juice thing is so weird. There's this religion with a sacrament of wine, and an entire sub-group that thinks booze is such an evil that they have to change their sacrament? I guess they did develop some useful ways of stopping fermentation along the way...

121: But it could! And if it did, it'd be just WRONG!

I feel the need to be outraged about Bonsai Kittens now.

Oh god, Cala. That second to last sentence, in light of the abortion thread...I laughed out loud.

Congregationalist runs to little cubes of Pepperidge Farm

So should the new rule be that trools have to bring communion bread consistent with their tradition?

Or is that a bit too much comity?

It's worth mentioning that I had no say in the process at all. Not that I would have asked for one, but it's something to bear in mind if you're thinking of fertilising someone, like, by accident. And this experience (of being out of control) confirmed my view that 'wanting to have a say' is a component of anti-abortion politics.

Yeah, well, I weep for you. But unless you're the one whose body is going to carry the fetus to term, you can't have a say once a pregnancy has happened. Got a problem with that? Take it up with God. I'm pretty sure that the women involved would have been more than happy to let you take on the responsibility of pregnancy, including the responsibility of decision making.

Cala, that sounds like the beginning of a bad acid trip.

But back to the original post, and despite my initial comment, yeah: the problem with the "women *agonize* over this decision" thing is that, well, some women don't. And there's no real reason they should.

"What if God was one of us?"

B, that's the nice Charlie.

Right. Bad Charlie's been banned.

82: Baa, it's the violinist argument. Fine, grant the fetus moral status; that doesn't give it the right to parasitically depend on a woman to not only sustain it, but actively develop it. The only argument to the contrary amounts to a "you chose to have sex" argument, and then suddenly you're in the pregnancy-as-punishment-for-sex camp, which is probably not where you want to be.

BitchPhD:

You do realize, don't you, that men WERE making this decision just a couple hundred years ago?

132, 133: I miss out on everything when I'm busy. But no matter who it was, my refutation stands. Imagine my tone as a little less "fuck off, asshole," though.

some women don't.

There's been some interesting stuff about PTSD being reinforced rather than helped by the debriefing "therapy" too. I suspect if someone is told to "agonize" they are more likely to do so.

135: Yeah, I realize that at one point in European history, women were considered the property of men. And that for some people, that's still the case, consciously or no.

I am not, however, among them.

Have I mentioned recently how much I hate the violinist argument? This is not an important claim. I just hate that entire paper.

There's this religion with a sacrament of wine, and an entire sub-group that thinks booze is such an evil that they have to change their sacrament?

The argument I've heard is that wine back then didn't get people drunk, because it was really grape juice. God didn't get drunk, or get people drunk. All those references to drink and drunken people and Cana? OH LOOK, BEHIND YOU A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS. *grape juice.**

You could be . . .

what i hate about baa's 82, and such arguments generally, is: well then, where does that put me, or other women, on this scale, in relation to all the retarded chimps and fetuses?

sometimes pregnancy is fine and doesn't affect your health, but sometime it is very dangerous, can have long-term consequences, and women still do die in childbirth.

forcing someone to take all those risks if they don't wish to carry a child to term -- *that* is unethical.

I am a labor and delivery nurse, have been involved in childbirth education, midwifery and home birth for many years, and experienced a stillbirth of a wanted child at term.

I have seen a wide a spectrum of reactions to pregnancy losses over time. Some infertile women truly feel each period as a painful loss of a potential child. If I were attending a support group, I would consider women grieving an abortion due to unwanted pregnancy, a spontaneous miscarriage, an abortion due to diagnosed abnormality, and a neonatal death equally deserving of sympathy based on their own personal perception of loss.

That said, I think women who grieve abortions are in the minority, and I wonder if some degree of coercion at the time might be involved.

Oh crap, sorry all. No more troll food for me. I'm going out to dinner in a bit, anyway.

Where I intend to eat UNBORN FETUS STEW WITH BLOOD AND GUTS AND BRAINS IN MY TEETH.

Jane:

Imposing other legal duties on parents result in all other sorts of negative consequences too. So?

Floss.

I just stated these comments. but BEPa at 35 expressed my attitude. I am uncomfortable with MY's and LB's arguments from sentience, as I am with arguments from viability.

James Shearer's point about thalidomide is worth considering, Any analogies I might make as to the status of the fetus might be distasteful, and analogies are banned anyway. But the moral question would concern what restrictions we place on what a person can do to or with their non- or semi-sentint property.

I read 40 by biohazard. I am likely massively pwned.

I'm kinda hoping trolls show up. Umm, here's a cookie for ogged.

BitchPhD:

Yuck!

66

I don't think that argument is entirely convincing. If you grant the future person a right not to be mutilated as a fetus you could also grant it a right not to be killed as a fetus.

I think abortion should be legal for basically the same reasons I don't think there should be general legal obligations to rescue or assist. Carrying a pregnancy to term is a greater burden than we are willing to legally impose on people in other situations and I see no reason to impose it here.

I also believe the moral rights and claims of a fetus are considerably less than those of an adult human and that this is another reason for abortion to be legal. However I don't believe a fetus has no moral standing at all or that there are no moral implications to the decision to have (or not have an abortion).

Incidentally while feminists emphasize the problems an unwanted pregnancy can cause the mother they seem to have little empathy for the father. In some states a father who was raped is still obligated to support the child which seems unreasonable to me.

LB, sometimes you outdo even yourself. Great post.

but it's the best possible solution and should be required rather than an abortion.

In this country dude, you don't get to mandate what people do just because you think it's "best".

That's why it's called "choice". And rarely are two individuals choices the same, for exactly the same reasons.

I got pregnant without planning to do so, and it was my choice to carry to term. Choosing not to abort is still a choice. Without feeling as if I had that choice, my feelings about my pregnancy would have been very different.

One of my daughters got pregnant at 13. MY choice for her would have been an abortion. But, as I believe IS appropriate, it wasn't my body, it wasn't my choice. My daughter had her daughter when she was 14. She was and is a very good mother.

I am pro-choice because there isn't any way that a group of people NOT involved intimately in the immediate situation could decide in which cases abortion would or would not be appropriate. It HAS to remain a choice of the pregnant woman.

James Shearer's point about thalidomide is worth considering, . . . the moral question would concern what restrictions we place on what a person can do to or with their non- or semi-sentint property.

No. The issue is whether we want to criminalize the medications that people take into their own damn bodies. It's already been determined, legally, that having X in your bloodstream does not constitute legal possession.

The issue is not the fetus. The issue is the autonomy of the woman's own body. As soon as you start talking about "what a person can do with their property" or the sentience of the fetus, you're reducing the woman to the state of being a container.

(Sheesh, got cut off....)

One of my daughters got pregnant at 13. MY choice for her would have been an abortion. But, as I believe IS appropriate, it wasn't my body, it wasn't my choice. My daughter had her daughter when she was 14. She was and is a very good mother.

I am pro-choice because there isn't any way that a group of people NOT involved intimately in the immediate situation could decide in which cases abortion would or would not be appropriate. It HAS to remain a choice of the pregnant woman.

B is going to Alice's Restaurant and Clinic? Careful with the jumping up and down part when your mouth is full. Choking hazard and all, y'know.

If you grant the future person a right not to be mutilated as a fetus you could also grant it a right not to be killed as a fetus.

The situations are distinguishable, if you look at it from the future point of view: the baby mutilated before birth exists and has rights, while no rights-bearing child was ever born as a result of the other pregnancy.

I don't believe a fetus has no moral standing at all or that there are no moral implications to the decision to have (or not have an abortion).

Fabulous! Believe in the moral standing of the fetus all you want! No one is stopping you.

Incidentally while feminists emphasize the problems an unwanted pregnancy can cause the mother they seem to have little empathy for the father. In some states a father who was raped is still obligated to support the child which seems unreasonable to me.

Okay, first of all, this is again one of those "show me an instance of this" things. Second, even if you come up with an instance of this happening, the man owes child support *to the child*, not to the mother. Just as a woman who is impregnated through rape is "obligated" to deal with the consequences, either through abortion, adoption, or motherhood. That seems unreasonable to me, but hey: that's the way biology works.

Mmm. If the mother's a convicted rapist, I doubt she has custody and therefore that she's receiving child support.

The issue is not the fetus.

Uh, respectfully, it may not be for you, but for others it very much is. Saying that the thing that is of preeminent importance to someone matters not at all is a position, but it is not an argument.

156: LB, *she's* never receiving child support, except in her position as *custodian* of the child, who is the one receiving the support.

Kathleen in CO:

Your "choice" does not HAVE TO remain a choice, any more than some people thought that slavery HAD TO remain a choice before the Civil War.

158: Sure. But I doubt a convicted rapist is likely to even be cashing the checks on behalf of the child in question.

157: Sure, if there's a moral issue with the fetus, then that's fine; I said as much. Have whatever morals you want to have.

However, w/r/t the issue of what a woman may or may not do with her body, the fetus is irrelevant. Unless you are really willing to put forth an argument that the law should not grant full personhood to pregnant women.

Al, you're puny today. No biscuit for you.

Overheard, circa 1862: "I am pro-slavery because there isn't any way that a group of people NOT involved intimately in the immediate situation could decide in which cases slavery would or would not be appropriate. It HAS to remain a choice of the slavemaster."

Look I am with most radical on this. and don't like the sentience viability arguments because of the application to late-term, but I though Shearer raised a point that I had an intuitive reaction to.

Could we like say there are no rights for a fetus, but that a child born with horns, blue skin, and wheels due to genetic manipulation could then sue the mother?

Hey, can we start arguing about the lyrics to Brown Sugar again?

If there ever was a time and a place for Ogged's "no analogies" rule, it's a thread about abortion.

160: Indeed. But it would be completely unfair! to expect a man who was raped to support his child if, say, the child's grandparents had custody.

Really, children who are the result of rape have no right to material support at all. Unless, of course, it's the woman who was raped, in which case it would be monstrous of her to abandon her baby.

Unless, of course, it's the woman who was raped, in which case it would be monstrous of her to abandon her baby.

Jeebus. Why? (Assuming here "abandon" means "leave somewhere where it will at least be noticed and get care" like in whichever crazy Nordic country they're doing that.)

148: "If you grant the future person a right not to be mutilated as a fetus you could also grant it a right not to be killed as a fetus."

Indeed, whether potential future people have a right to start existing is a tricky question. But since in the latter case, the "future person" will not actually be around to have the right to have started existing, I take the view that there is no such right. Denial of future existence is not a harm.

w/r/t the issue of what a woman may or may not do with her body, the fetus is irrelevant.

Again, this is a position. not an argument.

Unless you are really willing to put forth an argument that the law should not grant full personhood to pregnant women.

As you are aware, there are plenty of other ways to view the legal question.

I have deleted what I wrote pointing out some of those arguments. You know them. The point of this post is not to rehash the abortion debate, so I will drop it.

164: I'll talk to myself because I am trying to work this out. We don't need weird apeculatio on this because woman have been prosecuted for using drugs during pregnancy.

I too don't think that denial of future existence is a harm, but I am hard put to say a child has no civil standing as to his treatment before birth.

like in whichever crazy Nordic country they're doing that

That's the law in New York City. You can drop off a baby at a hospital or fire station, no questions asked, until up to three days after birth. Obviously, this is not an ideal solution for anyone involved, but as harm mitigation, I'm all for it.

Denial of future existence is not a harm.

Which is why wanking is not morally problematic. Abortion, on the other hand, interferes with God's plan for overpopulating the living shit out of the savannah, which is why it's been morally condemned throughout human history.

Holy crap, Al is almost 150 years old.

Could we like say there are no rights for a fetus, but that a child born with horns, blue skin, and wheels due to genetic manipulation could then sue the mother?

Well, for what it's worth, the operating precedent is that women cannot be held criminally responsible for the results of their pregnancies. Practically speaking, you can see the reason for this: if you *can* throw women in jail b/c their children are born with problems, then there's a very strong incentive for us not to get prenatal care or carry to term.

Morally and legally speaking, again, you fall back on the question of whether you are willing or no to restrict women's right to physical autonomy when they are pregnant. Are pregnant women less fully human than men or non-pregnant women? That's a hell of an argument to make.

Now, in terms of a civil lawsuit, I would say that the problem, obviously, is that you cannot reasonably hold that a woman is fully and consciously responsible for how her fetus turns out. Most of the developmental stuff that happens, including the genetic blueprint, are all things that are beyond one's conscious control. As to the "what if she took thalidomide *in order to* induce birth defects" line of thinking, it's a silly argument; such a thing has never happened in the entire history of the world. One isn't required to generalize from situations that don't actually occur.

168: FWIW, I was summarizing the general social attitude, not actually saying that myself.

Although fwiw, I don't think it's okay for parents to abandon children without some reasonable expectation that the children will be taken care of. If there are laws that allow abandonment, no questions asked, then fabulous. If not, however (and there should be, for obvious reasons), then the usual route with children one doesn't want is to arrange for an adoption.

155

Here is an example of a 13 year old boy raped by a baby sitter being obligated to pay support.

175:"As to the "what if she took thalidomide *in order to* induce birth defects" line of thinking, it's a silly argument"

Not completely silly, or soon not to be. We are either at or near the point of pre-natal manipulation to produce desired outcomes. I am vaguely remembering certain very recent controversies, was it regarding growth hormone? I will try to remember.

But thanks for the help anyway, b

Awesome, Mr. Shearer. I stand corrected about the existence of such a case.

That said, the finding of the court seems to be in line with the argument I've already presented in 155.

You're not going to trick me, heebie-geebie.

A fair summary of your link would note that the babysitter was 16 and the sex was consensual, and that there was no conviction of statutory rape. The court's holding is based on the principle that the age differentials underlying statutory rape laws do not map simply onto the degree of consent necessary to create responsibility for paternity.

If you want to support your 148, you need a more generalizable cite.

177: In that case the girl was 16 and the boy 12 or 13. I believe that if they both had been underage (if the girl had been 15) the parents would have been liable and it would not have been rape.

So this is a different kind of case than some guy being physically forced to have sex, and it's not really much like the LeTourneau case where the woman was clearly and adult.

Google Hermesmann + Sayer

LizardBreath:

It's happened in Norway http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005979232

the man said he found the woman performing oral sex on him as he was sleeping on the couch.

And he's paying child support? The mind reels.

Well, if she didn't swallow, it's at least possible, don't you think?

And as soon as blonde hair, blue eyes, height and IQ are on the pre-natal menu, there will people pouring over it. Some degree of manipulation is inevitable. I am not willing to say it will not be a issue in the younger people's lifetimes. I don't know if the irresponsible will have opportunties to make us sweat.

Ah yes, Andy Sullivan talking about gay-genes, if such were discovered and removable.

At that point, I suppose harm would need be shown, and if things went wrong, willful negligence.

Al, you're losing your fire. Is there a problem? I'll always be here to help.

The last line of 139 may be the funniest thing ever written here.

What I haven't said yet, but kept meaning to: awesome post, LB.

What a brave post. Thank you for writing it.

Bah. I actually do some work and things get so much worse.

52: Yes, yes. Again and again, let me state that I believe it is an imposition on a woman's body and person that the state has no right to force, and that one's choice to willingly carry that imposition-and all the extreme risks and dangers that carrying entails--should be a completely personal choice. I totally grok the trespassing argument.

I wasn't even really questioning the choices so much which options were even considered. I can see from 22,24,77 that adoption is simply not a viable option to some people. What confuses me is why it seems so totally, obviously nonviable--not even worth mentioning, obviously off the table, rarely listed in such memoirs. I was very surprised recently when somone told me that she felt more disapproval from people when she put her kid up for adoption than when those same friends thought she was choosing between abortion or keeping it. If there is a stigma, why is there a stigma? I just want to understand this part of the consideration tree. I wanted to get some insight into that. I can kind of see 77, but I think this is no longer the thread to figure it out in.

So yeah, carry on the fight for making people understand that the state has no business interfering here, and I'll come play another day.

Just briefly. The point of my 82 was to address the question of why people, even ones who are pro-choice, continue to regards abortion as a morally freighted choice. The answer is: because it's in an area -- what moral consideration to we give to something that's not a human adult -- which is in principle controversial and dubitable. Zero is not a lot of consideration, so one must be very sure to assign that level. Few people are that sure. This is not, in itself, a pro-life argument. As noted above, many people who are pro-choice assign non-zero moral consideration to the fetus. As per usual, I'll recommend that anyone interested find some of Rosalind Hurthouse's papers on abortion for a good philosophical treatment.

181

That is not a fair summary of the case.

First the baby sitter was 16 (and the child was 12) when they started having sex but the court found "... At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. ..." so the baby sitter was 17 at the time of the rape.

As for the no conviction argument the court held "SRS maintains that Shane was not the victim of the crime of statutory rape. SRS points out that while Colleen was originally charged in juvenile proceedings with a violation of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503, she later stipulated to a lesser charge of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3612. While SRS is technically correct in asserting that Colleen was never found guilty of violating 21-3503, its entire case is based upon the fact that Shane is the father of the child. As it is undisputed that Shane was under the age of 16 when conception occurred, and throughout the entire time the sexual relationship continued, the argument of SRS is specious at best. The admitted facts established, without doubt, all of the elements necessary to prove a crime under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503(1)(a), and the fact that Colleen was able to plea bargain for a lesser offense does not preclude Shane from alleging he was a "victim" of statutory rape."

Third there was no finding that the sex was consenual (although it probably was). The court said: "Although the question of whether the intercourse with Colleen was "voluntary," as the term is usually understood, is not specifically before us, it was brought out in oral argument before this court that the sexual relationship between Shane and his baby sitter, Colleen, started when he was only 12 years old and lasted over a period of several months. At no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen."

Fourth court didn't say anything about statutory rape being different than forcible rape. What it said was "... We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity. ...".

"Morally and legally speaking, again, you fall back on the question of whether you are willing or no to restrict women's right to physical autonomy when they are pregnant. Are pregnant women less fully human than men or non-pregnant women?"

Morally speaking, I don't see why negligent and reckless conduct that seriously harms the life of a future child should be excusable based on any autonomy considerations, any more than any other form of assault. And I do agree that in most cases, it's not possible to hold women responsible to the problems their fetus develops, and I support things that limit their liability, as a legal matter. But morally speaking, I don't think it's so clear.

I didn't especially like the court's legal argument, granted that I don't understand law. The case has apparently been used as a precedent at least once being overturned, though I didn't find details.

From a non-legal common-sense POV, this seems like one of those 13-17 statutory rape cases except that the M is the younger. I do not intutitively think of these as "rape", though I probably would if it were 27-13.

As far as paternity goes, apparently parents of underage kids are responsible for paternity even though the kids themselves can't give consent to sex. It seems to be turned into a parental-neglect type of case, as if the pregnancy were caused by the parents' failure to supervise rather than by the act of the child (who is incapable of responsibility).

In case anybody cares, protestantism, at least the form I was raised in, considers communion to be an entirely symbolic affair. Since it's representational only, just supposed to remind us/make us think, cubes of white bread and grape juice will do nicely. Probably their homeliness, their un-Catholicity, played a role in their adoption, long ago. Now it's the only form the very oldest members of congregations will have experienced all their lives.

Re: child support, I suppose all you pro-choicers don't think it's possible for any woman out there to ever even think about obtaining sperm "under false pretenses" and impregnating herself, right?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007478.php#741440

I will say that Al's opinions on basketball are generally sound.

Al is bitter because his Kleenex has been sued for child support.

"Has" or "has not" been sued?

175

"Well, for what it's worth, the operating precedent is that women cannot be held criminally responsible for the results of their pregnancies ... "

This is not correct. See here.

Next time, flush your Kleenex and don't leave it around where just any old slut can find it, Papa Al.

Just as I thought: "Taxpayer-Funded Crack Cocaine for EVERYONE!"

I suppose all you pro-choicers don't think it's possible for any woman out there to ever even think about obtaining sperm "under false pretenses" and impregnating herself, right?

One of my pet peeves is people who get off on thinking negative things about what they suppose their opponents are thinking. Of course they're often wrong.

Btw, it probably goes without saying now, but you're wrong; I never thought that.

New moral question: Do I deserve an apology? Or is that too petty, and will it mire the conversation too much? I think perhaps we do need to slow down.

So, you did mean "has" John?

Al, you're off your game. Take a break. You are failing to annoy these people.

194

"As far as paternity goes, apparently parents of underage kids are responsible for paternity even though the kids themselves can't give consent to sex. It seems to be turned into a parental-neglect type of case, as if the pregnancy were caused by the parents' failure to supervise rather than by the act of the child (who is incapable of responsibility)."

The court in the Kansas case held it was the boy not his parents who was responsible. It said "Additionally, counsel for SRS joined the parents of Shane as parties defendant, although no relief was sought against those defendants. At oral argument, appellate counsel had no explanation for joining Shane's parents, but it appears trial counsel may have done so under some mistaken idea that it was necessary to obtain valid service on Shane."

Michael:

So, which one is it, you're not a pro-choicer or you haven't thought that scenario possible? Perhaps you should re-read the thread above where it was stated no such scenario could ever, in a million years, exist.

I will agree that the two child support cases we're dealing with are downright weird.

James, it seems that it was a very weak case. Maybe nobody with money has been motivated to challenge it yet -- cases of this kind are often rushed through and hushed up jsut to make it easier on everyone.

Likewise. Shearer -- I'm really not sure what this case has to do with anything we've been talking about; it certainly doesn't state a general rule that men are responsible for child support for children resulting from their having been raped, even in Kansas.

On the other hand, I could have said in my last comment, and didn't, but am saying now, that the case you linked looks awfully unjust.

If there is a stigma [about abortion], why is there a stigma?

One guess: it's partly class-related. Abortion is confronting the reality that you can't (or don't want to) bring a pregnancy to term for whatever reason, but adoption is likely to be intepreted as more-or-less publicly announcing that you don't have your personal and financial shit together enough to raise a child, which is something rather different. I would guess that there's just as much (if not more) social awkwardness and shunning around adoption than around abortion.

Another guess: the emotional and physical trauma associated with bringing a child to term and then giving it up is potentially much worse than that associated with aborting a fetus. Many people who think it would be a viable alternative for women in most situations don't appear to take this into account.

"Weird" or not, we all agree, right, that James was correct about: "In some states a father who was raped is still obligated to support the child which seems unreasonable to me."

Nope, I guess LizardBreath still does NOT agree. Oh well, I tried.

As I said, my guess is that the precedent stands because it hasn't been challenged very hard yet.

It's not just one case we're talking about here -- I already gave you that link (above):

"Did the woman ask him to impregnate her and sign an agreement relieving him of any financial obligations? He's still liable if she changes her mind.

Did the woman have her way with him when he had passed out from drinking and brag to friends that she had saved herself a trip to the sperm bank? Tough luck, said Alabama courts.

Did she retrieve his semen from the condom she had asked him to wear during oral sex and inseminate herself with a syringe? Yes, it's a true story, and in 1997 the Louisiana Court of Appeals told the man to pay up, saying that a male who has any sexual contact with a woman -- even oral sex with a condom -- should assume that a pregnancy may ensue."

heh, you said "very hard" . . .

Those cracker courts are the shit, ain't they!

Louisiana, I hear, accepts FRENCH law as binding precedent!!! God flooded their courthouse with that hurricane at least.

[I meant to post this morning, didn't, and now this thread is over 200 posts.] I've had abortions (one at eighteen, one last year), and at no time did I have any moral quandary whatsoever. In fact, there wasn't a hint of a decision-making process when I opted to abort: I was appalled at being pregnant, felt disgusted with the condition, and knew I didn't want to be a mother. I felt about it the way cancer patients must feel about a tumor: get it out!

That's too bad, goofyfoot. Do you use any other form of birth control? Perhaps you will grow up someday and appreciate your mistake(s).

In fact, I hope more and more women reveal how they had "no moral quandary whatsoever" about their multiple abortions. Plenty of slave owners felt the same before the Civil War too.

From LB's post: "...it's not clear to me what evil would have been the lesser under those circumstances."

I like that point.

Somehow 'stand it and deliver' seems to be the default position in a lot of abortion discussions. It's as if an abortion must be justified, but bringing another child into the world doesn't. That seems backwards. I don't have a good argument to support the position, but I'd rather see 10 little growing things be prevented from reaching sentience than see another child born into poverty, deprivation, cruelty, indifference, or the like.

Why is birth the default? is it because it's natural, and any interference in nature must be justified? Is it that birth is what results from inaction, and only action need be justified?

219: Perhaps you will grow up someday and appreciate your mistake(s)

Beam in your own eye, mate. Maybe you should actually find out something about the circumstances before you start making condescending pronouncements.

Maybe because unjustified homicide should ALWAYS be murder?

My apologies for Al, goofyfoot. We're trying not to ban people overly quickly, but he's not generally welcome here.

Doctor Slack:

There are ZERO circumstances that justify abortion, just as there as there were ZERO circumstances that justified slavery.

No need to apologize on by behalf, LizardBreath. You need to grow up and realize your mistake(s) as well.

"by" s/b "my"

LizardBreath:

Did you even read ANY of the comments about your story over at Atrios or Drum's place? It's not just me. As I said, I'm glad women are finally admitting to "no shame" about their abortion(s).

No one should apologize for Al but Al. I feel fine, always have.

225: No, actually, there are ZERO circumstances that justify careless analogies with slavery, murder, the Holocaust, or even the atrocity of Turkey & Gravy Jones Cola.

People, you're not seriously engaging Al, right?

Yeah, I just feel bad when new people show up at the blog and the comment section is a mess.

Emerson is; I think everyone else is talking around him. I've been engaging Shearer, but while annoying, Shearer is nowhere near Al class.

Doctor Slack:

Plenty of slave masters would have thought the analogy worked.

goofyfoot:

Someday, you will see the truth.

I didn't mean to engage Al, whoever he is - the troll this morning was different.

I meant to post my own experience and response to pregnancy, and how I, for one, didn't consider the decision to abort to be fraught. I aborted the way I conceived - without moral consideration.

Is posting an analogy really grounds for banning here? Wow! Even more of an echo chamber than the usual left-wing blogs. Quick: was Valerie Plame undercover CIA or not?

I aborted the way I conceived - without moral consideration.

The root of your problem, no doubt. If you got drunk and killed someone driving, would there be any "moral consideration" with that?

People, you're not seriously engaging Al, right?

Being less civilized than you smart young people, if Al were present IRL, I would seriously engage him with a swift and viscious kick in the ass.

Hey Al, this blog has seen its share of personal attacks and unpleasantness, but your comments from 219 on seem to cross a line that rarely is crossed. You are an asshole. And appointing myself representative of the conservatives and other contrarians who are occasionally tolerated here, I ask you please to fuck off.

Same to you, Idealist. As I said, when (if) you guys ever grow up, perhaps you will attain a better "decision-making process" -- someday, we can all hope . . .

Hey, that's decent of you Ideal, but you shouldn't feel any more responsible for Al's bad behavior than anyone else does. (Not that you said that you did, but you know what I mean.) And he's trolling, so there's no point saying rude things to him -- he enjoys it.

Wow, "same to you"! I see Al has not lost his preternatural gift for razor-sharp repartee.

I enjoy it as much as, say, a full-term fetus "enjoys" having her skull crushed and brains sucked out.

Doctor Slack:

Arguing with the Idealist would be like wrestling a pig in mud . . . we both get dirty, but the pig loves it!

FYI: I'm not the only one who thinks Roe v. Wade is the worst Supreme Court case since Dred Scott. Opps, there's that "analogy" again.

Look at it this way, guys -- a lot of people have quit defending slavery just so they can have a stick to beat pregnant women with.

Ban and delete Al, by all means. I'm the only one here who enjoys engaging argument-bots. And I just can't help myself.

243 is actually pretty funny if you take the more appropriate meaning.

I'm not the only one who thinks Roe v. Wade is the worst Supreme Court case since Dred Scott.

Dude, I think Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision. I just also think you are an asshole.

You may think that LizardBreath is wrong. Or even that she has committed a sin without remorse. I think she is wrong about a lot of stuff too.

But she is a better person than I will ever be--wait, that is damning with faint praise--she is one of the best, most honest people I have ever met. And her post, while certainly pro abortion rights, is one of the best pro abortion rights things I have read because it was so honest.

So disagree all you want (I'm too tired to do all the disagreeing), but stop being an asshole to good people.

243 is actually pretty funny if you take the more appropriate meaning.

I ignored it because it was too funny and would have cut my pissed off vibe, but really, it is a classic failed attempt at an insult.

Being an asshole is what Al is about. Asking him to stop is like asking a weasel to go vegan.

Your idea of "good people" is definitely twisted then, Idealist, although perhaps you missed my post above that I am also, in fact, glad women are openly admitting to "no shame" about their abortion(s)?

Nice to see you too, Egbert.

Wasn't there some recent magazine that published a list of thousands of women actually admitting they were PROUD of their abortions?

Ah, yes. "We Had Abortions -- Join in a campaign for honesty and freedom" http://www.msmagazine.com/radar/2006-07-24-we-had-abortions.asp

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were open about it too . . .

The bot won't stop. Civilization is doomed.

Can't this jerk be disemvowelled? He desperately needs the TofS treatment.

Be vewwy vewwy quiet as we approach the Al in its natural habitat; if we are one with the comment box, we will see the Al argue with.... itself.

we will see the Al argue with.... itself

And lose.

Gomorrah

What *were* those people into anyway? Anything interesting? Fun? I'm in L.A., I surely can find someone to practice with if I knew what it was, and probably a store that sells the gear.

It can't have been anything terribly memorable or Gomorramy or something like it would be a word. Probably just a sort of smorgasbord of the usual vices--necrophilia, feminism, you know.

Here's my family history of abortion. My grandmother got an abortion in California in the 1920s - semi-legally - as did my mother, in 1961, completely illegally. My mother got something stuffed up her cervix and had to walk a mile for two days until someone came to complete the procedure. My grandmother could afford to see a doctor. I got a legal abortion in 1988.

Abortion isn't going to stop. It's just a matter of how well the procedures will be done. They're better done legally.

Is that the real Al? (Is there a real Al?) The real Al is way more annoying, and somewhat more articulate. This Al sounds about 14.

It can't have been anything terribly memorable or Gomorramy or something like it would be a word.

Damn. Gomorramy should be a word.

It's weird that "sodomy" became a synonym for, you know, what those gays do. As the Bible describes it, Sodom's sins are abuse and offense against strangers, insult to the traveler and inhospitality to the needy.

In my Bible, said "abuse and offense" taking the form of HOMOSEXUAL RAPE, of course. Which "bible" are you reading?

Not the Bible you wrote, Al.

262: Especially since when the crowd cries out 'Bring out t3h dud3s in your house so we can have sex with them' the brave hero Lot says 'No. But, um, you want my daughters instead?'

It's hard to read it as a condemnation of homosexual rape without reading it as sanctioning regular ol' guy-on-virginal daughter rape.

263: The Big Gay Bible, of course, in which Lot offers his virgin daughters to the mob in the obvious knowledge that the rape they're proposing needn't be homosexual. Thanks for asking, Al; I've enjoyed this opportunity to seriously engage with you.

I pwned your pwnage which makes me the ubercalapwn!

Fake Al needs remedial Bible class.

I may be old, but I'm not THAT old:

"And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."

Genesis 19:1-7

267: I acknowledge the uberpwnage and duly ban myself.

The rest of you guys have never seen "Sophie's Choice"?

175: My understanding is that the operating, or controlling, or whatever the legalese word is, precedent is actually the Carder case.

As to the silly babysitter rape thing you're so hung up on, they found--rightly--that "wrongdoing" on the part of the mother does not impinge on the righs of the child. Which means that, just like a woman, a man who is raped has some responsibility towards any child that is the result of the event. Again: not fair. Sorry about that. Sometimes life isn't.

Dear me, Dr. Slack, are you reading that "bible" again? Don't you realize that by reading the "bible" instead of the "Bible" you leave capital letters lying around for the trolls to sweep up and use inappropriately in their noxious little "comments"?

Good lord, if you're going to pretend to be an evangelical well-versed in the Bible, don't get schooled by a goddamn Catholic, you're just embarassing yourself:

Genesis 19:8...

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Don't you realize that by reading the "bible" instead of the "Bible" you leave capital letters lying around for the trolls to sweep up and use inappropriately in their noxious little "comments"?

And they get all mixed up with the God crumbs and everything. Icky.

273: ... and verily I shall scourge my flesh with papercuts from postmodern poetry books in repentance during my self-banning.

275: On the plus side, the crumbs would have to be consumed or destroyed in holy fire. Which means we could bake the troll-God crumbs into pastries, two birds, one stone.

Baked over a 350 degree holy fire. mmm, trollGod pie.

With sacramental wine to complement the dessert.

Just quick drive-by to say: good post, LB.

Or grape juice for the somber protestants.

Grape juice! My people drink water with our WonderBread, as our God, who is a frugal God, intended.

That was Sodom, Al. We were asking about Gomorrah.

I'm wondering whether Gomorrah wasn't like Grand Forks, N.D. , which was destroyed by a flood a few years back, and the preachers said it was about the queers, but Grand Forks had no queers and we all just concluded God missed SanFrancisco by a couple thousand miles.

I've always just assumed that Gomorrah had such rampaging epidemics of gonorrhea that it would've been a goner anyway.

And if the gonorrhea didn't get it, Gamara surely would have.

Gameraaaaa!
Gameraaaaa!
Gamera is really neat,
Gamera is filled with meat,
We've been eating Gameraaaaa!

I will now have that song in my head FOREVER.

But, for now, I am going to bed and dreaming of trollless tomorrows.

I'm wondering whether Gomorrah wasn't like Grand Forks, N.D.

Well, to hell with that then. I've lived in a small city for a while. Their idea of sin involved Mexican restaurants called "El Gringo". I've had years to develop a piercing stare and a dead-pan, quite forbidding delivery, and I am in the mood to hurl a curse or two after seeing The Dresden Files. Doing so to the accounting department is no fun, their lives are so entangled with misery it's hard to take credit for the boils and audits. Might be able to get to AL tho'. I'll work on that in the morning.

Garcia had a song about G-town. Lyrics by Robert Hunter.

Just a song of Gomorrah
I wonder what they did there
Must have been a bad thing
to get shot down for

I wonder how they blew it up
or if they tore it down
Get out, get out, Mr Lot
and don't you look around

Who gave you your orders?
Someone from the sky
I heard a voice inside my head
in the desert wind so dry

I heard a voice telling me to flee
The very same voice I always believe
Said: a lot of trouble coming
but it don't have to come to you
I'm sparing you so you can tell
the rest what you been through

I should have mentioned that I once ran into a gay dude who had spent a few days in Grand Forks, and he confirmed that it was a very unlikely target for an angry God of the homophobic type. Billings, Montana, however, is quite a good target for such a God, as I have found.

I should have mentioned that I once ran into a gay dude

Gomorramite.

I only read the comment thread far enough to read five or six references to "raped fathers", so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else might have said better. To me, the operative phrase in Lizardbreath's post is "I think that a ten week embryo -- in fact, any fetus in at least the first two trimesters -- is not sentient and is not a person or anything else with rights". I agree. I understand that many people disagree, that they believe embryos and fetuses are people and so abortion is murder -- but that's a religious belief. I don't share that religion. Why should I live by it?

Because it's not just a religious belief. SCIENCE proves that an embryo is a unique human life.

Thomas is blinding me with SCIENCE!

I'm probably way too late to this, but there seems to be something not necessarily inconsistent but definitely problematic about believing that abortion is always okay but altering a fetus to bring about "defects" (short stature, no limbs, whatever) is wrong. What about botched abortions? Rare, but they do happen. I know someone with an (adopted) three year old girl that was born after a botched abortion. After her most recent, apparantly successful round of surgeries, it seems likely she will live (we were all very happy to learn), but she will always suffer from multiple deformities and other quite severe health problems.

So, was the mother's attempted abortion wrong? One can try to slide away by noting that this was not at all the intented result, of course. But was the intended result better or worse for the girl? Unless one wants to argue that the lives of the physically deformed are not worth living, it seems hard to say the intended result would have been better for the girl. Which points one towards the conclusion that a great harm was intentionally done to her (though not as great a harm as was actually intended). A moral wrong?

Or, similarly, what about an uneducated woman who believed that, say, heavy binge drinking during her pregnancy would cause her body to abort? And who instead ends up giving birth to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Unless one wants to argue that the lives of the physically deformed are not worth living, it seems hard to say the intended result would have been better for the girl.

I don't think this follows. Imagine a completely botched abortion, which has no effect at all on the pregnancy -- an uninjured child is born. And then go through the same reasoning process -- is the child better or worse off than if the abortion had been successful. Without the confounding factor of injury, the answer (IMO) is that the question is meaningless -- if the abortion had worked, no child would have existed to have been worse off; there are no two states of being to compare. If you believe that abortion is killing an already existing person, then the answer is also obvious -- not having been killed is better than having been killed.

Throwing in the injury doesn't add anything to the analysis -- it leaves it where we found it. If the fetus is something whose rights it is meaningful to consider, abortion is an injury to it. If not, it's neutral.

LB, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you missed my point. 297 makes perfect sense, except -- as I noted at the beginning of my comment -- when you try to argue that intentionally deforming a fetus, as discussed upthread, is somehow wrong. To borrow your language: If the fetus is something whose rights it is meaningful to consider, intentionally deforming it is an injury to it. If not, it's neutral.

It seems that either one ought to consider abortion wrong, or one ought to have free reign over fetuses. (Again, heavy drinking while pregnant is one example.) The middle ground is difficult to hold.

298: You are misunderstanding. Even if the fetus is not a person, if you intentionally deform a fetus and carry it to term, you are harming the person the fetus will become.

As for the woman who drinks in an attempt to abort her fetus, and by the way I've never heard of such a thing, why is she different from the pregnant woman who drinks because she is an alcoholic?

Also, it's rein, not reign.

300!

Was 299 LB? Regardless, less me again borrow your language: Even if the fetus is not a person, if you have a botched abortion and carry it to term, you are harming the person the fetus will become. Right? What am I missing?

And by the way I've never heard of anyone trying to drink themselves to abortion either. That wasn't the point. And I wasn't referencing that in 298--though I can understand the confusion--I was just referencing the idea that this logic suggests we ought to have free rein over fetuses, so oughtn't outlaw (or even discourage?) things like heavy drinking or smoking while pregnant.

Oh, no it was martha m. Well, regardless...

298: Try this as an example. Case 1: I balance a heavy brick on top of a partially open door, in such a way that it will fall on and severely injure anyone who passes through the door. Then I put the door in a secure plexiglas enclosure so that there's no risk anyone will walk through it. (I don't know why I'd do this. Maybe it's art?) Case 2: Same brick, same door. Except this time it's a door that people walk through. I can't predict who will walk through it, or when they will, but I'm pretty sure someone will and they will be injured.

Now, in Case 2, I didn't injure anyone specifically -- when I was balancing the brick on the door, the person I was 'injuring' was 'the next person to walk through this door', a designation that did not, at the time of my actions, pick out any individual. At the time of my actions, no individual had a valid grudge against me. But I'm still morally responsible for the injury to the person the brick fell on; even though 'the next person to walk through the door' didn't identify anyone when I took my action, the fact that I knew it would come to identify someone meant that I had a responsibility not to injure that person.

In case 1, on the other hand, I took a very similar action, calculated to severely injure 'the next person to walk through the door.' But I also took steps to make certain that no person would ever occupy the role of 'the next person to walk through the door' -- while my actions put the future occupier of the role at risk, they were not immoral, because they were accompanied by actions ensuring that no person would ever occupy that role.

I think the analogy works -- deliberately mutilating a fetus with the intention that an injured child be born is a wrong to that child even though it was not in existence at the time the active steps were taken to bring about its injury. It is the equivalent of setting up a booby-trap for the child at the time when it comes into existence.

Brock's got a good point. On balance, all this means is that there's some more footwork to be done, but he isn't crazy.

So we might say something like this doesn't sound absurd:
1) If a person has a claim against being harmed, they have a claim against being killed.

We're taking as a premise that the fetus isn't a person. So Brock says, hang on a second, if the fetus isn't a person, then why do we care about fetal alcohol syndrome?

But the pro-choice person doesn't want to sanction the (strawmannish) deforming of babies, so she might say:
2) The future baby person has a claim against being born deformed.

But then Brock says, wait:
3) If the future baby person has a claim against being harmed the future baby person (not the current personless fetus) has a claim against being killed.

Now we're comparing future selves against future selves. There isn't a future self actually existing in either case, so we can't just say but there won't be a baby if there's an abortion.

So, how to stake out the middle ground?
4) Deny that not being born is a harm, or is no worse a harm than being born deformed. (Probably gets you into trouble with disabilities' groups & miscarriage & infertility survivors.)
5) Try to drive a wedge between the inference in 1) (Probably your best bet, as this inference is probably wrong.)
6) Recast the whole thing not in terms of duties to nonexistent future babies, but in some sort of handwavy virtue-centered thing.

Deny that not being born is a harm, or is no worse a harm than being born deformed.

Along with Solon and any Buddhist, I cannot see how non-existence is a harm. It isn't a good either, it's a nullity. Being born deformed is a harm within the context of being born at all, which is an entirely different context to not being born.

this logic suggests we ought to have free rein over fetuses, so oughtn't outlaw (or even discourage?) things like heavy drinking or smoking while pregnant.

That's right.

Although I see no problem with providing information on possible dangers of such behavior.

Your logic, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the state ought to regulate the behavior of all women of childbearing age. Is the state going to arrest women who don't eat a balanced diet?

303- well, right, I understand the intent-to-harm bit of it, though your analogy is probably better than what I'd have come up with. That's why I said it's not necessarily inconsistent. But it still seems problematic, and your analogy isn't perfect. Since it's a botched-abortion analogy, your first example ought to say there's very little risk anyone will walk through the door, rather than no risk. But more importantly, your analogy misses the fact that what you were trying to do to prevent the person from walking through the door isn't just put a box around it so they can't walk through, it was more like shooting them in the kneecaps before they got to the door, so they couldn't walk through it. In other words, from the point of view of a sentient person looking back, what you intended was actually worse that what actually happened. So although you can look her in the face and say sincerely that you never intended to have that brick hit her head, your plea is in some sense rather morally empty.

Shoudl we make abortion policy based on the vanishingly small chance of botched abortions subsequently carried to term? Probably not. But I think it does pose philosophical problems.

Your logic, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the state ought to regulate the behavior of all women of childbearing age. Is the state going to arrest women who don't eat a balanced diet?

As a matter of policy, I agree with you, even though the abstract argument I made in 303 goes the other way. I'd say that deliberately injuring a fetus with the intent of causing an injured child to be born is just wrong. When you start talking about negligence: drinking, poor nutrition, whatever, you get into balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the future child (which, in the context of a future child expected to actually come into existence I think are worth considering), and the bodily autonomy rights of the mother seem to me to generally be more important than uncertain possible harms to the future child from her 'negligence'.

304 is much better than anything I wrote.

306- mcmc, I don't know that the state should regulate any of this, including abortion and intentional-fetus-deformation. But I do think it's all morally wrong. Or in some cases ignorance. I'm not arguing for state intervention.

Since it's a botched-abortion analogy, your first example ought to say there's very little risk anyone will walk through the door, rather than no risk. But more importantly, your analogy misses the fact that what you were trying to do to prevent the person from walking through the door isn't just put a box around it so they can't walk through, it was more like shooting them in the kneecaps before they got to the door, so they couldn't walk through it.

Sure, but there's that risk in the plexiglas box case as well -- a workman erecting the box could be injured, or anything of the sort. That comes under the heading of 'accidents happen' -- driving your car to the supermarket isn't a wrongful act because there's a non-zero chance that you'll horribly mutilate an innocent pedestrian on the way.

But more importantly, your analogy misses the fact that what you were trying to do to prevent the person from walking through the door isn't just put a box around it so they can't walk through, it was more like shooting them in the kneecaps before they got to the door, so they couldn't walk through it. In other words, from the point of view of a sentient person looking back, what you intended was actually worse that what actually happened.

No. The point of the abortion is that it prevents (perhaps imperfectly, but with a very, very great degree of likelihood) any person from ever occuping the role of "person injured as a result of these prenatal actions" just as putting a box around the door prevents any person from ever occupying the role of "the next person to walk through this door". The box doesn't injure "the next person to walk through this door", it prevents that person from coming into being. Likewise, the completed abortion doesn't injure the "person injured as a result of these prenatal actions", it prevents them from coming into being as a person.

All this argument comes down to is whether it is an injury to never have been born. I don't believe that it is.

All this argument comes down to is whether it is an injury to never have been born.

I don't think so, but I've said my piece.

308: I agree that to deliberately injure a fetus with the intent of causing an injured child to be born is wrong. The problem of pregnant women with addictions is pretty fraught. I have no idea what to think about it. Is an alcoholic a fully responsible person? I remember hearing on some radio show on this subject of a case where a woman (who IIRC had FAS herself) had several children with FAS and was so incapable of caring for them that one after another they were put in foster care, and when asked why she kept getting pregnant said "I love children." What is to be done in such a case? I believe that DSS had tried to have her put in custody for the duration of her latest pregnancy, I forget with what success. Hard to imagine any outcome not in some way tragic.

Isn't there some proverb about exceptional cases making for bad law?

"Hard cases make bad law"

310: Okay. Your this logic suggests we ought to have free rein over fetuses, so oughtn't outlaw (or even discourage?) things like heavy drinking or smoking while pregnant seemed to be heading for some such position.

What many discussions amongst us, and my own feelings seem to have established is that the best rule is that the pregnant woman should be the one to make the choices. And that those choices should be real, backed up by support both institutional and social. The hard case of course is when the pregnant woman is in some way incapacitated, say by addiction. I still think the virtues of a presumption which will be hard to rebut, if not completely impossible, outweigh the defects.

296

I don't see anything problematic about allowing pregnant women to have abortions but not take mutagenic drugs. Tradeoffs between personal freedom and harm to society are common. Abortions do little harm to society while legally prohibiting them would be a significant burden on women. Pregnant women taking mutagenic drugs does more harm to society than abortion while legally prohibiting it is not as significant a burden on women. Hence it can be (and in my opinion is) sensible for society to allow abortion but not consumption of mutagenic drugs.

Simply living in most of the apartments I've been able to afford as an adult would count as consuming mutagenic drugs. Good thing I'm on the pill; otherwise, I might be criminally liable for harming the future generation.

Unless, of course, the results of the mutagenic drugs are really really cool, in a comic-book-type fashion.

304

"1) If a person has a claim against being harmed, they have a claim against being killed."

I don't accept this. Some things are worse than simply being killed. Hence you can legally have your cat killed but you can't pour gasoline on it and set it on fire. Similarly executions are intended to be relatively quick and painless.

" We're taking as a premise that the fetus isn't a person. So Brock says, hang on a second, if the fetus isn't a person, then why do we care about fetal alcohol syndrome?"

Pets aren't people either but we care about them (up to a point) so I don't accept this objection.

319

Speaking of politically counterproductive, what is your position on allowing fried fetus in some of New York's more exotic restaurants? Personally I am against it. Even if it would be really cool.

I'd like to own a coat made from aborted fetus skins. I've been scouring eBay but so far no luck.

321: See, that doesn't have the decades of comic-book history behind it. Tell me you wouldn't want superpowers if they were available through prenatally administered mutagenic drugs.

322: A whole coat would be cost-prohibitive. You can get the Foetus All Nude Revue for $19.99, though.

As a last gasp, I can only encourage everyone to think about how exactly you'd feel about sitting down with this beautiful little girl (who on top of her deformities has had lung surgery, several kidney surgeries, God knows what else medical treatment, and will never be quite healthy) once she gets a little older to present these fine arguments to her. I mean, your arguments have some internal validity on paper, but when she objects that she's actually been harmed quite severely could you really look her in the face and tell her that while she's right that she's been harmed, there's nothing morally wrong about it because the intended result wasn't that she be harmed but that she not exist at all? Do you believe this would make her feel better? If you were her would it make you feel better?

Or maybe then if she was still troubled you could offer a neat analogy about about a brick carefully balanced on top of a door frame?

I understand about making laws from hard cases. That's not what I'm proposing. But the glib dismissals strike me as not quite confronting the reality of the problem here. She *is* a sentient little girl.

else s/b other, but whatever.

I think you'd have to be an awful jerk to make that argument to someone suffering from long-term effects of such an injury, and I wouldn't do it, unless conversation with her indicated that she wouldn't mind. I just don't see that "I can identify someone whose feelings would be hurt by this argument" has anything to do with whether the argument is valid or invalid.

Also, tearjerker foul. There are kids suffering for all sorts of reasons. The moral principle that you're looking for is just "don't be a jerk to suffering kids"--it doesn't have anything to do with how she was injured.

325: If you're going to do something, do it right. Life-saving medical interventions are sometimes botched: this doesn't seem so different. Something was done badly, resulting in harm where there would otherwise have been no harm. This is to argue that, in the case of non-sentience, a successful abortion attempt is equivalent to no abortion attempt, and both are better than something in-between.

If she was older - a lot older - we could (one could) ask her what she thought about the situation. Is it possible to predict what she might say?

Life-saving medical interventions are sometimes botched

Right, but I posit the listener will perceive a difference between "we were trying our best to save your life!" and "we were trying our best to kill you before you developed sentience!"

Perhaps I'm just being really dumb, but I don't understand how someone ends up giving birth to a child who was harmed by a botched abortion. Are the doctors so incompetant that they couldn't tell if it was succesful or not? And why would having a botched abortion convince you to complete the pregnancy instead of going to more competant doctors? I just don't get the whole thing.

Unless, this is the proverbial coathanger, in which case the clear solution is that we need more availability of abortion facilities.

330: But "we were trying to kill you before you developed sentience" is not the issue because there was no "you" then. It's not going to be easy to tell a kid that she wasn't wanted, period, and the botched abortion adds physical consequences to the psychological. But it's not something that a loving and verbally-adept family couldn't work their way through. That's not to say that they will--emotionally-charged conversations go astray even more frequently than the general run of human affairs--but you're really, really reaching to make the situation say anything significant about abortion.

... we were trying our best to kill you before you developed sentience

Isn't the standard teenage response an adenoidal: 'well, why didn't you try harder, then'.

You could well be right, but I'd still argue that in this case, 'you' is an empty pronoun. Anyway, my mum says that she never touched alcohol, smoked etc. but how could I possibly know? Actually, as they get older, parents tend to let these things slip ... which is quite charming in its way.

325

So is circumcision immoral because it can be botched leaving a boy severely harmed?

Suppose the harm was from an IUD? Again the intent was that she not exist at all.

Suppose the harm was from an IUD? Again the intent was that she not exist at all.

Right; this is it precisely. (Or some hypothetical BC pill that could malfunction in a teratogenic way.) This would probably be just as difficult a conversation ("Hi, you were an unwanted child, and as a result of that unwantedness you're now severely injured.") but does not seem to be an argument that contraception is immoral. "Accidentally injuring me was bad, but I'm glad I'm alive, so having prevented my conception would have been worse!" is the sort of thing that's emotionally understandable, but not a good argument that contraception is generally wrong.

The argument in the case of abortion is no stronger.