From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:32:25 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <pp031es@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:

>|Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental question.

[whether or not and when a z/e/f is a person]

>|Can this question be adequately answered?

>I hope EEB reposts her stuff about brain development.  [Can
>you consider this a request, Beth?]

Sure, but Larry beat me to it.

>Some people accept the premise that a brain capable of conscious
>thought is a prerequisite for humanity.  If you do, you'll 
>probably find the information about brain development to give 
>you an adequate answer: the fetus is probably a person during
>the third trimester.

Agreed.  I *don't* think it's "probably" a person at 24 weeks, though,
just "possibly"; the beginning of myelination (imo) the earliest
possible time, not the most probable time.  I do think it's probably a
person later in the third trimester.

>This solution is insufficient for a couple of reasons:

>1. There's a second fundamental issue, just as important as
>   the question of the z/e/f's humanity:  Which takes precedence,
>   the rights of the woman, or the rights of the z/e/f?  
 
>   For example:
>   If you think that the z/e/f is always a person, how do you 
>   resolve the question of pregnancies that threaten a woman's 
>   life?  health? mental well-being?  Even if you take the more 
>   conservative position that the fetus is a person after 
>   myelination begins, you still run into this question.  What 
>   if the woman's health &/or life are endangered by a pregnancy 
>   in the 3rd tri?

IMO, morally abortion should not be proscribed when the woman's health
or life or sanity is in danger, as risking any of them for the sake of
another person's life is beyond the call of duty.  Practically, if one
wants to ban most abortions in the third trimester, one must proscribe
abortion for mental health, since that criteria is a) "fuzzy" and so
difficult to set limits for and b) easier to fake than physical health
risks.

By and large, however, I think the fetus's "right to life" takes
precedence over the mother's "right to abortion", partially because I
think the "right to life" is a very important right and partially
because the mother had several months to exercise her "right to
abortion" before the z/e/f's "right to life" became a significant
factor.

>2. Some people take their abortion stance for religious reasons,
>   and some more rigidly than others.  For example, a
>   fundamentalist Protestant or a conservative Catholic who
>   believes that the z/e/f has a soul from conception onward is
>   unlikely to be swayed by medical evidence.  They hold their
>   position for non-rational reasons.  Not that there's anything
>   wrong with that action, but people like that aren't about to
>   let others disagree with them.

You can't convince someone who holds a position a priori that he's
wrong by logic, since he didn't arrive at it by logic.  Doesn't mean
they're necessarily wrong (though I think they are), it just mean that
they the position is a premise rather than a conclusion.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.