Fetus and baby - what is the ethical difference?
My sister tried to convince me that there was an inconsistency in the main arguments of those who favor "pro choice" in the thorny topic of abortion
She asked me (and I have to confess that I was not able to come up with a good reply): why is it a taboo in our culture to kill a newborn baby (in other cultures, for example ancient Rome, infanticide is quite common, if the baby is weak or crippled or merely unwanted), but it is considered legit to kill a fetus?
Because the baby is a person whereas the fetus is a part of mother's belly?
No, both are totally dependent on someone else: the fetus on its mother, the baby on its caregivers. Both are ontogenetically immature. Both are on a path to become persons.--
So what is the decisive difference that makes the life of a baby sacred, but the life of a fetus dispensable?
I am a pro-choicer myself, but I could not answer this question.
Objecting to abortion has no basis in scripture. It is and has always been a policy derived from patriarchal suppression of women. A baby eats, breathes, excretes, and has conscious thought. A fetus does none of those things.
@Matias No one has forgotten how societies come to deem others as unworthy of living; we see it everywhere, every day. But those who approve of such murder are not the ones contemplating abortion. They are nothing like overlapping or even intersecting sets. Thus, the question is very much self-evident.
different cultures consider it a baby at different points. Viability is one way to view it, Jewish folks describe it as the first breath...if it never is born and breathes on it's own, it's not a person. Your sister is playing the right wing description game. Question, does she support total care and bill paying for the child, mother to ensure it grows up?
I believe the Greeks believed that a child did not become human until it was 2 years old, The Hebrews did not believe that a child became a person until they had drawn a breath outside the womb and had extensive rabbinical texts with instructions on performing abortions, abortion was not addressed by the catholic church until the 1960s, (against) the Methodist Church did not address it until 1968 (in favor).
Given that between 20 and 50% of all pregnancies end in the first trimester spontaneously, and that people that don't want to be parents normally don't make good parents, a few more, for any reason, is unimportant.
First, as an atheist, I don't consider any life sacred. Nor do I consider any life dispensable.
I consider your sister's argument as a straw man position. She is attempting to equate abortion in early trimesters with the killing of a full-grown infant, but it's not pertinent. Societies base their decisions on some form of viability (the first year of life after birth still has the highest risk of death than any age until at least middle age), and since science has developed ways to (sometimes) assist third trimester fetuses physically, it's moved the line of "viability" to in utero. But the only reason women have abortions in the third trimester is because of the threat to the health of the mother or fetus or both, oftentimes when the actual death of the fetus is involved.
NO ONE wants to undergo the physical changes to their body of being pregnant for six months, not to mention the attention it will attract from friends, family and employers, and then undergo the trauma of abortion. Most women who have an abortion prefer it be kept quiet, be personal, and happen as quickly as possible. I see no inconsistency in my position on this as a pro-choicer.
While I am not a "pro-lifer", trying to equate what is life to what stage of development it is in is like trying to say someone is "almost pregnant". By simple definition, life is life, irrespective of what stage it is in.
@Alienbeing I understand. I believe all life is precious, and that extends to all animals, plants, etc. The point of acceptable abortion is not an easy determination, particularly when you consider that a female's egg and a male's sperm are also alive, and have life only within certain gestational parameters, just like an embryo and, in most instances, a fetus. I don't believe it's ever an easy decision, but I stand firm on who gets to make that decision.
@Lauren I was not arguing your position, I was pointing out that using "feel good" language to describe an abortion does not change the fact that a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc in a human womb is a human. Our children, teenagers, middle aged and geriatric people are merely more ways of describing age.
@Alienbeing My apologies, I see now what you meant. Thank you for clarifying.
@Lauren OK, no problem.
I think its more about body autonomy. Everyone should have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies regardless of whether another person's life is dependent or not.
If some child in the state where I live needs a new kidney in order to live and I'm the ONLY person who has a compatible kidney, I still have zero obligation to donate my kidney, even if the child will absolutely die within the next few days without my donated kidney. No one can force me to donate my kidney even if doing so is at very little risk to me.
So, why is it different for a mother and a fetus? And do we want to create a situation where a mother is at legal odds with a fetus? If a pregnant woman does something risky should she be charged with child endangerment? In some countries a woman can be charged with murder for having an abortion or even having a miscarriage. Is this what we want for the U.S.?
In this culture, it actually is a mystery to me as the Babble specifically state life begins with the first breath, and in another area gives the money amount one must pay for [inadvertently] causing a miscarriage or abortion.
It seems like a horrific way to control women, period.
The ancient Greeks and Romans were not just subjective in their choice, they actually set the age at which killing an infant became murder, at two years. Because that was they age at which they thought you first became aware of your self as a person, and with that your own mortality. Which while I would not advocate for it, it is in many ways a much more logical and realistic choice, than the common modern. "When they are able to live outside of the womb. "
It is not universally considered legit to kill a fetus, or universally considered taboo to kill a newborn. Clearly in the U.S. there are strong differences of opinion. That’s the reason the topic is so thorny.
Personally, though I’m strongly pro-choice, I don’t base my stance on any difference between fetus and newborn other than the fact that one is inside the mother where it can impact her health.
To my thinking, the inconsistency is on the “pro-life” side. They claim life is somehow sacred, but are happy to make exceptions for capital punishment and war.
@Matias
Yes, that is exactly what a pro-lifer would say, but it is a clear admission that it is not about the sacredness of life. If they could make an exception for guilt they could make an exception for the mother’s health or for another of their own inconsistently held values - to keep government out of people’s private lives. But clearly, reason or compassion are not what’s driving the commitment. They seem to care nothing at all for the life of an innocent black man who gets unceremoniously murdered by a policeman, so it’s not really about guilt or innocence or about life. It’s blind loyalty to a tribal identity. Whatever the tribe does is right, regardless of any rational consistency or any actual moral value.
One reason you cannot answer the question is that it is not a legitimate bible question. Politics took over the issue and in the bible the fetus only became a person at birth. This is why there is no discussion on the issue by Jesus. Just mumbo jumbo that others make up or propose.