via

Here’s a hypothetical, assume a woman is pregnant. Early prenatal screening shows that the fetus has anencephaly, which results in the absence of most of the brain, including the cerebellum. Should the woman be forced to carry the infant to term, when the prognosis in such cases, is that the infant will be blind and deaf, unable to feel pain, and will live no more than a few days, all the time requiring intensive neo-natal care?

To the second question about rights: I think we should back up and decide what “fundamental human rights” are. Similarly to “animal rights”, if we define rights as including things I take for granted but hold dear (the right to vote, the right to free speech), it would be absurd to attempt to attribute those to an animal or a fetus (or even a small child). And if the issue is simply “right to life” this is not a merely human right at all—it is often applied to animals as well. It might also require a discussion of a “right to death”, which veers into even more hotly contested territory.

Anyway, I’ll refrain from further response, as we’re starting to veer off topic of “What should the punishment be?” I just figured wanted to put in the bishop’s response that xJane mentioned above (awkwardly, as I don’t have the time to make the link neat) and summarize.

NOTE: I made the link neat.
-xJane

I understand your desire for compassion for women post-abortion. However, I think that this should be addressed with counseling (before & after) and support, not with “she’s suffered enough”. While it may well be an invasive procedure, not all women experience abortion as punishment (nor as a freeing experience: there is a spectrum). I just came across this wonderful article about one woman’s experience of abortion in Israel. Particularly this:

Also helping me to avoid the feeling of stigma was the fact that the Israeli National Health Service bestowed upon me all the privileges given to every other woman who has given birth. In a case of twins, this means a monetary gift of around $2,000 and four months’ paid maternity leave. Besides relieving the financial stress and giving me time in which to heal, the recognition and legitimization of what I had been through helped to maintain my sense of dignity.

I think that issuing birth certificates for stillborn children is a slippery slope, but acknowledgement goes a long way.

Regarding “when life begins”, I’m not about to speak for anyone else or claim to be an authority, but it is my understanding that the concept of “quickening” has been a means of determining that for some time, and I am perfectly happy with that.

We all feel very strongly about this issue and need to be careful not to offend or be overly offended by this discussion. My thanks to all who have participated (and our veteran lurkers).

By no means did I mean to belittle my wife’s response or logic. That would be dangerous. My qualms with it are more religious than logical, as it relies on the virtue of Justice, a good thing, which I feel needs to be tempered, especially in delicate situations, with compassion and mercy. Justice may say “The guilty should be punished”, while compassion may say “Some have suffered enough.”

I did not mean to assault John’s or anyone else’s respect or value for life, but to try to…illustrate my view that picking any point along the biological existence of a homo sapien organism other than conception for the beginning of human life is an artificial and (to some extent) arbitrary decision. At fertilization, a new human organism comes into existence, which immediately begins protecting its own interests (for instance, becoming impermeable to other sperm). Again, I do not doubt the respect for life or freedom on the part of pro-choice advocates. It seems to me that, on both sides of the issue, people are earnestly pursuing those values, reflected and emphasized in different ways.

To respond to ebrown’s comments, first, let me apologize. My previous response was unnecessarily flippant, and, while I defend its truth, did not contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. Nonetheless, I think it would have other effect. As I said in my original response: “I think it is the greatest shame of any society that, in its very law, dehumanizes a class of people.” It is my assertion, and one I feel is supported by biology, embryology, and genetics, that the fetus is a real, living human being, and our law does not recognize that. If the law were changed, I feel it would remove that shame, and the shame that I believe our descendants would feel about this time in our history. As to your second response: “I support your choice to carry each of your pregnancies to term.” I feel that this embraces the same error that xJane accuses many pro-lifers of, namely, focusing only on the pregnancy, to the exclusion of the rest of the child’s upbringing. In that sense, I am just as much a parent to my three children as my wife. I think the majority of women who have abortions do so not because they fear being pregnant, or going through labor and delivery, but because they feel unready to be a parent. Pregnancy is no picnic (My wife always detested those women in the books and magazines who talked about the joy and peace of pregnancy. “Joy is not a foot in my lungs at 3AM.”) but it is a fraction of the time that a parent is responsible for the child, and as such, I think it is unfair to suggest that, unless you have a uterus, your voice doesn’t count.

Finally, I am sorry if anything I said has been overzealous. Sometimes emotions do that. I feel very strongly about the issue, because I can feel how strongly it affected me. Anyway, this isn’t really relevant, so I’m cutting it out.

Regarding the “value on human life” argument: that is actually not the argument at all. The argument is “when does life begin”. John is not arguing that the handicapped are disposable; or that children are. He is arguing (as are, I would wager, most of us), that a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, is not a human. Claiming that prochoicers don’t value life is disingenuous and misses the whole point.

ebrown has it right: abortions have been around for almost as long as women have. They’re unlikely to go away just because they get outlawed. The only result of that outlaw will be dangerous procedures, either by unqualified persons, by persons without proper equipment, or by the woman herself (if not all of the above). I would love education and contraception to reach the point that abortion is unnecessary, but I don’t ever want to see it illegal.

I think your wife’s response is the best: it respects the autonomy of the actor (the formerly pregnant woman) and the (alleged) humanity of the fetus. I take exception to your argument that she just doesn’t know any better (which is how I interpret “honestly does not believe that the fetus is a living human being”). It really removes the agency of her decision from her, as if she’s simply not smart enough, not educated enough, not human enough to be thought of as having made a fully informed decision.

Your wife, on the other hand, as much as I disagree with her, is taking her argument to its logical conclusion. I wish that prolifers would advocate their full desires in this arena, instead of just the first half of it. I think more people would agree that they, too, are prochoice if they understood the whole argument.

This can be proven by the two famous examples in the news right now: Gov. Palin is very proud of the decision her daughter made and McCain responded that an unplanned pregnancy in his family would warrant a family discussion of the matter. There is a decision to be made. That implies a choice.

I would argue that it’s not very safe for the fetus either way.

In answer to the topic question of what the punishment for the WOMAN who willingly and (I’m assuming this is implied by the context) without coercion or threat, the legal charge made against her should probably be manslaughter. One could argue that this should be voluntary manslaughter, possibly as a means of “imperfect self defense”, or involuntary manslaughter, such as charged with recklessness or criminal negligence.
I think a crucial issue here (and why I would assert manslaughter instead of some degree of murder) is that the woman (I hope) honestly does not believe that the fetus is a living human being. I would say she is liable to the law because she is wrong. (I think it is the greatest shame of any society that, in its very law, dehumanizes a class of people.) Hence, in the first case, she is attempting to defend herself, her well being, her livelihood, against the threat that this fetus represents. It is an honest but (in my belief) unreasonable belief that self defense justifies this killing. In the case of charging her with negligence, she willfully took part in an act (abortion) that may or may not, to her mind, result in harm to a human being. If the law recognized a fetus as a human person, then that would be, at best, a negligent act.
Of course, in any case, the usual modifiers regarding the free exercise of will such as force, coercion, fear, or psychological state would apply. I think it would probably the hardest judgment to assign a sentence to that we would have for a while. There should probably also be some arrangement to take into account those who already have children, as well, but I am no expert and couldn’t tell you what that should be.

I had this discussion with my wife yesterday afternoon. She took a bit of a harder stance than I did, rather passionately and eloquently arguing that the only just charge is murder, and that whether or not the mother believes the fetus was a human being is irrelevant, because she would be bound to obey the law. Breaking it, she would be subject to its punishment. I’m not sure how I feel about the harshness of her argument, but I love her, and knew better than to disagree too strongly.

As an aside, the doctor wouldn’t be able to make any of the claims for leniency that the woman did. Not only should he know better the status of the fetus as a living homo sapien, he would in most cases be the actual performer of the murder itself, and in all likelihood, do so serially. To borrow from Firefly, I imagine there’s a special place in hell for them and people who talk in theaters.

I agree with xJane and others when they say that if we’re going to be consistent on valuing the lives of these children, we as a society need to pony up and help protect, nourish, and support these most vulnerable members. Increased programs for adoption, medical and financial assistance would go a long way to helping these mothers and their children. (Adoption, it seems to me, is a tricky issue, as there is a limiting resource, namely, those families willing to adopt, but while we should do our best to expand the pool, we also have to make sure to protect the children by not lowering our standards for their parents.)

Finally, just to touch on what John said about “the hypocrisy in those who try to equate the value of blastocyst with that of an adult human.” I understand what you’re trying to say, but I see no other way that doesn’t place a utilitarian value on people. If we are only as valued as our potential for production, who places the value? Is a farmer more or less valued than a sculptor? Is a healthy five year old Mozart more or less valuable than a deaf, bipolar, suicidal Beethoven? If human life is not intrinsically valuable, than we are little more than machines in a factory, to be discarded when broken and replaced with a more efficient model. I would go on and address other valuable points brought up, but I tend to run longwinded as it is, so I’ll cut it now.

It’s kind of like the veil over the “pro-marriage” politics, which is really just a sugar-coated euphemism for anti-gay bigotry.

Kristen: thank you

Rich: “conservatives who call themselves pro-life are really just pro-fetus” this is something that occurs to me on occasion, too. While many antichoicers do enjoy their own children and grandchildren, many more are opposed to social change that would put into place infrastructure to care for the fetuses in question when they get born. (Obviously, they’re not talking about their own fetuses or the fetuses of their family—all of them would feel blessed to be inconveniently pregnant, be forced to choose between their education/career/earning power and their new child.

Chandelle: thank you for sharing your story. It’s a very personal one that brings a valuable perspective to the debate. I encourage everyone to go read it (it’s long, but worth it), as well as the article mentioned and linked to in her comments.

Elaine @5: remember the old Monty Python skit Every Sperm Is Sacred? I have also often wondered how long it would take to make the jump to every egg is sacred. (see “Masturbation is Murder”.)

Cobwebs: that’s an interesting idea, one that I quite like.

I read a proposal several years ago which I quite liked: Everyone who feels that abortion should be illegal signs a registry agreeing to fully financially support an unwanted child to age 18. I think it’d be instructive to see how many people were actually willing to pay for their beliefs.