Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because, after birth, if society states that this life has to be supported (fed, whatever), it can appoint (or pay) any of a number of individuals to do it. While still in utero, society has to force one specific individual, involuntarily, to support it, and that individual has independent rights. (Some people would be OK with the gov't dropping of an infant on their door and saying "guess what, he's your own personal problem now, if you don't take good care of him we'll prosecute," but not many I'd wager.) If the fetus could be removed and supported independently from the mother, then the a fetus being "supported" in utero and being "supported" after birth would be analogous. (That's what makes viability an attractive alternative, though, in theory, that would mean women would have a right, at any time, to say "OK, let's induce and let the thing survive on its own if it can.")

I think most people actually rely on some vague, ill thought out combination of "viability" and "utility" in this debate to get to the balancing of rights between fetus and mother that they feel comfortable with. The fetus has increasing rights from conception onward, with some specific events giving it a better or worse claim to protection (viability, birth defects), while the mother has decreasing interests to be protected (not only because she could have done something sooner but because as time goes on her future burden continuously decreases), and enough of society finds late abortion and/or infanticide distressing enough for there to be an increasing utility argument for limiting it (the "birth" line is, I think, ultimately a "utility" standard: people are less horrified at the idea of abortion than infanticide, for whatever rational or irrational reasons, and the prevention of widespread social distress is a good utility argument).

I think most people really quite like the "self consciousness" line from a religious/spiritual/sentimental point of view (also because it is consistent with a lot of people's feelings about eating meat, euthanasia, the right to die and sometimes the death penalty), but the proof problems are pretty much intractable and, unless you combine it with the "social utility" standard I described above, it may force you into condoning infanticide.

BRC seems to have my proxy on this one, too.