Not Yet Human
Stuff reports: The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court judge’s ruling that unborn children do not have a right to life.
I can’t say I am too surprised by this. I have always thought that Right to Life were wasting time and money on a fruitless quest. It was highly unlikely that the legal fraternity would consider extending legal and human rights to an unborn child. For one, this would make all abortion illegal, including proper medically-indicated ones. No doubt this was Right to Life‘s intention. However, this would be extremely detrimental to women with severe pregnancy-related medical problems, and would lead to avoidable fatalities.
It would also produce a plethora of bizarre cases similar to the recent case of the meth-smoking mother who was tried for child abuse because her children were exposed to meth smoke. Obviously, this case would be a much stronger one if it was between a mother and her unborn child. You could expect a massive rise in nanny statism for pregnant women. Lawyers would probably have a field-day representing the rights of the unborn.
Contraception could also be endangered by foetal rights. Should those rights start at conception, only barrier methods of contraception would be possible. All other methods prevent implantation of fertilised ova. Of course, one could rule that foetal rights only start at some other point in time, but this would be arbitrary and very difficult to measure. There is a reason why the legal fraternity measure human rights from birth – being born is very easy to measure and establish. Conception, implantation, the first foetal heartbeat and even the 20th week of pregnancy are all far more difficult to pin down and prove.
Frankly the approach of Right to Life is wrong-headed. The abortion debate should never be focussed on obscure theological and legal questions such as whether or when is a foetus human. Asking lawyers to determine whether something is ethical is like asking a blind man to describe colour. Recall that the legal position for a doctor is that he can crush the skull of a 28 week foetus and remove it perfectly legally, but, should the 28 weeker be born prematurely, he will be charged with infanticide if he then crushes the child’s skull. Bizarre situations like this would occur no matter where the cut off point for a child’s rights was placed.
No, the problem here is not our law, nor our legal definitions. The problem is the diminishing value we ascribe to human life. Abortion, euthanasia, child abuse and even criminal violence all become easier when the value we place on an individual life becomes less. In the abortion debate, advocates for abortion on demand persuade themselves that the foetus’ life somehow has less “value” than a baby’s. So little value, in fact, that it is less significant than the happiness of the mother. Yet there is no objective reason for this. It is purely a value judgement.
Conversely, Pro-lifers will place a very high value on the life of the foetus. As a Christian, my high regard for human life places me firmly in the pro-life camp. I have always found it hard to argue that the life of a foetus can be considered anything less than the life of a baby, simply because the one will become the other if not terminated. You would not expect me to turn off life support on a 12-year-old who had a 50% chance of survival. Yet a 12 week foetus has a better than even chance of becoming a 12-year-old child. Regardless of whether a foetus can be considered human at any particular point, it is indisputable that it will be counted a human being if it survives. For this reason, I will not refer a woman for a termination of pregnancy for anything less than strict life-threatening medical reasons.
Frankly, I think this is the only way the abortion debate can be handled. You can rabbit on about women’s rights and foetal rights until you are blue in the face and this will prove nothing at all. The only question that has meaning is what value one places on the life of a foetus.
Related posts:
- The Cost of Defending Abortion Right to Life are continuing their bid in the high...
- Abortion: A personal look. The sudden interest on abortion in New Zealand on the...
- Abortion: It’s a Health Issue AND a Crime I am informed by my good friend ScrubOne that the...
- Milk of Human Unkindness Another baby has died from contaminated milk in China and...
- Pro-choice In a twist on the pro-life/pro-choice abortion debate, many nurses...
Jun 2 11 11:04 pm
“The only question that has meaning is what value one places on the life of a foetus.” That is the most sensible sentence I’ve yet read on what is always a very emotive topic.
Homepaddock´s last [type] ..Word of the day
Jun 3 11 12:10 am
Normally, I am reluctant to enter this debate because of the complete lack of rationality on both sides of it, however, you describe the key issues very well. The only statement I would challenge you on is where you say abortion rights proponents consider the value of a fetus’s life to be “less significant than the happiness of the mother.” This is a fair comment only if you define “happiness” as it is meant in the US Declaration of Independence, i.e the right to live one’s life free from the shackles of a dictatorial state. If this is what you mean by “happiness” then I would agree.
This is the moral basis of a woman’s right to choose abortion and the morality of it becomes evident when you consider the alternative. The only way to really enforce anti-abortion laws is to shackle pregnant women throughout their pregnancy. And to me, it is more morally repugnant to force a healthy, intelligent, rational woman to use her body to gestate a fetus against her will than to kill the fetus that is wholly dependent on that woman’s body for its viability.
Unfortunately many people who would otherwise define themselves as liberatarian do not seem to appreciate the slippery slope they embark on when they say a woman cannot abort the fetus inside her body. From a moral perspective I see no difference between the state forcing a pregnant woman to gestate a fetus and the shackling of slaves for their forced labour.
Jun 3 11 12:31 am
From a moral perspective I see no difference between the state forcing a pregnant woman to gestate a fetus and the shackling of slaves for their forced labour.
Yet this statement implicitly denies ANY value to the life of the fetus. And your slave labour analogy will not work unless you surmise that the slaves voluntarily placed the chains on themselves initially and were only later coerced into keeping them on.
Actually, a better picture is a mortgage. One enters into such a contract willingly, but when the initial excitement of “owning” your new home wears off and a long future of mortgage repayments looms, one may have second thoughts. Abortion is like burning down the house and paying off the bank with the insurance money. Quick and easy. But the next mortgage is going to be harder to get, and there is always the danger of accidentally burning yourself to death with the house each time.
Jun 3 11 2:20 pm
And to me, it is more morally repugnant to force a healthy, intelligent, rational woman to use her body to gestate a fetus against her will than to kill the fetus that is wholly dependent on that woman’s body for its viability.
Assuming your ridiculous statement and it’s underlying assumptions are correct, you are asserting that 7 months (assuming a 1 month early birth) of being in chains is worse than murder.
scrubone´s last [type] ..You can’t smoke online
Jun 3 11 12:47 am
Okay, taking your argument – is is justified to keep someone in slavery even if their own actions led them into the arrangement? And if it is, then logically you are saying that abortion is fine where the woman did not intend to become pregnant.
I am not arguing that abortion is desirable – I agree it is not. But if the law is to be used to force someone to use their body against their will then let’s be honest and call that arrangement by its commonly accepted name.
Jun 3 11 8:51 am
Your argument still does not hold water. The Law “forces” me not to commit murder as well. This does not make me a slave, merely constrains my freedom of action. This constraint has been developed by mutual agreement in society. There are even times when murder is acceptable (self defense in a home invasion for instance)
Abortion is analogous to this. Society in general does not approve of the killing of a foetus for frivolous reasons. It ascribes a level of responsibility to motherhood in exactly the same way as we ascribe responsibility to a driver to stay within the speed limit and on the left hand side of the road. Society also recognises that there are genuine, valid reasons for breaking the rules. Sometimes this is legislated (as in abortion, smacking) sometimes it relies on a judge’s understanding (murder in self defense, speeding because you are going to an emergency).
This is not slavery. This is known as acceptable behaviour.
Jun 3 11 9:45 am
The difference is in the initiation of force. The only legitimate role of a government that derives its right to rule from the consent of the governed is to prevent the initiation of force. You are advocating the use of the force of the state to prevent a woman controlling her own body. You see this as justified to protect the rights of the fetus and I accept that the potential human life that is the fetus has a significant presence in this debate. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that you are advocating anything other than the use of violence (or, at minimum, the threat of violence) against the pregnant woman and her abortionist to achieve your aims. Women and medical professionals are locked up, tortured and killed in many countries today to enforce your view of morality. Just as I should be prepared to look at aborted fetuses if I want to hold my position in this debate, you must be prepared to confront the sight of women beaten, chained and executed to enforce anti-abortion laws – or that of women who are crippled or die due to botched backstreet abortions. I am comfortable with my moral position in this debate. I hope you will be when you see the effect of yours.
Jun 3 11 2:13 pm
Just as I should be prepared to look at aborted fetuses if I want to hold my position in this debate, you must be prepared to confront the sight of women beaten, chained and executed to enforce anti-abortion laws – or that of women who are crippled or die due to botched backstreet abortions.
People are locked up, chained and tortured in other countries for murder too.
It does not follow that I or anyone else have to take take the behaviour of corrupt officials in other countries into account before I take a political position in this one.
Yes, women die from back street abortions. But we don’t make something utterly immoral legal just because people might get injured in the course of their crime. So while it’s an appealing image to the abortion lobby, it makes no sense to argue the morality of abortion on that basis. I’m sure you would be appalled (and rightly so) if ACC supplied gloves to wife beaters to prevent their injury.
scrubone´s last [type] ..You can’t smoke online
Jun 3 11 3:06 pm
OK, this is absolutely my last reply in this thread. As I said, normally I wouldn’t even enter this debate but MacDoctor has always struck me as a rationalist, so I thought I would contribute some logic.
Your position is that abortion is “utterly immoral”. I am sure you have a religious basis for this belief so there is no point me arguing the moral issue from position of logic other than to restate that there are two competing moral premises here – the premise that killing a fetus is “utterly immoral” versus the immorality of the state threatening, enslaving and perhaps killing a fully-functioning, adult woman. I think we will beg to differ on which trumps which, and that is fine so long as you don’t expect the majority of people in this country to roll-backthe uneasy compromise that we have achieved in law.
Jun 3 11 8:19 pm
Below comment should have appeared here. I note that Mac said pretty much the same thing anyway.
scrubone´s last [type] ..You can’t smoke online
Jun 3 11 7:37 am
“the legal fraternity measure human rights from birth”
So it would be legal to crush a child’s skull whilst half born, say the lower half of the body below the shoulders, still in the birth canal?
Jun 3 11 8:54 am
Maybe. But probably not. Most lawyers would say that delivery of the head would count as birth. Also no-one in this country aborts after the second trimester – it is illegal.
Jun 3 11 8:16 pm
You seem to be deliberately twisting what I was saying in order to squeeze out of the impossible position you are in.
My point was not that abortion is “utterly immoral” per se (though of course I do believe that), but rather that if you take that position, then the sort of emotional arguments you are putting up are perfectly irrelevant and do not refute that position.
Logically, *if* abortion is objectively killing a human being then it is a moral imperative to prevent one, and restraining a potential murder is not an immoral act. What you have done is grossly exaggerated the possible enforcement of a potential law, which creates a new moral problem. But that moral problem only exists because you created it in your mind, not because it is a likely outcome.
The point is that *first* you need to refute the idea that abortion is murder. You cannot say “well, we can’t outlaw murder because the murder might get hurt in prison”. That ignores completely the immorality of the murder itself.
Let me rephrase your two “competing moral premises here” using my earlier wife-beating example.
There is no point me arguing the moral issue from position of logic other than to restate that there are two competing moral premises here – the premise that beating a wife is“utterly immoral” versus the immorality of the state threatening, detaining and perhaps killing a fully-functioning, adult man.
Your second “moral premise” does not compete against the first (i.e. mine) because it assumes that the position is already refuted.
Jun 3 11 11:42 pm
“Conversely, Pro-lifers will place a very high value on the life of the foetus”.
This is a bit of a misstatement of the pro-life position really. Pro-lifers just ask the question what if the foetus fits the same criteria for recognition as a human being as the mother does, and they follow this line of argument towards its inevitable moral and legal conclusions. They do not place greater value on the foetus than that of the mother. Any ‘Pro-lifer’ who infers that has basically no idea what they’re on about.
“For one, this would make all abortion illegal, including proper medically-indicated ones. No doubt this was Right to Life‘s intention”.
Um what? If I’ve ever heard a bizarre comment from a pro-lifer about a pro-life group in any context, it is this one. No pro-lifer worth their salt fails to recognise that ectopic pregnancies are futile situations where birthing the baby is a no-go and saving the mother from death by performing an abortion is the only real option left. How legal recognition of the personhood of a foetus would cause unnecessary fatalities in situations like this is anybody’s guess!
Jun 4 11 12:11 am
If you read the post carefully, Johnnieboy, you will see I do not place the value of a foetus’ life above that of the mother. I place them equal.
Technically all abortions would be made illegal by giving the foetus human rights. However, the case of ectopic pregnancies and similar situations where the foetus cannot be saved would be unaffected, obviously. I am merely stressing the point that the provisions for mental health, rape and congenital abnormalities would be voided, to the detriment of the health of the mother. In addition, doctors would be forced to attempt to manage eclampsia without terminating the pregnancy, threatening the life of the mother.
Jun 4 11 9:06 am
“For this reason, I will not refer a woman for a termination of pregnancy for anything less than strict life-threatening medical reasons.”
Is it legal for a doctor (in New Zealand) to rule over legally valid options of the mother, or refuse to take action, based the doctor’s religious wishes? (Note this is regardless of whatever moral stances either the doctor or mother have to the existing legal position.)
Grant´s last [type] ..The worm from the deep! and other stories
Jun 4 11 9:24 am
It would not be legal to deny to mother access to abortion services. I outline her options in a non-judgemental way then refer her to another colleague if she wishes to continue with a termination. I do not impose my beliefs upon her, nor to I expect her to try and impose hers upon me. This arrangement works very well in our practice and certainly does not compromise the woman’s health care.
Jun 4 11 11:28 am
It would not be legal to deny to mother access to abortion services.
This isn’t quite what I asked. I asked if you were legal to not PROVIDE access to the services. This isn’t the same as ‘deny’.
To spell it out: Mother goes to doctor. Doctor declines to offer access to abortion services. Is that legal?
This is asking if it is legal for a doctor to not provide access.
While I’m writing: I would like to think that women you refer on are not charged twice, seeing as you aren’t providing access to the services, etc.
Grant´s last [type] ..The worm from the deep! and other stories
Jun 4 11 5:38 pm
Sorry, I don’t mean to make a meal of it. I presume individual doctors are allow to not provide a service, provided that they refer the patient to someone who can.
It’s a bit confusing for those outside medicine as—in their eyes—medics on one had appear to more-or-less be obliged to offer medical services, but on the other they can opt out if it doesn’t suit their ideology. (I’m not say it’s the way it is or ought to be, but that is my impression of how others perceive it to be.)
PS: wish the font for entering comment were bigger. It’s *tiny*!
Grant´s last [type] ..The worm from the deep! and other stories
Jun 5 11 3:16 pm
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a simple way of changing the font in the comments box.
Jun 5 11 3:29 pm
It is not illegal for a doctor to refuse to provide a service to a patient (except in emergencies) as long as the doctor makes it clear that s/he is refusing and makes it clear what are the options available.
The consultations for Termination are paid for by the maternity funding stream, not directly by the patient. There are two consultations required – the initial consult where the diagnosis of pregnancy is confirmed and the mother is counseled and sent for an Ultrasound. The second consultation is to confirm that the mother still wishes to proceed with the termination, to confirm that the pregnancy is <16 weeks on ultrasound and to complete the referral process. I and my Christian colleagues are happy to do the first consultation (for which we charge maternity services) but not the second.
Jun 4 11 11:24 am
I think macdoctor is absolutely right. It is all about how we value life. I don’t know why anyone would think pregnant women would be shackled if abortion was illegal and the baby wasn’t wanted. I would much rather hope (wishfully thinking perhaps ) that abstinence would be taught in schools and adoption would be explained fully as an option if the baby wasn’t wanted to be kept by the parents. But we live in a society where we are all selfish human beings who want our perfect little worlds to remain unspoiled, and for many women, by something as terrible as a pregnancy! It is very shallow thinking that women’s rights to have fun are more important than that of the unborn child. But this is the screwed up world that we live in. Pregnancy, however, is not a terrible thing. It is life enriching, speaking from experience. Trouble is, sex is not about procreation after marriage, it is about having fun before marriage and the value of human life is diminished in the process when the unborn child is treated as an object that can be disposed of when not wanted or because it is not a perfectly healthy baby. You know if we all looked on the inside we would see that none of us are perfect regardless of our health. Society will only continue to go downhill if we don’t view all life, born and unborn, as equally valuable, and if we continually think of ourselves before others.
Jun 19 11 1:11 pm
For your information MacD, the Supreme Court has also reversed the High Court’s cost award to Right To Life and has imposed the court costs of the Abortion Supervisory Committee on RTL to the order of around $80,000, as reported by the NZ Catholic.
This essentially means that without further backing RTL will shut its doors. The Supreme Court is imposing a very obvious deterrent here against future cases on this issue.
After some initial gains, it is clear that the pro-life movement in NZ has been hit with a significant set-back by the Supreme Court.