[Vision2020] Thanks for the good comments/corrections

Thu Jan 26 02:11:30 PST 2006

Nick et. al.

The problem you appear to gloss over rather casually referencing Puccetti is
the distinction between so called "potential persons" and "beginning
persons" which overlaps between the 2nd and 3rd tri-mester, or perhaps well
into the 3rd tri-mester, in the reality of medical practice and survival
rates, in my opinion.

How do you separate the two categories with any clear biological and/or
"personhood" or legal "rights" distinctions, when 2rd tri-mester and early
3rd tri-mester preemies in significant numbers of cases have significant
chances of survival?  So if "beginning persons" have "rights" according to
this structure, what legal principle based on survival possibilities
prevents a late 2rd tri-mester preemie from having "rights" also?

The survival of late 2nd tri-mester and early 3rd tri-mester premature
births results in these distinctions becoming blurred, and factually
inaccurate, in my opinion.

Some 2nd tri-mester fetuses could have status, it seems, as "beginning
persons," based on the fact they did indeed survive and became persons with
"rights" and later duties as "actual persons," according to Puccetti's
outline.

This is in part why I argued that the "right" to an abortion should be
defined in terms of fetal development when the fetus can be expected to
survive apart from the mother's body, not in terms of brain development, or
"personhood," the primary "right" being, the right of a women to control her
own body when the fetus is a totally dependent part of the women's body for
its survival.  At the point of fetal survivability apart from the women's
body, then the fetus would assume some "right" to its protection, putting
aside the complex issue of "personhood," a rather hard to define concept
in the early stages of human development in biological terms, given that
even apparently healthy infants with full rights to protection against
infanticide sometimes have rare medical conditions that seriously block
their development as "persons," stopping language and higher conceptual
cognitive capacities, yet no one considers "terminating" them at this early
stage.

There is no precisely sharp time line to define this "right" based on fetal
survivability, in terms of biology, just as when "personhood" precisely
begins, or how to precisely define personhood, is very debatable.  Given the
overpowering role of genetics in determining "personhood," a good case could
be made this begins in fundamental ways at conception, with the DNA
blueprint of a person fixed, though modern genetic science clouds these
waters.

Consider that if the DNA of a one week old fetus was extracted, then the
fetus aborted, in the future it might be possible to clone the fetus to
allow the "potential person" who this fetus might have become, to develop.

Perhaps Puccetti's outline is not meant to be precise, but only a rough
guide to these issues.  But to deny "rights" to late 2nd tri-mester fetuses
that can survive and become what most people would consider "human beings,"
is a bit too "rough" perhaps.

Of course "personhood" could be defined for abortion law as equal to when
the fetus could survive apart from the mother's body.  We often cannot say
for sure whether a preemie will have brain damage that will prevent
"personhood," so shouldn't this issue be left to determine later, except in
extreme cases?

In practice, if abortion is to be legal only when there is no chance of the
fetus surviving, given current medical realities, it seems the date for
legal abortion would be pushed back to at least the 22 week... Of course the
law could allow a later date to outlaw abortion, for other reasons than just
the bare possibility of fetal survival.  It can be argued that the rights of
the women to determine her own future and biology, the very low survival
rates of preemies in these cases, the long term health issues, and suffering
of late 2nd tri-mester or early 3rd tri-mester premature fetuses, makes
these cases not worth consideration, but tell that to the survivors.

What would the law dictate in these borderline cases?  A forced premature
birth is not acceptable for obvious reasons.  So should women in the 22 week
of pregnancy be legally compelled to carry the pregnancy to term?  This is
unacceptable for many women's rights advocates, and for many good reasons.

There is no easy and clean ethical answer to these situations, I believe.

If we are going to defend late 2nd and early 3rd tri-mester abortions, let's
be honest about what we are doing!

Are these sources below false?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1706385,00.html

A study by University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust shows a
survival rate of 42% for babies born at an age at which they may be legally
aborted for social reasons.
----------
Despite a cerclage stitch to hold her\ incompetent cervix closed, Johnson
delivered her first child at 24 weeks. Son Isaiah spent 3 months in the NICU
and 31 days on antibiotics. Now, 3 years old, Isaiah has no major health
problems.

http://www.epregnancy.com/feature_five.html
---------

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/prematurity.jsp

Advances in medical care have made it possible for many premature infants to
survive and develop normally. However, whether or not a premature infant
will survive is still intimately tied to his or her gestational age:

   - 21 weeks or less: 0% survival rate

    - 22 weeks: 0-10% survival rate

    - 23 weeks: 10-35% survival rate

    - 24 weeks: 40-70% survival rate

Ted Moffett

On 1/25/06, nickgier at adelphia.net <nickgier at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> I want to thank Mylenda for her incisive comments and corrections to some
> of my language in my abortion arguments. I did, however, make a clear
> distinction between people with Down Syndrome and others; and the books I
> consulted did use IQ as a very rough measure of mental life.  Incidentally,
> the highest Down Syndrome IQ measured was 100.
>
> For better or worse we have a legal, religious, and moral tradition that
> has defined personhood in terms of mental capacity.  (As a vegetarian I'm
> quite willing to reframe the issue in terms of the ability to feel pain, but
> then most abortions occur before the fetus feels pain.)  In my discussion I
> tried to make that threshold as low as possible so as to avoid the charges
> of eugenics, but I see that I have to be even more careful in my
> formulations.
>
> As far as types of personhood, I've followed Roland Puccetti's analysis of
> possible persons (each of us sitting on our stars looking down at potential
> parents), potential persons (the conceptus, embryo, fetus until the 3rd
> trimester), beginning person (=child) with rights but not duties, actual
> person with rights and duties, and former person (brain dead).
>
> It's getting late, my brain's tired, but I appreciate your comments very
> much.
>
> Nick Gier
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060126/fb4ee97b/attachment-0001.htm