Life begins at conception - when does personhood?

[Illuminati Primus]

I'm happy with the concept of life beginning at conception (as long as there is no talk of a soul involved) but something that's harder to determine for me is the idea of personhood. Obviously this is a very pertinent question because it has an impact on when you're producing guidelines on abortions, and at what point you seriously attempt to save a child that is born prematurely.

For me a foetus isn't a person until it is has developed to the point where it could feasibly survive outside the mother without heavy medical intervention, so part way through the third trimester. In the first a baby is just a cluster of cells and until it has a brain you're not going to convince me that it has any more of a right to personhood than a tumourous growth. During the second trimester it starts to shape into a baby with a nervous system and limbs but if you took it out of the mother it couldn't survive. It's only towards the end that a baby is fully formed and can stand on its own two feet, so to speak.

Within my view of life and what should attempt to be protected I don't see why a foetus that is at an early stage should be given any special protection; it can't think or feel so aborting it gives me no qualms, and the "it's a person" argument doesn't work with me (saying that I admit I'm a man and don't have to ever face having to do the act). Equally a child that is born so early it must live in highly specialised conditions in an incubator and requires constant supervision is a bit on the boundary. Yes you want to help if you can but I think there are times when nature is telling you to not bother (especially if they're born with conditions that require immediate operations, the kind which probably caused them to be born early and unviable in the first place).

So what does everyone else think?

[KidVermicious]

I don't think there's a question of when life starts, just when life becomes independant of the mother. As you say, that's when it's possible for it to survive outside the womb.

That'd be when it becomes a person, to me. I don't agree with the rest of your premise, though. I believe the potential for personhood gives it more right to survive than a tumor, to use your analogy.

I think you're on a very slippery slope if you want to argue that requiring medical intervention to live precludes personhood...

[Jaglavak]

I'd say the dividing line is when there is enough complex neural activity that there could be a possibility of consciousness. Not too sure when that happens, but it's before birth. That said, I'm solidly pro-choice.

[iampunha]

When a woman in your life gets pregnant, do you think early on (say, in the first trimester), "She has a large collection of cells growing in her uterus," or do you think something else? I think something else.

Arguments that a pregnancy becomes a human at some point after the genetic programming gets building have never impressed me terribly. Forty-six chromosomes (or so one hopes), and they get started doing their thing. If that is not biologically a person, I don't know what it is.

Having said that, I am as uninterested in the "it's not a person yet" argument as I am in the "I get to make your medical decisions because that's a person and it's as important as you are" argument. You're pregnant? Your medical issue. Not mine. Same as for most other things. (This arguments changes if the patient is a minor and the thing is, for example, vaccines, in which case we have another question entirely and I'm not hijacking this thread further.)

[Pere]

I'm unclear on what it means to assert that "life begins" at conception if not personhood. The gametes are alive before conception too. Conception is clearly an important step toward the establishment of a human life, but a blastocyst that fails to implant, or an implanted embryo that spontaneously aborts during organogenesis, is not a person.

Personhood, the existence of a human life, requires more. A good way to approach the question is to consider that a consistent working definition has to be applicable at both boundaries, the beginning and the end. It can't simply be living cells with a given chromosomal chemistry, or else we'd be saying that the organs of a brain-dead accident victim, on their way to separate transplant ORs, still constituted a person. Also, the idea of unique DNA marking out personhood doesn't work in the case of identical twins; are they one person in two bodies?

The key characteristic of human lives, and the indicator of the presence of a human life, is not living cells or chromosomes but the mind. The mind is not the brain, but a function based in the brain. At the beginning boundary, the fetal brain must reach a certain level of neural development and cross-connection before it is ready to host a new mind--before there is, as Jaglavak says, the possibility of consciousness. As it happens, this level of nervous system development is heralded by greatly increased fetal movement, which makes the medieval standard of the quickening not a bad one for flagging the beginning of a human life. This occurs in the second trimester, before viability.

[Khampelf]

I'm pretty solidly pro-choice, and agree with the compromise that third trimester abortions should be done only to protect the life of the mother. So, I agree the concept of 'personhood' begins around that time.

No, it should never be anyone else's choice. There is no 'we' in uterus, just 'you'.

[squarepeg]

Terribly interesting. Let's take that argument and put it toward the other end of life. fer instance...My dad, very much a person, completely mentally "with it", can now not survive without complex medical intervention. He cannot breath without a machine, he cannot move anything below his neck, he cannot pee or eliminate without someone to clean him up. He is total care. Very Very vibrant personality. We are lucky enough to be able to provide it.My best friend in the whole wide world towards the end of her life, again, incredibly vibrant personality, couldn't walk, required heavy care which was very thankfully given by a wonderful person.
I'm thinking of some patients of mine from a local group home who cannot communicate beyond a rudimentary nod or shake of the head to the most simple of questions "are you hungry, are you cold, does it hurt here?" Again, totally dependent on
others for their care, would starve to death if someone did not make the effort to put food in their mouths every day. Not much available personality wise, but when I look in their eyes they are there. Some of them are. There are some whose developmental disabilities disallows them the ability to connect with other people. Autism, severe mental retardation etc.
So take it back down...I have five children and very well remember the blank baby stares. Totally dependent, unable to connect beyond the cries and signals that spoke to that primitive mother brain that drives us to feed and protect this little thing. The spark in the eyes comes later, a few weeks... they are not able to make that personal eye to eye connection with you that says I am here...does that make them less of a person?
I am not saying yay or nay to either argument, just thinking out loud.
There is so much we can do for all these beings...should we...MASSIVE ethical question that make my brain hurt. Not many of us are willing to be saddled with a total care mentally disabled adult, as evidenced by the care I see the majority receive in my experience. We have very little tolerance for it as a society. So for me, I almost see abortion as doing some of these potential people a favor,sparing them the suffering, but on the flip side of the coin, it does society a grave disservice because of the potential personalities and gifts lost. A truly double edged sword.
There is a point where saving the fetus is impossible. But when it becomes possible? What will we lose if we don't try? I just try to look at the patient or person in front of me, and see what can be done.
again... I am not pro or con, just an ethical peruser...

[Uthrecht]

One point, Khampelf: I think you've disagreed with yourself. If there is only "you" in uterus, then shouldn't the woman be allowed to get an abortion at any time prior when the fetus/baby leaves it?

[mswas]

I think at conception, but the Mothers rights trump that of the dependent.

[Knee]

I'm solidly pro-choice too, but the idea that an undeveloped baby should be considered on the same level as a tumor, to paraphrase, doesn't seem right to me, as the tumor has no chance to develop "personhood" later on, and an undeveloped baby does.

Per personal experience I'm going to have to argue with your 'babies born with severe problems' assertions. My brother was born at 7 months and weighed around 14 ounces (if I recall correctly.) He had to be in an incubator and have all kinds of stuff done to help him survive, but he is now a healthy (although very small for his age,) happy Star Wars fanatic of seven years.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

I'd say the dividing line is when there is enough complex neural activity that there could be a possibility of consciousness. Not too sure when that happens, but it's before birth. That said, I'm solidly pro-choice.

Another vote for brain wave activity.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Knee

I'm solidly pro-choice too, but the idea that an undeveloped baby should be considered on the same level as a tumor, to paraphrase, doesn't seem right to me, as the tumor has no chance to develop "personhood" later on, and an undeveloped baby does.

Per personal experience I'm going to have to argue with your 'babies born with severe problems' assertions. My brother was born at 7 months and weighed around 14 ounces (if I recall correctly.) He had to be in an incubator and have all kinds of stuff done to help him survive, but he is now a healthy (although very small for his age,) happy Star Wars fanatic of seven years.

Yeah, my sister was born about the same time and weighed 21 oz.

[Lungfish]

As I far as I am concerned personhood begins when the child is born. Pro-choice as well.

[mlerose]

I think it's really subjective. There are so many levels of personhood, and some of it has to do with culture. There are some cultures that don't consider babies/toddlers to be people until they start talking. That's an extreme, I think, but it fits in with the argument others have posed - brain waves/thinking/consciousness. Which then poses the question: why do we (as a society) keep braindead/permanent vegetative state people alive? Is it because there's always a potential, however slim, of the PERSONHOOD of that person coming back?

[Illuminati Primus]

Originally Posted by Knee

Per personal experience I'm going to have to argue with your 'babies born with severe problems' assertions. My brother was born at 7 months and weighed around 14 ounces (if I recall correctly.) He had to be in an incubator and have all kinds of stuff done to help him survive, but he is now a healthy (although very small for his age,) happy Star Wars fanatic of seven years.

To be clear you're misunderstanding my point - I'm not saying that any level of medical need upon birth renders someone an untermensch, I'm questioning whether a child born so early that even with the best medical care there is little certainty whether it'll live (five or six months) has successfully crossed the threshold into personhood. Fine, it's now outside the mother's body, but it's ability to survive without massive help is effectively zero.

A child born early who needs assistance? Well that's what medical science is for, but at the same time a child born at 7 months can potentially survive without help, it's just far less likely. I'm also speaking as a child born breach via caesarean section due to wearing my umbilical cord around my neck like a fashion accessory. If it weren't for good obstetrics I wouldn't be here to ask any of this.

squarepeg - I think you've voiced the social darwinist questions that I didn't want to explicitly state, but which I guess come logically with my OP. A member of my family was born severely mentally handicapped and had to be in care for the whole of his life before dying quite early in his 40s. My grandmother looked after him until she was too old and infirm to do so, then he had to go into state care as the rest of the family wasn't equipped to be able to do so (and, really, didn't want the responsibility). Sure, it's callous to disregard someone like this for reasons beyond their control, but I definitely find myself asking the question of whether such people should be born in the first place. Of course the next question is what should be on that list of mandatory abortionable disorders? I'm not sure I want to have to decide that.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

The key characteristic of human lives, and the indicator of the presence of a human life, is not living cells or chromosomes but the mind. The mind is not the brain, but a function based in the brain.

As we declare death upon cessation of activity in the mind, I agree with this approach. I realize that it becomes problematic in the case of disability, PVS (persistent vegetative states), mental incapacity, and so on, not the least of which is achieving a definition which includes the most incapable human but excludes the most capable ape. At some point we'll have to admit (or redress) the inherent speciesism whereby only humans can be people, but for now, DNA + consciousness must do.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by mlerose

Which then poses the question: why do we (as a society) keep braindead/permanent vegetative state people alive? Is it because there's always a potential, however slim, of the PERSONHOOD of that person coming back?

I think so. We think "miracles happen, he COULD wake up" and point to the two or three examples of it happening. Also, our society has an unnatural fear of death which keeps many people alive much longer than they want to be.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by squarepeg

I have five children and very well remember the blank baby stares. Totally dependent, unable to connect beyond the cries and signals that spoke to that primitive mother brain that drives us to feed and protect this little thing. The spark in the eyes comes later, a few weeks... they are not able to make that personal eye to eye connection with you that says I am here...does that make them less of a person?

In my understanding, the latest brain science suggests that neural development of the prefrontal cortex isn't really "complete" until perhaps as late as age 25. There's a lot that happens in the first few years after birth, and then an ongoing process into what we think of as early adulthood. And even after that, there is the possibility for limited neural regeneration and reorganization after brain damage. So it's clearly a process.

But every process has to start somewhere, somehow. When do the physiological processes that support the capacity for consciousness begin? The medieval concept of the quickening seems to be--based on measurable brain activity, some of which correlates with fetal movement--a safe early place to draw a boundary and say, it clearly hasn't happened before this.

Given that children and teenagers are assuredly having conscious experiences before their brains are, in a certain sense, "done," the question then becomes where to draw a reasonable late boundary for the beginning of that capacity.

It's not indefensible to say that that the late boundary is after birth--to my knowledge, we don't really have any basis for saying that newborn infants definitely are capable of consciousness. They have awareness, to be sure--they can perceive and react and even store memories; so can primitive animals, and so can almost-term unborn babies, to the limits of their environment--but we have no evidence that they have "interior" lives, in the moment. But defining personhood in a way that excludes healthy born babies just isn't going to fly in our world. Yes, some cultures have effectively done so, with corresponding tolerance for infanticide. You know we're not going there, at least not without catastrophic changes to our society. So while not strictly scientific, it makes social sense to say that the proto-capacity of newborns is "enough" for our purposes here.

So, birth? No, can't be--the brain of a baby one day after birth is almost exactly like the brain of a baby one day before birth. Depending on circumstances of the pregnancy, the same baby could have been born days earlier and grown up exactly as healthy and smart. Whatever proto-capacity the newborn has, the about-to-be-born has it as well.

TLDR: All considered, the safest philosophical position to my mind is that personhood begins no earlier than the quickening, and no later than viability--a range of something like 14 to 21 weeks. (Yes, the record for earliest successful live birth, with massive medical intervention, is 21 weeks.)

Requisite Abortion Addendum: I haven't mentioned abortion, which is the only bottom line to some on this question. For the reasons laid out, I think the moral calculus applicable to abortions before the quickening is somewhat different than for those after viability. An early abortion does not destroy a person. A later abortion maybe does (or a proto-person as "personable" as a newborn)--but as that life is clearly subordinate to, dependent on, and inside another body, the human rights and personal freedoms of the pregnant woman must be accorded overwhelming priority. As a matter of politics and the law, I absolutely uphold women's right to choose at any stage of pregnancy. It would be nice if all elective abortions were chosen before 14 weeks, as more than 90% presently are.

Originally Posted by Fish

...I agree with this approach. I realize that it becomes problematic in...achieving a definition which includes the most incapable human but excludes the most capable ape. At some point we'll have to admit (or redress) the inherent speciesism whereby only humans can be people, but for now, DNA + consciousness must do.

Planet of the Apes: Not meaning to distract from the question with respect to humans... there is in fact a movement and an organization dedicated to the proposition that great apes should be accorded some form of "personal" rights. This movement has already secured virtual bans on great-apes research in several European countries, New Zealand, Australia and Japan.

[Contrapuntal]

I'm pretty sure that conception has no particular beginning point, and that life therefore cannot be said to begin at conception.

Natura non facit saltum.

[Solfy]

Many people define "conception" as the fertilization of an egg. That genetic combo isn't really viable until it implants, however, and even then there's no guarantee of personhood, but that's the seminal event that kicks the whole thing off.

[Pere]

No, the seminal event is a little before that...

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Many people define "conception" as the fertilization of an egg. That genetic combo isn't really viable until it implants, however, and even then there's no guarantee of personhood, but that's the seminal event that kicks the whole thing off.

Except it's not an event. It's a process, with no way of pinpointing when it starts.

[Harry]

Life begins when the dog dies and the kids have left home.

Having gotten that out of the way, I do not want to ever live in the state squarepeg describes her Dad and others. I have made that clear to my wife, along with the promise to haunt her forever if she doesn't tell them to pull the plug.

[Dragonlady]

I"m with you Harry.
And I don't want a heart bypass at 85, or an organ transplant then, either.
I'm 52, my kids are grown, if I get cancer or something debilitating, I will lose everything without enough time to make it back. I plan to forgo treatment, should I be in that situation.
And IP? Fetuses get human like shape before the 2nd trimester. Dragonettes 10 week sonogram shows arms and legs, down to elbows and knees and recognizable facial features. Not making a judgement based on that, just saying your figures were a bit off.

[u wan buy dvd?]

I'm not even entirely clear on what constitutes personhood, let alone when this vague, metaphysical, nebulous thingy begins. Why don't we just say you can abort a fetus whenever you'd like to but getting the procedure later costs more?

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

One point, Khampelf: I think you've disagreed with yourself. If there is only "you" in uterus, then shouldn't the woman be allowed to get an abortion at any time prior when the fetus/baby leaves it?

I posted what I personally feel, and then also stated I would not take the choice away from the person of uterus.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I'm not even entirely clear on what constitutes personhood, let alone when this vague, metaphysical, nebulous thingy begins. Why don't we just say you can abort a fetus whenever you'd like to but getting the procedure later costs more?

An abortion tax?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Illuminati Primus

I'm happy with the concept of life beginning at conception (as long as there is no talk of a soul involved) but something that's harder to determine for me is the idea of personhood. Obviously this is a very pertinent question because it has an impact on when you're producing guidelines on abortions, and at what point you seriously attempt to save a child that is born prematurely.

For me a foetus isn't a person until it is has developed to the point where it could feasibly survive outside the mother without heavy medical intervention, so part way through the third trimester.

That's pretty much it for me as well. Viability outside the womb.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

An abortion tax?

I don't see why not- except for the part where many people might find it outrageously offensive.

[Wolf Larsen]

I think personhood begins about 25 or so.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Harry

Life begins when the dog dies and the kids have left home.

Having gotten that out of the way, I do not want to ever live in the state squarepeg describes her Dad and others. I have made that clear to my wife, along with the promise to haunt her forever if she doesn't tell them to pull the plug.

I think I love you. And I'm with you re the end of life. As a nurse, I have witnessed and taken care of far too many pts on "life support", mostly because their families were in deep denial or religious fervor that "where there's life, there's hope." Well, I'm here to say that is really not true. Yes, there are occasionally "miracle" stories, but mostly with those, either the MD made a wrong prognosis or the whole clinical picture wasn't known or both.

My "favorite" one of these let's cling stories was my 106 year old pt who was kept on life support for almost 3 months, with all the resultant issues: bedsores, swelling and bruising of the arms and legs, pneumonia, MRSA, foot drop etc. And all because her great-grand niece insisted that "Auntie" had been at a family reunion the year before and found out that one of her distant cousins had lived to be 107 and according to this niece, "Auntie" made her promise that if anything (god forbid) happened to her, niece would make sure she lived to be 107, too.

We had the ethics committee in on that one. It took a long time, but the niece finally made her DNR, and then TLSS (terminate life support). It bankrupted the woman.

Not to be seen as a money-grubber, but really, for what? She didn't make her "goal" of 107 and she was tortured for the last 3 months of her life.

Most instances are not so over the top, but I've admitted more than one hospice pt insensible with terminal breathing whose family has panicked, rescinded the hospice only to reinstate it once the pt is in the hospital....

We have very fucked up notions of death in this country.

sorry for the tangent. I won't add to the OP except to say I am pro-choice for the most pragmatic of reasons: abortion will happen anyway and always has, so let's make it clean and safe, and let's emphasize contraception so that abortion is less necessary.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I don't see why not- except for the part where many people might find it outrageously offensive.

That's kind of inside-out thinking isn't it? What other medical procedure is taxed? Should we tax heart valve replacements? Fusing of disks in the back? Sterilization?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

Should we tax heart valve replacements? Fusing of disks in the back? Sterilization?

I don't think abortion or any of those things should be taxed, but I'd support a bonus or some other incentive for sterilization.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

inside-out thinking

Abortion joke.

Naw but seriously, I'm not talking about an across the board abortion tax, but taxes to discourage late term abortions. Hell, we could even subsidize early term abortions- aren't they the most socially desirable sort?

Naw but super seriously, I don't think there's a nice, clean dividing line between full-fledged person and blob of cells with human DNA. I think any solution to the abortion debate that attempts to find a line will fall short. Like the brainwave crowd- I don't like that the only thing preserving my human dignity is my magical mystical brainwaves imbuing me with transcendental 'personhood'. Some humans have brainwaves, some don't. Some non-humans have brainwaves.

I was half-joking about taxing abortions. I still think it's a more elegant solution than carving a line in stone.

[SmartAleq]

Considering that the vast majority of late term abortions are done for things like fetal death, massive fetal abnormalities, anencephaly and to protect the life of the mother I'd say placing some sort of additional cost is pretty much insult to injury. You don't carry around a baby for six months and then suddenly decide "Yeah, motherhood ain't for me, yank it, doc." Late term abortions are already a tragedy, and pretty much nobody is lining up for one just for fun, let's avoid the fucking moralizing already and leave these women alone to consult with their doctors regarding their course of treatment.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I was half-joking about taxing abortions. I still think it's a more elegant solution than carving a line in stone.

The most elegant solution is to leave the question of abortion up to the woman and her doctor and butt out.

[u wan buy dvd?]

So add a loophole where if it's a risky pregnancy, the tax can be waved, I dunno.

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

The most elegant solution is to leave the question of abortion up to the woman and her doctor and butt out.

Everybody here has expressed some opinion on when personhood begins other than "the mother and her doctor get to decide when personhood begins". That's what we're talking about here.

[Panacea]

I did as well, see my post #11.

You are the one who brought up late-term abortions.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

You are the one who brought up late-term abortions.

I thought that abortion was relevant to the discussion. I gave my opinion on personhood and how it might be applied to the abortion debate, which I thought was the bottom line of this question.

[Panacea]

My statement wasn't quite correct, it was the charging-more-for-abortions that you brought up, not late term abortions per se. Sorry about that.

The question(s) set forth in the OP say: "the idea of personhood. Obviously this is a very pertinent question because it has an impact on when you're producing guidelines on abortions, and at what point you seriously attempt to save a child that is born prematurely."

I'm thinking "guidelines on abortions" isn't the same thing as "discouraging late-term abortions".

[Fish]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Why don't we just say you can abort a fetus whenever you'd like to but getting the procedure later costs more?

I'd seriously discourage any such suggestion as being right-wing religious social engineering — a back-door abortion ban. Once the tax exists, the fee would only go up. "Oh my yes, tax abortions at $10,000. That'll change their minds!" And the horrid beauty of taxing abortions, if someone tries to evade the payment and gets an illegal abortion, you can imprison her for tax evasion. "This li'l filly didn't wanna be barefoot and pregnant, Jeb. Toss her in the cooler!"

No sir. This is a bad, stupid, wrong-headed idea all around.

The point of abortion [legal or otherwise] is that it is a choice, one of many a pregnant woman must make. Her options, in order of difficulty and cost, are

• Have a baby, raise the child, and be a mother for 18+ years. This is a huge, vast, life-changing decision, constituting hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, 24-hour-a-day vigilance, and legal culpability.
• Adopt the baby out. This still requires the mother to pay to have the child, and jump through other hoops to make the baby available.
• Have an abortion. This can be the least expensive and least time-intensive solution, depending on whether the mother chooses a ... erm, home remedy or a professional, although it is the most emotionally difficult and physically painful.
• Disrupt the pregnancy early. This would be something like the so-called "morning after" pill.
• Not get pregnant. I realize this isn't an option for someone who's already pregnant, but it is an option for women, so let's consider various methods of birth control (abstinence, condoms, the Pill, etc). This is cheapest and easiest.

So many attacks on abortion start by making the bottom items on the list harder. They deprive teens of sex education, protest at teaching them about birth control in any form except abstinence, refuse to permit a morning-after pill, and place high hurdles for getting abortions. This makes no sense, because any hurdle less than 18+ years and half a million dollars is still cheaper than raising kids. Women will have abortions, period, full stop, no argument.

Why don't we instead offer a) education for not getting pregnant, b) assistance for actually having children, and c) help women choose adoption? All of these would reduce the number of abortions significantly. Instead of making anti-abortion walls higher, make the other walls lower.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

I'm thinking "guidelines on abortions" isn't the same thing as "discouraging late-term abortions".

I do in fact think it's a more elegant approach for society to encourage and discourage certain behaviors as opposed to dictate to women how they must handle their pregnancy. I think I am answering the OP's question, because I don't think there exists a rational guideline for when personhood begins for society to base its regulations on. Society shouldn't regulate abortion, but simply advocate sooner rather than later.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I do in fact think it's a more elegant approach for society to encourage and discourage certain behaviors as opposed to dictate to women how they must handle their pregnancy. I think I am answering the OP's question, because I don't think there exists a rational guideline for when personhood begins for society to base its regulations on. Society shouldn't regulate abortion, but simply advocate sooner rather than later.

I absolutely agree that education about sex and abortion is the key to having fewer abortions performed. I have big problems with charging more for the procedures just because we want to discourage them. It's nothing more than a sin tax.

[Panacea]

To refine that a little bit, I thought Illuminati was talking about guidelines for what to do once an unwanted pregnancy is here. Discouraging unwanted pregnancy before it happens is a different (better) thing.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

I'd seriously discourage any such suggestion as being right-wing religious social engineering — a back-door abortion ban.

I'd hate to think that anyone would think for a second that I'm not 100%, staunchly pro-choice. However, if that choice is between getting an abortion sooner rather than later, society ought to encourage sooner and discourage later, as a means of avoiding the entire metaphysical personhood debate.

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

It's nothing more than a sin tax.

I don't care if people are punished for later abortions or if they are rewarded for earlier abortions- it's the exact same thing: spending public dollars to incentivize women to abort their pregnancy as soon as possible, as a means of avoiding the entire metaphysical personhood debate.

If public dollars go into subsidizing the procedure for early term pregnancies, that's the exact same thing as increasing the cost of late term abortions.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

Instead of making anti-abortion walls higher, make the other walls lower.

The only walls I would like to raise is late-term abortion relative to early-term abortion. If that means making early-term abortions easier, or late-term harder, it's the same thing.

[Panacea]

I think I see the disconnect. Late-term abortions don't happen because people wait until the last minute. As Smartie mentioned, it's because of medical problems which did not manifest until the third trimester.

Neither subsidizing early ones or penalizing late ones would fix that.

[Fish]

I don't have a problem with late-term abortions costing more, because in general, medical services are already priced by time and complexity. (Look up RVU, or Relative Value Unit, if you're terribly curious.) I do object to jiggering with the price structure, raising the price for late-term as a means of discouraging them. Besides, what do you think a doctor is going to do? Perform a simple procedure at 20 weeks for $Y, or put off the procedure until 24 weeks and get $ZZ? By raising the price [that is, raising the fee and thus the reimbursement rate] of late-term abortions you could end up encouraging the very thing you're trying to prevent.

All things being equal, a late-term abortion costs more simply because the pregnant woman has had more prenatal care over those six months than a woman who aborts after only 10 weeks. If cost were the limiting factor, we've already crossed that bridge by the time the woman realizes there are pregnancy complications such as anencephaly.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

I think I see the disconnect. Late-term abortions don't happen because people wait until the last minute. As Smartie mentioned, it's because of medical problems which did not manifest until the third trimester.

Neither subsidizing early ones or penalizing late ones would fix that.

When I said "late-term" I didn't mean according to any third trimester, set definition for "late-term". I meant a sliding scale of costs- day one is cheaper/more subsidized than day two and so forth- with exceptions taken for medical problems and whatnot, sure.

[Panacea]

Don't you think that medical care should be simpler, not more complicated? Talk about your elegant solutions, this one is not it. You open the door to huge debate about what should be included and what should be excluded; decisions made .. by whom? regarding qualifying medical conditions, and appeals which drag out far longer than a fetus with birth defects will live.

It's just not a good idea, sorry.