Comments on: In Search of Fetal Metaphors

By: Arthur

Arthur — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:30:01 +0000

Rea,

That’s a misapplication of the metaphor. A bar hasn’t begun to give aid in keeping you safe from criminals, for instance – it’s a different standard, closer to an innkeeper than an aidgiver.

But even if we accept your articulation for the purposes of argument, I don’t think it takes you anywhere; having assumed a duty, exercising reasonable care may well mean returning someone to a state better than where they started. Do you really think a non-therapeutic abortion would constitute reasonable care?

By: brooke

brooke — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:38:54 +0000

“Well, the whole rest of the post is about exploring how having sex might create an obligation, but the distinction you’re making seems irrelevant. Make it an STD instead of a cold, if you like.”

Making it an STD or a tapeworm rather than a cold doesn’t really clear up the problem. You still don’t create the STD in the same way you create a fetus. An STD or tapeworm is something that exists independantly of any particular person–a fetus is not. A fetus is created from the (presumably voluntary) act of sex and otherwise doesn’t exist.

By: rea

rea — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:25:28 +0000

“Tort law generally imputes a heightened obligation to those who begin to give aid, so returning the injured party to its baseline state is often insufficient”

No. The volunteer is required to exercise reasoanble care in rendering the voluntary assistance, but not obliged to do more than what he volunteered to do.

Example: a bar has no obligation to protect its customers from third party criminals (at least in my state, with some very limited exceptions). Voluntarily doing SOMETHING to protect customers does not oblige the bar to do EVERTHING: providing a lighted parking lot does not oblige the bar to provide armed security guards in the parking lot.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:04:34 +0000

You suggest that contract metaphors are inappropriate here because the presumptive “other party” doesn’t exist at the time that the obligation arises. I’m not so sure. The law recognizes obligations arising from unilateral offers to the general public, accepted by performance. For example, if a company holds a contest, it is obligated to give the prize away to the winner, though there is no “winner” at the time that the offer is made.

Perhaps unprotected sex really is like holding a “womb lottery,” in the legal as well as Rawlsian sense.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:05:02 +0000

Well, I’d want fairly clear evidence that we really knew the brainscan was correlated with those relevant features, given how intuitively unlikely it seems, but I certainly can’t rule out the possibility altogether. I suppose I’d have to think about it further; when artificial womb technology is sufficiently advanced, I’d say induced birth or caesarian & transfer to that should be the practice rather than abortion. At present… I’m not sure; under the facts you describe I can imagine opposing elective abortion past the relevant point of development.

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:15:10 +0000

Seems reasonable.

I’m not certain that the fetus’ time and environment in the womb is necessarily insufficient to develop the traits you describe; but I agree that it seems doubtful.

But, if you were convinced (by fetal brain scans or something) that there does seem to have been such development in most fetuses after, say, 6 months what would your position on abortion after that point be?

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:19:36 +0000

My position is shortly after birth, though since it’s impossible to tell when the line has been crossed, I think birth’s a fine legal line. I think what’s key in the development of the relevant traits (a sense of self with some degree of reflectiveness, concept formation, the ability to plan and have intentions and desires beyond pure immediate instinct) is interaction with an environment; I doubt a 30-year-old who’d spent his entire existence in a sensory deprivation tank would count as a rights-bearing person either.

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:20:13 +0000

I’m not so bothered by the tapeworm metaphor. I’m ok with being provocative.

But, I’m curious when Julian thinks one does become person-like enough to have full blown rights. Is it shortly before birth, shortly after birth, long after birth, is it at the instant of birth?

And, why then?

By: Scott Scheule

Scott Scheule — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:53:28 +0000

“Such as the grotesque metaphor of babies as “tapeworms”?”

I agree. One is of course perfectly free to make whatever metaphors they like, but this one I found repugnant. Though certain abortion analogies may be imperfect, there are some that fit better and some that fit worse. The tapeworm analogy strikes me as being one of the latter.

By: Tapeworm

Tapeworm — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:08:33 +0000

The human maternal drive must be squashed; non-human life on earth depends on it! Save the planet. Go kill yourself now!