Plan B

[krebscout]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing everyone's opinion on where the line should be drawn and why. At what point along the pregnancy (as Wired touched on a little bit) does terminating a fetus become morally objectionable, and, assuming that birth is one line that everyone agrees on, why does birth make a difference? Two minutes before exiting the birth canal and two minutes after exiting the birth canal, the baby is basically the same (though there are a few differences), but why is that difference any less arbitrary than implantation? And I know there's at least one philosopher out in the world who thinks that "abortion," logically, should be okay until a kid is 6 months old or something like that.

[krebscout]

I'm also not sure, assuming that I am pro-life (and I am, but I'm something of an agnostic on the issue), that I buy that natural, early, undetectable miscarriages are the worst holocaust to ever happen on earth. Tragic, yes, but so is the death of an elderly person, and old people die by the droves and we accept that as unstoppable and inevitable, try to prolong life though we may. There's nothing we can do before we know that anything needs to be done, and so these little zygotes die, just like every human cell does.

[wired]

If you assume that all early miscarriages are God's will and therefore ought not to be averted, yet assume many if not all of those could have equivalent value to a born infant, then you must disavow the medical profession entirely; else, how is curing heart disease not averting God's will?

Again, I don't believe this - I am making a defense of someone who might believe it. And again, I think you can still have internal consistency there. The argument would be that God has given medicine to help people live. Heart surgery is part of that. It is not yet within His will, such a person would argue, that all pregnancies are carried to term. Again, I'm not saying it's what I think, but (a) I can see people believing that and (b) won't denigrate them for it.

[Katya]

This reminds me of something I read on this guy's blog:

In actual practice everyone — even a conservative Christian who “believes” in ensoulment-at-conception — understands that late miscarriages are more tragic than early miscarriages . . ..

Wow, people shouldn't say stuff like that. Because it is offensive to anyone who's had a miscarriage. I've had friends who were just as heartbroken having a miscarriage at 6,7,8 weeks as I was having one at 15. It sure isn't any less tragic to the person going through it. And comments like that are really dismissive to their experience.

But, even losing a pregnancy at 15 weeks, I didn't look at it the same as losing a child. It was more the loss of the potential or possibility. I don't think there's any less potential at 6 weeks than at 20 (neither baby could live on its own at that point) But I'm not sure where I'd put the starting point. Maybe when the implanted egg starts to divide and grow?

Hmm. Lets see if I can choose my words carefully.

I agree that no one should tell a woman that her miscarriage is more or less tragic than anyone else's. Grief isn't a competition where some people have more of a right to feel a loss than others.

That said, I think that on the level of an entire society, we do view some types of death as more tragic than others. For example, we would tend to view the death of a 25-year-old as more tragic than the death of an 80-year-old. And we might view the death of a 25-year-old who leaves behind a young child as more tragic than the death of a childless 25-year-old. And, yes, I think that, on that level, we would also consider a late miscarriage to be more of a social loss than an early miscarriage, although I can't quite put my finger on why. (And, just to reiterate, I'm not saying that this is true on a personal, individual level.)

Maybe it has something to do with an "if only" factor? So, we think that if only the 25-year-old hadn't gotten sick or gotten in an accident, she would have lived for another 50 years, while we know that isn't true of the 80-year-old. And if only the young mother hadn't died, she would have seen her child grow up and get married. And a late miscarriage means that the child was closer to full-term and a (presumably) healthy birth, so perhaps that's why the loss resonates more deeply.

[wired]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing everyone's opinion on where the line should be drawn and why. At what point along the pregnancy (as Wired touched on a little bit) does terminating a fetus become morally objectionable, and, assuming that birth is one line that everyone agrees on, why does birth make a difference? Two minutes before exiting the birth canal and two minutes after exiting the birth canal, the baby is basically the same (though there are a few differences), but why is that difference any less arbitrary than implantation? And I know there's at least one philosopher out in the world who thinks that "abortion," logically, should be okay until a kid is 6 months old or something like that.

I am quoting this so it doesn't get lost. I also would love to know people's opinion on where they think the line out to be drawn.

[Zedability]

I'm genuinely interested in knowing everyone's opinion on where the line should be drawn and why. At what point along the pregnancy (as Wired touched on a little bit) does terminating a fetus become morally objectionable, and, assuming that birth is one line that everyone agrees on, why does birth make a difference? Two minutes before exiting the birth canal and two minutes after exiting the birth canal, the baby is basically the same (though there are a few differences), but why is that difference any less arbitrary than implantation? And I know there's at least one philosopher out in the world who thinks that "abortion," logically, should be okay until a kid is 6 months old or something like that.

I am quoting this so it doesn't get lost. I also would love to know people's opinion on where they think the line out to be drawn.

The philosopher was Michael Tooley.

[krebscout]

That's the one.

Here's one of his papers (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... on&f=false), and I read the first three pages. The end of the second page, where he says that the only plausible positions are the extreme ones, that's basically where I'm at and why I identify (with some trepidation) with the extreme-pro-life position.

[thatonemom]

That said, I think that on the level of an entire society, we do view some types of death as more tragic than others. For example, we would tend to view the death of a 25-year-old as more tragic than the death of an 80-year-old. And we might view the death of a 25-year-old who leaves behind a young child as more tragic than the death of a childless 25-year-old. And, yes, I think that, on that level, we would also consider a late miscarriage to be more of a social loss than an early miscarriage, although I can't quite put my finger on why. (And, just to reiterate, I'm not saying that this is true on a personal, individual level.)

I totally agree that society views some deaths as more tragic than others. But sometimes I think that view tends to bleed into the way people interact with each other, and that's where it bothers me. I don't know how to explain myself very well but I'll give it a shot. I think sometimes people view the less tragic losses (of the 80 year old, or the early pregnancy) as being not that important. "The 80 year old had already lived his life." "A miscarriage at 8 weeks means you were barely pregnant." In the end it's like people try to tell other people that their loss is no big deal, or that they didn't really lose much. (in a sort of bizarre attempt to be comforting? I don't know) My point was just that comments like that can be hurtful. Of course, that wasn't the point of this topic or the original quote. It just struck a nerve with me and I wanted to point out an area where people could be more sensitive to others.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread...

[wired]

I totally agree that society views some deaths as more tragic than others. But sometimes I think that view tends to bleed into the way people interact with each other, and that's where it bothers me. I don't know how to explain myself very well but I'll give it a shot. I think sometimes people view the less tragic losses (of the 80 year old, or the early pregnancy) as being not that important. "The 80 year old had already lived his life." "A miscarriage at 8 weeks means you were barely pregnant." In the end it's like people try to tell other people that their loss is no big deal, or that they didn't really lose much. (in a sort of bizarre attempt to be comforting? I don't know) My point was just that comments like that can be hurtful. Of course, that wasn't the point of this topic or the original quote. It just struck a nerve with me and I wanted to point out an area where people could be more sensitive to others.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread...

No need to apologize. My wife and I have recently dealt with very emotionally painful miscarriages so I appreciate your comments that the pain can be just as significant. (And, at the same time, don't think Katya meant to trivialize anyone's loss.)

[Katya]

That said, I think that on the level of an entire society, we do view some types of death as more tragic than others. For example, we would tend to view the death of a 25-year-old as more tragic than the death of an 80-year-old. And we might view the death of a 25-year-old who leaves behind a young child as more tragic than the death of a childless 25-year-old. And, yes, I think that, on that level, we would also consider a late miscarriage to be more of a social loss than an early miscarriage, although I can't quite put my finger on why. (And, just to reiterate, I'm not saying that this is true on a personal, individual level.)

I totally agree that society views some deaths as more tragic than others. But sometimes I think that view tends to bleed into the way people interact with each other, and that's where it bothers me. I don't know how to explain myself very well but I'll give it a shot. I think sometimes people view the less tragic losses (of the 80 year old, or the early pregnancy) as being not that important. "The 80 year old had already lived his life." "A miscarriage at 8 weeks means you were barely pregnant." In the end it's like people try to tell other people that their loss is no big deal, or that they didn't really lose much. (in a sort of bizarre attempt to be comforting? I don't know) My point was just that comments like that can be hurtful. Of course, that wasn't the point of this topic or the original quote. It just struck a nerve with me and I wanted to point out an area where people could be more sensitive to others.

I agree and I actually think the phenomenon is more often about comforting the speaker than the hearer. I.e., "I don't know how to deal with your loss and it makes me uncomfortable so I'm going to think of some platitude that will make me feel better and let me feel like I can leave the conversation."