(Untitled)

[kitsune_den]

This was originally written in response to pythia_akrypta's post on the South Dakota anti-abortion law issue. Like pythia, my feelings on this issue are so complex and conflicted that I feel a similar difficulty towards putting them into words. Because of that, this post will be very rambly, and I can't guarantee that my arguments are going to be

Comments

[lillornyn]

Before I start, I'd like to disclaim that I have no intent on arguing any point for or against the current political issue. Rather, something you said triggered a question in me, and I'm curious to hear your response.

When people refer to fetuses as resembling "parasites", I think I understand why they say that and where they're coming from. That said, it seems to me (and I admit my perceptions as both a man and someone who has never been a parent may be *radically* skewed here) that a six-month old infant is every bit as dependent on and demanding of the mother as the fetus was during pregnancy. Honestly (and here's where my ignorance of parenting comes into play) it seems like the infant might be more of a parasite, since it actively requires the attention and care of the parents, while the fetus is just sort of along for the ride (I know that's an oversimplification, but I hope you take my meaning).

Which leads to my question re: the parasite comparison. I've never in my life heard of *anybody* that's embroiled in this issue advocating the killing of six-month old children. Is it the birthing process that moves that entity from the realm of "parasite" to "human being," and if so, why? On the surface, that answer seems obvious, but I suspect it's much more complicated and tangled than it would seem at first glance, and reading this led me to belive you'd be a good person to ask.

So...whatcha think? I think part of your answer I can discern from the original post, but I'd love to hear you riff.

[kitsune_den]

A parasite, by definition, is an organism that grows in and feeds upon another organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. It cannot be removed from its environmental conditions and survive. A six-month old baby can be cared for by multiple providers, can be moved about, can survive in an environment entirely removed from the person who birthed it. I tend to be against late-term abortions because at that point the fetus could be removed from the person's womb and potentially survive and continue development. Frankly, I think we as a society are a lot less concerned about the welfare of many six-month old babies (many of whom are not provided for adequately) than we are about potentially aborted fetuses.

I would go further to point out that what I said was that while I often draw a comparison between fetuses and parasites, I don't actually believe this to be the case (hence my awareness of myself as being something of a hypocrite on this matter). A fetus does contribute to the "survival of the organism", in that it is a potential future human (although with overpopulation, I don't really think we're having any supply-side difficulties). I agree that birth is an arbitrary marker for acknowleging a being's humanity. It is,however, a marker with a strong consensus. As I stated above (in keeping with my pragmatic consideration of fetuses as parasites) for myself that arbitrary marker would be moved to the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb (albeit with medical assistance). Most current laws on abortion are structured around a similar point in fetal development.

I don't know what you mean by the answer seeming obvious. I'm a little curious to hear your ideas on this so that we can move into a realm of real discussion. I'm certain you do have ideas regarding this, and it seems coy for you not to introduce them but rather just to question me on my ideas.

[lillornyn]

I wasn't trying to be coy, honest, and neither was I really questioning your ideas (I find that I agree with you almost point-for-point).

I meant to ask a related question on the subject, namely, why you thought birth has such a strong consensus despite it being a rather arbitrary marker (and what you thought about it). When I said "on the surface, that answer seems obvious," I meant that birth probably has such a strong consensus because A) it's such a dramatic event, and B) because of the definition of parasite, as you outline in your first paragraph. But as I also said, I suspect that the situation is really more complicated, as you point out with late-term abortions, etc.

I didn't even mean to imply that you believed fetuses to be parasites (another point on which we agree). Mostly the question just occurred to me, and finding myself in strong agreement with your post (as well as the fact that you admittedly know a great deal more about the issues involved than I do) I thought I'd ask you for your thoughts on the tangent.