These people not only don’t understand how to actually care about life, they don’t seem to understand what a fetus is or what testifying is. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Subscribe by email
This is a useful database!
Categories
Got something to send the Feminist Philosophers?
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
 | John Protevi on Nice juxtaposition |
 | annejjacobson on Nice juxtaposition |
| John Protevi on Nice juxtaposition |
 | swallerstein on Breastfeeding time again |
| John Protevi on Nice juxtaposition |
Top Posts
- More all-male conferences
- The average face of women across the world
- Shotwell to join Carleton University
- Breastfeeding time again
- Disney's Brave Child-Heroine is Mattel's Sexy Doll
- Gendered Conference Campaign
- Fetus to "testify" in abortion bill debate
- Be still my typing fingers...
- Nice juxtaposition
- Men and Hair Dye
Archives
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
Pages
Blogroll
- A Collage of Citations
- Abyss 2 Hope
- Alas, a Blog
- All About My Vagina
- Amptoons
- And Another Thing
- APA Committee on the Status of Women
- Arab Woman Progressive Voice
- Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice
- Atoms Arranged
- Bangladesh From Our View
- Barbara Ehrenreich’s Blog
- Bideshi Blue
- Bitch PhD
- Bite-Sized Subversions
- Black Looks
- Blogging For America
- Border Thinking
- Broadsheet
- cardiff feminist network
- Carnival of Feminists
- Certain Doubts
- Collegium of Black Women Philosophers
- Colored Demos
- Composite
- Condomologist
- Conservatory Girl
- crooked timber
- Cruella Blog
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Disabled Philosophers
- diversity@spp
- Dolly Mix
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Engage: Conversations in Philosophy
- Engender
- Experimental Philosophy
- F Watch
- F-Words
- Female Science Professor
- Feminist Aesthetics
- Feminist Allies
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Feminist Philosophers
- Feminist Response in Disability Activisim
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Feminocracy
- Florida Philosophy Student Blog
- Geek Feminism
- Gender, Race and Philosophy
- Genius NZ
- Gone Public
- Halfie
- Hi My Name Is…
- Hook and Eye
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Irresponsibility
- Jean Kazez
- Just Another Angry Black Muslim Woman?
- Knowledge and Experience
- Language Log
- Law and Letters
- Lemmings
- Lilith Attack
- London Feminists
- London Pro-Feminist Men
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Mind the Gap
- Miss Crip Chick
- Ms Magazine Blog
- Ms Magazine Online
- Multiplicative Identity
- Muslimah Media Watch
- My Fault, I'm Female
- Natalia Antonova
- New APPS: Arts, Politics, Philosophy, Science
- Nine Pearls
- No Cookies For Me
- No Snow Here
- Objectify This
- Oh No a WoC PhD
- On The Issues
- Packaging Girlhood
- Pandagon
- Pandemian
- Pea Soup
- PennyRed
- Philobiblon
- Philosophy, Etc
- Public Reason
- Questioning Transphobia
- Rachel’s Musings
- Racialicious
- Red Jenny
- RH Reality Check
- Rozena Maart
- SAFER
- Sex In The Public Square
- SGRP The Blog
- Shakesville
- Sheffield Fems
- Siris
- Sister Song
- Slap Upside the Head
- SM Feminists
- Social Justice Feminist
- Staff of Ra
- Symposia on Gender, Race, And Philosophy
- The Brooks Blog
- The Curvature
- The F Word
- The Forbidden Sister
- Thoughts Arguments and Rants
- Thus Spake Zuska
- Ultra Violet
- Unapologetically Female
- Unapologetically Female
- Viva La Feminista
- Wages of Ignorance
- What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?
- What Sorts of People
- What We're Doing About What It's Like
- Where's the benefit?
- Women Count
- Women Philosophers
Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose the witness to appear was someone with locked-in syndrome, or someone who for some other reason could not verbally express their thoughts in the form we typically consider ‘testimony,’ but who wanted to show some support for disability rights legislation. Would you have the same objection?
One significant thing (h/t Shakesville) from the cleveland.com article:
(http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/fetuses_to_be_presented_as_wit.html)
“She said two Ohio women — one nine weeks and the other 11 weeks pregnant — have agreed to be scanned with ultrasound machines for the hearing.”
But wait, shouldn’t the fetus have agreed to testify? Oh wait you can’t get consent to testify from a fetus? Bummer.
Anonymous, I am so struck by your question; I hope Jender won’t mind my pointing out that it suggests some sort of significant similarity between a locked-in human being and what there is at stage 8 or 9 in this chart:
SK, you’ll see that 9 weeks isn’t even on this chart. The fetus has can have a heart beat as early as 18 days. To support a bill that says there can be no abortion after there’s a heart beat by showing a picture of a fetus at 63 days seems to me intentional deception – unless, of course, it’s ignorance and/or stupdity.
Yes, of course, and its shockingly blatant. Underlined by the fact that, evidently, those giving the testimony had a whole lot of trouble detecting the heartbeat on the fetus that was 9 weeks!
sk, sorry if I seemed to think you wouldn’t know; I was trying to be emphatic.
I do love web searches and what one finds out! Here’s a sweet model of a 4 week fetus:
Not only is a bit scary, but it is also less than 1/4 of an inch. Clearly, putting it on the witness stand would be tricky.
The point was this: there may be a rather blurry line between being a witness and being a piece of evidence to be used in testimony. You seem to think someone who cannot speak is on one side, and a fetus on the other. Maybe that’s the case, but I don’t really see why that’s a particularly important line anyway. I’m not aware of any principled reason why the case in question is somehow an inappropriate rhetorical technique, apart from a not very important worry about whether a fetus is properly called a witness. Maybe it’d be useful to ask whether you would object were the exhibit of the fetus being used by someone to make a pro-choice argument?
I suppose someone making a pro-choice argument wouldn’t be calling the fetus to testify as a witness. Rather, there would be a human person testifying and using the fetus as evidence.
Also, an important question arises. Will the other side be allowed to cross-examine or question the fetus?
The line between a fetus that is, say, 28 days old and a locked-in adult contains, on the one hand, a self-conscious person with perceptions, emotions, imagination, a language, (probably) a long history of interactions with loved ones, intelligence, choices, and so on. On the other side, is the early stage fetus which lacks perceptions, emotions, imagination, a language, a long history of interactions, intelligent, choices, etc, etc. That seems to me pretty important, and it is simply a cheap rhetorical device to try to blur the distinction by saying that the fetus will testify.
The fetus has a heartbeat and in that and every other capacity it can exercise, it is highly similar to a fetal pig (see Michael Gazzaniga’s book on the brain and ethics). There is no basis in the abilities it has at 2-4 weeks to label it human. It is simply deceptive, ignorant, stupid and/or medieval to suggest we have any human functions on hand at all. To describe it as testifying is, therefore, deceptive, ignorant, stupid and/or medieval.
Perhaps the medievals thought pigs can literally testify. Apparently, in the Middle Ages “the brutes” were held to be morally responsible and, I believe, even put on trial, with some executed for their crimes. Fortunately, a lot of us have moved on from that period.
I’ve read reasonable pieces on environmental ethics asking the question how do we give representation to the natural environment. For example, the rights of trees not to be destroyed, rivers not to be polluted and so forth can’t be directly defended by the entities affected. The article argued that the best compromise we can make in a democracy is for groups of people to act as advocates on behalf of the voiceless.
Of course this whole thing is a stunt: it’s designed to be outrageous, not to tell us anything we didn’t already know about fetuses. But…
to utilise L.W.: If a 9-week fetus could speak, we couldn’t understand it. If a person (i.e. person!) who can’t speak could speak, we could.
I’m not sure it’s even medieval. Aquinas, for example, thought fetuses did not have human souls in the early part of pregnancy but rather vegetative or animal souls depending on the stage of development.
How chilling. People must be “rational, feeling, thinking” to count as people? So Grandma is in a coma or at the last stages of Alzheimer’s and we can off her? They should be able to exist on their own without help? So we can off the person with Lou Gehrig’s or the quadriplegic?
Many commenters seem to think that the human embryo will suddenly become something else, a horse, a bird. That he or she is not metabolizing and developing on its own. That he or she is not a person.
“Calling a fetus to testify” is a little dramatic, but that fetus IS a person, distinct in his or her DNA and fingerprints, and it’s not that bad a stretch. I thought it was pretty smart of them – it forces the discussion into “who is a person and when?”
(And Aquinas thought that the human fetus did not have a soul until the third month because HE DID NOT OWN A MICROSCOPE and thought the fetus was “ensouled” and “came alive” suddenly, evidenced by the first feelings of movement by the mother. Not bad logic based on what could be observed. These are the same people who thought flies arose spontaneously from dirty laundry, after all. )
Don’t use the medievals to discuss science and medicine unless you can demonstrate that you cure your illness by bleeding and cupping and leeches.
well said, kathryn. thanks for the reminder.
anonymous, as in all cases, it really does depend on the argument, doesn’t it? for instance, in the article, whether the fetus is being called as a witness or as evidence, the difference lies in the idea that the women carrying the feti *agreed* to ultrasounds. the fact that their agreement was necessary is probably a clue here.
and finally jj, that model is indeed both scary and sweet! maybe not as a model of agency, ha ha…
Tragic. Why we still deny fetuses the vote is beyond me.
ROFLMAO. I’m starting the campaign here now, ‘Votes for Foetuses!’
Therese Z, Pointing out the difference beteeen a locked in person and a 18-28 day fetus is not the same as describing what counts as human person.
The fetus does not have fingers, still less finger prints, when the heart beating starts. Goodness knows what Aquinas would have thought had he seen the spec a fetus is at 18 days or at the stage in 6 above. He might well have thought those that leave the womb that early are not really human, but instead some devlish creation.
K, I meant the remark about the medievals to apply only to putting pigs on trial. Mind you, the cat who recently sucked a hole in a cashmere sweater was a good candidate for some sort of judicial action.
jj- I figured, I meant my comment to be sort of funny, in that even Aquinas wouldn’t agree with these folks.
:-D
Just found my answer to the <:-/ –er, I mean rhetorical–question I asked on the What's It Like post…
Voting rights for fetuses… :-D :-D :-D Though I do suspect a fetus has a much greater capacity for rational thought than some of the Republicans I know :-P
Hello all, just wanted to add: I had an early ultrasound (at 6 weeks) and we were able to SEE the tiny heart beating. It happens really early!
Laura, that is interesting. I think that ordinary ways of thinking associate the heart with the fullr human being. However, a little thought should lead us to expect it at an early stGe of development, since it facilitates the movement of resources needed for building the organism.
A foetus possesses consciousness from the very earliest days of conception, according to the Hammeroff/Penrose Orch OR model of consciousness. As soon as it has microtubules it is plugged into quantum spacetime, just as you or I, and it’s then that a foetus becomes a ‘person’.
However – this fact is absolutely irrelevant to the argument over the morality of abortion, as yeast cultures also have microtubules (the very things that also allow YOU to have consciousness). Yeast learns, hunts for food and mates, has sex, avoids predators, and works co-operatively with other members of it’s species. The Jews have always known this.
Yet we have no qualms about making bread and beer from yeast and killing it when it suits our purpose to end it’s consciousness. An unwanted pregnancy is always a sad affair, but when terminated there is little loss to the universal consciousness of the universe. ‘God’ does not care. They might as well put yeast on the stand to testify – or perhaps a single cell Paramecium and bring Hameroff in as an expert witness. That would actually make more sense.
Um… Just to clarify… when I said – “The Jews have always know this…” they obviously didn’t know about microtubules but all the prohibitions against ‘Chametz’ on the altar and for Pesach suggested they treated Yeast as being alive and possessed of consciousness.
Also – I could be wrong here… but I don’t think there is ever a time when a foetus does not possess microtubules (and is therefore possessed of consciousness). But the same is true for every egg and sperm cell. Perhaps these men who claim to respect the early beginnings of the vessels of consciousness so much would like to stop being wankers, and drinking beer, and taking the sacrament of the Eucharist in Church – as that all destroys consciousness?
All fundamentalism ultimately throttles itself in the noose of it’s own unavoidable hypocrisy.
The whole abortion issue has nothing to do with reality and has everything to do with emotion. I have yet to see one Pro Lifer explain what happens to the unwanted child who is born into this world. Will the Pro Lifer provide for the child? No, they will not. They will not feed it, clothe it, or love it. They will ignore it when they see it hungry and dishevelled. They will be afraid of it as it grows up as someone outside of a society. They will fight to force it to be born and then fight to have it jailed when it fulfills the cycle of neglect and abuse that it is born into. Most criminals come from lives of abuse and poverty. Pro Lifers want every baby to be born, but they care little about the poor, unwanted child it becomes. How many children are abused, neglected, and die due to lack of stable homes? How many survive and lead miserable lives and harm themselves and others? If you truly believe in Pro Life, then take care of those unwanted children. But no Pro Lifer is willing to do this, they squawk about life, and then stick their heads in the sand when those lives need to nurtured. If you are going to be Pro Life then really stand for Pro Life, support and provide for these unwanted children, don’t just whine about a baby losing its life, when you don’t care about the child or adult that that baby will become!