Mr. Saletan argues that because a foetus is defined as a separate individual it should be possible to remove the foetus from its life support without difficulty.

As indicated by "life support" this argument doesn't work. Dependency doesn't preclude humanity. A separate individual can be killed by removal of essential assistance.

The logic of Roe v Wade is partly based on dependency. That's why the ability of the State to encourage birth expands as gestation continues. Once the foetus has become able to live on his or her own (using responsive language), the State's authority effectively exceeds that of the woman is whose body the foetus exists.

There's an implied partnership, with predominance shifting from the woman to the State as time continues. Even though the foetus has yet to put in his appearance as a "baby".

I don't think logical distinctions will ever be clear and compelling enough to be decisive in themselves. The real debate is at the level of principle.

So then, should women only be delivered this line about separate beings after the 26th week, when the fetus can reasonably be expected to live on its own?

Or should it still be delivered to women whose fetuses have gills, webbed fingers, and no brains- the state most fetuses are in at the time of a typical abortion?

Gills? Please! Don’t believe everything Planned Parenthood and pro-choice groups tell you, do some research on your own. Saletan's logic fails as it assumes dependency is required for fully qualified rights. As the OP stated that is not the case anywhere else in the law. You do not lose your rights if you go on a ventilator, require a feeding tube, or if you are a attached dependent twin. It can be argued that newborns are not dependent (they will die without assistance) yet it is murder if you kill them. Once again Saletan has graced us with his “logic,” that a JR high school debate team can drive a truck through.

Little pouches start to bulge out of the pharynx, and eventually they can rupture through to the surface. In aquatic animals, these "pharyngeal slits" persist to house gills. In air-breathers like us, these slits are only temporary, but their structures persist in other ways. <link>

And individuals who go on a ventilator or use a feeding tube are separate from all other individuals. A dependent conjoined twin is not separate from his or her twin.

This is not a discussion of losing rights (though, if it were, I would point out that taking rights away from those that have them is a very different matter than granting rights to those who do not). It's a discussion of truth in information.

A person, even an infant, who breathes without the use of another person's lungs and eats without the use of another person's stomach, is a separate individual from that person.

A person who breathes with someone else's lungs and digests with someone else's stomach is not separate from that other person.

So to tell a woman that the clump of cells attached to her uterine wall, filtering nutrients and oxygen out of her blood is a separate human being is inaccurate unless you decide to redefine the word separate and notify the woman of your unusual definition.

I'm obliged to tell, you, ma'am, that this fetus is a "whole, separate, living human being."

By "whole" I don't mean "complete"; I mean in the process of developing all the necessary human body parts with a complete set of genes.

By "separate"; I don't mean that it's not attached; I mean that its genetic makeup is different from yours and that it could one day be physically separate from your uterus.

By "living", I mean that it's heart beats, it is using nutrients and oxygen, and its cells are dividing rapidly to form a human body.

By "human being" I mean that it has human DNA and, under the right circumstances, could possibly become a human infant.

Briefly, some adults receive assistance in breathing, some in digestion, and some receive nutrition directly into their blood streams. During surgery, mechanical hearts can replace adults' hearts. Kidney dialysis replaces kidney function.

So dependence for life itself cannot be used as a distinction between foetuses and adults.

Note, please, that I'm not advocating that the speech be given, but that Mr. Saletan's objection is based on weak logic.

So, Selene, under your argument, conjoined twins are NOT separate entities? Really? If I were to kill conjoined twins, then, I would be taking one life, not two, right? Because if they share the same liver or kidneys, and therefore cannot survive independantly from one another, we are really just talking one entity, right?

Wrong, Selene. I would be charged with murder, twice, because I killed two people, not one. So too are mother and child separate entities, although one depends on the other for sustanance.

So let's talk about dependency. My kidneys are failing. You are a perfect match for my blood type. I need to hook my circulatory system up to yours for the nine months I will be on the organ donor list. That means you are connected to me 24 hours a day while I use your kidneys. If you don't I will die. Do I have the right to make you do this?

Saletan isn't objecting to the speech. He's pointing out that by trying to impose a belief based rubrik, the SD Lege created a legal conundrum for themselves. This is essentially the conundrum of Am 13's damoclean effect; if you make the fetus to much of a legal person, then its demands on the host woman amount to a demand for involuntary servitude - which the woman has a right to not honor by simply separating herself from the fetal person, OTOH if a fetus is not given individuated rights, then it is simply an outgrowth of the woman's body and she can terminate any connection to it at her will.

Yes kidney dialisis replaces kidneys, and Texas and other public hospitals are allowed to terminate such life sustaining functions if the patient cannot afford to pay for it. If that sort of termination is legal due to simple non-payment, then intruding and demanding the use of internal organs clearly can be terminated.

Saletan's logic is solid It is the SDak lege that is mired in twisted logic.

Sorry, but Huh? I don't know what you mean by "the conundrum of Am 13's damoclean effect", among other phrases. But I'll try to answer what I understand.

The crux is, Dependency does not preclude humanity. No matter how much assistance a person needs, that person remains human.

So the fact that a foetus cannot exist without assistance is irrelevant to his or her personhood.

Law has its own logic, but the legal result is no different.

The state does have rights over - human - life, beyond the ability to take it in capital cases. If you're right about Texas and dialysis, that's a state decision leading to death of a human.

Roe v Wade acknowledges that the state has the right to encourage birth. There's a continuously shifting balance of decision-making authority between the woman and the state, most in favor of the woman soon after conception, and most in favor of the state soon before birth.

Authority is not the same as status. The woman's control over her foetus can be labeled control over a human life without reducing the woman's ability to decide whether to give birth.

There are laws saying the death of a pregnant woman is the death of two people which have not been over-ruled by the Courts.

So there's no support in law or logic for the idea that the degree of dependency of a foetus automatically makes him or her other than a separate human.

TJA:

So let's talk about dependency. My kidneys are failing. You are a perfect match for my blood type. I need to hook my circulatory system up to yours for the nine months I will be on the organ donor list. That means you are connected to me 24 hours a day while I use your kidneys. If you don't I will die. Do I have the right to make you do this?

What kind of empty logic is this? So are you implying that the fetus FORCED the woman to use her organs for sustenance while it develops in the womb? Ridiculous!

When the woman decides to get pregnant, she entered into an implicit contract with that baby, to take care of it until it can take care of itself. This is the very basis upon which a man is made to pay child support until the child is deemed legally independent.

From conception until the child becomes independent, the two people involved in bringing the child to life are duty bound to do everything they can do to sustain its life.

In the first 9 months, the woman is primarily responsible for keeping the child alive. When she decides to have an abortion, she breeches that contract. The only reason that abortion is legal is because the child is too vulnerable to do anything about it. After the child is born, the father is expectd to provide for its development until it becomes independent. The father cannot simply change his mind midway and claim that the child is "taking too much" away from him. If he does he will be thrown in jail. The woman ought not to be able to do the same.

Abortion, at least, is a breech of contract. At most it is murder. Either way, it is a crime of some sorts.

A three-way contract is implicit when the man and the woman decide to have a child, or engage in activities that can result in the conception of a child. The contract is between the man, woman and the yet to be conceived child.

You don't have the right to compel me to provide the function of my kidneys for your benefit, but the state might. The state has an interest in you remaining alive, and that might over-rule my right to decide whether to help you.

Eugenic sterilizations continued for some time, so the right of the state to act medically on its priorities must be extensive.

Selene212:

So to tell a woman that the clump of cells attached to her uterine wall, filtering nutrients and oxygen out of her blood is a separate human being is inaccurate unless you decide to redefine the word separate and notify the woman of your unusual definition.

So, when does this clump of cells become human?

In case you didn't know, the heart of this "clump of cells" is fully formed by the time the mother misses her first period. Its genitals are definite by the third month, and it starts moving before the end of the sixth month.

When did you say again that the clump of cells become human?

You don't have the right to compel me to provide the function of my kidneys for your benefit, but the state might...

I'm reasonably sure the state *doesn't* have that right, especially when we're talking about applying it to non-criminals. Slavery is against the Constitution, ditto Cruel and Unusual, and I've never heard of any State running around taking people kidneys.

When the woman decides to get pregnant, she entered into an implicit contract with that baby...

So if at some point in the past you said it was ok for me to use your kidneys, you don't have the right to walk away from it? Not even if your plans change or you find out there will be permanent medical side effects and a risk of death?

BTW, you do have the right to walk. That's why multiple kidney transplants need multiple doctors, they have to have everyone unconscious at the same time or someone would be able to walk away.

Roe's weakness actually comes from its attempt to carve out a "compelling state interest" in "promoting birth". By arguing that there is a compelling state interest the "reasonableness" criteria of Am 4 can be invoked as a limitation to a woman's right to be secure in her person. But in part this also is a technological issue.

Technological but not in the sense I suspect you mean when you talk about the "continuously shifting balance". Instead I refer to hormonal controls like RU-486. The advent of RU-486 allows the host woman to take measures that act directly only on her own body. And this is where individuation of the fetus as a legal entity becomes problematic for those seeking to regulate women's reproduction.

The more "separate" a fetus becomes, the more it can be argued that The State has a right to protect it's rights distinctly from those of the host woman. BUT (and this is the Am 13 damoclean sword) the more individuated a fetus becomes, the closer an unwanted pregnancy comes to becoming involuntary servitude from the host woman to the fetus. And unlike Am 4 with its "reasonablness" exception, Am 13 is categorical in denying both State and Foederal governments from acting in ways that create conditions of involuntary servitude.

Combine the involuntary Servitude and the ability to take hormone therapy that controls reproductive function but does not directly affect the fetus, and you have a path towards abortion on demand for which no "reasonableness" or "compelling state interest" exception can be carved.