"How can South Dakota claim that you should know separation will kill the fetus, when South Dakota has insisted on informing you, prior to the procedure, that the fetus is already whole and separate?"

Saletan's question obfuscates the distinction between what "separate' means legally and what it means biologically. The fetus is biologically separate, but says nothing about its legal status. Saletan uses the term equivocally.

That distinction matters. The entire theory of abortion is that there is a distinction between biologically-living entity and legal "person." The South Dakota legal warning simply turns that distinction against abortionists. Think about it -- the formal legal warning does not say that abortion is committing murder. It says that the fetus is biologically separate from the mother. It says nothing about the legal status of the fetus, and doesn't claim that the fetus is a legal person. It simply says that the fetus is biologically separate. As for whether the fetus truly is separate biologically, we have a scientific debate. The legal debate follows.

• One objection about the fetus being biologically separate: "Some embryos divide after conception to become two or more people. Are those embryos, prior to twinning, an individual?" No, but whether they become individuals or twins or triplets doesn't matter. What matters is that they become living entities separate from the mother. It doesn't matter how many are separate, the fact that they are separate is the key.

• Saletan offers another objection: “By tweaking a single gene, we're learning to alter embryogenesis so that what would otherwise become an embryo becomes instead a disorganized bunch of stem cells.” Well, sure, but you had to alter the gene to do it. That’s the same as arguing that if the pitch was closer to the plate, it would have been a strike. Well, yeah, but it wasn’t. If you intentionally disrupt the process, the result changes. That doesn’t disprove the process as it originally behaved.

• Another objection: "... the logic behind viability as a standard of abortion jurisprudence: The less the unborn human relies on its mother, the more it encompasses its own developmental program, and the more we should treat it like a born child." Now to be clear, those who argue that the fetus is a biologically and morally distinct person don't, by so doing, disparage the crucial role of the mother in development. But it must be obvious that if there is a crucial difference between saying that the developing fetus, at its earliest stage, requires the mother to do all of the work, versus saying that the mother is alone, and that there is no distinct entity besides her. That entity may be utterly helpless, and the mother’s body is doing all the development work while the entity grows, but that doesn’t logically imply there is no entity besides the mother.

What Saletan fails to discuss is why the warning is given in the first place: to rebut the common misconception that these are just a “bunch of cells.” We can still continue the argument about what the fetus’ legal and moral status is, but from a strictly biologically point of view, these are not just a bunch of cells.

KC - I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I actually argued along similar lines a couple of weeks when the XX Factor was blogging about the South Dakota law. It's amazing how many people will just respond without thinking about the difference between the legal "person" (which as you probably know is entitled to the right to life under the 14th amendment) and the biological "living human being," (which I would think an embryo would qualify by virtue of having a unique, human, genetic code).

Anyway, I thought your points discussing Saletan's article were intelligent. Also, get ready for the tidal wave...

Saletan's point, I think, is that it is not at all clear that the fetus is biologically separate, or even what it means to be biologically separate. How do you define biologically separate? A fetus that depends on the woman for absolutely everything, which cannot, in fact, develop outside of the womb, which is physically connected to the woman and whose biological functions would cease if removed from the womb--arguably, it is not biologically separate. The point is that the state is forcing doctors to make a statement that not only contains moral/religious conclusions with which the doctor might not agree, but may also be medically inaccurate, or misleading.

KC, you wrote a bunch of stuff that doesn't, in any way, refute Saletan's point.

KCMulville

Without entirely reading your post I would support your position in general to make a point.

Here's why. Anyone arguing against Saletan - a tacit racist no matter how he colors it - is highly likely to be on the right side of things. Why? Because when Saletan exposed his racism he also exposed his lazy, truly unscientific mind. His perspective on science is steps below the pop science exemplified by Ira Flatow on Science Friday. What irks me most in the end about the guy is that he uses that limited capacity to promulgate false moral values.

Kit Kat - The point of an abortion is to kill a fetus. You may think that sounds bad, or is "legal" or "moral" or "religious", but it is not. That is what an abortion is designed to do. Thus, the fetus must be "separate" from the mother, because an abortion does not kill the mother. Because the fetus and the mother are not the same, they must be separate. If Saletan's point is in fact to demonstrate that the law is not correct when it labels a fetus "separate," then I think his point fails, factually.

As an example, is a person who depends on life support equipment to live "separate" from that life support equipment she depends on? Of course she is. Biologically, can we cease to classify her in the category of human because of that life support equipment? Should we make a new category of species for her due to her dependance on life support equipment? No. Of course not.

I think the real reason most people find this law so objectionable is because it reminds women (and men too, I guess) of the actuality of what they are about to do. Yes, abortion is a legal right, but just because its legal does not mean that it is (in itself) anything other than the intential killing of a fetus.

Benjamin25:

I think the real reason most people find this law so objectionable is because it reminds women (and men too, I guess) of the actuality of what they are about to do. Yes, abortion is a legal right, but just because its legal does not mean that it is (in itself) anything other than the intential killing of a fetus.

Well, I'm all for reminding guys each time they screw a girl of the potential import of their act. I think we need SD state police officers in every bedroom, backseat, brothel and forest glade in the state to make sure that boys read the pre-sex warning out loud. If they don't, it's coitus interruptus and a night in the county jail for them.

Sickday: Details, please ... this is no fun unless you give me something to work with.

• The standard abortion theory is that before a fetus can be considered a legal person, it must first be considered a separate biological entity. Saletan's argument is that the fetus is not separate biologically, because the mother's body (especially in the earliest stages) is doing all the work. I replied that just because the earliest embryo is getting a free ride doesn't mean there isn't a rider there. That contradicts Saletan's point.
• Saletan argues, for example, that when the embryo becomes a twin, that proves that it isn't an individual, and therefore distinct from the mother. I replied that being a single individual doesn't matter, what matters is that the entity (and/or entities) is/are distinct from the mother, however many there are. That contradicts Salestan's point.

Without repeating my original article, let's pause there. Do you disagree that my points contradict Saletan, whether you agree with them or not?

Again, I have to ask what our working definition of biologically separate is. The one implicitly proposed is that if you can kill one entity without killing another, the two are biologically separate. I can kill a tumor without killing its host; is the tumor biologically separate? Also, if I kill the woman, the fetus will die; if I kill the fetus, the mother may not die. What implications does that have? Is this definition either necessary or sufficient for biological distinctness or separateness?

Note that I am not advancing a position on the legality or morality of abortion. It seems to me that the arguments are being made backwards: abortion is bad, therefore the fetus must be an independent biological entity. Abortion should be legal, therefore the fetus must not be an independent biological entity. That advances neither an interesting nor a useful discussion.

Kit Kat, with respect, I disagree.

If you define biological separation in broadly general terms, then you might be able to define separation only as complete independence. Reductio ad absurdum, if you generalized it on a larger scale, we're all dependent on each other globally, so does that mean we aren't biologically separate? No. Separation doesn't imply absolute independence.

I think you supplied your own answer. "A fetus that depends on the woman for absolutely everything, which cannot, in fact, develop outside of the womb, which is physically connected to the woman and whose biological functions would cease if removed from the womb--arguably, it is not biologically separate." Dependence on another implies distinct existence. The logical antecedent of "depending on someone else" is that the dependent is not the same as the provider. Whatever the fetus is, it isn't the mother.

In the linked article to the maternal RNA, Saletan quotes Robert George and Christopher Tollefson as arguing that the mother is the developmental "tugboat" (my phrase, not Salaten's). Basically, like a tugboat, the mother pushes the fetus along until it gets out of the harbor and can sail on its own accord. Saletan counters that the mother isn't a simple tugboat, and that there is no hard and fast "hull" where tugboat ends and ship begins. My answer is that as long as there is any distinction between ship and tugboat, i.e., between fetus and mother, then the point is made.

I'm not sure how you disagree with me when I have only asked questions or sought to paraphrase others, but I will repeat my question: What is your definition of biologically separate? Two entities are considered biologically separate if the following conditions are met: .....

This biological seperation is in truth a false argument. It is thought to be required for legal reasons that are by and large manufactured. Women bare children it is simply a biological truth. Women and the unborn are connected and "Saletan science" does not supply an answer to this secular moral conundrum. He is false.

Kit Kat,

I actually agree with your last point (about the argument being backwards). In fact, that's what I was getting at in my final comment in the previous post. I feel that many people (which does not necessarily include you) agree that abortion should be legal, and let that shape their views of what abortion actually is in a scientific sense. So, instead of the intended death of a separate, living human being, you get pro-choicers calling abortions removals of clumps of cells, and the like. It's a situation where the analysis (and factual honesty) are shaped to reach the intended result--justification of abortion, rather than the result being the product of analysis process itself.

Also, note that I never said or implied that my reasoning was "abortion is bad, therefore the fetus must be an independent biological entity." In my view, a fetus is undeniably a separate entity. We all know it is not independant--just like the old lady on life support is not independant, but she is indeed separate.

“Two entities are considered biologically separate if the following conditions are met:”

Unfortunately, this is a logically self-defeating question. The question assumes that there are two entities to begin with. You cannot then ask for a further criterion for what makes them different. The moment you look for the qualities of one entity and compare them to the qualities of the second entity, you have already proved that there are two entities. Any list of differences you discover in the two entities becomes a moot point.

Therefore (following Bertrand Russell), is there a way to rephrase this question to achieve the results you want? How about: “What makes you think there are two entities here, and not one?” If you accept that question, I’ll answer it. My answer is that:

1. The second entity – the fetus – develops into a unique and different person. Not sometimes, but all the time. No human fetus grows into anything non-human.
2. Unlike other entities of the mother’s body, or other cell configurations, the fetus does absolutely nothing biological on behalf of the mother. There are never any biological conditions within the mother in which her body’s response is “grow a fetus.” The fetus is not a biological response to anything. It has no biological function on behalf of the mother. It is entirely a non-mother-oriented entity.
3. At its earliest stages, the mother’s body supplies the development work, but that work is on behalf of the fetus, not the mother.

I’ll pause here, since I imagine there’s plenty of room for discussion of just those points.

The comparison is not of the same type. The fetus needs the mother to develop. In fact, if you kill the mother, the fetus will indeed continue, just not for very long. As for tumors, human life requires a degree of cell differentiation that the fetus has but the tumor doesn’t. Since a tumor is identifiably different than a human fetus, and will never become a human person, it isn't relevant to the discussion.

As for the conclusions driving the argument, that's just a natural hazard of any debate. A big issue like abortion is like a labyrinth, or a maze, with dozens of turning points and forks in the road. Each debater has (we hope) already gone through the threads and tunnels of the labyrinth themselves, and reached their own conclusions. But in debate, you meet opponents back at various forks in the road. That's where you haggle to go right or left on each sub-issue. It makes it seem like you all just got there together, and all for the first time, but that's just an illusion. Instead, you wind up urging your opponent to head toward your conclusion.