Now, I agree that ultimately the distinction between human and non-human might have to be more rigorously defined, especially as scientific progress allows ever more premature babies to come to term in incubators rather than in the womb. I’ll even agree that it would be an interesting kind of discussion to have, in due course.

But I’m loath to have that discussion now, because it’s quite abstract and hypothetical question at a time when there is an imminent and concrete threat to reproductive rights. Because - and this is the whole point I was trying to make - this isn’t an innocent and intellectually stimulating discussion about when a cluster of cells becomes a person, it’s a right-wing attack on women’s independence disguised as that kind of discussion. So let’s have that discussion, but let’s see of this attack first.

A foetus is a life, but not an individual, not a person. It is a part of the mother’s body on its way towards becoming a person, and just as it doesn’t have any existence independent of the mother it doesn’t really have any rights independent of the mother.

So at what point does a foetus become a ‘person’. Is it when it is ‘independent’ upon the mother? What is meant by independence?

In my mind, the idea of foetal rights isn’t far from that of extremist animal rights advocacy. I have no problem with it in theory, but when it clashes with the rights of real live humans my sympathy runs out.

When it clashes with *what* rights is the question. Becuase it strikes me that even you grant a foetus *less* moral standing than a human being, it doesn’t follow that a human being ought to be able to terminate said foetus for *any* reason. I think my point is that if you are willing to grant a foetus any moral consideration whatsoever, then you can’t accept people having an abortion for any reason.

the solution to alienation is not ultimately achieved through each individual controlling their labour, rather the solution is collective one (precisely because in any complex society an individual cannot even say what labour is ‘theirs’), which isn’t the case with abortion.

True, and I think that’s why so many more people are able to identify with the idea of reproductive rights than, err, productive rights. It’s much simpler, and the implications much less far-reaching.

it depends on the line of argument that a foetus is not a life, and up to a point is not entitled to any protection whatsoever.

A foetus is a life, but not an individual, not a person. It is a part of the mother’s body on its way towards becoming a person, and just as it doesn’t have any existence independent of the mother it doesn’t really have any rights independent of the mother.

In my mind, the idea of foetal rights isn’t far from that of extremist animal rights advocacy. I have no problem with it in theory, but when it clashes with the rights of real live humans my sympathy runs out.

Also, of course, is the point that the solution to alienation is not ultimately achieved through each individual controlling their labour, rather the solution is collective one (precisely because in any complex society an individual cannot even say what labour is ‘theirs’), which isn’t the case with abortion.

Note, that none of this means I am in favour of banning abortion or anything like that, I just find it hard to take a concrete, consistent position on is all.

The point of that little excerpt is that the concept of choosing to do “the odd feed” remains pretty alien to most of us.

The “alpha mummies and daddies” can squeeze out as many babies as they can hire au pairs and nannies, but they’ll cravenly accuse less fortunate serial parents of cynically having children in order to get more benefits.

globus agrees that education, education, education is where it’s at. interesting post.