|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
Hello all
(sorry for the length of the post, I wanted to catch up) Cobra_snake "It also disturbs me that women think it is"their right" to abort a child. Mr. Cobra... who's "right" is it to abort if not a womans? At what point does the *government* feel that it has the right to become involved in such a personal issue? Would you agree to legislation that involved the gov't in all your medical decisions? Cobra_snake "This mindset is frightening; it's like the next disgusting step in the movement for womens rights. Not that I have a problem with equal women rights, but the right to kill babies is pushing it way too far."What is "frightening" about a woman making a personal decision concerning the use of her body? And may I point out that you seem terribly defensive about the "womens movement". Also, what "babies" are you referring to? A first trimester embryo/fetus is no more a "baby" than an egg is a chicken. Right? -------------------------joz "The exception here would be if the conception was the result of rape, if the child would develop to be severley mentaly or physicaly handicaped or if the mother was physically incapable of bringing the baby to term AND an attempt to bring said baby to term would endanger the mother." Devils advocate for second here: Why should conception by rape matter? If the prenate is declared a legal person accorded all the rights of those born, then the circumstances of its conception are irrelavent. The woman *must* carry to term, otherwise you violate the zef's supposed rights. Also, should women be forced to carry to term against their wishes?Are psychological and emotional health of no consequence? joz "More importantly nobody should be forced to bear and raise children it should be a voluntary action that everyone is free to choose but not forced into."Agree 100%. joz "So to sum up criminalizing abortion won`t stop it happening."Yeppers... and we have ample evidence that it didnt. joz "In some cases it is a legitimate if hard to accept option."Absolutely no one who supports legal abortion seriously characterizes it as an "easy option". joz "Childbearing should be a optional joy rather than a mandatory burden."Yep. Women should not be forced by out government to be brood mares. --------------------------Asteragros "Only, I ask for one thing: consistency. If it is right (for any reasons)to delete from the existence a person at his start, why don't we consider right also erasing a person in another point of his existence? What's the difference? None, by logic. And all of us are aware of this fact." The difference is that at birth a fully acutalized, self-sufficient entity exists and not before. The difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus (zef for short) and a new born are significant, both in physical development and social significance. ---------------------------KingPenguin "yeah i didnt go anywhere but i was thinking of more of preventing late abortions. Late term abortions are those done after 27 weeks LMP(last menstral period) and are done only to save the life of the woman or to terminate a non-viable fetus. http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/jsc80006.htm Most abortion clinics provide services to only between 16 and 20 weeks LMP. ----------------------minnemooseus "Abortion should not be a preferred method of birth control. And if abortion is to be done, the earlier in the pregnancy, the better." Abortion shouldnt be used as birth control at all. But the simple task of educating our young people on basic human sexuality is being made ridiculously difficult by those with a religious agenda. "Abstinance only" my ass.
minnemooseus "I question the wisdom of those (most prominently, the Catholic Church), who are effective in suppressing less offensive birth control methods, and as a result, in a sense, promote abortion."The RCC's involvement in this arena in various parts of Africa should lead to charges of crimes against humanity in the world court. minnemooseus "I often wonder how much the "pro-life" perspective cares about the qualities of the lives of the mother and new child, who were somehow persuaded away from abortion."One only has to peruse the "official" Pro Life sites to understand the fanatical fetal worship that seems to embody the movement. minnemooseus"Lastly, is the "pro-life" perspective, in part, promoting more later term abortions, by effectivly suppressing early term abortions?"They would if they werent being fought tooth and nail. --------------------mark24 "At what point does a foetus/embryo become "human" enough to not abort? Conception?" In the US, legal personhood begins at birth. Human sperm and ova can only create human zef. "The point where medicine cannot support a baby outside the uterus? An arbitrary "20 weeks" (or whatever)?"Whats wrong with birth? "You see the problem. It's not so much that it is the womans right to abort, but the point where it becomes the unborn childs right not to be aborted."No, in fact the point is distinctly that of a womans rights being superceded by those of the zef residing within her. An excerpt from Peter Singers "Practical Ethics" that presents the issue about being "human".pg 85-86 It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo sapiens". Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disable human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic - literally, without a brain. There is another use of the term "human", one proposed by Joseph Fletcher, a Protestant theologian and a prolific writer on ethical issues. Fletcher has compiled a list of what he calls "indicators of humanhood" that includes the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity. This is the sense of the term that *we* have in mind when we praise someone by saying that she is "a real human being" or shows "truly human qualities". In saying this we are not, of course, referring to the person's membership in the species Homo sapiens which as a matter of biological fact is rarely in doubt; we are implying that human beings characteristically possess certain qualities, and this person possess them to a high degree. These two sense of "human being" overlap but do not coincide. The embryo, the fetus, the profoundly intellectually disabled child, even the newborn infant - all are indisputably members of the species Homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of the future, or the capacity to relate to others. Hence the choice between the two sense can make an important difference to how we answer questions like "Is the fetus a human being?"------------------- There is little doubt that the existance of certain portions of the brain are tied directly to our conception of what constitutes a human being. Humans without a cerebral cortex simply do not fit the criteria any more than the corpse of "Uncle Ed" is really Uncle Ed. But regardless, in the end, the central issue is one of individual rights versus government control.And on this issue, individual rights should always win out. brett
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//1)Why? I seem to remember that in your first post here you pretty much agreed with my position on the matter.....//
Why not? You seem to have no difficulty with this "hall monitor" mentality... I was simply hoping you had something meaningful to add to the discussion. //2)Thats fine however your replies border on the ad hom so please follow Percys guidelines and "debate the issue not the person"....//Ah, what I fine line I tread, eh?
Also, assuming that you are a Evolutionist, you may have noticed from your dealings with Creationists and Fundamentalists that at some point it becomes obvious that the person *is* the issue. brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//Be careful with this one ... you're heading towards dehumanising alzheimer's sufferers here.//
Ok, but would you consider someone who has completely lost their CC, regardless of specific disease, as exemplifying human being-ness? If so, what is your criteria for such? Remember, we are already taking about homo sapiens, so please dont resort to DNA answers. //And be doubly careful because our capacity to correctly assess at least 4 of these depends on communication.//To the list we might add then, "the ability to communicate". I dont necessarily agree with all of Fletchers list.I'd leave it at self-awareness. But either way, the very structure of the neonatal CC, til about 2 months, makes self-awareness a complete impossiblity. That puppy is on "lizard brain" cruise control. In any event, the same rationale that considers neonates as legal persons, regardless of a lack of self-awareness, because they are born, also protects those in coma's, Alzheimers patients, those declared brain-dead, etc. //I would be extremely cautious about potentially dehumanising neonates in this way.//If we are attempting to establish a criteria for humanity how can they be "de-humanized"? Obviously you consider them human beings based on some other criteria. What exactly is that criteria? //For example, it is only in the last few years that the official body of anaesthesioligists in the UK recommended the use of anaesthesia during all operations on neonates - until then it was not thought they could feel pain.//And I dont disagree. Better safe than sorry, I say. But, IIRC, the main point of that recommendation was that the intense pain of pre-natal surgeries effected the growth patterns of the nervous system... not beause the neo-nates actually "feel" the pain. POST note 94. http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ //The general trend of studies in infant growth has been to push back the significant steps in the development of cognition earlier and earlier.//Any citations for this? I'd love to read them. Obviously greater scientific knowledge will continue to inform us on these decisions, but it is foolish to think that this increased knowledge of biology will dictate an answer. //The issue of which point in development we allow abortion seems to me to require a surer philosophical footing than this: because thecriteria of what constitutes a full human life is too dependent on the current state of science.// I dont disagree, but science is not going to answer this question, merely reinforce the decision. Again, to turn this around, why is it acceptable to limit a womans rights simply because she is pregnant? If this were applicable to men as well, I'd be a little less concerned about it, but then I suspect if men were as intimately involved there'd be less of an issue. //Mary Warnock approached this subject from a slightly different perspective...//And yet the only thing being established there is that a *potential* human being exists. Not that one is fully actualized. Did you know that less than 20% of all fertilized eggs make it to birth? If we were to declare 14 day old zygote/embyo's to be legal persons and they die, who is responsible? How do they investigate the death of that *child*? //Nevertheless, her approach seems to be a correct one - though she herself does not extend it to the issue of abortion.//Ok, but that would merely be the argument from potential. //My personal feeling is that abortion is not an acceptable option - but it is an option that individuals in society will resort to.//Acceptable to whom? Have you ever been involved with someone who chose to abort? //Societies as a whole have many ways of making permissable those actions which they would generally consider repulsive. The killing of civilians in wartime has been justified, even when purposeful; the frequently gruesome and always calculated execution of a convict: language and laws find ways to permit these things when the good of society as a whole is at stake.//And abortion, like war, has been with humanity since its inception. As I pointed out before, I'd be perfectly happy if the only abortions that took place did so for medical necessity only and therefore every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy.But illgalizing abortion and rendering half of the population potential second class citizens is an absolutely and completely unacceptable solution. //Abortion however is seen as being only for the benefit of a very few individuals and therefore unacceptable to many//A little more than one fifth of all pregnancies are terminated yearly. Thats not a minority. "The 1996 total of 6.24 million pregnancies included 3.89 million live births, 1.37 million induced abortions, and 0.98 million fetal losses. This means that 62 percent of pregnancies in the United States ended in live birth, 22 percent ended in induced abortion, and 16 percent ended in fetal loss." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_29.pdf //Part of the answer must be to recognise not only the human status of a prenatal child, but the human and social status of its mother and the of the child itself if born.//While I understand what you mean and I know that you mean well, I disagree with the idea of "recognizing the human status of a prenate" as I've yet to see anyone create a workable solution that does not strip women of their rights. Because in the end this entails endowing legal personhood on prenates. //Unfortunately we demonize the "crack addict mother", the "promsicuous teenager", even the "heartless career woman" rather than embracing them as cherished and valuable members of society.//Agreed. Which is why the *real* solution to the issue is one of educating and empowering women and supporting their decisions. //Too often, pro-lifers take a view that all human life is sacred, only to desanctify through words and deeds the vulnerable, the confused, the fallen, the lost and the enemy.//Agreed. //On a lighter note, I know what you mean here, but evolves may be the wrong word to use on this forum in this context.//Hehehehe Really?(not playing innocent very well, am I?)
brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//Interesting. One could cease to be human, but still be alive?//
One could cease to be a human being and still be alive, most assuredly. Ones DNA will never change, right? Once a member of the species homo sapiens, always a member of the species homo sapiens. //This reminds me (in it's approach) of the recent thinking of the Polish biologist Korzeniewski who has proposed a new definition of "life" which excludes infertile humans.//lol I can see where he'd get that from, but then how do you define "infertile" once cloning becomes common place? //He was attempting to address the problem that it is easy to describe life but not at all easy to define it.//I dont recall where I saw it now, but someone defined life as "that thing that carries information to ensure propagation"... or somesuch. "Life" is a slippery thing, most definitely. //I think the same difficulty arises with descriptions and definitions of humanity. Fletcher's list is a good description of the functions of a fully formed human, but rather fails as a definition.//If by "fully formed" you mean with a fully formed cerebral cortex, I quite agree. Infants and toddlers are quite capable of most all of his criteria and as such is at least a good starting point. As I said in another post, for me the only real criteria is self-awareness as it avoids most of the communication issues. //From personal experience of my son's development, I would be astonished if self-awareness were not developed before 2 months.//Your mileage may vary, dad.
//But your argument is question-begging, the definition of self-awareness being itself epistomologically prickly.//Hmm... possibly. But given that all I'm talking about is an indicator of awareness of self as distinct from others, its not terribly complicated. From a stictly logistical perspective, how is this determined if the infant is blind, deaf, mentally retarded, etc. What i'm wondering is what makes people so uncomfortable about the idea that newborns arent human beings yet? I mean, you are aware that in relation to other primates abilities at birth the human infant is about 10 months premature, right?That the size of out heads means that we're all born "premature" in comparison. //And in practical terms, I don't think we know enough about the structural relation of the CC, or any brain structure and aspects of consciousness to support this argument fully even given an acceptable definition.//I hate to disagree here, but in fact we do know enough to support this definition... which is why I came to this conclusion. I read a book called "The 3 Pound Universe" way back in '88 and became completely fascinated by neuroscience. Its a great primer if you can find it. //You are right that neonates are protected by the same principles as the mentally incapacitated - and in my mind, this is quite right. Hard cases arise however. A fetus delivered with the aim of saving it extremely early may be considered as a perilous neonate to be protected.//So long as it is born, ie., has taken its first breath, it is fully protected just as you or I. //Another fetus of the same age may be delivered as an aborted fetus and would not be considered protected.//Quite true. But the reality of the situation is that the earliest a preemie can be saved like that is 22 - 24 weeks LMP, with any likelihood of survival that is, and that less than 1% of all abortions are done after 21 weeks LMP and the overwhelming majority of those are on wanted pregnancies that simply will not survive or endanger the woman. http://www2.medsch.wisc.edu/childrenshosp/parents_of_preemies/survival.html http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html //But the different status afforded them does not arise from any developmental difference between them or any possible integraldefinition of their humanity: rather their status is arbitrarily granted them.// Ah... sort of. There is no theoretical developmental difference, but the reality of it is that abortions done after 21 weeks LMP are done on fetuses with conditions incompatible with life. Also, I do not consider birth an arbitrary distinction. //(As the Nazi mayor of Vienna said - "I decide who is a Jew.")//You mean like the Southern states deciding who was a citizen prior to the Civil War? Yes, I know there have been all sorts of bad decisions made... lets not dregde up that sort of thing. //The definition would appear to be reduced to a question of who decides, and who has the right to decide./Why would anyone else but the woman involved be the one to make the decision? You'll have to come up with some compelling argument for anything else. //This does not seem to me to be a sound basis.//Ok, but lets not confuse the issue of human being-ness with the issue of who gets to decide who has an abortion. I've presented my perspective on what constitutes a human being and why DNA alone simply isnt adequate. I've also presented my perspective on why the government should not be involved in limiting a womans right to abortion. Now where do you stand? //Indeed. Of course, they cannot be sure a neonate feels pain and the report was a model of ethical reasoning.//Excellent. And I quite agree. What they are definitely sure of is that a neonate has the *capacity* to "feel", ie., comprehend, pain in that it has a functioning cerebral cortex, as opposed to a prenate. //Similar problems apply to animals and other beings who cannot communicate complex ideas to us such as we could begin to infer definite mental states.//Agreed. And that these other animals are not of the species homo sapiens would be enough to exclude them from this issue. Singers philosophy has lead him to this exact same conclusion, btw and he is an avid animal rights spokesperson. //Thanks for looking out the links - I'll use them.//No prob. I've been arguing this online for quite a while. Let me know what else you're looking for and I'll see what I can find. //I'll try to find some references to support my assertion of the "general trend of studies." I was being vague deliberately - I had discussed it casually with an educational psychologist as an aside to some work-related research I was doing.//Works for me. I've taken to jotting stuff down, myself... it sucks getting old. lol I'm always happy to study scientifically acquired knowledge... hell, its what lead me to this conclusion. //Well maybe it's not so obvious, but yes I do consider that there are unborn fetuses who are fully human and deserving of protection.//Then which ones arent deserving? //But there are two separate issues,//At the very least. //The humanity we can predicate of a fetus and the protection we can reasonably give.//Hmmm... The reason I posted the quotes from Singer was to distinguish better between the genetic aspect of "human", ie., of the species homo sapiens, and the social aspect of "human", ie., characteristics we recognize as obviously like "us". //In my opinion both are graduated properties, not absolute.//Why/how is the biological aspect a graduated property? //I don't go with one of the major arguments of anti-abortionists. "Potential human" is not logically the same as "actual human" - just as a potential criminal is not logically the same as an actual criminal.//Excellent. //But it seems to me nonsensical that "humanity" can be arbitrary.//Why? If we are not talking about the biological aspect of "human", then what are we talking about? The social/philosophical/moral aspect of it, right? Who defines these things?The society that the discussion exists in. Societies change. Did you peruse the Roe V Wade decision notes I posted the link to?What the Justices attempted to do was maintian a consitant line of reasoning based on earlier social definitions as well as the current interpretations of the Constitution. //As I have said (and you have agreed, I think) society is quite used to juggling varying degrees of protection to individuals: enemies, criminals etc. Even the poor may find their right to life-saving medical treatment, or food and water, mitigated by economics.//Oh absolutely. When I argue this it is with the understanding that there are no absolutes and that this is something we work to create if we believe in justice and fairness. //Nevertheless, it seems to me more practical and ethically less challenging to mitigate rights than to mitigate the definition of humanity.//Which is why we have the hodge-podge of our current abortion rights laws in the US. The Justices were unwilling to do just that, create clear-cut definitions, rightly so, and left it to our elected representatives to initiate this definition. (excuse me while I laugh) Needless to say, our elected representatives have repeatedly dropped the ball. //This is an example of what Antony Flew calls "The fallacy of the pseudo-refuting description." It is not "simply" because she is pregnant, it is precisely because pregnancy entails a very complex relationship between a woman and(let's say) "something else."//Ok, but why does this relationship, which can only pertain to women, "allow" the government the right to limit it? Would we "allow" the government into our bedrooms to ensure that adequate birth control is being used prior to coitus? //And this relationship is complex biologically, emotionally and philosophically - and correspondingly complex legally.//Hmmm... I dont follow that it is complex legally by its nature. The "complexity" must be attached to it from outside sources. Thats like saying because grapes are juicy and green and sweet, migrant workers are typically illegal aliens. //Your suggestion is perhaps that a woman's rights over her own body change as a result of pregnancy and that this is unfair - but the rights that change are those rights related to her pregnancy.//Well, let me rephrase and ask, why it is acceptable to limit her rights because she has entered into this new "relationship". And those rights change only *because* of her prengnacy. //She had no duties to the fetus until the fetus is conceived. I don't have a duty to maintain my car in a roadworthy condition until I have a car! It's an empty argument, methinks.//But, to keep your analogy alive, when you acquire a car, whether you want one or not, (she was cute and drove a big truck, you were drunk and the next thing you know she's left the keys in the warm spot on the bed) you are *legally obliged* to maintain that car in pristine condition for the duration of its life(as opposed to say having it implanted into a body cavity and lugged around). Is this fair? //I was not suggesting this was to be legal definition of a person - I was suggesting that it is a starting point for considering personhood. Mary Warnock has identified the kind of thing we should be looking for in a definition (back to that definition / description thing).//Ok, but regardless of the time frame we are discussing, the legal issues remain... who is responsible? How is this determined? As a British friend once quipped, "will they invent the Panty Police?". //I'm sorry - I had intended to write "elective abortion is not acceptable."//An MD explained to me that the word "elective" is often misunderstood by laypeople. It means, basically, "not an emergency procedure". It doesnt mean, as it sounds to us, "optional". My understanding is that all abortions not done for physical reasons are considered done for psychological/emotinal reasons. //I do not doubt that abortion for medical necessity is acceptable. And I include potential mental suffering in the parameters that may require it.//Then we dont have any real issue here. Because while most Pro Lifers respect the idea of physical danger being an acceptable rationale for abortion, few accept emotional/psychological suffering. //And though I am not going to go into my personal life here, yes I have discussed such things when they were matters of practical import.//Oh absolutely I wouldnt want you to share personal matters here, but I was simply wondering if you'd known anyone. In this sort of thing, experience matters. //You misunderstood me. Sorry.//Gotcha. No prob. //I was trying to contrast something such as the execution of a murderer which some hold benefit to society as a whole (unbelievable though that seems to me),//Agreed. //while the abortion of an individual fetus benefits only a small number immediately affected.//Ok, but I'm still not sure why this matters. //I don't think this is morally additive - a lot of abortions, benefitting a lot of affected individuals does not equate to a single execution benefitting society as a whole. Anyway, you'll know by now that both horrify me, so I'll not go further on this one.//While I understand the rationale behind Capital Punishment, my main concern with it, aside from the obvious one of human fallibility and racial bias, is that the government should not have the right to take someones life. Just as it should not have the right to make a surgical procedure illegal based almost exclusively on one groups religious beliefs. brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
//Are you saying that humanity (human-being-ness I think you call it) is simply a set of a properties of a life-form, one of which must be having hom.sap. dna, and the others such things as self-awareness, communication etc.//
Yep. //I suspect (but I won’t put words in your mouth) that you might say yes — and follow Singer’s line that the DNA is the least interesting bit, so we can extend rights and status to other life-forms exhibiting the other properties. Am I close?//That is in fact Singers rationale. I'm not so convinced... call me homo sap-centric if you must, but the idea of sharing legal rights with a Great Dane isnt terribly appealing. //But if self-awareness is the criteria, are the anaesthetized, the sleeping, the drugged or the extremely drunk temporarily not human?//No, because one would presume that they demonstrated self-awareness at some prior point in their existance. If they never had... an anencephalatic neonate who is anaesthetized, sleeping, drugged, etc., then no, they are not human beings in the sense that I am describing. These links are to pictures of fetuses aborted because they had conditions that were not compatible with life.I provide these to clarify the condition that I am referring to. Be warned, these are very disturbing photos. http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN013.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN014.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN012.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN019.html http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN035.html //I believe some Islamic philosophers have come close to taking such a view of drunkenness. Can one be temporarily non-human if temporarily not self-aware?//From my perspective, no. One can be permamently rendered "unself-aware" and therefore no longer a human being, but since the basis for self-awareness is the activity of the cerebral cortex, it would require its destruction. //Experience for one thing — an overwhelming conviction that what is in the cradle is fully human in every moral sense.//But conviction based on what, exactly? Mind you, I agree fully, but for the sake of this discussion could you flesh this out? //Now you may want evidence to support that, but actually none is needed if what we are talking about is legal status — because the law isn’t a science, but more akin to a pragmatic balance of the aspirations of a society.//Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, birth is used to endow legal personhood exactly because it is not science... it is just about as pragmatic as you can get. "See the live baby... the live baby is a legal person." A complete no-brainer. //Your argument seems to be a version of the old shades of grey allusion.//If it is, I assure it it is entirely coincidental. //At one extreme we have the obviously non-human — let’s say white — and at the other, the obviously human - black. And you are saying that the newborn is actually a shade of grey?//I'm saying that a newborn, by virtue of its "unwritten upon" cerebral cortex, cannot demonstrate self-awareness, and wont be able to for several months. Again, your mileage may vary.
This is no justification for anything... merely a demonstration of why I think that prenates cannot be said to embody "human being-ness". //I am not opposed to philosophical definitions which challenge our way of thinking — indeed I welcome them, but when one works towards a definition, the outcome or implication of which, is directly contrary to the ordinary usage of a word, then this is a sign of something wrong. I have no doubt that in the ordinary usage of the word, a newborn baby is human. Indeed, fully human. If so, what could be going wrong in the argument?//My belief is that something as intrinsically valuable as a newborn, survival of the species and all that, cant but be viewed as "one of us" even when it doesnt fit that criteria. It *should* fit that criteria... see its little toes and its little hands, and its little dimples! And our laws protect it so that it can reach that criteria... but by its very nature, it simply cannot until it grows a bit. //One possibility might be that in fact, DNA is the only necessary property of a human being.//Have you ever sung the "Every sperm is sacred" song from Monty Pythons "The Meaning of Life"? http://www.wilken.freeserve.co.uk/Montypython/Songs/song15.htm It works best if bellowed.
DNA might be the only necessary property of a human being, except then we'd be calling that kidney I had removed a human being. //But all DNA is different, and this line of argument only pushes the argument into which set of properties of DNA are required for one to be human and we start all over again.//Yea. Which is why I agree with Singer about DNA being moot. //Another, more likely possibility, is that in fact your argument is sound in logic, but because we are dealing with graduated properties, the logic has been blurred beyond the point where ordinary language draws the line.//I quite agree that ordinary English makes this difficult... but I'm not really trying to use logic as the only tool to demonstrate this. I'm trying to stick with observable evidence as the basis for approaching this within a logical framework. //In other words you are not defining human beings, but have ended up defining a subset of human beings to which you want to narrow the definition.//But then what is the definition of "human being" if DNA is not to be used as a criteria? Or was my dearly departed kidney really a "human being" as well? //But language doesn’t work like that, and human thought, predicated on language doesn’t work like that. And human law, built on human thought and language cannot work like that.//Yea... maybe. But I'd be careful about building it up like that. Human thought, language and law are rarely so easily bounded that one can say that something "cannot work like that". //Here’s a little example. Let’s say we are trying to define visibility:If the paper is white and the ink is black, then the writing is visible. If the paper is white and the ink is white, then the writing is not visible.// Assuming perfect vision, and perfect shades of white and black, I cant disagree. //One could apply this to shades of gray ink working in either direction, but at some point one either comes up against a conclusion that something is visible which, while logical, is actually at odds with the usual definition of visible. The warning bells go off — have we chosen the right way to define visibility?//Call me dense, but I'm not sure if I follow. Are you saying that there is a "shade of gray" so close to white as to be "invisible" but by its very definition, "not white", should be visible? //It certainly works at the extremes, but the concept itself is something beyond the defining statements. In this case, we have not included concepts such as descriptions of the senses.//Oh man, I so do suck at these sorts of puzzles and such. I never get the "right" answer.
//In the case of your newborn human argument, the warning bells are sounding (and you are aware of them sounding for others if not for you) though there is no flaw in the logic.//The warning bell I hear voiced most often is that because I am defining a newborn as not fitting the definition of "human being" that this somehow makes it "ok" to kill it or commit some otherwise heinous crime against it simply because it isnt labeled a "human being". And from the perspective of a horribly suffering, dying newborn, I can easily be convinced that its parents *should* be able to make that decision... but certainly few, if any, others. //I suspect you have not chosen the right way to define human. There may be something beyond the defining statements.//I'm open to suggestion. I dont claim to have addressed *all* the possibilities, but rather, the ones most typcially voiced by Pro-Lifers. //Well, let’s just disagree — though my comments weren’t casual.//And honestly, I wasnt treating them as such. Its just that everywhere I've read neuroscience is telling me that this is so. I'm completely open to other valid sources if you have them. //This isn’t the forum for a discussion on the nature of consciousness.//Not even in the Coffee House?
//Absolutely — the situation is as you report it in the US and the UK. Your second point is slightly blurred. If the pregnancy is wanted, and the child is delivered prematurely - however perilously — with the intention of saving it, then from the moment of removal from its mother’s body it has a range of rights equivalent to other humans.//Hmm... yes. So long as it is able to draw breath(which actually meets the legal criteria for a live birth). //If the intention when removing the fetus is not so save it (however rare these cases may be), then a different range of rights apply.//No, not really. If removal of a living fetus results in a live birth, then that child has all the rights you or I would, regardless of the intent to abort it. However, in no instance is an abortion procedure performed whereby a living fetus is removed from the womans body. The typical procedure for post 21 week abortions is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X), a lesser used procedure the Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&E) and Labor Induction. In all of these procedures fetal demise occurs in utero. //But the rights are assigned on the basis of a third party intention, not on any intrinsic claim to right the fetus may itself have.//As I've pointed out above, it is not an equal comparison. There are cases where women with terminal fetuses will have labor induced so that they might hold their baby as it dies. Another woman, in the exact same circumstances, might opt for an abortion. //Thus, my reference to the Nazi mayor of Vienna. In no way, was I trying to dredge up some sort of guilt by association.//Gotcha. Sorry... too many references to Hitler has made me touchy about such comparisons. //It was simply an example of a life or death decision in which the right to live or die depended on the attitude of another, not on any intrinsic rights granted.//Except that this isnt the case, as I pointed out. //If you do not consider there is another human being involved there is no argument to eb deduced from other laws protecting humans. However, there is still room for a law which graduates the rights of the fetus and the mother inversely as the fetus develops towards recognizable humanity.//Which is sort of what exists in the US today. Except, of course, if the womans life is in danger or the fetus is terminal. As I pointed out before... the vast majority of abortions, 99%, take place before *any* argument for fetal personhood can be applied... and the ones that happen after 21 weeks are for medical reasons. So what would be the point? Let me put it another way... if every woman in the US received free birth control, free pregnancy tests and free abortions for the first 16 weeks of a pregnancy and anything after that was completely and totally illegal except for dire physical emergency's, I'd be less apt to fight this fight. //I see no moral difficulty with restricting the rights of the mother in this way.//Ah, but I do.
//You’ll see above that I consider hom. sap. DNA to be binary property in that it defines the species, but that even this is not without difficulties.//Gotcha, thanks for elucidating. //Yes I had read them before. A very interesting decision — one that needs revisited by the law quite regularly because, as you say, societies change. Is there a mechanism for this in the US? I’m Scottish and don’t know.//Yes, but unfortunately it doesnt involve whacking politicians on the heads with mallets.
Not that this stops US ProLifers from trying mind you. //I’m always puzzled by this line of argument. It reminds of when I was a surly teenager — how could the mere biological accident of my birth allow the courts to force me to attend school?//Ah, but since *all* teenagers are forced, not just the white male ones, its a bit more fair, dont you think? Same thing. //The law protects and frequently interferes with our biological and emotional lives.//True... but typically only to protect its constituents. Unfair laws are those which are biased against one group or the other... The Jim Crow laws of the deep South, here in the US are a perfect example. The only reason they existed was to keep African-Americans from being full citizens. //I meant elective in a common enough sense — chosen.//Gotcha. //You’ll guess I mean extreme mental suffering.//Extreme by who's definition? Who will be paying for a psychological test to determine who might or is suffering extreme mental anguish? //Absolutely. You’ll perhaps see that my position is essentially humanist — influenced by my religious views, but not referring to them for authority.//And I appreciate your position. American Pro-Lifers tend to begin and end their position with their religion. //Good discussion, by the way.//Thanks, same here. A refreshing change, I might add. //Strange we should be having it in a topic in danger of being as flammable as a hell full of creationists.//LOL The christian hell will be full of my friends and people I respect so its not shock for me. So which religious belief do you subscribe to? brett ------------------Faith in a delusional belief does not make that belief not delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bretheweb Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
