Right to Life Ethical Considerations

quote:

---

I personally think the most ethical position to take since we cannot know when consciousness begins would be to pin it at the moment we can detect higher order brain activity which I believe is somewhere in the 2nd trimester.

---

That is certainly a consideration, and, if we agree that consciousness (whatever that is) is the correct criterion to use, then it is possible that a fetus become a conscious entity during the second trimester.However, I strongly disagree that that is the case. I may be wrong, but I feel pretty confident that a fetus in the second trimester probably has not yet achieved consciousness.-

quote:

---

What if a woman changes her mind in labor and wants to abort? What is the difference between a fetus halfway down the birth canal and a newborn baby except a couple of hours of elapsed time?

​

Extend that a bit to the day before. What is the difference between an in utero fetus 1 day before it is born and a newborn in terms of its humanity?

---

iano uses this same argument to push back the "humanity" of the fetus right up to conception. However, the fact that you are allowing abortion during the first trimester gives the answer to your dilemma. We agree about the period during which there is not any consciousness, and set the boundary during that period. In my opinion, we do not set the boundary during a period during which there is doubt whether or not the criteria are met.You seem to think that the first trimester is safe, but you begin to have doubts about the time after that. I believe any time before birth is safe, but after that I begin to have doubts. So we both agree that at least the first trimester poses no problems whatsoever. What about the second trimester, the third trimester, the first year of life after birth? How do we reach agreement on this? The same way we as a society agree on anything: we discuss this rationally in open debate, and then decide democratically what we as a society believe is right, remembering that the debate is always still open, and that we may decide that we should change earlier decisions.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

That's a reasonable position but not a necessary one: I don't think science is going to provide the framework for an ethical solution to this particular controversy.Unless we consider every woman her own scientist.

Indeed, iano uses his slippery slope for many things, including Rockin' Arena Bestiality to militate against gay marriage.But in any event, why stop at conception? The Catholics church doesn't, and an increasing number of evangelicals don't. Their self-written warrant to police the sexual and reproductive lives of others extends to eggs and sperm.

quote:

---

I don't think science is going to provide the framework for an ethical solution to this particular controversy.

---

Nor do I. Science cannot determine what is or is not ethical, nor can science even determine the criteria for ethics.However, if I have a set of criteria to help me determine whether a certain action under a certain set of conditions is right or wrong, science may be able to inform me whether or not those criteria are met.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

The Catholics church doesn't, and an increasing number of evangelicals don't.

---

Well, as much as I oppose them, at least I will give the Catholics a certain begrudging respect for the consistency of their beleifs.Here in the other hand, the political conservatives seem rather accomodating to allow exceptions for "rape or incest" -- as if the manner of conception has any bearing on whether the fetus is an "innocent life". Just more more evidence in my opinion of how a significant fraction of the Right in the U.S. are merely using a disengenuous and cynical appeal to emotion to push their narrow social agenda of control over individuals' personal lives.But this is getting to be off-topic.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

We have to work within the bounds of what we can know. We can know when higher order brain function begins. There may be a way to test for this.We can know that our cognitive recognition of self is tied to the physical brain. So even though I doubt a 16 week old fetus really is sentient, I can't know for sure. I can't remember if I was sentient at 16 weeks gestation.We can know that a fetus of greater than a certain age possess certain characteristics of a person and would have a significant ability to survive. A fetus of enough age can dream, explore its environment, express some basic emotion, etc. There is little difference between a fetus of this age and a baby. The primary developmental trait missing between a 30 week and 40 week fetus is the maturity of the lungs. If we define humanity based on the development of the lungs then I know many people who may not be considered fully alive. =)Since we do consider infanticide murder, I cannot see why the abortion of a 30 week or greater fetus would be any different. Personally of course. I also realize that there may be a number of special circumstances due to the fact that the fetus still exists inside its mother at that point and that they may be valid reasons for the unfortunate termation of a fetus to save the mother.The problem is exactly as you say though, once we outline the gray area how do we draw the line. I would, like I said above, draw it at whatever age we can detect higher order brain function. Some may push it farther for other developmental issues which I may agree with. You seem to push it to birth which I have some personal moral problems with.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think we agree on this point, that it is the advent of "human life".However, it seems to me that you're using sapience and not sentience as the qualification for consciousness. Especially if you go right up till five years of age as a threshold for the endowment of rights.It is known that after formation of the higher brain, regarded as around 20-23 weeks, the foetus is able to sense its environment, and itself. Why would one not regard this as, at least a form (a beginning) of, consciousness?Before the advent of modern imaging techniques, i agree that, there was a lot less of an idea as to the goings on of a foetus. Nowadays, however, it would be much harder to advocate birth as the cut-off to humanity. As Jazz said, there's not much difference between unborn and born....apart from a bit of fresh air, methinks.

I think science can certainly inform the debate. Whether or not people, on both sides, are willing to pay attention, is a another story entirely.

I've never looked at it that way before, Crash.An interesting perspective.

Yeah you can, it's brain is not anywhere near developed enough. It does not know where it ends and the out side world begins.Not a chance of Theory of Mind and memories are not laid down like an adults either.It's still got a lot of neural growth before it even starts winnowing down neural connections (we lose maybe half of our neurons that do not connect during growth spurts).A new born just does not process like more developed individuals do.

Potential risk, not immediate. Altho', whether or not i'm allowed to use deadly force seems dependant, of course, on the laws of the region.The foetus, is better likened to a squatter than an intruder, anyway (your use of the word "eviction" kind of implies you agree with me here). And evictions are even more regulated. One can't just throw someone, who has taken up residence for a time, out. They actually have rights and a say in the matter as well. The prior knowledge that the foetus can't survive means that it could be regarded as a form of homicide (if we regard the foetus as a person). If you throw someone that you know can't swim off a boat into the middle of the sea and they drown, is it their fault?If the pregnancy was truly accidental, wherein things were done to prevent it, then i'm inclined to agree that this absolves the woman of responsibility. However, if the pregnancy was a result of negligence and / or lack of contraception, even tho' they knew the possible consequence was pregnancy, then the mother and father, surely, do hold some responsibility for its occurrence. Rights are not absolute, Crash. There is always the qualification: unless those rights impugne on the rights of another.
In such cases, there is no clear cut "end of story". That it is, not is testified by the presence of so many women that do not have pregnancy complications.
In a case where the threat is clear, then certainly, such an argument could be used as justification. But it is not valid for every case of pregnancy. Be careful not to misinterpret and misrepresent me, Crash. I never said that i think abortion is murder. That's what this thread is about: examining these issues.I've done a little reading, and the argument you present is regarded by some courts as, well, a little "iffy". Since in that argument lies a legal paradox. If it is found acceptable to abort an unborn person, who innocently poses a threat, then that could open the door to allowing the killing of other individuals who could potentially cause suffering. Examples being HIV carriers, and those with ther infectious diseases.
In order to resolve the paradox, it was found necessary to accept that the foetus is not a person.

If we extract DNA from a zygote, will they appear as human?

Your DNA makes you human, but does it make you a person?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Another bogus analogy.If you have intentional sex, that is the same as "letting someone in your house". You can always choose to not have sex(pro-choice). Since when is it a right to be able to have sex, and not have a chance of getting pregnant? And all parachutes should always work, dammit.

So, that ends that debate. It is human life. Dictionary.com has the definition of person as: A living human.Ok, it's human, and it is alive, now what?