My views on abortion

Can you explain why the existence of a 'soul' as you describe it above is the point at which a foetus should acquire rights? I guess the underlying question is - what attributes of an entity determine that it should have rights? Suppose for example that in a hundred years or so a computer is built that has the same capacity as the human brain. Would it acquire rights?

Rahvin can give his/her answer as well, but here's mine.A person gains rights as they develop and mature. As they reach certain cognitive milestones, they gain more. For instance, a child has the right to life, but not the right to enter into a legally binding contract because they are not cognitively developed enough to understand the ramifications of that contract.As such, a fetus needs to reach a certain milestone before it starts gaining rights. That line, as I see it, is where they stop being just a biological amalgamation and become a conscious entity, or where higher brain functions begin. This point does not mean the fetus gets all human rights, as stated above, we don't even give all human rights to actual, born children.We must also make sure to keep in focus the rights of the mother, who we assume has attained the level at whcih she has all human rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to determine the use of her own body.

I already regret using the term "soul."As I've been saying, the very idea of rights is based on arbitrary value judgments. Some people value life itself, but inconsistently apply the principle - they consider a newly-fertilized egg to be sacred, and value unfertilized egg/sperm sufficiently to forbid the use of contraceptives.I value consciousness. I value that which makes us unique, even in identical twins where genetics are identical. I value the continuity of experiences and thoughts, the ability to process abstract concepts and respond to abstract stimuli that define humanity.I think that a truly brain-dead individual has no more value or rights than a corpse. I think that a fetus that hasn't even developed a brain yet has no more rights or value than the vaginal discharge the vast majority of fertilized eggs become.I think that once the higher brain functions that signify the presence of a personality form, at least some consideration must be given, though that doesn't necessarily override the ability to abort. I hope so. To deprive an intellect capable of thinking and feeling as we think and feel of the same rights and privileges that we give ourselves is, I believe, a gross injustice, and would spark the beginnings of a resentment that could eventually result in a summer blockbuster movie - that is, poorly for us. Even in the best case scenario, with no robot apocalypse ( )I would find it unethical to treat an entity with the same intellectual and emotional capacity as a human being as somehow less than us.Similarly, if we were to some day encounter an intelligent alien species clearly identifiable as sentient and capable of interacting with us meaningfully, I would hope we would treat them as equals as well.To treat other sentient entities as lesser beings is grossly arrogant, and stinks of the same sort of bigotry as racism.Of course, this is going a bit off the topic, so if you'd like to discuss this further you may want to start a new thread.

I'm not sure if that's less torture or more I suppose it would depend on how the beef is harvested. But it does sound like it has the possibility to be promising. Is it possible to clone meat without cloning the entire animal? I mean, I don't see how we could morally differentiate between "cloned intelligence" and "natural intelligence"... if intelligence is there, it doesn't really matter where it came from. However, if it is somehow possible to clone "just the meat" without cloning the entire animal with brain and nervous system and everything... that sounds like a fantastic solution. For the far future perhaps... but sounds good. I always thought Star Trek had a decent definition for such a thing. Although I can't recall it specifically right now. Something about looking for response to stimuli, capability for learning, and possibility of communication I think.

I believe some episode or book had a good definition, but in reality, the Universal Translator pretty much solved all their worries in this regard, except for a few notable episodes (Devil in the Dark being the first one I'm awar eof).

Woohoo! Tangent! Yes. The idea is that you could grow animal muscle in vats fed on artificial nutrients and exercised electronically. They'd be no intelligence present.Muscles can already be grown and maintained in the lab but on nothing like the scale needed to actually produce food this way.

"In reality," eh? Heh... don't worry, I understand what you're saying. Yes, this is what I'm talking about. Although I don't know enough to remember any episode names. I think both TNG and Voyager touched on it in a few episodes.I think the one I'm thinking about is from TNG (but I'm not sure). It had a few robotic machines in a mining environment or something, and there was disasters happening that no one could explain... it turned out that some new form of intelligence was created by the dust and got into the machines and gave them individual "higher level" intelligence or something? Interesting episode. I think my memory has brutally butchered what actually happened in the show, though Or the TNG one where Moriarty is created on the holodeck and they "defeat" him by understanding that he's something "more" than their ship's computer and start treating him as an equal. (And end up giving him a certain amount of "memory area" to live how he sees fit, or something?)(I fully admit that TNG is likely one of the largest influences on my moral compass )

I understand what you are saying but I just don't get why you would go through all that complicated reasoning to pass a law protecting abortions up to a point when it should be much much simpler. Abortion should be legal at any time of pregnancy period. It is none of the public's business what happens inside the uterus of an individual woman. If you are going to go through the effort of passing a law to protect abortion rights, just protect them universally.Anything less that that will be politicized, legally tortured, and end up either not doing enough, or doing too much.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

I don't understand...are you somehow implying that Star Trek isn't real? How could they film it if it weren't true? Star Trek, in general, has definitely affected my moral compass more than most anything else, outside of family and perhaps my philosophy classes.But, I think we're just slightly off topic here, so perhaps we should ask what Star Trek says about abortion.

Hi Perdition,

quote:

---

I think we're just slightly off topic here, so perhaps we should ask what Star Trek says about abortion.

---

I have no idea what I expected to find by googling "star trek" and "abortion", but here we are;Television: Abortion & Star Trek Weird world.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Yeah, that episode was not one of the best, but I remember watching that scene and finding it weird that it was the men who were all arguing, as if they had more say in it than a woman. And in many abortion debates, you see two guys up there arguing the merits of their positions and the evilness inherent in the other's, why don't us men just back off and let the women who are actually the involved parties work it out?

Hi Perdition, That is a fair point, and for every single organism, except humans, this "law of nature" is followed through without excess. But now we look at humans, and our life style. Can we, in good conscience, say that we follow this "law of nature" without excess? Oh come now, the life of a calf is taken to allow humans to live? There are other options rather than killing a *baby* cow aren't there? I'm sure you don't mean this as a general statment, right?But lets reflect on that for a bit, are our actions really just for survival purposes? Is our excessive life style not more than what is needed to live? That depends. It's not against the law to take it to the Humane Society and have them "put it to sleep," and your reason for taking it there need not be given. Isn't that sort of the same thing? Good point, that does explain why we do it. Agreed. No problem - Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Hi Stile,Just to finish up... I personally feel that no evolved trait separates humans from animals; humans are animals, and just like wood pecking birds, or birds that don't fly, we are a particular primate with a high intelligence. But so what? We are animals nonetheless.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

You lost me. Are you saying that I was not explicit enough in my reply(ies)? If she has absolute control over her body, should she have absolute control over the body inside her body? Because there is another person, inependent of the mother, inside the womb.Can you also tell me why if a pregnant woman is murdered that the offender is charged with double homicide, the murder of two as opposed to one? You can't charge for two murders if one is not a human. Isn't that bloody obvious that everyone, like it or not, knows and understands that we are dealing with two people (i.e. mother and son or daughter).

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

I agree. And sometimes I forget that I agree with this point
(Which is why I shall be forced to burn in hell if any omnipotent being calls me on my actions regarding this point in this life).But, in my defense, I only said my part about "human intelligence" beginning at the Legal Life definition I've provided in response to you saying that a human is "differentiated" from other animals at birth. Or, at least, that's what I thought you said...