Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 118 of 441 (837298)
07-30-2018 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
07-28-2018 2:44 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Just a post on my thoughts about abortion from a previous thread.
I see all the discussion on whether or not it's moral to kill a baby/forming baby or clumps of cells and I just want to point out that even if this particular issues gets a clear answer (which I think is impossible)... it still wouldn't tell you if having an abortion entire is moral or not.
Having an abortion affects many lives.
The most direct are the mother and unborn baby.
But that doesn't mean we can discount or ignore the other less-direct ones.
And there can be situations where a "less-direct" life become even more important in the decision than the mother.
Like if the mother is deciding on an abortion, but the situation is such that even if the baby is born... the mother doesn't get the child. Perhaps there is an agreement or scenario where the child will be going to another person/people who really want that baby and to take care of it. This would increase the "less-direct" moral influence of the care-giving person/people and decrease the "more-direct" influence of the mother.
Every situation may very well be unique.
To speak of any of it specifically without mentioning that it's merely a single aspect of a multi-faceted whole is doing the idea of "morality around having an abortion or not" a disservice.
It's a huge issue. And that vastness is a great big part of the problem.
Here's more of what I was thinking from the earlier post I mentioned:
quote:
Nobody knows (if an abortion is "good" or "bad.") There's not enough information available to tell.
Some of the information is completely impossible to find out.
That's why it's such a tough decision... if it were easy to know, it wouldn't be difficult.
Some ideas to flesh out the point I'm making:
-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a more-painful death (or life) of the fetus/baby anyway... then the abortion was a good thing for the baby
-If a non-abortion had of resulted in a good/wonderful life of the fetus/baby... then the abortion was a bad thing for the baby
-If the abortion resulted in her life having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better (possibly even other children-of-hers) in a way she would not be able to if she had the abortion... then the abortion was a good thing for these other people (and possibly her other children)
-If the abortion resulted in her life not having the ability to make other people's lives happy/better... then the abortion was a bad thing for those other people.
-If the abortion allowed her life to be happier/better... then the abortion was a good thing for her
-If the abortion led to her life being worse... then the abortion was a bad thing for her
...
This list is not exhaustive. I'm sure there are plenty of other effects that could be listed, I'm just showing how complicated the "was it good or bad?" question is.
On top of all those possibilities... it needs to be understood that each item can quite possibly be independent from the others.
That is, it could be that the abortion was good for the baby (would have died worse anyway)... but bad for her (her life turned out worse because of the abortion). Or any other combination... maybe good for her, and good for others around her, and good for her future children (who might not exist without the abortion occurring)... but bad for the aborted fetus/baby. How do you weigh those against each other? How can you do it when all the "future possibilities" can't possibly be known at the time when the decision has to be made??
Such weighing is required to know if the abortion "is good or bad."
But such weighing is impossible at the time the decision must be made... because it all happens in the future. Some of the important results may not be known until decades into the future.
I hope this is enough to show that a single, easy answer for "Was she wrong or right to have the abortion?" is simply not available.
It's one of those super-hard decisions where we just have to do whatever we think is best based upon the information (and whatever future-prediction-abilities we have) at the time.
THAT's why I think the decision is up to the woman-in-question, and no one else.
She is free to search out information from any and all sources (family? friends? anywhere?) but... even THAT is up to her.
We can all judge her as much as we'd like.
But, to me, I think anyone judging harshly on someone making such a decision (forced into it or not) speaks a hell of a lot more about the character of that judgey-person than it does about the woman-in-question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 07-28-2018 2:44 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 9:38 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 122 of 441 (837303)
07-30-2018 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
07-30-2018 9:38 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
jar writes:
Morality is a subject that should never be decided by society but rather on an instance basis and only by those people directly involved in that particular instance.
Morality is none of societies business.
I think I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure of all the context you intend. I'll expand a bit and you can see if you agree with my thoughts or not.
I certainly agree that morality is decided "by those people directly involved" in the sense that only those who are affected get to decide (declare?) if what happened was "good" or "bad" to them.
The same action on two different people might be good for one, and bad for the other (decided by each individually.)
But there is another level we all get to judge what everyone else thinks too.
This doesn't change whether or not the action was good or bad for those people... that remains a decision up to those who are affected.
What I'm talking about here is caring about whether or not someone says something is good or bad.
Like if someone likes to receive money - then it's good to give them money.
This is obvious.
But we also get to decide if we care about giving them money.
And at some points we will (like a homeless person just trying to get some food.)
And at some points we won't (like a rich jerk who just wants more money.)
This as well is done on an individual level and we each get to make our own decisions about what morals we're going to care about.
Morality is none of societies business.
On the level of if a particular action is good or bad - I agree. I think this is decided by those who are affected.
On the level of caring about the moral decision - again I agree. I think this is decided by each and every one of us on our own.
However, there is a level where society does get involved in morality.
And that's things like choosing to live with those who's moral tendencies tend to align with each other.
In this sense I think morality is society's business such that the society (and those looking to visit or join that society) should know what's currently expected/understood by that society and be able to explain it to visitors or possible new comers.
This would be on the level of developing justice/police systems so that the society can deal with issues that affect the people making up the society.
But I do agree that society's level is on the descriptive end of things... describing what the individuals who make up that society think.
The prescriptive level is always on the end of individuals in specific circumstances and how we all (individually) feel about what happened.
And when this gets forgotten/abused... that's when things can go downhill in a hurry.
There's lots of human-issues that can cause large messes in morality too:
Something happens... and those involved will identify if it was good or bad to them.
But as the "something" is reported to others... it's generally not reported accurately. Sometimes the inaccuracies are negligible. But other times they can be very large inaccuracies. Large inaccuracies lead to others "caring" about the "something" and forming opinions in a way that isn't attached to the reality of what happened. And then it's a big mess. Add generalizations on top of that - and people start caring about many things they wouldn't if the facts were straight in the first place... or vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 9:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:12 AM Stile has replied
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 10:47 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 124 of 441 (837306)
07-30-2018 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
07-30-2018 10:12 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
jar writes:
I don't see that as relevant at all. It would be relevant if you change morality to behavior.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarify that I think "morality" includes bad things as much as it includes good things?
Again, I do not see how morality enters. Germany between 1939 and 1946 had a functioning justice/police system so that the society dealt with issues that affected the people making up the society.
Yeah. And Germany's functioning justice/police system was based on their morality. It was just a morality that I do not care very much for. However, many of the people-in-power at the time did care about such a morality. So much so that they had it strictly enforced.
Again... I don't think I understand what you're attempting to get at.
I can see how "a good-natured" morality doesn't enter into Germany's justice/police system of that time. But their society certainly adhered to a certain morality.
If we look at societies throughout history we tend to find when "morality" becomes the driving force the general result is oppression.
I agree that if we look at all the times oppression happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force.
However:
If we look at all the times where good progress and growth happened... then we see that "morality" was usually the driving force then as well.
Perhaps "morality" is a driving force for many things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:12 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:37 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 129 of 441 (837323)
07-30-2018 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
07-30-2018 10:37 AM


Laws and Morality
jar writes:
Advances in technology, transportation, communication, health care all tend to be driven by reality and actual evidence and can and have happened in societies we consider moral, amoral and downright immoral.
I think we're talking about the same thing, just using different terms/definitions.
That is, even if a society exists where I consider them 'immoral" or "amoral..." I don't see how that means they have no "morality."
They would still have a system based upon things they think are right. Regardless of myself thinking they're wrong or myself thinking "that's not right or wrong."
I do agree that many people do things that they themselves think are amoral. Like, say, perfectly-objective-science or something like that.
-In which case, I would agree that they are acting without using society's morality.
However, I don't think society can function without an agreed upon code of conduct.
That is, I don't think multiple people can get together and have relationships with each other (something "a society" is forced to do) without having a mutually understood (agreed upon or not) code-of-conduct.
I would call those get-togethers of people "society" (once large enough, anyway.)
And I would call their mutually understood code-of-conduct to be their "morality" at the level of their society... whatever we personally judge it as.
The issue though is laws. And there I think morality really has no place.
Example of a law where I think morality should have a place:
Law: Don't steal from others.
Morality: It is wrong to steal from others because it will cause escalating feelings of hatred and desires of retaliation. Society should agree that they should not steal from each other in their code-of-conduct between each other in order to not negatively affect others with such actions. Those who do not agree should be punished.
Example of a law where I think morality should not have a place:
Law: Drive 80 km/h (55 mph?) on rural two-lane highways.
Morality: None. 80 km/h is chosen because it's enforceable and puts a reasonable limit between speed-of-transportation and utility. "Utility" here is in an amoral sense... like a load on a trailer might spill if the vehicle is going too fast - regardless of whether or not other people are hurt in the spill, roads are for transportation and any spill will slow that transportation as it will require clean-up.
So, although I can see many laws where I agree morality does not have a place... I can also see many laws where I think morality does have a place.
I think a blanket statement like "morality has no place in any laws" is a bit too general.
I would also disagree with a statement like "morality must be considered for all laws." Such a mandate would also be too restrictive in what I think laws should cover.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 07-30-2018 10:37 AM jar has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 133 of 441 (837331)
07-30-2018 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-30-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
You seem to be multiplying complications to no purpose that I can see. Is it a human life or not? If it is then killing it is a moral problem for society just as murder is, and not just for the woman.
Yes, it would be a moral problem for society.
The purpose of the multiplying complications is to show that it's not the only moral problem for society on the issue of abortion.
If you're trying to say it is - then how are you dismissing all the other moral problems?
There may be mitigating circumstances just as there are in the case of any wrongful death, but we have to start with the simple fact that if we kill it we are in fact committing a wrongful death because it is a human life.
But there is no fact that it's a human life.
It's clear that at certain stages (after conception, but before full term) it isn't.
It's clear that at certain stages (after conception, but before full term) it is.
You saying it definitely is as soon as conception starts is just as wrong as someone saying it definitely isn't as long as "full term" hasn't occurred.
Where is the line?
Does "a line" actually exist? Or is there only certain stages where we can show it "hasn't gotten close" yet?
Is the line the same for all pregnancies?
My post dealt with the questions after these:
Once a line is developed (if that's even possible...)
What next?
Is this line the be-all-end-all? (It clearly isn't)
How much do we weigh this possible-life vs. the possible life of others (the mother, any care-giver, other possible-lives the mother/other-care-givers could intend to have that this abortion may or may not alter...)
How do you weigh one possible-life over others?
Let's make up a very clear and obvious example.
Let's say we have a woman and a man on a very defined relationship.
They have jobs and events they want to achieve. Then they are planning on 1 additional baby a year from now (and no more). Without external forces stopping them... that baby will happen. This family always sets plans and always goes through with them.
2 months before they start trying to have the planned-baby, the woman gets raped.
The rapist gets trapped by police and kills himself.
The woman gets pregnant due to the rape.
The rapist has a known biological record from previous testing.
All babies from the rapist will have immune system issues and live a horribly painful life until dying at about 3 years of age.
Is it wrong to abort this baby and allow the couple to continue with their planned baby?
Who decides what parts are right and what parts are wrong?
It is my contention that there are many facets:
Whether or not the baby wants to live it's painful 3 years is something only the baby can answer - the rest of us are guessing at it. Unfortunately, we cannot ask future-3-years-from-now baby.
Whether or not the planned-baby wants to live knowing it's parents had an abortion in order to "get to them" is something only the planned-baby can answer - the rest of us are guessing. Unfortunately, we cannot ask future-planned-baby such a question when the abortion would need to happen.
Would the parents be okay raising the rapist's baby? They might have a guess now - but maybe they don't even know the answer at this time.
Will the parents avoid postpartum depression if they have an abortion and attempt to raise the planned-baby? - They might have a guess now - but maybe they don't even know the answer at this time.
Something could be good for the rapist baby, but bad for the planned baby.
Or maybe letting the rapist baby live is bad for everyone involved - the rapist baby dies at age 3, the planned-baby never lives, and both parents commit suicide after the rapist baby dies.
Maybe having the planned baby is bad for the rapist baby (they really wanted to experience those 3 years!) but good for the planned baby - they have an amazing life, but the mother kills herself due to postpartum depression and the father lives a miserable rest-of-his-life.
How do you weigh any of these goods and bads against each other?
If you don't think they matter - I think you're not capable of understanding what a "moral" decision includes.
If you have a method to weigh these (and all the other possible options) against each other - then I want to get lotto numbers from your future-reading abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 10:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 1:03 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 135 of 441 (837341)
07-30-2018 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
07-30-2018 1:03 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
GENETAICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY it is a human life at conception. Are you disputing that?
Yes.
Conception is when a sperm enters an egg, right?
A separated sperm and egg are not genetically/biologically a human life. They are genetically/biologically a sperm and an egg.
A combined sperm and egg are not genetically/biologically a human life. They are genetically/biologically a sperm and an egg.
DEVELOPMENTALLY it is recognizably human by at least twelve weeks when we can SEE that it is a human baby with all the biological parts, and even in many ways ACTAING like a human baby. Are3 you disputing that?
Yes.
Recognizing a human shape doesn't mean the baby has "all" the biological parts.
If it did, why can't it survive outside the mother on it's own at this point?
If something acts like a human baby in many ways doesn't mean it acts like a human baby in all ways. And therefore quite possible not the important ways.
Which ways are important?
I'm not saying you're wrong here. Maybe you're right. I'm just saying you're not clearly right - and you haven't shown that you're right.
You're certainly not convincing.
All the others you bring up are situational and to my mind the only circumstance that could justify killing this biologically human being is harm to the mother.
What about harm to itself?
What about harm to others who are not the mother?
Why do those not matter?
Aren't you worried about loss of human life?
What about loss of life of someone who's not the mother? How can you say such a thing shouldn't be considered when it can easily be specifically attached to this event?
If you want to add biological defects I'm not arguing on that level, those things need to be decided case by case, and they don't change the fact that we're talking about a biologically human life.
How do you decide if a biological defect means you should kill the baby or not? Why do you not care about the "murder" here?
Remember... I'm not trying to say abortion is right.
I'm just saying that it's not easy to say if it's right or wrong.
If you're going to say abortion on a biological defect is sometimes fine... I'll argue with you on that too. I don't see how any of it is clear ever.
My point is that it should always be taken on a case-by-case basis. With no sweeping generalizations anywhere. It's that important, and that complicated.
Although I understand the psychological trauma of being pregnant by a rapist, to my mind it's a living innocent human being in the womb and killing it is still morally wrong.
And the rape victim is a living innocent human being in the world and giving that person a permanent handicap is morally wrong too. How do you weight them against each other so easily?
Since you've made your desires clear, though... if you are ever raped I will defend your decision to keep the baby even if others want to end your pregnancy.
However, you are not everyone else.
So I will let everyone else make their own decisions on this matter as well.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to take your view as the view everyone should follow for this matter. It seems like a very difficult decision. Your attempts at coming up with "the answer" seem... pitiable at best. I pity your naivete.
BUT I'm just concerned here to establish that it IS a biologically human life at all stages beginning with conception because that is so often denied.
It's denied because it's clearly not true.
There are stages (namely... conception itself) where it's clearly not a human life.
There are stages (namely... birth itself) where it's clearly a human life.
Therefore... somewhere in between it changes.
The change may be the same for each growing baby. It may be different for each growing baby (therefore any "line drawn" is wrong for most babies.)
However, if you're going to claim it's definitely where it's clearly not (at conception) then you'll easily get labelled as silly and your ideas will get lost.
Again, situational factors can be decided case by case or by law of whatever, but we need to establish this basic fact that we're talking about a human life.
But sometimes we're clearly not talking about a human life. Like 2 weeks into the pregnancy.
Edited by Stile, : Adding remainder of post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 1:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 2:11 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 137 of 441 (837344)
07-30-2018 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
07-30-2018 2:11 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
because if you recognized its essential humanness you would be a lot more cautious about ANY situational argument in favor of killing it.
How so?
Can you explain? Without an explanation, your words fall limp.
The sperm and egg were discussed far back in this discussion. You might benefit from reading from a few pages back.
I did read it.
It didn't make the difficult decision any easier.
I think, however, that you might benefit from recognizing that an egg and a sperm are not the same as a human being.
Any attempt to equivocate the two is silly.
A piece of coral has the potential to become a coral reef.
But arguing that all pieces of coral should be treated like all coral reefs is silly.
When you insist that an egg and a sperm are definitely "a human life" it shows you're not interested in discussion to figure out the truth of the matter.
It shows you have your opinion, you like your opinion, and you want everyone else to adopt your opinion.
That's fine for you... but sucks for anyone else who is simply interested in figuring out the truth - regardless of your opinion on the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 2:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 8:54 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 171 of 441 (837424)
08-01-2018 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
07-30-2018 8:54 PM


Re: Just a few more facts.
Faith writes:
And it does seem to me that most of the difficulties arise in people's minds because it is not thought of as a human life.
Yes, I agree.
Many people don't agree with your opinion because it is clearly not a human life during the early stages of pregnancy.
I don't see how you can deny that genetically the fertilized egg is human. If nothing interferes it will inexorably grow into a human being and everybody knows that without getting scientific about it.
Let's focus on this.
Because this is obviously not true.
Many things have to interfere after conception for an egg and sperm to grow into a human.
If nothing interfere's, the egg and sperm (and possibly even the mother) will die.
They need resources - nourishment, care and time.
How much nourishment?
How much care?
How much time?
How do we know when "enough" of any of these happens?
These are the questions we don't have answers to right now.
These are the questions that require answers in order to truthfully make any claim about where a "line" could be drawn.
Without those resources, the sperm and egg will simply die - as many sperms and eggs do.
Glossing-over of this implies that you're not focused on figuring out the truth of this matter - it implies you're willing to simply say anything in order to get anyone to agree with you.
I don't care about agreeing with you.
I care about the truth of this important issue.
Perhaps the truth will lead to me agreeing with you - I don't care.
Perhaps the truth will lead to me disagreeing with you - I don't care.
What I care about is understanding the truth and reality of this important issue as much as possible.
But since you do deny it, and you even deny its humanness at twelve weeks when most of us see a living baby there
I don't deny humanness at twelve weeks. I question it. Because it isn't obvious. And you haven't offered anything that makes it clear. It's not your fault, I don't think such information is available to us now (possibly ever?)
How about a month before its due date? Two months? Three months? and so on. Until you find the point at which you definitely don't think of it as human and definitely think abortion is a reasonable solution to what you regard as a difficult situation?
I know that at 2 weeks after conception it's not a human.
I know that when it can survive on it's own without being attached to machines or the mother - then it is a human.
Anywhere in between, I don't know. Might be. Might not be. I don't have answers to the required questions either.
I am, however, highly confident that any "line" would not be applicable to every situation... because it's obvious that different living things grow at different rates and gain traits at different times. For some babies the line may be closer to conception. For others it may be closer to birth. Does sucking a thumb mean it's human? I don't think so... but even if it did, not all of them suck their thumbs after 12 weeks. Some will never suck their thumb. To figure out these questions we will require much more information than we have available to us right now.
It does highly imply though - that anyone offering any "line" anywhere in the non-obvious stages - is completely wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 07-30-2018 8:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-01-2018 10:19 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 174 of 441 (837430)
08-01-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
08-01-2018 10:19 AM


Eventually... means nothing.
Faith writes:
OK, so you are going by its appearance.
No. In fact, I'm more concerned with the mental development.
Some babies are born without certain limbs due to a handicap of one kind or another. These babies do not have the "entire human form" at any time. However, they are still just as "human" as I am as far as I'm concerned.
"interfere" means opposes its natural growth, the way you are using it is not interference, it's just the natural environment in which it grows that is taken for granted in what I'm saying.
...
But my argument is that although it doesn't yet look like a human being it is human because we know it's got the DNA that will cause it to develop into a human and if we just leave it alone to develop normally it will become a human being. It's already got all the genetic stuff, and if everything is normal all we have to do is leave it alone.
"Interfere" means "interfere."
You can't "leave it alone" it will die.
Why do I have to take something for granted and guess that when you use certain words you mean them in a special-case sort of way?
Why not just describe the reality of it - that the baby requires resources in order to grow into a human.
I agree that given the required resources and normal environment it will grow into a human.
Just like a separated egg and sperm - given the required resources and normal environment - will grow into a human.
Just like a man and a woman - given the required resources and normal environment - will eventually have sex and produce a baby that will grow into a human (proof - all of human history.)
The question isn't about "is this something that will grow into a human if we give it the normal resources and environment."
That question is easy and it's answered. The answer is yes.
This question, however, is useless in determining the morality of an abortion since this same, identical "yes" applies to so many previous conditions (like a man and a woman just being together).
The question is "is this a human?"
Where 'this' is a developing baby from many stages that are clearly not human into many stages that are clearly human.
That's the question that matters - if you're interested in searching for the truth of this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-01-2018 10:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 175 of 441 (837431)
08-01-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
08-01-2018 10:54 AM


Re: For reference: A twelve-weeks ultrasound
Yes, I've seen many.
So - how do you know if this is human or not?
How much brain development has occurred at this point?
If a twelve-week old baby sucks it's thumb, is it known if this is a reflex/accident or if the baby is actually choosing to do so and controlling it's thumb using it's brain?
If a fully grown human's brain ceases to function autonomously - only reflex actions occur, but nothing controlled by the brain - we call this "brain dead." And sometimes kill the fully grown human (remove them from life-support.)
How would something like that apply to a developing baby?
When does a developing baby's brain get past what we would call 'brain-dead' on a fully grown human?
Is it possible to know this point from a scan?
I'm not saying that's "the line" that should be used.
But I am saying it sounds like a good place to start. Much better than when something merely takes on human physical form. Many handicapped babies will never take on an entire "human form" - yet I still consider them just as human as myself.
I think that using "physical form" as an indication that something "is human" is an attempt to appeal to emotion and get people to agree with you just because you want them to agree with you.
Emotionally - a man and a woman who haven't had sex yet are just as close to creating a human as a human-shaped-shell-with-no-brain would be.
That's not a very good judgement to use for considering the morality involved in ending a human life - if the "human life" isn't there, it doesn't matter what it looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 08-01-2018 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-01-2018 12:19 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 182 of 441 (837465)
08-02-2018 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
08-01-2018 12:19 PM


Re: For reference: A twelve-weeks ultrasound
Isn't there pretty clearly a big difference between a brain-dead adult who we know is never going to come back barring a miracle, and a normally developing fetus whose brain is in the process of growing and will certainly become a fully functioning human brain if we don't kill it?
Yes.
The question is - what is the difference specifically, and does it matter?
When we decide to kill a brain-dead adult - it's never just done "because they're brain dead" more investigation is added.
They see if it's a case like a coma where there's a chance they might come out of it.
They look at the family life and see if there are resources available to continue the life artificially for some time.
They look at the possible life the 'brain dead' individual may come into if they recover - will they have permanent loss of motor function in limbs? Will they have a decent chance at a normal life?
All these factors are considered before killing a brain dead adult.
I'm proposing that such factors should also be included when deciding on killing a fetus.
Is it likely the fetus will survive the pregnancy? Likely - but still needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Is it likely the mother will survive the pregnancy? Likely - but still needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
What sort of resources are available to continue the development of this fetus? If they are "normally" available - then things look good to continue, if not - this needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
What sort of life will this child lead if they are born? Are they being born into a normal, loving family? Are they being born onto a bed of needles where no one will care for this child anyway? Will they have a decent chance at a normal life? Maybe things look good here, maybe not - again, it needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
It seems all relevant questions lead to a "should be considered on a case-by-case basis" scenario.
Which is my entire point - all abortions - all the time - should always be considered on a case-by-case basis and any "line" to be applied to all cases is immediately, obviously in error. There are too many complicated issues directly associated with any pregnancy to dumb any of them down to some "single line."
If it was in fact brain-dead we're not talking about normal development.
Yes, we are.
When a sperm and an egg combine - there is no brain. - This is brain dead.
When a baby is born - there is a brain. - This is not brain dead.
Therefore, somewhere along the line the brain develops.
Therefore, somewhere along the line the fetus changes from "brain dead" into "not brain dead."
I don't think that's an easy thing to figure out.
And looking at a twelve-weeks scan that looks like the form of a human tells us nothing about the brain development and how far along it may be from "brain dead" to "not brain dead."
That is always a part of every baby's "normal development."
I don't know when particular functions develop though I suppose the information is available. Do you think you could define the point I'm asking about? What functions would have to be present or absent?
Well, to me - you can't control your limbs by choice or not unless the connections exist for you to control your limbs. Therefore the brain would have to develop to "some level" as well as the brain stem and spinal cord. Before that happens - it doesn't make any sense to look at physical movement as "indication that the baby is human." However - after this point, then I would give much more weight to physical movement indicating "the baby is human."
What else would be part of this?
Maybe development of the cerebrum? This is the large frontal-ish portion of your brain known to be where we feel feelings and make decisions and all the important spiritual-related-stuff we think of as "being human." I think. I'm not a neural doctor, so any corrections to my errors would be welcomed.
Here's a page listing different stages of brain development: Brain Development of Fetus
I can't vouch for it's accuracy - but it's something at least.
This sort of brain development I'm most concerned about seems to start laying the foundation as early as 11 weeks, and not be ready/usable/functional until as late as 19 weeks or so.
But OK you want to define its humanness by brain function or other function rather than appearance or form? So are we still talking about finding the point before which you could advocate aborting it because it isn't human, and after which you couldn't?
I was never talking about "the point I could advocate aborting" based on brain function or appearance or form.
I was only talking about "the point I could advocate the fetus being human."
Again, when the fetus is human is only 1 aspect of a multifaceted whole that all needs to be considered when deciding to abort a baby.
What is the mother's condition?
What is the condition of any primary care-givers?
What is the likelihood of providing a "decent life" for this baby? Rescources, environment situation....
All these things needs to be considered (possibly even more things I can't think of?) when thinking of aborting a baby. Because they are all morally directly connected.
Taking one of those, like - just whether or not the baby itself is human - disregards the "known to be human" lives of everyone else involved - including the baby's human life after they're born! One life is never judged as more important than any other. All lives are equal.
Figuring out when the fetus is "human" doesn't help us draw a line for abortion or not.
However, it does help us figure out how complicated the baby's involvement is for the baby's aspect of the entire moral decision.
It's an important part that should never be ignored. But also not a part that over-shadows all the other parts.
My idea is that because pregnancies are on such a sliding scale - as the baby develops from non-human, into being human... then the portion of the baby's humanness should also be considered on a sliding scale - given much less weight near the beginning of a pregnancy when we know the baby is not human - and much more weight near the end of a pregnancy when we know the baby is fully human.
But all the other aspects still need to be considered as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-01-2018 12:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 08-02-2018 8:43 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 08-02-2018 11:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 183 of 441 (837467)
08-02-2018 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
08-01-2018 4:37 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
I think you start with your honest feelings and I would label anyone a psychopath that didn’t feel that the deliberate destruction of a human embryo was in some way a harm and something that should be avoided if possible. Can you at least admit that?
Seems like a very loaded statement.
If by "some way a harm" you include things along the lines of "the way I feel bad when swatting a mosquito" - then I agree with you.
If by "some way a harm" you intend to imply a level of significance around harming another fully intelligent being - then I don't agree with you.
Wrong again. It is abundantly clear that there are no ‘answers’ but you still need to decide. So how do you do it? What do you feel is right.
For what it's worth, I agree that this is true and "what you feel is right" is an excellent starting point. But also a terrible idea if you intend no further attempt at investigation to try and improve your chances at getting the "best possible" answer for the scenario. ("Best possible" may very well still be a decision with very negative consequences.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2018 4:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Tangle, posted 08-03-2018 4:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 186 of 441 (837485)
08-03-2018 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by NoNukes
08-02-2018 11:06 PM


Re: For reference: A twelve-weeks ultrasound
NoNukes writes:
If brain death is established, nothing else is necessary.
Do you happen to know the term for the sort of idea I'm describing, then?
When someone's on life-support - and the family is deciding to keep them on or off - I'm assuming the doctor has already decided that the "medically-measured life" is now gone and leaves it to the family to decide when they are ready to remove life-support.
That is, if the medical team thinks the person is "still alive" - I don't think the family ever really gets a choice to 'remove life-support' or not, do they?
Does such a state have another name?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 08-02-2018 11:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2018 4:53 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 257 of 441 (837667)
08-07-2018 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Tangle
08-07-2018 10:58 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Phat writes:
You mentioned that the medical experts would tell us when such a date would be. Thus is it true that you advocate a definite point beyond which there is no option?
Yes. Though that point will change as medical knowledge changes. Again, assuming a purely elective procedure.
I don't know if any woman has ever had an abortion as a "purely elective procedure."
However - if you mean to imply the point where "killing the fetus becomes killing a human being" then it makes some sense.
I agree that the point will change as medical knowledge changes.
I suspect that as knowledge reaches better and better levels - this point will be different for each and every baby.
Some very early in the pregnancy - if this particular baby is a quick developer.
Some later in the pregnancy - if this particular baby is a slow developer.
However, I don't think crossing such a point would mean there is "no option" either. That's naive thinking.
It simply makes the decision much more complicated.
The mother's health needs to be considered, the lives of all those involved in raising the child, as well as the expectation of a decent life for the baby.
To presume that everything will be fine if the baby just makes it past birth... is to ignore the complications involved in "being human."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 10:58 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 12:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 271 of 441 (837694)
08-07-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Tangle
08-07-2018 12:10 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
They decide that having an unplanned child right now would be inconvenient for whatever reason.
That sounds like a dumbing down of the process involved to a silly level.
I don't think any woman choosing to go through with an abortion would describe the un-wanted child as being "inconvenient" for them.
Phrases like "inability to provide proper care for another human being" don't sound like something is merely "inconvenient."
I'm not saying anything about complications such as rape, medical emergencies or foetuses found to be with life damaging deformities. I'm trying to deal only with elective abortion and what people feel about it.
Fully agreed.
And the complications of "being human" go far beyond those of rape, medical emergencies or life-damaging deformities. To think that everything else is "just fine" is again missing all the serious and important complications of "being human."
Such situations still demand that the following all be reviewed, in depth:
The baby's human-ness.
The woman's health.
Any care-giver's health.
Any care-giver's ability to provide resources for the baby.
Expectations for the baby to have a decent life.
"Health" here is not merely in a can-physically-have-a-baby or not sort of sense.
It is a catch-all word to include personal well-being.
It includes the physical changes (hormone and body related) that the pregnant woman will have to go through - even if she's medically expected "not to die" from having the baby. These are not light changes and a medical procedure to avoid them can hardly be called "elective" in any rational sense of the term.
It includes the woman's (and care-giver's) mental state, and their desire to have a baby.
Why would anyone want a baby to be brought into a family that doesn't want a baby? - That's inhumane.
Deciding on things like 'what you want' vs. 'unplanned circumstances' where inhumane ideas are at stake can hardly be dumbed down to words like "inconvenient."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 12:10 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 2:45 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024