The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Says you. I never said I want abortion to be okay I'm just exercising avenues for why it may be acceptable in certain cases.

I completely agree.

You say "says you" but then you agree with me in the case of a coma that can be cured that currently having awareness is not important as long as they will get it at some point. Do you not think that takes away from the argument that abortion is ok as long as it's not currently aware? It will be very shortly, just like the baby in the curable coma.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No Sam not quite, what I'm trying to do is challenge the black and white nature of your argument. If I had Alzheimer's or knew I was going to get it my wish would be to have my life ended once I became a drooling mess and a burden. If someone said to me "I ended one of my parent's life because in reality what was left was a shell" I would not judge them as murderers.

I support euthanasia because it's taking away pain and suffering from someone who has no chance of recovery but if the person has an extremely good chance of recovery it's not called euthanasia anymore. Being an unaware foetus is not a permanent, 'incurable condition'. Would you judge them as murderers if there was a cure for Alzheimer's coming out next month but they just didn't want to wait?

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say "says you" but then you agree with me in the case of a coma that can be cured that currently having awareness is not important as long as they will get it at some point. Do you not think that takes away from the argument that abortion is ok as long as it's not currently aware? It will be very shortly, just like the baby in the curable coma.

No I wouldn't agree absolutely it depends on the case and shouldn't be taken lightly. I can't agree some tissue with the potential to become a baby is "just like the baby in the curable coma".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I support euthanasia because it's taking away pain and suffering from someone who has no chance of recovery but if the person has an extremely good chance of recovery it's not called euthanasia anymore. Being an unaware foetus is not a permanent, 'incurable condition'.

Yes.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you judge them as murderers if there was a cure for Alzheimer's coming out next month but they just didn't want to wait?

I think you know the answer to that.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No I wouldn't agree absolutely it depends on the case and shouldn't be taken lightly. I can't agree some tissue with the potential to become a baby is "just like the baby in the curable coma".

It's not "just like" it but the criteria you were using was that it's ok to kill it because it's not aware. So what's the difference between a baby that has never been aware but soon will be and a foetus that has never been aware but soon will be?

What I'm trying to point out here is that being aware is an arbitrary condition that is placed on the foetus to make it ok to kill it because placing the same condition on something else doesn't result in the same conclusion, therefore being aware isn't really what matters

sink

My entire moral fabric is based upon the concept that it is wrong to harm another individual. In order to be an individual one has to possess a conscience, one has to have the capacity of awareness that one is being wronged. There are also degrees of conscientiousness, for example a chimpanzee is more aware than an ant. There does not appear to be a specific point in nature to which we should assign full human rights and no rights so we should not arbitrarily assign one. As such rights should be assigned to individuals on a gradient. We already do this for humans who are past the point of birth. A 5 year old does not have the right to decide to eat candy all day, however an 18 year is inferred that right.

A foetus less than 8 weeks in development has no form of conscience whatsoever, assuming the mother carrying the foetus has a fully developed human level of conscience and so rights should only be assigned to the mother. Past this point the foetus will begin developing a conscience and therefore the foetus should be given rights but those rights are still inferior to the rights of the mother. If the foetus develops a serious incurable condition that will place a heavy burden upon the mother, the mother has the right to protect her own quality of life and terminate the pregnancy up to a point of say 18 weeks. (I'm not entirely sure at which point a higher level rights should be conferred to the foetus so any examples given are for illustrative purposes only.) The foetus should be continue to be conferred greater rights as it develops.

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not "just like" it but the criteria you were using was that it's ok to kill it because it's not aware. So what's the difference between a baby that has never been aware but soon will be and a foetus that has never been aware but soon will be?

What I'm trying to point out here is that being aware is an arbitrary condition that is placed on the foetus to make it ok to kill it because placing the same condition on something else doesn't result in the same conclusion, therefore being aware isn't really what matters

It does matter (to me anyways) because the mother should be able to decide to not go through with up to a point where there isn't even a resemblence of conciousness. And before you ask I don't think that is the same as a baby about to be born because at that stage its clear that one person is going to come from another and that the mother agrees with that scenario.

Sink ideas are what I'm trying to get at.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It does matter (to me anyways) because the mother should be able to decide to not go through with up to a point where there isn't even a resemblence of conciousness. And before you ask I don't think that is the same as a baby about to be born because at that stage its clear that one person is going to come from another and that the mother agrees with that scenario.

Sink ideas are what I'm trying to get at.

Now that's a different argument altogether. That is an argument for the mother's rights outweighing the foetus's. It is not an argument for why a foetus shouldn't have any rights.

Your original argument was that the foetus shouldn't have rights because it's not aware. I then showed that being aware is not the defining difference because you think a non-aware baby should have rights as long as it can be made to be aware. Surely it either has rights or it doesn't? Why should the consent of someone else affect whether something has rights or not? Can I decide that you don't have rights?

Or is it as I've been saying all along, that the non-awareness of the foetus is an excuse used to justify subjugating another human being's rights by making out it doesn't have them? Would it not be more accurate to say "the foetus has a right to life but the mother's right not be be pregnant supersedes it"?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Awareness is one of those things that people tack on because they want abortion to be ok that doesn't really apply to any other circumstances. It's one of the "linguistic somersaults" I've been talking about.

It really isn't

It is identifying the property or properties of humanity that we hold valuable, and why we do.

To me saying we can't kill a life form because it is human is ridiculous unless it is followed with an argument as to why humans are special, ie what properties they have that are valuable. Otherwise you might as well just be saying you can't kill species X because it is species X

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

It really isn't

It is identifying the property or properties of humanity that we hold valuable, and why we do.

To me saying we can't kill a life form because it is human is ridiculous unless it is followed with an argument as to why humans are special, ie what properties they have that are valuable. Otherwise you might as well just be saying you can't kill species X because it is species X

Right so I'll ask you the same question: if there was a baby was born in a coma who was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him, would you object to pulling the plug?

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so I'll ask you the same question: if there was a baby was born in a coma who was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him, would you object to pulling the plug?

Yes without a good reason, pulling the plug is not justified. The mother has already gone through the pain of childbirth, so her rights no longer supersede that of the baby. If she is not capable of caring for it the baby should ideally be adopted by willing parents, if none are available the baby should be placed with a foster family until a suitable permanent home is found. The only justification for abortion is that the mother does not wish to go trough with the pregnancy for whatever reason, once the baby is born the choice has already been made.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so I'll ask you the same question: if there was a baby was born in a coma who was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him, would you object to pulling the plug?

Yes I would object, because the growth of this human has passed the point where it is conferred with rights. If it has a fully functioning brain and nervous system and only some curable defect is affecting this then all efforts should be made to keep it alive.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes I would object, because the growth of this human has passed the point where it is conferred with rights. If it has a fully functioning brain and nervous system and only some curable defect is affecting this then all efforts should be made to keep it alive.

Is it growth that confers it with rights? I thought it was awareness? It doesn't have a functioning brain if it's not aware.

sink wrote: »

Yes without a good reason, pulling the plug is not justified. The mother has already gone through the pain of childbirth, so her rights no longer supersede that of the baby

Now this is the correct answer. It's not a pseudo-scientific, hand waving justification of why something shouldn't be conferred with rights, it's an acknowledgement of what's actually happening, ie a human being is growing inside the woman but its right to life conflicts with the mother's right to bodily integrity and you consider the woman's rights more important.

That idea doesn't sit comfortably with some people so it's much easier to come up with a justification for why it shouldn't have rights instead of acknowledging the reality that it has rights but you're denying them because you think someone else's are more important. If people are going to be pro-choice they should at least be honest with themselves about what they're doing

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so I'll ask you the same question: if there was a baby was born in a coma who was not aware but there was a treatment coming on the market next month that would cure him, would you object to pulling the plug?

Yes. For the same reason I don't think you can kill someone who is sleeping.

There is a difference between being unconscious and not having a brain. People in a coma have a brain and have brain activity. They have a neural network that has formed (and is still forming) that contains their personality and consciousness. They have all the traits that I would consider valuable and important in human existence.

The difference between a healthy person and a person in a coma is the difference between a computer turned on and turned off, not the difference between a computer and a toaster.

If it is possible to save the brain that has already formed, possible to save the neural pattern that is the "person", then that should be done.

If the question was put (in some what of a science fiction fashion) that the baby was born without a brain but there was this operation that could cause the brain to grow very quickly and the baby would have a brain in 2 days then I would think it would be perfectly fine to kill the baby then and there if the parents so wished.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. For the same reason I don't think you can kill someone who is sleeping.

There is a difference between being unconscious and not having a brain. People in a coma have a brain and have brain activity.

I think you're misunderg the question there Wicknight. I meant that the baby has no brain activity.

Wicknight wrote: »

They have a neural network that has formed (and is still forming) that contains their personality and consciousness. They have all the traits that I would consider valuable and important in human existence.

So awareness isn't what you consider valuable anymore? Fair enough

Wicknight wrote: »

If the question was put (in some what of a science fiction fashion) that the baby was born without a brain but there was this operation that could cause the brain to grow very quickly and the baby would have a brain in 2 days then I would think it would be perfectly fine to kill the baby then and there if the parents so wished.

I don't really know how to answer that other than to say: I don't believe that for a second. Does anyone else think Wicknight would throw a new born baby in the bin if there was an operation that could save its life?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you're misunderg the question there Wicknight. I meant that the baby has no brain activity.

The answer would still be yes if it is possible for the patient to regain brain activity.

Again it is like a PC that has been turned off. Can you restore it, and thus restore all the important data.

If it is possible for the baby to regain what has been shut down by what ever is causing the lack of brain activity then of course this should be attempted.

Once the baby has developed a brain there is no going back, you cannot terminate the life without destroying something of value. Which is why I'm very unnerved about the idea of late term abortions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So awareness isn't what you consider valuable anymore? Fair enough

"Awareness" wasn't actually my term, so getting pedantic with me is not very helpful.

I do consider it valuable but you cannot divorce the ability to be aware from the underlying mechanics that allow a person to be conscious and aware and decides what they are like when conscious and aware (if you could I wouldn't consider the physical brain itself to be valuable). Awareness is something that emerges from the higher functions of the brain.

At the moment you need the higher functions of the brain to be able to do this and thus they themselves are very valuable. If we eventually develop the ability to transfer a persons consciousness, the neural network of the brain, around to other donor brains or to computers then the physical brain itself will become less valuable, but at the moment it is the only machine that can store and process someone's consciousness, and as such is immensely valuable and should be protected because if it is lost the person is lost.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't really know how to answer that other than to say: I don't believe that for a second. Does anyone else think Wicknight would throw a new born baby in the bin if there was an operation that could save its life?

A new born baby without a brain.

And I didn't say I would do it, if I wanted a child I would have no problem waiting 2 days for the babies brain to develop (for those just joining this is a sci-fi thought experiment, we aren't talking about real medicine here).

What I said was that I would have no objection to anyone killing it (a sort of post birth abortion) because it does not have a brain and thus has not developed yet the property of human existence I hold to have value. The fact that the baby is still alive (some how, again sci-fi) would mean very little to me, no more than a brain dead person alive on a life support machine with irreversible brain damage (the closes we get to the idea of someone alive without a brain).

You can create a new consciousness, a new person, and put it in this baby but there is no person current in existence that you need to save. The person that would normally inhabit the baby does not exist and never existed. They never developed the personhood in the brain. The baby is simply a biological shell.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

The answer would still be yes if it is possible for the patient to regain brain activity.

Again it is like a PC that has been turned off. Can you restore it, and thus restore all the important data.

If it is possible for the baby to regain what has been shut down by what ever is causing the lack of brain activity then of course this should be attempted.

Once the baby has developed a brain there is no going back, you cannot terminate the life without destroying something of value. Which is why I'm very unnerved about the idea of late term abortions.

You're still misunderstanding it. The baby in this hypothetical situation did not lose brain activity, it never had it. You would be giving it brain activity, not restoring it.

Wicknight wrote: »

A new born baby without a brain.

And I didn't say I would do it, if I wanted a child I would have no problem waiting 2 days for the babies brain to develop (for those just joining this is a sci-fi thought experiment, we aren't talking about real medicine here).

What I said was that I would have no objection to anyone killing it (a sort of post birth abortion) because it does not have a brain and thus has not developed yet the property of human existence I hold to have value. The fact that the baby is still alive (some how, again sci-fi) would mean very little to me, no more than a brain dead person alive on a life support machine with irreversible brain damage (the closes we get to the idea of someone alive without a brain).

You can create a new consciousness, a new person, and put it in this baby but there is no person current in existence that you need to save. The person that would normally inhabit the baby does not exist and never existed. They never developed the personhood in the brain. The baby is simply a biological shell.

I know what you're saying, that because the baby doesn't have a brain you'd have no problem 'aborting' it even after birth even if medicine can give it one in two days. I responded to that with "I don't believe that for a second" and I still don't

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're still misunderstanding it. The baby in this hypothetical situation did not lose brain activity, it never had it. You would be giving it brain activity, not restoring it.

It must have had it at some point Sam, the brain would not grow otherwise.

If it never had brain activity that would be equivalent to the baby without a brain analogy as the neural network would never have formed (and thus neither the personality and consciousness), and I would again have no issue with its life being terminated (killed).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I responded to that with "I don't believe that for a second" and I still don't

I don't really care, that is your issue.

And I didn't say "aborting", I said killing. There is no need to put quotations around what I said (or this case didn't actually say) in an effort to make it appear that I am shying away from anything.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

It must have had it at some point Sam, the brain would not grow otherwise.

So the brain can't grow unless there's brain activity How can it be active if it hasn't grown yet?

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't really care, that is your issue.

And I didn't say "aborting", I said killing. There is no need to put quotations around what I said (or this case didn't actually say) in an effort to make it appear that I am shying away from anything.

You said 'a sort of post birth abortion', which i shortened to 'abortion' as in it's not really called abortion because it's not in the woman anymore

If you want to tell me that you'd have no problem throwing a fully grown, already born baby in the bin even if there was a medical procedure that could make it perfectly normal in two days you have that right but I'm just going to go ahead and stick with "I don't believe that for a second"

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is it growth that confers it with rights? I thought it was awareness? It doesn't have a functioning brain if it's not aware.

Yes, it is growth, imo, that confers it with rights. The same way a human that grows to a certain age is suddenly conferred the right to copulate or drink alcohol... etc.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now this is the correct answer.

No, there is no correct answer, there is only subjective opinions. Just because its an answer you can understand does not make it any more "correct".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If people are going to be pro-choice they should at least be honest with themselves about what they're doing

What? Who isn't being honest with themselves? You are failing to see that this is all just arguments over shades of gray. Sink thinks that up until birth the womans rights come first, I disagree, I believe that after a certain period of growth the babies rights are equal to that of the mother regarding value of their life. Sinks opinion is equal to mine because he is just picking an arbitrary point, drawing a line in the sand then explaining his reasoning. Which is what we are all doing. It doesn't matter where the lines in the sand are.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So the brain can't grow unless there's brain activity

Yes, the brain grows by forming neural pathways. That is brain activity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want to tell me that you'd have no problem throwing a fully grown, already born baby in the bin even if there was a medical procedure that could make it perfectly normal in two days you have that right but I'm just going to go ahead and stick with "I don't believe that for a second"

Perhaps you can explain to me why I should have an issue with that? If the baby does not have a brain it is basically nothing more than a collection of human organs.

If I "threw it in the bin" what actually would be lost?

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes, it is growth, imo, that confers it with rights. The same way a human that grows to a certain age is suddenly conferred the right to copulate or drink alcohol... etc.

So if someone is brain damaged would you fight someone who tried to pull the plug because the body is still growing? That's pretty much the same situation as the non-aware baby.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What? Who isn't being honest with themselves? You are failing to see that this is all just arguments over shades of gray. Sink thinks that up until birth the womans rights come first, I disagree, I believe that after a certain period of growth the babies rights are equal to that of the mother regarding value of their life. Sinks opinion is equal to mine because he is just picking an arbitrary point, drawing a line in the sand then explaining his reasoning. Which is what we are all doing. It doesn't matter where the lines in the sand are.

No Goduznt Xzst, you are still failing to understand the point I am making despite me clarifying it probably ten times. The people who are not being honest with themselves are the ones who are denying medical realities and what is actually happening so they can live with themselves, such as people fight me when I try to assign the word 'life' to a foetus because of the repercussions of doing so even though the word can be objectively, medically assigned to it. The people who respond to "life begins at conception" with the objectively incorrect "no it doesn't" rather than the subjective "that doesn't matter, rights don't begin then"

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, the brain grows by forming neural pathways. That is brain activity.

ummmmmmm, no it's not. That's brain growth. Brain activity is the electrical activity, the stuff that shows up on those scans they do in medical experiments, like when they move their arm and part of the brain lights up. Your consciousness in effect. Goduznt Xzst, see this post for someone denying medical realities.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain to me why I should have an issue with that? If the baby does not have a brain it is basically nothing more than a collection of human organs.

If I "threw it in the bin" what actually would be lost?

What would be lost would be a human being. Perhaps Goduznt Xzst or CerebralCortex, two pro-choice people, can explain to you why they wouldn't?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ummmmmmm, no it's not. That's brain growth. Brain activity is the electrical activity, the stuff that shows up on those scans they do in medical experiments

Groan.

"Brain growth" as you call it involves and requires the electrical firing of neurons, which is why is being measured in "medical experiments"

The brain will not grow if it is not capable of activity (even using the narrow definition of activity meaning the firing of neurons). The baby would not have developed a brain capable of saving if it was never able to have brain activity.

I would also point out that all this is rather beside the point as well, you seem more interested in semantic arguments than the issue.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What would be lost would be a human being

A human being without a brain is of no inherent value. That is why we turn off life support machines of brain dead patients, the person is considered already to have died.

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst, see this post for someone denying medical realities.

Thanks Sam, yeah I read your post and agree, you are denying medical realities.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan.

"Brain growth" as you call it involves and requires the electrical firing of neurons, which is why is being measured in "medical experiments"

The brain will not grow if it is not capable of activity (even using the narrow definition of activity meaning the firing of neurons). The baby would not have developed a brain capable of saving if it was never able to have brain activity.

Regardless of the fact that that is not true in any way, shape or form and groaning does not make it true (a neuron must first grow before it can fire), it's beside the point. I'm asking you to consider a hypothetical situation

Wicknight wrote: »

A human being without a brain is of no inherent value. That is why we turn off life support machines of brain dead patients, the person is considered already to have died.

So ask Goduznt Xzst and CerebralCortex why they wouldn't do it then.


And would you turn off the life support machine of a brain dead patient if there was a treatment that could bring their brain back to life? The point being that just because it doesn't have value in Wicknight's opinion at this very instant does not mean that no effort should be made if it can be given what Wicknight considers to be valuable

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Thanks Sam, yeah I read your post and agree, you are denying medical realities.

This is actually starting to hurt my head. First you're saying that it's all subjective and now you're saying it's me who's denying realities. Which realities would these be that you've now realised are objective and it's possible to be objectively wrong on?

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So ask Goduznt Xzst and CerebralCortex why they wouldn't do it then.

Are you trying to get us to reach some consensus here? It's not going to happen, we might as well be arguing flavors of ice cream (btw cherry garcia all the way)

and anyway it's a moot point as I agree with Wicknight, a body without a brain is of no value. As the Klingons would say "it is only a worthless shell, discard it as you see fit"

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Are you trying to get us to reach some consensus here? It's not going to happen, we might as well be arguing flavors of ice cream (btw cherry garcia all the way)

and anyway it's a moot point as I agree with Wicknight, a body without a brain is of no value. As the Klingons would say "it is only a worthless shell, discard it as you see fit"

Wicknight asked me to say why it shouldn't be killed and so I referred him to two pro choice people who said it shouldn't be killed. Although apparently you've changed your mind since the last page.......

edit: I forgot sink also said it shouldn't be killed. Ask him too

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wicknight asked me to say why it shouldn't be killed and so I referred him to two pro choice people who said it shouldn't be killed.

Yes but my reasons for saying it shouldn't be killed was under the assumption that you accepted the brain was active during formation and growth. Under this hypothethical, where no brain exists in the body and theres the possibility to grow one in 2 days (seriously I can't help but laugh when typing this) then yes the body is of no value.

A baby with a fully formed brain who is born in a coma (a coma meaning unconsciousness but the presence of brain activity that controls blood flow, oxygen intake, the nervous system... etc) should be saved.

A baby without a brain (which is a different hypothethical altogether to your original) is of no value.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes but my reasons for saying it shouldn't be killed was under the assumption that you accepted the brain was active during formation and growth. Under this hypothethical, where no brain exists in the body and theres the possibility to grow one in 2 days (seriously I can't help but laugh when typing this) then yes the body is of no value.

A baby with a fully formed brain who is born in a coma (a coma meaning unconsciousness but the presence of brain activity that controls blood flow, oxygen intake, the nervous system... etc) should be saved.

A baby without a brain (which is a different hypothethical altogether to your original) is of no value.

Right so the problem was you misunderstood the hypothetical situation and assumed I meant it had had brain activity at some point and then lost it. Fair enough

But, regardless of whether it is at this very instant of no value in your estimation, would you still have no objection if it could be 'given value' in 48 hours? It's a hypothetical situation remember and I'm not suggesting we actually build such a device.

The only comparison I can think of to such a situation is someone who gets the paper they print money on but says "ah sure this is worthless, throw it in the bin", rather than going through the hassle of actually putting it through the printer

Goduznt Xzst

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so the problem was you misunderstood the hypothetical situation and assumed I meant it had had brain activity at some point and then lost it. Fair enough

I didn't misunderstand anything. Your hypothethical said the baby was in a coma. For a brain to be in a coma it has to have activity. It appears you don't understand your own hypothethical which is why Wicknight had to clarify that the only way for it to be true would be for there to be no brain at all.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I didn't misunderstand anything. Your hypothethical said the baby was in a coma. For a brain to be in a coma it has to have activity. It appears you don't understand your own hypothethical which is why Wicknight had to clarify that the only way for it to be true would be for there to be no brain at all.

I apologise, maybe I wasn't clear enough by using the word coma. A brain that is fully active but unconscious is absolutely no different to any other person in a curable coma making the hypothethical situation completely pointless so I thought the logical connection would be made that there had never been any activity.

edit: Wicknight's assertion that there would have to be brain activity in the sense of conscious or electrical activity in order for the brain to grow is just not true btw. The electrical activity is allowed as a result of the growth, it does not cause it