At what age does life begin?

Erinfan

Although this pic is not about abortion it raises the question of what stage begins the life and can redefine our justifications for or against abortion.
Many opponents of abortion who did it for religion beliefs are wrong since the holy Bible says “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7).
Proponents of late term abortion are also wrong because this photo shows clearly that the baby is very conscious creature.

---

The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.

The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta . She knew of Dr Bruner's remarkable Surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt Univ Med Ctr in Nashville , he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger.

Dr Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope .' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'

Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person.'Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful.

---

Find more on:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

Oryx

That text is copied from a viral email which gets about a bit. The photo link is broken, but Ive seen it.

This episode is emotive, but it is a contentious one. Firstly it is disputed that the child 'reached' out. The doctor is quoted in one online source as saying he lifted the hand, which then gripped his finger, he says both mother and child were anaesthetised. All babies have a grab reflex, it certainly indicates life. Im not sure it indicates conciousness.

Turtwig

Me personally I don't like the use of the word "life" in this context as it is far too vague. I prefer the term "person".

seenitall

Malty_T wrote: »

Me personally I don't like the use of the word "life" in this context as it is far too vague. I prefer the term "person".

Huh? I don't see any sense in that at all. A person is always a life. Otherwise it is not a person yet/any more. Unless you want to differentiate between animal and human life - is that it? But why would you want to do that?

Erinfan

Oryx wrote: »

That text is copied from a viral email which gets about a bit. The photo link is broken, but Ive seen it.

This episode is emotive, but it is a contentious one. Firstly it is disputed that the child 'reached' out. The doctor is quoted in one online source as saying he lifted the hand, which then gripped his finger, he says both mother and child were anaesthetised. All babies have a grab reflex, it certainly indicates life. Im not sure it indicates conciousness.

Sorry!

I thought it was a software problem on my computer.
For those who did not get an idea of the amazing pic that's the link:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs607.snc4/58693_421558886129_521226129_4952065_4503819_n.jpg

liah

Might wanna read the rest of this, OP.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

Erinfan

Oryx wrote: »

All babies have a grab reflex, it certainly indicates life. Im not sure it indicates conciousness.

Sir only living bodies have reflex,conciousness ,iris tendency to close if iritated by beam of light and others signs indicating life.

The iris test is the fastest way usually perform by physicians to know with certainty if the person is still alive.

Oryx

I did say it indicates life. But the text that often accompanies the picture claims the grasp was a conscious act by the child.

looksee

When 'life' begins is a bit irrelevant. A foetus is alive from the moment of conception, it could not develop otherwise. But you could say that a virus, or an insect, or a limb is alive, but it would not be a moral issue to our society to remove it. (Other societies might have a problem with killing or removing these 'live' things.)

The religious quotation (which I could not understand) is also irrelevant, as that also deals with opinion. However if the Church believes that a foetus is a person from conception, maybe it should be baptised as soon as it is recognised, or even perhaps do a provisional baptism every month, just in case there is a foetus there. Why wait until the child has survived the most dangerous part of it's existence, getting to and surviving birth.

So the question then is, does the foetus become a person at conception, or when it is independently viable, or at some other point? At that stage it ceases to be a scientific question and becomes a personal opinion.

Since in most cases personal opinions are not personal at all, but product of social and religious belief, then weight of opinion will go to the group that has been the most willing to accept other people's opinions, but it is still just opinion.

Ickle Magoo

looksee wrote: »

When 'life' begins is a bit irrelevant. A foetus is alive from the moment of conception...

From the moment of conception you have a zygote, a foetus is generally defined as post embryonic.

Black Swan

Is sperm living? Is it not life? It contains half the genetic code, as does the female egg, and both are very much alive. But it is incomplete, as are the zygote or fetus in the womb? So the prevailing opinion draws a line in the sand, that changes over time.

Zombrex

I always think the term when life "begins" is a bit odd. Life never stops. We are, in essence, self replicating chemical reaction. That reaction has been going on on Earth for 4 billion years. It only stops when you are dead. It never starts.

It is like looking at a burning building and asking at what point did the fire on the north window "begin". Or asking what happened to the individual droplet running down a window in the rain when it runs into a pool of water.

We make descriptive distinction of individuals because we have evolved brains that process human interactions that way, but that is how we perceive the world rather than how the world is.

The Corinthian

As others have pointed out 'life' is a misleading term as sperm, blood cells or even a heart is 'alive'. The debate presently centers more around when it becomes a 'person', although it could (and arguably should) center around when it becomes an organism.

As an organism, it would to some degree, be capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole. In this regard, this happens pretty much early on in development; cells divide, homoeostasis is present, it grows of its own accord and begins to develop to maturity straight away. Response to stimuli is a bit more difficult to measure, but is certainly observable before long.

It should also be noted that it is a separate organism, genetically, and otherwise. It may require the womb to survive, but it is not tied to any other organism for this and will develop to maturity in the right environment regardless - IVF and surrogacy have demonstrated this.

The debate on when it becomes a person is largely philosophical, with science simply there to determine at what point the philosophical criteria are met. These tend to center upon humanity's unique intellectual properties, and thus it is defined as a person when it shares the beginnings of the mind that make humans special.

In reality, the whole debate is completely politicized with both sides attempting to portray it as a baby or a ball of cells accordingly and arguments weighing in more on philosophy designed to validate a required date that will allow or disallow termination.

My own view is that it is a 'person' at or shortly after conception on the basis that it is a new human organism. However, this does not automatically confer any automatic rights to said organism - that is another can of worms altogether. Unfortunately, this can of worms is rarely touched upon, as both pro-life and pro-choice groups are typically too busy trying to prove it's either a baby or a ball of cells - which is an easier sell for all concerned.

Macha

Very similar to Peter Singer's take on the issue. He says the debate focuses around point of life which is one that cannot be settled and therefore what we should actually be debating is the morality of the taking of a human life and the varying circumstances.

Most people don't want to debate this because it leads us into all sorts of uncomfortable areas like euthanasia, etc, which is understandable to a point.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Most people don't want to debate this because it leads us into all sorts of uncomfortable areas like euthanasia, etc, which is understandable to a point.

It could lead to such discussions, but in reality they would be completely lost on the vast bulk of the population who would switch off once they have been 'convinced' that what they are talking about is either this or this - beyond this point either self-interest (pro-choice) and/or emotion (pro-life) would take over and it's game over.

We're a remarkably stupid species for the most part, I've often thought.

fergalr

I'd like to be clear that I use the follow rough definitions/semantics:



Life - useful metaphor to refer to complex self organising systems - so, include things like trees, fish, zygotes... also things like sufficiently complex systems of a synthetic origin.

Organism - single (in some sense) living biological system

Person - that which has personhood - broadly, sentient life, eg, a sentient human (even an unconscious one) (but excluding a braindead human organism)

The Corinthian wrote: »

As others have pointed out 'life' is a misleading term as sperm, blood cells or even a heart is 'alive'. The debate presently centers more around when it becomes a 'person', although it could (and arguably should) center around when it becomes an organism.

Why should it center on when it becomes an organism? When it becomes a person is surely a much more important criterion?

The Corinthian wrote: »

As an organism, it would to some degree, be capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole. In this regard, this happens pretty much early on in development; cells divide, homoeostasis is present, it grows of its own accord and begins to develop to maturity straight away. Response to stimuli is a bit more difficult to measure, but is certainly observable before long.

It should also be noted that it is a separate organism, genetically, and otherwise. It may require the womb to survive, but it is not tied to any other organism for this and will develop to maturity in the right environment regardless - IVF and surrogacy have demonstrated this.

The debate on when it becomes a person is largely philosophical, with science simply there to determine at what point the philosophical criteria are met. These tend to center upon humanity's unique intellectual properties, and thus it is defined as a person when it shares the beginnings of the mind that make humans special.

In reality, the whole debate is completely politicized with both sides attempting to portray it as a baby or a ball of cells accordingly and arguments weighing in more on philosophy designed to validate a required date that will allow or disallow termination.

My own view is that it is a 'person' at or shortly after conception on the basis that it is a new human organism.

You seem to be saying here that its an organism, therefore its a person?
I dont see this as rational at all? If your definition of person is anything like mine, then surely a zygote wouldnt be one? Are you using a very different definition of person? Whats special about human organisms in particular, that makes them more worth saving (than, say, a plant) if not personhood?

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, this does not automatically confer any automatic rights to said organism - that is another can of worms altogether. Unfortunately, this can of worms is rarely touched upon, as both pro-life and pro-choice groups are typically too busy trying to prove it's either a baby or a ball of cells - which is an easier sell for all concerned.

Yeah, thats a big problem in the debate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It could lead to such discussions, but in reality they would be completely lost on the vast bulk of the population who would switch off once they have been 'convinced' that what they are talking about is either this or this - beyond this point either self-interest (pro-choice) and/or emotion (pro-life) would take over and it's game over.

We're a remarkably stupid species for the most part, I've often thought.

I dont know of another species we compare badly to in the stupidity stakes.
We are stupid compared to ideals we can conceive of though, I guess, for whatever that means.

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

Why should it center on when it becomes an organism? When it becomes a person is surely a much more important criterion?

My problem with 'personhood' is that it is too fuzzy a definition, difficult to define, open to interpretation and prone to problems that require caveats. For example:

broadly, sentient life, eg, a sentient human (even an unconscious one) (but excluding a braindead human organism)

To begin with you can lose sentience - a coma, for example - does that mean you're no longer a person? I know you suggested that you should include an unconscious human, but then TBH, you're contradicting yourself - i.e. a person is "a sentient human, even when it's not" (I would however note that we're actually still sentient when unconscious, but not when in a comatose state). Or do we require a caveat that demands that once you are seen as a 'person' you can no longer lose it?

Then, how do you measure sentience? After all, sentience isn't really all that much, and it certainly should not be confused with sapience. Movement? Response to stimuli? You start getting that by week seven. Prior to that it doesn't really have anything to move, to it's a bit difficult to observe. Does that mean it's not there?

Some go further and argue that you need some sort of brain stem (because that's what's so special about our species), which happens much later. Fine, I suppose, but it is a bit subjective. Wouldn't the development of opposible thumbs be just as good?

This is probably the biggest problem I would have with definitions of 'personhood' is that they're pretty philosophically subjective. Sentience alone arguably makes anything a 'person'. A basic brain stem is not what's so special about our species - our mature brains are, and they don't develop until long after birth. TBH, most of the criteria that are used seem to be based upon how many weeks you want to have for a potential termination, then you go and find some philosophical basis to justify it.

You seem to be saying here that its an organism, therefore its a person?
I dont see this as rational at all? If your definition of person is anything like mine, then surely a zygote wouldnt be one? Are you using a very different definition of person? Whats special about human organisms in particular, that makes them more worth saving (than, say, a plant) if not personhood?

Actually you already argued that it should be an organism - a "sentient human" - the 'human' bit denotes an organism of the Homo sapian species.

But beyond being a human organism, there's nothing really special about a fetus. Then again, there's not a Hell of a lot that's really special about a newborn either - essentially they're only marginally smarter than an earthworm at that stage and only develop personalities and identities later. Indeed, in the hellenistic World you weren't really considered a 'person' until you were around two, and so infanticide was common.

A human organism probably denotes the most basic and absolute definition we have. It's a member of our species, genetically distinct and will develop to maturity as long as it has the right environment. It might need a womb-like environment, but that doesn't mean that its tied to the biological mother for any reason other than practical - and in the case of surrogacy, not even that applies. It's a pretty black and white, biological definition. All the philosophical definitions are not - they're ultimately just opinion.

Of course, even if it is a 'person', that does not imply any automatic rights. No one actually has automatic rights and our rights vary upon many factors. Children do not have the same rights as adults. Prisoners do not have the same rights as non-prisoners. Combatants do not have the same rights as non-combatants. In many cases this includes the right to life.

It is this part of the argument that is, for me, undoubtedly, the core of the issue, not all this 'is it a person' nonsense. Problem is that we can't debate it rationally in our society, because the moment that you accept it is a person at any stage of development, our instinctive need to go cucci-cucci-coo kicks in. And this is why I believe both sides of the abortion argument are completely obsessed with the personhood debate - whoever suggested that it was about winning hearts and minds was only half right.

In the personhood debate, I think the pro-choice camp is eventually going to be doomed to failure in the long term. As medical science progresses, a fetus can be 'saved' and earlier and earlier stages in it's development and this capacity to differentiate itself biologically from it's host environment (the mother) reinforces a popular view that it is a 'person'. Eventually we'll get artificial uteri and when that happens, I think it will be largely game over (depending upon the prevailing morality of society). But that's another discussion.

seenitall

The Corinthian wrote: »

In the personhood debate, I think the pro-choice camp is eventually going to be doomed to failure in the long term. As medical science progresses, a fetus can be 'saved' and earlier and earlier stages in it's development and this capacity to differentiate itself biologically from it's host environment (the mother) reinforces a popular view that it is a 'person'. Eventually we'll get artificial uteri and when that happens, I think it will be largely game over (depending upon the prevailing morality of society). But that's another discussion.

Say wha'?

So, you think that, when medicine in time develops enough, the Western world who will most likely be at the fore-front of this development anyway, will turn around and go: "Sorry women, we know we said abortion is legal, but since we can now take your embryos/fetuses from your body and let them develop in hospitals in order to be adopted or whatever, that's what we will do. Therefore from now on the abortion is illegal again, and if you have an unwanted pregnancy, report to the nearest clinic for fetus 'redistribution'."

(Actually, I know this is not what you have said, as that last paragraph of yours has a more of a metaphorical rather than practical slant, but essentially it seems to me that that is where the situation would lead following your idea to its conclusion.)

I am not pro-"choice" (euphemisms go!) per se, as I believe that abortion means depriving a life. Killing. However, I also believe that no way in heck would abortion have ever been illegal anywhere, if it were men having to carry pregnancies. In other words: it is also a gender equality issue. Evidence: the only countries in the Western world where abortion is still illegal are ones that are greatly patriarchal (by way of a strong and influential Christian Church).

philologos

I'd argue life begins from conception.

Abortion as I see it is something that is too serious to be provided for out of mere choice. Rather it should be considered as an extremely serious procedure only to be carried out in the case where the life of the mother is at risk.

fergalr

The Corinthian wrote: »

My problem with 'personhood' is that it is too fuzzy a definition, difficult to define, open to interpretation and prone to problems that require caveats.

That is indeed a problem with talking about personhood.
But if personhood is the criterion on which we feel, ethically, things pivot, the fact its hard to define doesn't change that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example:

To begin with you can lose sentience - a coma, for example - does that mean you're no longer a person? I know you suggested that you should include an unconscious human, but then TBH, you're contradicting yourself - i.e. a person is "a sentient human, even when it's not" (I would however note that we're actually still sentient when unconscious, but not when in a comatose state). Or do we require a caveat that demands that once you are seen as a 'person' you can no longer lose it?

I dont see any contradiction there. A person with the usual mental ability (so, not braindead etc) is generally sentient. When they are asleep they are still sentient. Probably when they are comatose they aren't (not sufficiently familiar with the neuroscience of comas).
Anyway, there's no contradiction, because I don't think we should kill a comatose person, if there is a chance they might wake up again, not because they are sentient currently, but because we would be destroying the structures without which the previously (and soon to be again) sentient entity would cease to exist.
Which I think is wrong. The distinction is subtle, but its like the distinction between killing a child and deciding to not have sex to produce a child. In both cases there's no longer a child, but it one case you actively stopped a child. (Subtle distinctions here...)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then, how do you measure sentience? After all, sentience isn't really all that much, and it certainly should not be confused with sapience.

There's a lot of different definitions for these terms.
I'm going with the sci-fi definition of sentience here. Its like this self-awareness, higher reasoning thing we have - some people call that sentience and some people call it sapience.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Movement? Response to stimuli? You start getting that by week seven. Prior to that it doesn't really have anything to move, to it's a bit difficult to observe. Does that mean it's not there?

Neither movement nor response to stimuli are sufficient - simple plants have that, as to simple AI robots. And just because something can't be easily percieved doesn't mean it isn't there.
Personally, if it was up to me, I'd draw the line at complex neural structures with 'brainwaves' in them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Some go further and argue that you need some sort of brain stem (because that's what's so special about our species), which happens much later. Fine, I suppose, but it is a bit subjective. Wouldn't the development of opposible thumbs be just as good?

The argument for a brainstem is because brains have got the consciousness in them. No-one says that about opposable thumbs.
Its not because opposable thumbs are unique to our species. The slightest bit of human DNA is unique to our species too - uniqueness isn't a big deal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is probably the biggest problem I would have with definitions of 'personhood' is that they're pretty philosophically subjective. Sentience alone arguably makes anything a 'person'.

They are absolutely subjective, thats a big problem.
But just because something is hard to define doesn't mean we can just choose something else. We might, out of desperation, try and use something else (brain waves, neural structure) as a proxy, but we shouldn't forget its only a proxy.

What definition of sentience are you using that makes 'anything' (eg a rock) a person? That must be a very broad definition?

The Corinthian wrote: »

A basic brain stem is not what's so special about our species - our mature brains are, and they don't develop until long after birth. TBH, most of the criteria that are used seem to be based upon how many weeks you want to have for a potential termination, then you go and find some philosophical basis to justify it.

We don't know how early human high level cognition starts at. We can put lower bounds on it though.

I agree that most of the discussion seems to be people trying to justify whatever they've already decided - if they even get that reasoned about it in the first place.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you already argued that it should be an organism - a "sentient human" - the 'human' bit denotes an organism of the Homo sapian species.

No, I said "Person - that which has personhood - broadly, sentient life, eg, a sentient human". When I said 'eg' I meant that a sentient human is an example of something with personhood. So being a sentient human is sufficient for personhood - but not necessary, nor equivalent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But beyond being a human organism, there's nothing really special about a fetus. Then again, there's not a Hell of a lot that's really special about a newborn either - essentially they're only marginally smarter than an earthworm at that stage and only develop personalities and identities later.

Are you sure about that? I mean, the weight and size of a human baby brain alone is vastly different to that of an earthworm. Not to mention the complexity, the neural structure, the rapid growth in the number of neurons etc?
There mightn't be much thats externally observable in terms of behaviour, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of self organisation and elementary thinking going on inside - which we can crudely see manifested by complex neural structure and brainwaves?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, in the hellenistic World you weren't really considered a 'person' until you were around two, and so infanticide was common.

I have memories from being two; I was sentient then.

The Corinthian wrote: »

A human organism probably denotes the most basic and absolute definition we have. It's a member of our species, genetically distinct and will develop to maturity as long as it has the right environment. It might need a womb-like environment, but that doesn't mean that its tied to the biological mother for any reason other than practical - and in the case of surrogacy, not even that applies. It's a pretty black and white, biological definition. All the philosophical definitions are not - they're ultimately just opinion.

Absolutely, a human organism is the most basic and absolute definition.
That doesn't make it the right one though. Just because its hard to define subtleties doesn't give us a right to ignore them - and indeed, thats quite a dangerous position to take. If - in some sci-fi world - we met an alien species which exhibited behaviour that seems sentient - or maybe a long lost Neanderthal tribe - would you also argue for the above definition on the basis that its well defined, to the expense of all else?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, even if it is a 'person', that does not imply any automatic rights. No one actually has automatic rights and our rights vary upon many factors. Children do not have the same rights as adults. Prisoners do not have the same rights as non-prisoners. Combatants do not have the same rights as non-combatants. In many cases this includes the right to life.

Thats a big claim, and controversial. People may indeed have automatic human rights. Just because they are not as simple to state as 'we always have the right to life' does not mean that we do not have automatically acquired rights to life, in most circumstances.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is this part of the argument that is, for me, undoubtedly, the core of the issue, not all this 'is it a person' nonsense. Problem is that we can't debate it rationally in our society, because the moment that you accept it is a person at any stage of development, our instinctive need to go cucci-cucci-coo kicks in. And this is why I believe both sides of the abortion argument are completely obsessed with the personhood debate - whoever suggested that it was about winning hearts and minds was only half right.

In the personhood debate, I think the pro-choice camp is eventually going to be doomed to failure in the long term. As medical science progresses, a fetus can be 'saved' and earlier and earlier stages in it's development and this capacity to differentiate itself biologically from it's host environment (the mother) reinforces a popular view that it is a 'person'. Eventually we'll get artificial uteri and when that happens, I think it will be largely game over (depending upon the prevailing morality of society). But that's another discussion.

What people popularly might conclude isn't the same as what is actually the case.
If scientists develop a full artificial womb that can take a zygote and grow that independently to a person, that won't mean a zygote is a person.
Even if people popularly think it means that, they'll just be being stupid.
And, if in the far future, we find a way to rearrange matter at an atomic scale from a collection of cheese atoms, into a zygote, it won't mean that the cheese is a person either. Clearly.

You write off the debate about whether or not the organism is a person as nonsense. Your main argument for this is purely on the basis that its a subtle and hard debate to have, or that most people can't have that argument.

I find this a most unconvincing position, akin to that of the guy that writes the book deriding evolution as a mechanism for the creation of humanity, because he doesn't understand it, or thinks its a subtle theory, and less clearcut that just saying 'god made the world'.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue life begins from conception.

Life probably begins from before conception - sperm and eggs are alive too - but certainly there is life at the zygote stage.
But the more interesting and relevant question, I would argue (as I just did) is when personhood begins.

Jakkass wrote: »

Abortion as I see it is something that is too serious to be provided for out of mere choice. Rather it should be considered as an extremely serious procedure only to be carried out in the case where the life of the mother is at risk.

This argument seems to be that if something is serious, people shouldn't be allowed chose it. ('mere' choice).
Cancer treatment is serious. Would you therefore say that people shouldn't be allowed choose whether or not to have it?
Surely whether its serious or not isn't the important point of whether they should be allowed choose it? Surely its got more to do with whether they are the best person to choose, or whether they'd make the right choice, or whether its their right, rather than how serious it is?

The Corinthian

seenitall wrote: »

Say wha'?

I base my prediction on to things. Firstly, is the rather simplistic way that the public considers the issue - typically emotional, visual and working on the basis that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Once a fetus can be shown that it can develop without need of the mother's womb, it makes the whole "it's not a person" or "it's not an individual" argument a very problematic sell.

That fetuses have been surviving at earlier and earlier points in development, in recent years, when born prematurely has been held up as evidence of 'personhood' and resulted in calls for the lowering of the time limit for legal abortions.

Secondly, from a legal perspective in countries where it is available, abortion is about a woman's right to her own body, not as a form of reproductive or birth control. Technically, the death of the fetus is an unfortunate byproduct (or coup de grâce) of the former and so once this is no longer inevitable, then you do end up in a situation whereby the legal basis for abortion, no longer condones it.

Of course, regardless of this, what this means in practical terms, really depends upon a lot of factors - not least the prevailing morality of the time - we're talking 50 years into the future and looking 50 years into the past will quickly show how mercurial morality really is.

Then there is the practical aspect; namely money and resources. Naturally, at that stage, every fetus could be saved, but someone has to pay for it and on this basis (along with natural inertia) most governments would be loathed to do anything about it.

Anyhow, it's just futurology and pretty much an aside in the discussion.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue life begins from conception.

As with the confusion between sapience and sentience, you're confusing the start of life with the start of a new organism.

Also, I'm not certain that it does begin at quite the moment of conception. I can stand corrected, but I'm not certain that a zygote qualifies as an organism.

Abortion as I see it is something that is too serious to be provided for out of mere choice. Rather it should be considered as an extremely serious procedure only to be carried out in the case where the life of the mother is at risk.

Lots of serious things are are provided for out of mere choice.

Let's say at conception we have a new organism, which we take as the definition of a person. Why does it have a right to life? Why does it's rights supersede those of the mother?

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

There's a lot of different definitions for these terms.
I'm going with the sci-fi definition of sentience here. Its like this self-awareness, higher reasoning thing we have - some people call that sentience and some people call it sapience.

That's because it is called sapience - sentience is an oft misused term that really only means one's capacity to sense.

Now if you're talking about sapience (that self-awareness, higher reasoning you were talking about) then infanticide should be permissible. Infants do not possess sapience - that self-awareness, higher reasoning does not develop until long after birth.

The argument for a brainstem is because brains have got the consciousness in them. No-one says that about opposable thumbs.
Its not because opposable thumbs are unique to our species. The slightest bit of human DNA is unique to our species too - uniqueness isn't a big deal.

This is where the whole problem with defining personhood becomes completely subjective. Why is sapience more important than human DNA, if both are unique?

To me is seems like someone had a deadline for abortion in mind and then went off and built their criteria around it. After all, if tomorrow someone discovered that a fetus had already developed brain cells at two weeks, what do you think pro-choice groups would say? "Let's lower the limit?"

What definition of sentience are you using that makes 'anything' (eg a rock) a person? That must be a very broad definition?

I meant any living thing - or at least animal.

We don't know how early human high level cognition starts at. We can put lower bounds on it though.

The first, basic, signs of it will be found 8 to 12 months after birth.

I agree that most of the discussion seems to be people trying to justify whatever they've already decided - if they even get that reasoned about it in the first place.

It's all in the axioms.

Are you sure about that? I mean, the weight and size of a human baby brain alone is vastly different to that of an earthworm. Not to mention the complexity, the neural structure, the rapid growth in the number of neurons etc?

And a Blue Whale's brain is gigantic - hardly makes it the Mekon. Ultimately, at that stage the brain just is not developed yet - this is why some neurological illnesses cannot be detected until much later. It will potentially develop, but potential is something a zygote has too.

I have memories from being two; I was sentient then.

Sapient - at least on a basic level. That age is also when you develop long term memory, which is why you remember. And in ancient Greece or Rome you would have been considered a person by then - prior to that you could be exposed.

Absolutely, a human organism is the most basic and absolute definition.
That doesn't make it the right one though. Just because its hard to define subtleties doesn't give us a right to ignore them - and indeed, thats quite a dangerous position to take.

That's a matter of opinion. That's it's definition is fuzzy (people don't even seem to be able to use the right terminology when defining it) and difficult to measure would actually scream at me that it's not a very sound basis to follow.

If - in some sci-fi world - we met an alien species which exhibited behaviour that seems sentient - or maybe a long lost Neanderthal tribe - would you also argue for the above definition on the basis that its well defined, to the expense of all else?

Is there anything stopping us from arguing that a person is any distinct organism from a sapient species?

Thats a big claim, and controversial. People may indeed have automatic human rights. Just because they are not as simple to state as 'we always have the right to life' does not mean that we do not have automatically acquired rights to life, in most circumstances.

It is a big claim, but not unfounded, and as I said probably what people should be discussing rather than all this personhood nonsense.

What people popularly might conclude isn't the same as what is actually the case.
If scientists develop a full artificial womb that can take a zygote and grow that independently to a person, that won't mean a zygote is a person.

Absolutely - no more so that five minutes before such technology was invented. However, my point was more on the topic of public sentiment than reason.

You write off the debate about whether or not the organism is a person as nonsense. Your main argument for this is purely on the basis that its a subtle and hard debate to have, or that most people can't have that argument.

I've stated that I believe that the human organism is a 'person' (for the purposes of this debate) and that this is by far the best criteria to use - all other criteria are overly subjective, fuzzy and seemingly designed to justify a period for legal abortion as their primary goal.

I have written off the personhood debate as moot, however - it does not matter if it is a person at 20 weeks or 20 seconds - what matters are the rights we ascribe to it. This has nothing to do with how complex or easy it is to define a person.

I find this a most unconvincing position, akin to that of the guy that writes the book deriding evolution as a mechanism for the creation of humanity, because he doesn't understand it, or thinks its a subtle theory, and less clearcut that just saying 'god made the world'.

Again no, I reject it because I understand it and find it flawed on different levels. To begin with, it picks out one thing that is unique about humanity then incorrectly says that it forms at a particular point, when it in reality does so long after birth.

You can argue that perhaps at 20 weeks the fetus is already sapient, but we can't observe this - but such a theory is hardly the basis for such a fundamental definition and realistically you would need to demonstrate this.

You could argue that it's not about sapience, but sentience - but then you would have to revise your time down to at least 7 weeks, not to mention that sentience is not unique to humans.

Or you could argue that the basic neurological matter that will develop into sapience has developed at that stage, but then you're in the realm of potential - and even a zygote has that potential.

Choosing the human organism criteria may be more clear cut, but that's actually the point - Occham's Razor. Once you start picking a criteria that is more fuzzy, then you really have to justify why you are choosing this over what would appear to be the more logical one. Saying that you should not ignore the difficult position does not explain why we should put any emphasis on it either.

What it comes down to is you can pick any criteria you want to define personhood; a brain stem, unique DNA, opposable thumbs, a Y-chromosome, whatever - it's all ultimately subjective. The question is why you pick one over another, is it because it is a more solid criteria or is it because it coincides with another agenda? And in this, I really do get the impression that the brain stem brigade are doing it for the latter reasons.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

Life probably begins from before conception - sperm and eggs are alive too - but certainly there is life at the zygote stage.
But the more interesting and relevant question, I would argue (as I just did) is when personhood begins.

People could define personhood at any criterion that they like. However, that's all it is criterion. I could argue that the criterion for life is the point where you can unicycle while juggling at least 12 oranges and playing the banjo.

However, the life aspect is more important. The sperm and the zygote are alive, but they are not developing human beings. It is from the point of fusion, that the embryo becomes a distinct human life, and from this point where it exhibits growth towards the point of birth, and ultimately as life goes on death.

Personhood, is an arbitrary concept. When something is biologically alive and developing is something where we can put our finger on.

fergalr wrote: »

This argument seems to be that if something is serious, people shouldn't be allowed chose it. ('mere' choice).
Cancer treatment is serious. Would you therefore say that people shouldn't be allowed choose whether or not to have it?

Abortion is more serious than cancer treatment, in that it is the killing of another human being. Therefore, IMO it shouldn't be permitted unless the mothers life is at stake. (I.E - It's better to save one life than lose two)

fergalr wrote: »

Surely whether its serious or not isn't the important point of whether they should be allowed choose it? Surely its got more to do with whether they are the best person to choose, or whether they'd make the right choice, or whether its their right, rather than how serious it is?

It is in this case. I don't believe this to be a "right", rather than an emergency procedure. I don't believe a choice should be allowed to be made in respect to someone else's life.

fergalr

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's because it is called sapience - sentience is an oft misused term that really only means one's capacity to sense.

Ok - I shall henceforth refer to that as sapience.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now if you're talking about sapience (that self-awareness, higher reasoning you were talking about) then infanticide should be permissible. Infants do not possess sapience - that self-awareness, higher reasoning does not develop until long after birth.

I think it would be very hard to argue infants aren't sapient.
Why do you think the self awareness and higher reasoning doesn't develop until long after birth? They could have a fairly developed mind inside themselves even if they aren't behaving intelligently? They have brain mass and complex brain activity which we can observe.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is where the whole problem with defining personhood becomes completely subjective. Why is sapience more important than human DNA, if both are unique?

Sorry, miscommunication there - when I was saying 'personhood' I was referring to sapience - like in this wikipedia context: "In philosophy, "person" may apply to any human or non-human actor who is regarded as self-conscious and capable of certain kinds of higher-level thought;".
So it'd be equivalent to sapience - now I understand what you were saying.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To me is seems like someone had a deadline for abortion in mind and then went off and built their criteria around it. After all, if tomorrow someone discovered that a fetus had already developed brain cells at two weeks, what do you think pro-choice groups would say? "Let's lower the limit?"

Some of them should, really (the people who are pro-choice because they believe the foetus isnt a person yet) - people should modify their beliefs in response to evidence. But I suspect they wouldn't, its such a polarising issue.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I meant any living thing - or at least animal.

The first, basic, signs of it will be found 8 to 12 months after birth.

It's all in the axioms.

And a Blue Whale's brain is gigantic - hardly makes it the Mekon. Ultimately, at that stage the brain just is not developed yet - this is why some neurological illnesses cannot be detected until much later. It will potentially develop, but potential is something a zygote has too.

Sapient - at least on a basic level. That age is also when you develop long term memory, which is why you remember. And in ancient Greece or Rome you would have been considered a person by then - prior to that you could be exposed.

That's a matter of opinion. That's it's definition is fuzzy (people don't even seem to be able to use the right terminology when defining it) and difficult to measure would actually scream at me that it's not a very sound basis to follow.

Is there anything stopping us from arguing that a person is any distinct organism from a sapient species?

That definition - maybe a little circular - certainly makes some sense to me.
I'd just modify it a little and say that they have to be not braindead, and have to have developed to the point of sapience...

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is a big claim, but not unfounded, and as I said probably what people should be discussing rather than all this personhood nonsense.

Absolutely - no more so that five minutes before such technology was invented. However, my point was more on the topic of public sentiment than reason.

I've stated that I believe that the human organism is a 'person' (for the purposes of this debate) and that this is by far the best criteria to use - all other criteria are overly subjective, fuzzy and seemingly designed to justify a period for legal abortion as their primary goal.

I have written off the personhood debate as moot, however - it does not matter if it is a person at 20 weeks or 20 seconds - what matters are the rights we ascribe to it. This has nothing to do with how complex or easy it is to define a person.

Again no, I reject it because I understand it and find it flawed on different levels. To begin with, it picks out one thing that is unique about humanity then incorrectly says that it forms at a particular point, when it in reality does so long after birth.

You can argue that perhaps at 20 weeks the fetus is already sapient, but we can't observe this - but such a theory is hardly the basis for such a fundamental definition and realistically you would need to demonstrate this.

I don't think that at this point in our understanding of sapience, minds, and brains, we have access to a fundamental definition.

You could pick moment of conception - it is absolute, and conservative.
You could also pick moment of birth - also absolute, but I would argue not conservative enough.

My position is less absolute. I think its important not to kill a sapient being, unless there is little choice. I think sapient humans require brains and brain activity, and the time where brains and brain activity occur is where I'd put the lower bound.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You could argue that it's not about sapience, but sentience - but then you would have to revise your time down to at least 7 weeks, not to mention that sentience is not unique to humans.

Or you could argue that the basic neurological matter that will develop into sapience has developed at that stage, but then you're in the realm of potential - and even a zygote has that potential.

Yes, the 'potential' argument is right out.
Two people on a one night stand also have potential, maybe its murder if they use contraception? Barmy argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Choosing the human organism criteria may be more clear cut, but that's actually the point - Occham's Razor. Once you start picking a criteria that is more fuzzy, then you really have to justify why you are choosing this over what would appear to be the more logical one. Saying that you should not ignore the difficult position does not explain why we should put any emphasis on it either.

I dont think occhams razor is correctly applied here.
I put the emphasis on sapience because it seems correct to me - the problem with killing other human life is the killing of sapient entities, like myself. Thats why I end up with the complex question.
I dont just pick the more complex question, all other things being equal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What it comes down to is you can pick any criteria you want to define personhood; a brain stem, unique DNA, opposable thumbs, a Y-chromosome, whatever - it's all ultimately subjective. The question is why you pick one over another, is it because it is a more solid criteria or is it because it coincides with another agenda? And in this, I really do get the impression that the brain stem brigade are doing it for the latter reasons.

Agreed.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

People could define personhood at any criterion that they like. However, that's all it is criterion. I could argue that the criterion for life is the point where you can unicycle while juggling at least 12 oranges and playing the banjo.

Yes, people could define personhood any way they like.
Some definitions are better than others.
Discussions on sapience, human organisms, brainstems, at least make a certain amount of sense. Unicycles do not.

People could define gravity to be a type of milkshake if they wanted to. But that doesn't in any way weaken or impact a discussion on the physics of gravity.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, the life aspect is more important.

Why?

Jakkass wrote: »

The sperm and the zygote are alive, but they are not developing human beings. It is from the point of fusion, that the embryo becomes a distinct human life, and from this point where it exhibits growth towards the point of birth, and ultimately as life goes on death.

Personhood, is an arbitrary concept. When something is biologically alive and developing is something where we can put our finger on.

You could argue they are both arbitrary concepts. But I accept personhood is more difficult to define in an absolute, clearcut sense.

Jakkass wrote: »

Abortion is more serious than cancer treatment, in that it is the killing of another human being. Therefore, IMO it shouldn't be permitted unless the mothers life is at stake. (I.E - It's better to save one life than lose two)

If, by human being, you mean another sentient human, then I think abortion doesn't necessarily kill one.

If, by human being, you mean any human organism, than I think abortion does kill one, but it isn't a big deal, if its done early enough.

For example, the morning after pill kills another human *life* but not another sentient or sapient human.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is in this case. I don't believe this to be a "right", rather than an emergency procedure. I don't believe a choice should be allowed to be made in respect to someone else's life.

Surgeon's make choices like that all the time.
Maybe you mean someone shouldn't be able to kill another sapient human without good reason? I think most people would agree with that.

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

I think it would be very hard to argue infants aren't sapient.

It's not, infants essentially have very little intelligence and no congative skills whatsoever. A gerbil would outsmart them.

Why do you think the self awareness and higher reasoning doesn't develop until long after birth?

Self awareness and higher reasoning doesn't develop until long after birth - the neural pathways simply are not formed.

They could have a fairly developed mind inside themselves even if they aren't behaving intelligently? They have brain mass and complex brain activity which we can observe.

Com'on, you're kind of grasping at straws here - be honest. Infants don't really develop even rudimentary sapience until they are at least eight months old, and even then, it's pretty basic.

Some of them should, really (the people who are pro-choice because they believe the foetus isnt a person yet) - people should modify their beliefs in response to evidence. But I suspect they wouldn't, its such a polarising issue.

I tend to agree - on both sides it has become an article of faith, as it were.

I'd just modify it a little and say that they have to be not braindead, and have to have developed to the point of sapience...

Problem with that is that sapience is a post-natal development, which leads us down the infanticide road.

I don't think that at this point in our understanding of sapience, minds, and brains, we have access to a fundamental definition.

Actually we do - there's loads of understanding of sapience, minds, and brains, to the point that child neurological development is a freshman subject in psychology in many colleges.

My position is less absolute. I think its important not to kill a sapient being, unless there is little choice.

Now you're getting more on my wavelength - that the issue of whether it is a person is secondary to the rights we ascribe them.

I think sapient humans require brains and brain activity, and the time where brains and brain activity occur is where I'd put the lower bound.

You need more than a brain to be sapient. Otherwise all animals would be sapient.

I dont think occhams razor is correctly applied here.

In fairness, I wasn't sure if Occham's razor was the right term to use.

Let me give another example. The geocentric model of the planets had everything going around the Earth. Naturally this led to a lot of funny loop back orbits as people attempted to fit the motion of the planets into this view. Along comes Copernicus and he suggests a Heliocentric model with the Sun at the center - all the orbits were now nice and simple.

Which was more likely to be right?

I put the emphasis on sapience because it seems correct to me - the problem with killing other human life is the killing of sapient entities, like myself. Thats why I end up with the complex question.
I dont just pick the more complex question, all other things being equal.

The problem is that we're not actually born sapient. It takes years for our brains to reach maturity. So what you get, when you're given this 20-week timescale, is actually not sapience, but the start of the organ that will later facilitate sapience - which really is just the potential line again.

Again, I do think that person or not, this is a moot point and the real debate should be about what rights that person has. But, as with geocentrism in the past, it's become a political matter and so the debate remains for the time being mired in personhood.

fergalr

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not, infants essentially have very little intelligence and no congative skills whatsoever. A gerbil would outsmart them.

Self awareness and higher reasoning doesn't develop until long after birth - the neural pathways simply are not formed.

Com'on, you're kind of grasping at straws here - be honest. Infants don't really develop even rudimentary sapience until they are at least eight months old, and even then, it's pretty basic.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The foetus, and the baby, are very vulnerable, and aren't physically capable of transmitting much internal thinking into intelligent real world action. But thats irrelevant to whether or not they are sapient. You could be sapient and unable to communicate (like someone 'locked-in' due to an accident, etc).

So, the question remains, are they sapient internally at some level? Now, clearly, they aren't doing calculus or formal logic in their head - but neither am I when I am asleep and dreaming, and I'm still sapient.

One reason why we might argue for simple intelligence, and early sapience is that there is good research, thats stood fairly well over time, showing that babies recognise the voice of their mother that they've heard while in the womb. So they have basic voice recognition and memory, even prebirth - theres at least some cognition on display there.

Absolutely, there's huge brain development post birth, massive synapse growth etc, but its difficult to say categorically that there couldn't be sapience at an early stage.


As to whether or not, on balance, its more or less likely, I don't know - I dont know enough about the neuroscience. And anyway, our current general scientific understanding of how minds arise from brains is too limited to say definitively.

Personally, I'd tend to err on the side that, as we don't know, we should treat them as sapient, and protect their lives.

This obviously doesn't apply to zygotes, which have no brains, or even to early stage foetus, with no brain activity.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I tend to agree - on both sides it has become an article of faith, as it were.

Problem with that is that sapience is a post-natal development, which leads us down the infanticide road.

Actually we do - there's loads of understanding of sapience, minds, and brains, to the point that child neurological development is a freshman subject in psychology in many colleges.

Neurological development - though obviously related - is not the same as mental development.

We've got reasonable understanding of how the brain develops as humans grow, but we don't have any understanding about how minds arise from complex neural structures in the brain. We know that certain parts of the neural structures are responsible for certain cognitive functions, but we don't know how.
Thus its very hard to say definitively that the neural structures in a late stage foetus couldn't be sapient at some level.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now you're getting more on my wavelength - that the issue of whether it is a person is secondary to the rights we ascribe them.

You need more than a brain to be sapient. Otherwise all animals would be sapient.

In fairness, I wasn't sure if Occham's razor was the right term to use.

Let me give another example. The geocentric model of the planets had everything going around the Earth. Naturally this led to a lot of funny loop back orbits as people attempted to fit the motion of the planets into this view. Along comes Copernicus and he suggests a Heliocentric model with the Sun at the center - all the orbits were now nice and simple.

Which was more likely to be right?

That later is certainly an example of when it makes sense to apply occams razor.
This is getting onto a tangent about occams razor... its important to remember, occams razor is only a heuristic.

Without getting into a discussion on objective vs subjective views of probability, it doesn't mean one theory is more likely to be write in any absolute deductive sense - only that its a good rule of thumb to believe the simpler one.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is that we're not actually born sapient. It takes years for our brains to reach maturity.

Having a mature brain is not the same as being sapient.
Brains don't reach maturity until long after children are sapient.

I'd love to read something making a detailed argument that we definitely aren't born sapient.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So what you get, when you're given this 20-week timescale, is actually not sapience, but the start of the organ that will later facilitate sapience - which really is just the potential line again.

Again, I do think that person or not, this is a moot point and the real debate should be about what rights that person has. But, as with geocentrism in the past, it's become a political matter and so the debate remains for the time being mired in personhood.

I see that perspective- its an interesting one. Personally, I think that if the foetus isn't a person (by which I mean sapient) (and a zygote *certainly* isn't) then the mother can do whatever she likes with it for whatever reason. If the foetus is a sapient person (even if a simple, immature one) - for example very late stage, or after birth - then it becomes much more complex, and the state needs to think about protecting the rights of both people.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

Yes, people could define personhood any way they like.
Some definitions are better than others.
Discussions on sapience, human organisms, brainstems, at least make a certain amount of sense. Unicycles do not.

Unicyles do in a subjective context. This is why we need to look to the actual biology rather than put philosophical definitions around it to justify what would otherwise be considered killing.

Any discussion of personhood is philosophical anthropology, and not dealing with biology. I usually love philosophy, but when philosophy is used to justify things that wouldn't otherwise be justifiable, I get a little uneasy admittedly.

fergalr wrote: »

You could argue they are both arbitrary concepts. But I accept personhood is more difficult to define in an absolute, clearcut sense.

This is why biology should be favoured as a determinant of when life begins rather than personhood. It's too serious to deal with based on arbitrary philosophy.

fergalr wrote: »

If, by human being, you mean another sentient human, then I think abortion doesn't necessarily kill one.

You're only hinging on sentinent as an arbitrary standard of life. Really what you are saying is because life isn't developed enough for your liking that mankind has the right to kill. Again, I could equally say an ability of riding a unicycle, while juggling 25 hot potatoes, while playing a violin as a standard of what can be considered life. It's wholly arbitrary unless we can deal with the actual facts of when the human being formed of sperm and ova starts to exhibit biological growth.

fergalr wrote: »

If, by human being, you mean any human organism, than I think abortion does kill one, but it isn't a big deal, if its done early enough.

Early or late is irrelevant, it is the denial of the right to life to another human.

fergalr wrote: »

For example, the morning after pill kills another human *life* but not another sentient or sapient human.

I would agree that it is an abortifacient.

fergalr wrote: »

Surgeon's make choices like that all the time.
Maybe you mean someone shouldn't be able to kill another sapient human without good reason? I think most people would agree with that.

I'm referring to life or death. I don't believe humans rightfully have the choice of whether or not we should kill another person.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

Unicyles do in a subjective context.

Just because something is a bit subjective doesn't mean 'anything goes'. There's a certain amount of subjectivity to where you draw the line at where sapience begins, but requiring unicycling is clearly ridiculous.
As would be arguing that rocks are sapient.

Another example might be that there is a certain subjectivity to whether a good milkshake should be more thick or milky, and that might be a matter of debate. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be said about the goodness or badness of milkshakes at all, and that if someone serves me a glass of unicycle parts, they can argue its a good milkshake. Even with the subjectivity, some opinions are more sensible than others.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why we need to look to the actual biology rather than put philosophical definitions around it to justify what would otherwise be considered killing.

Actual biology can't tell us, at this stage, when exactly sapience emerges.

It can tell us that a zygote is life but, if you want to get into the nitty gritty, it is arbitrary that we choose to make a biological distinction of classification between [the zygote] and [the sperm and the egg about to become the zygote], vs, say, [the 4 celled zygote] vs [the 40 celled zygote].
There's no absolute ultimate change going on there - its just that as we usually think of biology, we consider the fusion of the egg and sperm to form a human life. But this is moment of change is just a change in a subjective taxonomical distinction we make due to convention. It shouldn't be accorded any special status as such, just because we now consider it a biologically separate organism.

The other point to note is that you keep on mentioning 'killing' and 'killing life'.
Whats the big deal about that? Everyone kills life all the time. My immune system kills simple bacterial life regularly. There's no ethical issue with that.
I don't even have an ethical issue with killing much more advanced life, like a plant. If you mean something else - like 'killing a person' then you should consider using more precise words?

Jakkass wrote: »

Any discussion of personhood is philosophical anthropology, and not dealing with biology. I usually love philosophy, but when philosophy is used to justify things that wouldn't otherwise be justifiable, I get a little uneasy admittedly.



This is why biology should be favoured as a determinant of when life begins rather than personhood. It's too serious to deal with based on arbitrary philosophy.

Biology can't tell us whether something is right or wrong.
Even if you use biology to inform your idea of what 'life' is and isn't, you are still using a philosophical basis to decide whether 'killing' is right or wrong. It doesn't reduce to solely a biological question.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're only hinging on sentinent as an arbitrary standard of life. Really what you are saying is because life isn't developed enough for your liking that mankind has the right to kill.

Does your body ever kill bacteria?
If you believe you don't have a right to kill this life, how do you live with yourself?
Do you ever eat vegetables that have been killed for your consumption?

Is it because the bacteria and vegetable life isn't developed enough for your liking that you have a right to kill it? (Which I consider a very sensible position).

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, I could equally say an ability of riding a unicycle, while juggling 25 hot potatoes, while playing a violin as a standard of what can be considered life. It's wholly arbitrary unless we can deal with the actual facts of when the human being formed of sperm and ova starts to exhibit biological growth.

As I've said, because something is subjective doesn't make it completely arbitrary, not does it give us a license to ignore the subjective aspects and say anything goes - or arbitrarily substitute a nearby objective criterion.

If I can't define good art, and if good art is subjective, that doesn't mean that good art doesn't exist, nor does it mean that no art is better than any other art.

Jakkass wrote: »

Early or late is irrelevant, it is the denial of the right to life to another human.

I would agree that it is an abortifacient.


I'm referring to life or death. I don't believe humans rightfully have the choice of whether or not we should kill another person.

Ever? For example, you wouldn't believe a policeman (lets call him Jack Bauer), with no other choice, should shoot someone trying to engage in an act of nuclear terrorism?
I think very few people would condemn such a policeman.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

As with the confusion between sapience and sentience, you're confusing the start of life with the start of a new organism.

I'd argue they are the same.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let's say at conception we have a new organism, which we take as the definition of a person. Why does it have a right to life? Why does it's rights supersede those of the mother?

It's right doesn't supersede I'd argue. I personally can't see how it should be the right to allow anyone to take the life of another person unless it is as I've said an issue where it is pragmatic to save one life rather than lose two.

It has a right to life, pretty much because we all had a right to life. It is on the principle of empathy generally.

I would find it much more rational to ask the question "What gives you the right to take life?" rather than asking "What gives you the right to life?". The latter seems more obvious than the former.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

Just because something is a bit subjective doesn't mean 'anything goes'. There's a certain amount of subjectivity to where you draw the line at where sapience begins, but requiring unicycling is clearly ridiculous.
As would be arguing that rocks are sapient.

Both are ridiculous IMO. Sapience is an arbitrary standard. Human life exists prior to sapience. Subjectivity doesn't really have a place in determining how we deal with life or death in law.

fergalr wrote: »

Actual biology can't tell us, at this stage, when exactly sapience emerges.

Sapience isn't the point when a human life comes into existence. Sapience is simply an arbitrary standard imposed by you and others. Philosophical anthropology isn't enough to justify killing.

fergalr wrote: »

It can tell us that a zygote is life but, if you want to get into the nitty gritty, it is arbitrary that we choose to make a biological distinction of classification between [the zygote] and [the sperm and the egg about to become the zygote], vs, say, [the 4 celled zygote] vs [the 40 celled zygote].

There is a biological distinction. The distinction being that from the point of fusion, the child begins to develop towards birth, and then eventually death. It marks the beginning of the life-cycle of that being. That's where it seems clear to me to take this as our beginning, and reject philosophical anthropology as a basis for determining what is alive or dead.

fergalr wrote: »

There's no absolute ultimate change going on there - its just that as we usually think of biology, we consider the fusion of the egg and sperm to form a human life. But this is moment of change is just a change in a subjective taxonomical distinction we make due to convention. It shouldn't be accorded any special status as such, just because we now consider it a biologically separate organism.

"Special status. Nobody is asking for special status, what one could ask for is that people recognise the zygote for what it is, the beginning of the life that will develop in the womb.

This is all that is necessary to determine the beginning point of human life. Sapience is something that comes as a part of the human life cycle, but it certainly isn't its beginning.

fergalr wrote: »

The other point to note is that you keep on mentioning 'killing' and 'killing life'.
Whats the big deal about that? Everyone kills life all the time. My immune system kills simple bacterial life regularly. There's no ethical issue with that.
I don't even have an ethical issue with killing much more advanced life, like a plant. If you mean something else - like 'killing a person' then you should consider using more precise words?

Bacterial life != human life.
Human life is important because it is one of our own species. We were all there, we were all afforded the right to live, as such we should afford the right to live to others.

fergalr wrote: »

Biology can't tell us whether something is right or wrong.
Even if you use biology to inform your idea of what 'life' is and isn't, you are still using a philosophical basis to decide whether 'killing' is right or wrong. It doesn't reduce to solely a biological question.

Biology can tell us the facts behind when life begins and when life ends. Our moral instincts assess these facts and value it accordingly depending on how these instincts are tuned that is.

fergalr wrote: »

Does your body ever kill bacteria?
If you believe you don't have a right to kill this life, how do you live with yourself?
Do you ever eat vegetables that have been killed for your consumption?

Bacterial life != human life.

fergalr wrote: »

Is it because the bacteria and vegetable life isn't developed enough for your liking that you have a right to kill it? (Which I consider a very sensible position).

Read above.

fergalr wrote: »

As I've said, because something is subjective doesn't make it completely arbitrary, not does it give us a license to ignore the subjective aspects and say anything goes - or arbitrarily substitute a nearby objective criterion.

It's wholly arbitrary. We need to regard the objective facts about what an zygote is before getting into how we apply those facts in our ethics. If we wish to ignore or obscure these on the basis of philosophy that is your choice.

I have to disown philosophical anthropology as a standard in this debate. Personally, I love philosophy, it's something that really defines who I am in part, but I have to disown it because it is dangerous when philosophy permits us to do things that would be otherwise regarded as abhorrent.

fergalr wrote: »

If I can't define good art, and if good art is subjective, that doesn't mean that good art doesn't exist, nor does it mean that no art is better than any other art.

Appreciating art, is very different from moral action.

fergalr wrote: »

Ever? For example, you wouldn't believe a policeman (lets call him Jack Bauer), with no other choice, should shoot someone trying to engage in an act of nuclear terrorism?
I think very few people would condemn such a policeman.

This would be more akin to my stance in this debate than yours. My position would be to save as many lives as possible, because I am pro-life. I've said clearly, that in the case where the pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger I am supportive of using an abortion to save one life rather than losing two. It is on the basis of my pro-life beliefs that I would argue for this.

Likewise, in the event that there was no other choice. I would accept that the policeman would have to do this to save lives. I would regard the death as regrettable as I would the abortion, but if it has to be done to save lives. I see this as the pragmatic solution.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

Both are ridiculous IMO. Sapience is an arbitrary standard. Human life exists prior to sapience. Subjectivity doesn't really have a place in determining how we deal with life or death in law.

I don't agree at all. One example is if you look at when someone takes a human life, in a case they claim is self-defence, you'll see quite a subjective judgement being made by the judge and jury.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sapience isn't the point when a human life comes into existence. Sapience is simply an arbitrary standard imposed by you and others.

And the point where human life comes into existence is an arbitrary standard imposed by you.

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophical anthropology isn't enough to justify killing.

There is a biological distinction. The distinction being that from the point of fusion, the child begins to develop towards birth, and then eventually death. It marks the beginning of the life-cycle of that being. That's where it seems clear to me to take this as our beginning, and reject philosophical anthropology as a basis for determining what is alive or dead.

I don't think my point about the biological distinction came across properly.
Where we draw biological lines are arbitrary.
Choosing to use the biological distinctions, without some sort of philosophical basis, is also arbitrary.

You could also use a purely physical basis, such as when an developing human has more than a certain mass. While that would be a definite measurable physical feature, it would still be an arbitrary point to choose.

Jakkass wrote: »

"Special status. Nobody is asking for special status, what one could ask for is that people recognise the zygote for what it is, the beginning of the life that will develop in the womb.

This is all that is necessary to determine the beginning point of human life. Sapience is something that comes as a part of the human life cycle, but it certainly isn't its beginning.

Bacterial life != human life.

I don't think you were saying 'human life' before, which is why I mentioned that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Human life is important because it is one of our own species. We were all there, we were all afforded the right to live, as such we should afford the right to live to others.

Biology can tell us the facts behind when life begins and when life ends. Our moral instincts assess these facts and value it accordingly depending on how these instincts are tuned that is.

Bacterial life != human life.

Read above.

It's wholly arbitrary. We need to regard the objective facts about what an zygote is before getting into how we apply those facts in our ethics. If we wish to ignore or obscure these on the basis of philosophy that is your choice.

I have to disown philosophical anthropology as a standard in this debate. Personally, I love philosophy, it's something that really defines who I am in part, but I have to disown it because it is dangerous when philosophy permits us to do things that would be otherwise regarded as abhorrent.

'Philosophy' here is essentially been used as a word meaning 'rational thought on the issue'?
You seem to be essentially disowning rationality because it reaches conclusions you don't like - I'm not saying thats wrong, but I think its entering fraught territory.

Jakkass wrote: »

Appreciating art, is very different from moral action.

This would be more akin to my stance in this debate than yours. My position would be to save as many lives as possible, because I am pro-life.

'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' - I really don't like those terms.
They seem to be designed to achieve various groups ends, rather than build any consensus or informed thinking.

I think pretty much everyone is both pro-life and pro-choice!
I don't think I've met anyone that describes themselves as anti-life and anti-choice :-)

Jakkass wrote: »

I've said clearly, that in the case where the pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger I am supportive of using an abortion to save one life rather than losing two. It is on the basis of my pro-life beliefs that I would argue for this.

Likewise, in the event that there was no other choice. I would accept that the policeman would have to do this to save lives. I would regard the death as regrettable as I would the abortion, but if it has to be done to save lives. I see this as the pragmatic solution.

Well, in that case, your position is more nuanced that I thought I read earlier. It turns out you aren't absolutely against the taking of life. You are just against the taking of life in certain circumstances.

Itoo think that human life is something that should be valued highly.
But I put much more importance on sapient life than simply human life.
This makes sense to me.

I value the life of a normal adult much more than the life of a braindead one.
Would you not, too? In which case, the sapience is playing some part in your valuation?

Similarly, I value the life of an infant much more than that of a 1 second old zygote - even though they are both human lives.
Does this not also make some sense?

These are surely hard topics to discuss - its not that surprising there is little popular consensus.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

I don't agree at all. One example is if you look at when someone takes a human life, in a case they claim is self-defence, you'll see quite a subjective judgement being made by the judge and jury.

I can't see how an abortion-by-choice can be likened to self-defence.

fergalr wrote: »

And the point where human life comes into existence is an arbitrary standard imposed by you.

Not really. What grows cannot be dead. A human organism comprised of a sperm and an ova develops until birth and eventually death if it isn't interfered by mankind. This reasoning isn't arbitrary, it's based around what is factual. I know of no biological entity that grows that could be said to be dead or inanimate. I.E - The embryo / foetus is a human life.

fergalr wrote: »

I don't think my point about the biological distinction came across properly.
Where we draw biological lines are arbitrary.
Choosing to use the biological distinctions, without some sort of philosophical basis, is also arbitrary.

I don't believe that this is the case in respect to when life begins. It's fairly clear that growth is exhibited following the fusion of an sperm and an ova.

fergalr wrote: »

You could also use a purely physical basis, such as when an developing human has more than a certain mass. While that would be a definite measurable physical feature, it would still be an arbitrary point to choose.

Indeed, it would be an arbitrary point to choose.

fergalr wrote: »

I don't think you were saying 'human life' before, which is why I mentioned that.

Of course I was, that's what we're talking about!

fergalr wrote: »

'Philosophy' here is essentially been used as a word meaning 'rational thought on the issue'?
You seem to be essentially disowning rationality because it reaches conclusions you don't like - I'm not saying thats wrong, but I think its entering fraught territory.

Pesonally, I don't believe it is rational to dismiss what is actually life. Infact it's wholly irrational when one thinks away the problem at hand.

As for me "not liking philosophy". This isn't true on the whole. Infact I'm a philosophy student, and I love the subject. I just happen to think that the philosophy you are applying to this subject is dangerous, and we can do this by just looking at when life begins biologically without making assumptions about someone elses life.

fergalr wrote: »

'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' - I really don't like those terms.
They seem to be designed to achieve various groups ends, rather than build any consensus or informed thinking.

I think pretty much everyone is both pro-life and pro-choice!
I don't think I've met anyone that describes themselves as anti-life and anti-choice :-)

I don't believe people who can justify the gratuitous death of the unborn can be considered pro-life personally, but this is just my opinion.

fergalr wrote: »

Well, in that case, your position is more nuanced that I thought I read earlier. It turns out you aren't absolutely against the taking of life. You are just against the taking of life in certain circumstances.

It appears that you didn't read what I said originally about abortion even then.

fergalr wrote: »

Itoo think that human life is something that should be valued highly.
But I put much more importance on sapient life than simply human life.
This makes sense to me.

Irrespective of what importance you put on it, I don't believe the State should favour one human life over another.

fergalr wrote: »

I value the life of a normal adult much more than the life of a braindead one.
Would you not, too? In which case, the sapience is playing some part in your valuation?

This isn't comparing like with like unfortunately. In the case of the embryo the child will become sapient if not interfered with by humans. It has an abundance of potential. In the case of the permanently braindead, there is no such abundance.

fergalr wrote: »

Similarly, I value the life of an infant much more than that of a 1 second old zygote - even though they are both human lives.
Does this not also make some sense?

I don't think so really.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't see how an abortion-by-choice can be likened to self-defence.

They are both situations where people argue its acceptable to take a human life. If someone was arguing against abortion on the grounds that you could never take a life, a self-defence example might serve as a counterexample to their argument.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. What grows cannot be dead. A human organism comprised of a sperm and an ova develops until birth and eventually death if it isn't interfered by mankind. This reasoning isn't arbitrary, it's based around what is factual. I know of no biological entity that grows that could be said to be dead or inanimate. I.E - The embryo / foetus is a human life.

There are two separate points here:
1) Choosing to use the biological definition of life as your criterion is arbitrary, until you argue otherwise.
2) Where we decide to put the biological definitions of life is also somewhat arbitrary, though that might be harder to see.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe that this is the case in respect to when life begins. It's fairly clear that growth is exhibited following the fusion of an sperm and an ova.

Indeed, it would be an arbitrary point to choose.

Choosing a certain physical mass, while well defined, would be an arbitrary point to choose - without some other philosophical justification.
Equally, choosing a certain biological point, while well defined, would be an arbitrary point to choose - without some other philosophical justification.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course I was, that's what we're talking about!

Pesonally, I don't believe it is rational to dismiss what is actually life. Infact it's wholly irrational when one thinks away the problem at hand.

As for me "not liking philosophy". This isn't true on the whole. Infact I'm a philosophy student, and I love the subject. I just happen to think that the philosophy you are applying to this subject is dangerous, and we can do this by just looking at when life begins biologically without making assumptions about someone elses life.

I don't believe people who can justify the gratuitous death of the unborn can be considered pro-life personally, but this is just my opinion.

It appears that you didn't read what I said originally about abortion even then.

Irrespective of what importance you put on it, I don't believe the State should favour one human life over another.

This isn't comparing like with like unfortunately. In the case of the embryo the child will become sapient if not interfered with by humans. It has an abundance of potential. In the case of the permanently braindead, there is no such abundance.

You seem to switch to a potential based argument there.

Most of the time, you seem to be arguing:
- that all human life is equal, and that we can't kill human life, (where human life means any human biological organism), regardless of sapience, state, etc.
You seem to be arguing that any human life is intrinsically something we should never kill. (unless we need to do this to save another human life).
I don't think you've explained why human life is intrinsically something we should never kill, but it does seem to be your position.



But just there, you change your argument, to one that we can't kill life that has the potential for sapience.


Which is a completely different argument.
Suddenly, potential is important, and sapience is important.
These are two different criteria, and two different rationale, and you'd have to use different arguments to support them.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think so really.

You don't see any difference between killing a zygote and killing a just pre-birth baby.
I have to disagree with you quite strongly here - if someone forced me to make such a choice, I'd choose to save the just pre-birth baby every time.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

They are both situations where people argue its acceptable to take a human life. If someone was arguing against abortion on the grounds that you could never take a life, a self-defence example might serve as a counterexample to their argument.

I believe that people are seriously mistaken in relation to justifying abortion. Self-defence isn't a counter to the argument in the slightest. It would fall into one of those saving lives rather than losing them gratuitously. A key pro-life position. Personally, I would argue for non-lethal self-defence where possible.

fergalr wrote: »

There are two separate points here:
1) Choosing to use the biological definition of life as your criterion is arbitrary, until you argue otherwise.
2) Where we decide to put the biological definitions of life is also somewhat arbitrary, though that might be harder to see.

It isn't arbitrary, it's pretty clear from what we see in the embryo. The pro-choice argument can only reasonably be made by adding philosophical fog to the case for life. Switching the argument from life to a wooly concept of 'personhood' is one means of doing this.

If you've ever looked to philosophical anthropology you can tell that there are as many positions to this pretty much as there are people. By adding subjectivism, to a position that can be made objectively by looking at the biology behind it, it allows for more gray where there really isn't any.

fergalr wrote: »

Choosing a certain physical mass, while well defined, would be an arbitrary point to choose - without some other philosophical justification.
Equally, choosing a certain biological point, while well defined, would be an arbitrary point to choose - without some other philosophical justification.

See above, there's no comparison IMO.

fergalr wrote: »

You seem to switch to a potential based argument there.

Most of the time, you seem to be arguing:
- that all human life is equal, and that we can't kill human life, (where human life means any human biological organism), regardless of sapience, state, etc.
You seem to be arguing that any human life is intrinsically something we should never kill. (unless we need to do this to save another human life).
I don't think you've explained why human life is intrinsically something we should never kill, but it does seem to be your position.

Not at all. I'm merely clearing up your fallacious argument. You compare disingenuously the life of a foetus, or the life of a braindead individual. I merely point out the distinction as to why they are not equivalent.

fergalr wrote: »

But just there, you change your argument, to one that we can't kill life that has the potential for sapience.

The difference, between the foetus, and the braindead individual is the potential certainly. This is clear to anyone. If left uninterfered the foetus will eventually develop this capacity. It could be argued that even if you wouldn't be killing a person (in your definition not mine) that it would be severely immoral to prevent this from occurring when it is bound to happen any way. Personally, I think it is a being, and a person from the get go, albeit a developing person.

fergalr wrote: »

Which is a completely different argument.
Suddenly, potential is important, and sapience is important.
These are two different criteria, and two different rationale, and you'd have to use different arguments to support them.

Sapience isn't an argument for killing an embryo or a foetus, due to the potential, and due to the fact that it is a developing being.

fergalr wrote: »

You don't see any difference between killing a zygote and killing a just pre-birth baby.
I have to disagree with you quite strongly here - if someone forced me to make such a choice, I'd choose to save the just pre-birth baby every time.

No, just time and development.

When does a foetus become a pre-birth baby? - The pro-choice argument is lacking in this respect. It is clearer from a pro-life perspective, as we respect human life from the get go, and merely say that it is a difference of development.

You can take that position, but dozens of other problems arise as a result. This is generally what happens when people consider more about what is better for them, rather than what is best for all.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that people are seriously mistaken in relation to justifying abortion. Self-defence isn't a counter to the argument in the slightest. It would fall into one of those saving lives rather than losing them gratuitously. A key pro-life position. Personally, I would argue for non-lethal self-defence where possible.

It isn't arbitrary, it's pretty clear from what we see in the embryo.

You've still provided no compelling argument for why we should treat the start of biological human life - a zygote - as our cutoff point.
The Corinthian earlier argued that it was an absolute in an otherwise grey spectrum, which doesn't seem like a hugely compelling argument to me, but I do at least see the logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

The pro-choice argument can only reasonably be made by adding philosophical fog to the case for life. Switching the argument from life to a wooly concept of 'personhood' is one means of doing this.

I definitely agree that one of the strongest arguments for providing things like the morning after pill on demand is the argument that actually with only a few days of development, the zygote hasn't really evolved into anything in any way sentient or sapient.
So, yes, thats an argument based on a fuzzier concept of 'personhood'; but I see nothing wrong with that.
There's no implicit primacy to an argument based on biological definitions of life, in my mind.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you've ever looked to philosophical anthropology you can tell that there are as many positions to this pretty much as there are people.

So what? A lot of people have different opinions on this. This doesn't mean that any one opinion is logically more wrong.
If I write down the number 8 between 0 and 10 on a piece of paper, and ask 100 people to guess the number, on average, 90% of them are wrong. But that doesn't make the ones who said '8' wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

By adding subjectivism, to a position that can be made objectively by looking at the biology behind it, it allows for more gray where there really isn't any.

Or, arguably, by turning a fundamentally complex question, which involved philosophy, into a simple biological question, without any good reason to do so, you simplify a complex question beyond the point thats reasonable.

Like, you know, if you just decided that humans under 4kg, was your criterion.

Jakkass wrote: »

See above, there's no comparison IMO.

Not at all. I'm merely clearing up your fallacious argument. You compare disingenuously the life of a foetus, or the life of a braindead individual.

There's nothing disingenuous about how I'm arguing here, and its not really fair of you to say that.
Maybe you weren't 100% sure what that word means and didn't mean that, but I'd ask you to rethink your use of it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I merely point out the distinction as to why they are not equivalent.



The difference, between the foetus, and the braindead individual is the potential certainly. This is clear to anyone. If left uninterfered the foetus will eventually develop this capacity. It could be argued that even if you wouldn't be killing a person (in your definition not mine) that it would be severely immoral to prevent this from occurring when it is bound to happen any way. Personally, I think it is a being, and a person from the get go, albeit a developing person.

You've two separate arguments there.
First off, I wasn't talking about a foetus at that point, I was taking about even earlier in the lifecycle.
One of your arguments is based on the potential of the post zygote life to turn into a being, and the other is based on arguing that it is a being from the moment its a zygote.
These are really incompatible points. The zygote is either protected because it can potentially turn into a being, or its protected because it already is a being. I don't think it makes sense to argue both simultaneously.

Anyway, for my perspective, the potential argument is bunk; you could argue against condoms by arguing that the sperm and egg would otherwise naturally form a human, therefore a condom is killing a potential human.

The other argument, that the zygote is the same as just-prebirth-baby, or even a full grown human, in terms of its rights, also makes no sense to me. How can a single celled organism, with no sentience or sapience be awarded the same rights as, say, a 5 year old child?
I think there are really very few people, if put in a position to choose between the two, that wouldn't choose to say the 5 year old.
And I think the reason for this choice is that most of us know a zygote is much less important than a developed human.

But thats just my perspective.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sapience isn't an argument for killing an embryo or a foetus, due to the potential, and due to the fact that it is a developing being.

No, just time and development.

When does a foetus become a pre-birth baby? - The pro-choice argument is lacking in this respect. It is clearer from a pro-life perspective, as we respect human life from the get go, and merely say that it is a difference of development.

You can take that position, but dozens of other problems arise as a result. This is generally what happens when people consider more about what is better for them, rather than what is best for all.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

You've still provided no compelling argument for why we should treat the start of biological human life - a zygote - as our cutoff point.
The Corinthian earlier argued that it was an absolute in an otherwise grey spectrum, which doesn't seem like a hugely compelling argument to me, but I do at least see the logic.

Life and death is what the issue is about. It isn't about what definition we consider persons to be. Life is the process that starts from conception and ends at death. If we are to share a level of common empathy in realising that this is the process that we also went through, this should also compel us to take ethical action in regarding the embryo as a human being just like you and I.

fergalr wrote: »

I definitely agree that one of the strongest arguments for providing things like the morning after pill on demand is the argument that actually with only a few days of development, the zygote hasn't really evolved into anything in any way sentient or sapient.
So, yes, thats an argument based on a fuzzier concept of 'personhood'; but I see nothing wrong with that.
There's no implicit primacy to an argument based on biological definitions of life, in my mind.

The MAP is an abortifacient, so I pretty much would hold the same attitude to it as to abortion itself.

Being sentient, and sapient isn't good enough to me to determine whether or not we have the right to kill a human being who would otherwise live a life that you and I live.

fergalr wrote: »

So what? A lot of people have different opinions on this. This doesn't mean that any one opinion is logically more wrong.
If I write down the number 8 between 0 and 10 on a piece of paper, and ask 100 people to guess the number, on average, 90% of them are wrong. But that doesn't make the ones who said '8' wrong.

When such opinions influence law, then it becomes something that we need to take seriously.

fergalr wrote: »

Or, arguably, by turning a fundamentally complex question, which involved philosophy, into a simple biological question, without any good reason to do so, you simplify a complex question beyond the point thats reasonable.

A different question is asked from the one that is actually crucial. Is this a human life, and does it deserve to be respected as other human lives are? Or the question that you are asking, is this a person?

fergalr wrote: »

Like, you know, if you just decided that humans under 4kg, was your criterion.

Not really. Whether something is alive, or dead is something that can be verified.

fergalr wrote: »

There's nothing disingenuous about how I'm arguing here, and its not really fair of you to say that.
Maybe you weren't 100% sure what that word means and didn't mean that, but I'd ask you to rethink your use of it.

I think it's entirely fair. It's not a reasonable comparison to compare a foetus with a braindead individual with no hope of recovery. Disingenuous would be the correct term.

fergalr wrote: »

You've two separate arguments there.
First off, I wasn't talking about a foetus at that point, I was taking about even earlier in the lifecycle.
One of your arguments is based on the potential of the post zygote life to turn into a being, and the other is based on arguing that it is a being from the moment its a zygote.
These are really incompatible points. The zygote is either protected because it can potentially turn into a being, or its protected because it already is a being. I don't think it makes sense to argue both simultaneously.

Not at all. Potential is a key reason why I would disintinguish between an embryo / foetus and a braindead individual. Bear in mind this is an example that you brought into your argument. This was reasonably addressed, and it is still perfectly consistent with my position on why I think abortion is wrong except in life-saving circumstances.

fergalr wrote: »

Anyway, for my perspective, the potential argument is bunk; you could argue against condoms by arguing that the sperm and egg would otherwise naturally form a human, therefore a condom is killing a potential human.

It is a human from the get go.

It was you who argued on the basis of sapience, not me. Please remember this.

A foetus is a developing human being, just as children are, they are merely more youthful in age. That's the only difference.

Sperm and ova aren't even fused, and as such are not developing human beings.

This is really sidetracking the actual discussion.

fergalr wrote: »

The other argument, that the zygote is the same as just-prebirth-baby, or even a full grown human, in terms of its rights, also makes no sense to me. How can a single celled organism, with no sentience or sapience be awarded the same rights as, say, a 5 year old child?
I think there are really very few people, if put in a position to choose between the two, that wouldn't choose to say the 5 year old.
And I think the reason for this choice is that most of us know a zygote is much less important than a developed human.

The right to life is certainly applicable to all human life. Otherwise we wouldn't call it a right. This is the problem with abortion on a human rights level. It isn't about just mothers rights, if it were I'd be all for it. Terms like "reproductive justice", and "right to choose" are wholly disingenuous as they don't represent the full problem of abortion-by-choice.

fergalr

Jakkass wrote: »

Life and death is what the issue is about.
It isn't about what definition we consider persons to be. Life is the process that starts from conception and ends at death. If we are to share a level of common empathy in realising that this is the process that we also went through, this should also compel us to take ethical action in regarding the embryo as a human being just like you and I.

The MAP is an abortifacient, so I pretty much would hold the same attitude to it as to abortion itself.

Being sentient, and sapient isn't good enough to me to determine whether or not we have the right to kill a human being who would otherwise live a life that you and I live.

When such opinions influence law, then it becomes something that we need to take seriously.

A different question is asked from the one that is actually crucial. Is this a human life, and does it deserve to be respected as other human lives are? Or the question that you are asking, is this a person?

But, the issue is, why is 'is this a human life' the crucial question?

I mean, you've said you think the life of a braindead human is less important than the life of a non-braindead one - which makes sense to me.
But surely, both are human lives, so would be equally important, by what you just said?
Don't you see the contradiction?

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. Whether something is alive, or dead is something that can be verified.

Whether something has a mass greater or less than 4Kg is also something that can be verified. Probably easier.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's entirely fair. It's not a reasonable comparison to compare a foetus with a braindead individual with no hope of recovery. Disingenuous would be the correct term.

Disingenuous means insincere or maliciously hypocritical; it does not mean unreasonable. I assure you there's nothing insincere about my comparisons, and I'm being perfectly frank here.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. Potential is a key reason why I would disintinguish between an embryo / foetus and a braindead individual. Bear in mind this is an example that you brought into your argument. This was reasonably addressed, and it is still perfectly consistent with my position on why I think abortion is wrong except in life-saving circumstances.

I think you are being pretty inconsistent.

On the one hand, you are arguing that all that matters as to the morality of killing something, is (A) whether it is a human life or not.

You then consider a situation of a braindead human life.
This situation makes you see that (B) something other than whether its a human life or not, matters. (ie, the state of the brain).
So you change to a potential based argument. Fine.

But, you don't seem to realise that your (A) argument has been undermined in this step.
You can't hang on to the absolute position - that all that matters is whether its a human life, or not - while also allowing that other things matter (state of braindeath or not, potential or lack thereof).

Jakkass wrote: »

It is a human from the get go.

It was you who argued on the basis of sapience, not me. Please remember this.

A foetus is a developing human being, just as children are, they are merely more youthful in age. That's the only difference.

There are plenty of other differences.
The foetus is smaller. They weigh less. They can't talk.

Some differences I consider very relevant:
The foetus has a much less developed brain and mind.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sperm and ova aren't even fused, and as such are not developing human beings.

No, but they have the potential to be.
Thats the problem with talking about 'potential' - if you start allowing a potential based argument, why do you draw the line at when they fuse?

I mean, they had the potential to fuse, if the condom wasn't in the way; therefore using a condom was murdering life (in that it was killing the potential life).
Just the same as a pill that stops the organism implanting.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is really sidetracking the actual discussion.

The right to life is certainly applicable to all human life. Otherwise we wouldn't call it a right. This is the problem with abortion on a human rights level. It isn't about just mothers rights, if it were I'd be all for it. Terms like "reproductive justice", and "right to choose" are wholly disingenuous as they don't represent the full problem of abortion-by-choice.

Applicable to all human life you say...
...but also less applicable to braindead human life
...and also less applicable to human life where its necessary to kill to save the lives of others. (eg, shooting a bad person to stop them killing loads, with no other option).

Like, you are trying to say that this is a very absolute, non subjective position; but you still admit there are lots of exceptions and clauses to the rules.

Thats fine - it makes sense that there are lots of exceptions.
But, then, your argument is not a simple, absolute, no-grey-area, rule.
And consider you said one of its main merits was this absoluteness, that takes something from its strength.

philologos

fergalr wrote: »

But, the issue is, why is 'is this a human life' the crucial question?

It's a crucial question because we are to determine whether or not 1) this is a human life, and 2) whether we have the right to kill it with the exception of saving one life rather than losing two. As I see it, we simply don't. People will justify this whatever way they can find if it is convenient, but I just can't.

fergalr wrote: »

I mean, you've said you think the life of a braindead human is less important than the life of a non-braindead one - which makes sense to me.
But surely, both are human lives, so would be equally important, by what you just said?
Don't you see the contradiction?

I don't. You brought the invalid comparison between them to the thread. I merely pointed out the difference between them. The difference is clear. The human being has no hope of functioning, it will never function again. There's not a contradiction, it just results in a fuller explaining of my position.

fergalr wrote: »

Whether something has a mass greater or less than 4Kg is also something that can be verified. Probably easier.

Mass is irrelevant to whether or not something is alive. That's why we need to focus on when the human starts living. The facts are that this occurs after the fusion between the sperm and the ova. Not at the point of sapience, or juggling 56 oranges while playing the zylophone and carrying out a speech simultaneously. The former is about as relevant as the latter as I see it.

fergalr wrote: »

Disingenuous means insincere or maliciously hypocritical; it does not mean unreasonable. I assure you there's nothing insincere about my comparisons, and I'm being perfectly frank here.

I don't see how one can sincerely say that an embryo / foetus is equivalent to a braindead individual with no hope of recovery.

fergalr wrote: »

I think you are being pretty inconsistent.

I don't. It is possible to believe that it is immoral to kill an embryo because it is alive and developing, it is fully functional, and it has an abundance of potential. If we want to go around in circles we can, but I honestly don't see the problem.

fergalr wrote: »

On the one hand, you are arguing that all that matters as to the morality of killing something, is (A) whether it is a human life or not.

You then consider a situation of a braindead human life.
This situation makes you see that (B) something other than whether its a human life or not, matters. (ie, the state of the brain).
So you change to a potential based argument. Fine.

But, you don't seem to realise that your (A) argument has been undermined in this step.
You can't hang on to the absolute position - that all that matters is whether its a human life, or not - while also allowing that other things matter (state of braindeath or not, potential or lack thereof).

In one case the human being is functionally dead with no hope of recovery, and in the former case the human being is not functionally dead at all, it is developing and growing. I can't help but think that this comparison is wholly insincere. You know as well as I do that there is a clear difference.

fergalr wrote: »

There are plenty of other differences.
The foetus is smaller. They weigh less. They can't talk.

Some differences I consider very relevant:
The foetus has a much less developed brain and mind.

Irrelevant differences.

The foetus is simply a younger human being which isn't as developed as an older human being. I could use this reasoning to advocate the free choice to slaughter toddlers. They haven't developed as much emotional maturity as I have, therefore they are not properly human and I have the right to kill them?

The problem with advocating abortion is that people would never dream of applying the same assumptions they do for when it is in-utero to when it is ex-utero. The only difference is that it is in the womb. The moral justification has to be argued by the pro-choice side, and the moral justification seems weak at best to me, and that's pretty much why I argue for a pro-life position.

fergalr wrote: »

No, but they have the potential to be.
Thats the problem with talking about 'potential' - if you start allowing a potential based argument, why do you draw the line at when they fuse?

I mean, they had the potential to fuse, if the condom wasn't in the way; therefore using a condom was murdering life (in that it was killing the potential life).
Just the same as a pill that stops the organism implanting.

It's simply a poor argument. The ova and the sperm have not fused yet, the growth has not begun yet. In the case of the embryo / foetus, it has begun rather clearly. It is a unique biological being that develops from there, to birth, to adolescence, adulthood and death. It is human. It is this combined with the potential that it has to develop further (N.B - it isn't a potential human, but an actual human with potential, that's the difference between it and the sperm and the ova case).

Bringing this into the argument is a bit below-par really, because you are making it seem as if I am arguing against contraceptives. (I'm not, I actually advocate the choice to use contraceptives).

fergalr wrote: »

Applicable to all human life you say...
...but also less applicable to braindead human life
...and also less applicable to human life where its necessary to kill to save the lives of others. (eg, shooting a bad person to stop them killing loads, with no other option).

In the case of the braindead person, there is no life left to live. In the case of the foetus and embryo, there is every life to live. In the case of the saving lives aspect, if this happens there will be no life lived rather than saving as many lives as possible (this is truly pro-life).

fergalr wrote: »

Like, you are trying to say that this is a very absolute, non subjective position; but you still admit there are lots of exceptions and clauses to the rules.

I admit that there are reasonable exceptions.

fergalr wrote: »

Thats fine - it makes sense that there are lots of exceptions.
But, then, your argument is not a simple, absolute, no-grey-area, rule.
And consider you said one of its main merits was this absoluteness, that takes something from its strength.

I don't know. It's certainly not a gray area in respect to choice as I would see it.

Thanks for the discussion thus far, it has been interesting.

fergalr

So... we are getting quite bogged down. I just want to set out a position, from the top.

I think its wrong to kill things, in general, without compelling reason. I think its wrong to kill flies and vegetables and all sorts of simple life, without some good reason to do so. Because I think those complicated systems that arise from the chaos of the universe, and make up life are valuable, and worth protecting, as a general rule, because in general, that sort of rich natural order is better than the chaos. This is sort of a first-principles position, and is thus open to criticism as being somewhat arbitrary; but it works for me.

But, how compelling the reason to kill something needs to be, depends on what you are talking about killing. If you want to kill to vegetable, in order to eat it, then I think thats completely fine. In general, the simpler something is, the less strong of a reason you need to kill it. You need a good reason to kill a dog; if you had to do it to save a human, that'd be ok. You need a much less good reason to kill a crab. That's just how I view things.

And because I think this, I think life, in general, should be preserved.


But, there's also another reason not to kill big complex things like humans.
I think the biggest reason not to kill human life is because of the fact that you destroy the sapient intelligence that arises from that life.

The reason I think this is that I hold in high regard the precept that 'you should do to others what you'd want done to you'; where the 'I' in that is me, the sapient entity arising from this body. It is this sapience that is important and defines me; not the body in which I resides (though the two, are inseparable, at least at this point in time).

Like, I am arising from a body, which is biological human life. And this biological human life, like the lives of all big animals, we should try and not end without good reason. But the bit thats me, that thinks "do unto others as you'd like them to do to you" isn't biological human life. Its a mind, and a sapience that arises from that biology, and sits above it.

If you told me that you'd transplant my mind into another identical body (perhaps without a certain disease this one happened to have, for example) I'd probably be pretty cool with that. Even though my current biological body would die in the process. (We can't do this yet - some might say we never will be able to - but its a helpful thought experiment).

Fundamentally, whats important to me is not my body, so much as my mind. The biological system that is my body is not as important as my sapience.


And its these fundamentals that affect my thinking on this issue.

I think there is a fundamental difference between ending the life of a human that is sapient, vs one that is not.

Another simple hypothetical:
If my body was braindead, with no hope of my mind recovering, I really wouldn't care whether someone switched off my life support machine, and killed my body.

This is because it is not, fundamentally, my body that matters to me. Its my mind.

And if someone decides to kill my body, today, while its bad of them to kill my body, whats really bad about their actions is the killing of my mind, my personality, my sapience - thats the essential me-ness that they are ending, by ending the body. I'd be a lot more upset about someone killing my mind, and leaving my body unharmed, than I would if they were somehow to kill my body, and leave my mind unharmed.


Now, if someone had killed, say, my parents, before I was conceived they would have prevented my sapience from ever existing.

But, you know, if someone murders someone, we don't put them on trial for murdering that person, and all that persons potential descendants. We just put them on trial for murdering that one person.

Because it doesn't make sense to prosecute someone for murdering 'potential' future people.


Now, I think its quite clear that a zygote doesn't have sapience.
Its certainly pretty unique, in terms of genetic code, but all millions of individual sperm were pretty unique too, and no one cares about them.

So, if someone kills a zygote, I don't think its a big deal. Its killing life, and early stage human life, which I think shouldn't be done ideally - but I think not wanting to bear a child is a completely good enough reason to kill such simple human life.

I don't accept the argument that the zygote had the potential to form a sapient human, therefore killing a zygote is as bad as killing a sapient human.

Potential based arguments don't make any sense to me.

Thats where I'm coming from anyway.
Does this make any sense to you at all?

Do you see now why I consider sapience/personhood important?
Whats the basis of your thinking on why human life (even un-sapient human life) is as important as sapient human life?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a crucial question because we are to determine whether or not 1) this is a human life, and 2) whether we have the right to kill it with the exception of saving one life rather than losing two. As I see it, we simply don't. People will justify this whatever way they can find if it is convenient, but I just can't.


I don't. You brought the invalid comparison between them to the thread. I merely pointed out the difference between them. The difference is clear. The human being has no hope of functioning, it will never function again. There's not a contradiction, it just results in a fuller explaining of my position.

Mass is irrelevant to whether or not something is alive. That's why we need to focus on when the human starts living. The facts are that this occurs after the fusion between the sperm and the ova. Not at the point of sapience, or juggling 56 oranges while playing the zylophone and carrying out a speech simultaneously. The former is about as relevant as the latter as I see it.

I know mass is irrelevant to whether or not something is alive.

More pertinently, mass is irrelevant to whether or not is ok to kill something.
I just used mass as an example of something that we could measure objectively, but would not be a good measure.
I did this to show that the fact that being biologically alive is an objective measure, equally does not mean its a good measure.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how one can sincerely say that an embryo / foetus is equivalent to a braindead individual with no hope of recovery.

I think the rights afforded to a zygote, or sufficiently early human life, which has no consciousness or sapience, should be similar to those afforded to a braindead individual.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't. It is possible to believe that it is immoral to kill an embryo because it is alive and developing, it is fully functional, and it has an abundance of potential. If we want to go around in circles we can, but I honestly don't see the problem.



In one case the human being is functionally dead with no hope of recovery, and in the former case the human being is not functionally dead at all, it is developing and growing. I can't help but think that this comparison is wholly insincere. You know as well as I do that there is a clear difference.



Irrelevant differences.

The foetus is simply a younger human being which isn't as developed as an older human being. I could use this reasoning to advocate the free choice to slaughter toddlers. They haven't developed as much emotional maturity as I have, therefore they are not properly human and I have the right to kill them?

The problem with advocating abortion is that people would never dream of applying the same assumptions they do for when it is in-utero to when it is ex-utero. The only difference is that it is in the womb. The moral justification has to be argued by the pro-choice side, and the moral justification seems weak at best to me, and that's pretty much why I argue for a pro-life position.



It's simply a poor argument. The ova and the sperm have not fused yet, the growth has not begun yet. In the case of the embryo / foetus, it has begun rather clearly. It is a unique biological being that develops from there, to birth, to adolescence, adulthood and death. It is human. It is this combined with the potential that it has to develop further (N.B - it isn't a potential human, but an actual human with potential, that's the difference between it and the sperm and the ova case).

Bringing this into the argument is a bit below-par really, because you are making it seem as if I am arguing against contraceptives. (I'm not, I actually advocate the choice to use contraceptives).



In the case of the braindead person, there is no life left to live. In the case of the foetus and embryo, there is every life to live. In the case of the saving lives aspect, if this happens there will be no life lived rather than saving as many lives as possible (this is truly pro-life).



I admit that there are reasonable exceptions.



I don't know. It's certainly not a gray area in respect to choice as I would see it.

Thanks for the discussion thus far, it has been interesting.

Zombrex

I mentioned this when it was discussed in the Christianity forum and it was largely ignored, but if people genuinely believe that a zygote is something that deserves rights and protections like a child why are we so indifferent to the fact that close to 8 out of 10 embryos fail to implant, thus resulting in the death of the embryo.

I mean if 8 out of 10 new born babies died this would be the number one health concern in the world. We would be spending billions to prevent it.

The reality is we don't care that much. If nature decides to kill the embryo (often even if it is perfectly viable) the most we can muster seems to be a philosophical shrug that it was unfortunate or it wasn't its time.

Imagine a similar response if a genetic illness killed a 5 year old, a genetic illness that is possibly curable.

The reality seems to be that we don't think of these things as babies unless the issue of choice on the part of the mother is brought in to it. We don't care if nature terminates one of these embryos, but we sure as heck don't like the idea of the mother doing it.

This issues seems far more about the uncomfortable notions of a mother destroying her opportunity of motherhood than actual concern for the existence of these embryos.

We instinctively don't like the notion of a mother stopping motherhood. And in some quarters we really don't like the notion of a person having consequence free sexual intercourse.

Erinfan

To summarize some philosophical views of “WHEN LIFE BEGINS”

GENETIC VIEW

Conception
Life begins when the sperm and the ovum are united.
During fertilization, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. This process takes up to 48 hours.

EMBYROGICAL VIEW
14 days
Life begins at gastrulation -- the point at which a developing embryo forms distinct layers that grow into different organs.
Embryos are capabable of splitting into twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in separate individuals. Gastrulation commences when the zygote, now called an embryo, implants into the uterus.

NEUROGICAL VIEW
6-24 weeks
Life begins when the brain produces measurable waves.
Death is marked by the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life would be recognized when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. There is much disagreement about when this occurs.
This was the view expressed by Carl Sagan.

ECOLOGICAL VIEW
25-27 weeks
Life begins when the fetus can survive outside the uterus.
Viability is generally determined by the sufficient maturation of the lungs. With modern medicine, a premature baby can breathe outside of the womb as early as 25 weeks after conception.

BIRTH VIEW
7-9 months
Life begins at birth.
When the fetus emerges and separates from the body of the mother, whether naturally or surgically, a child is born. This typically occurs at 9 months, but frequently occurs several weeks early. Both the Bible and many human societies use this date.
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7).

AWARNESS VIEW
There is a sixth view of life promoted by some philosophers. They believe that neither a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. Michael Tooley argues that abortion and infanticide are both acceptable because life does not begin until the human child gains self-awareness. This generally occurs around 18 months after birth.

fergalr

Erinfan wrote: »

AWARNESS VIEW
There is a sixth view of life promoted by some philosophers. They believe that neither a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. Michael Tooley argues that abortion and infanticide are both acceptable because life does not begin until the human child gains self-awareness. This generally occurs around 18 months after birth.

I wonder how they argue that self-awareness occurs around 18months after birth. You could argue that the functional aspects of self-awareness manifest 18months after birth, but thats a different thing.

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

The foetus, and the baby, are very vulnerable, and aren't physically capable of transmitting much internal thinking into intelligent real world action. But thats irrelevant to whether or not they are sapient. You could be sapient and unable to communicate (like someone 'locked-in' due to an accident, etc).

So, the question remains, are they sapient internally at some level? Now, clearly, they aren't doing calculus or formal logic in their head - but neither am I when I am asleep and dreaming, and I'm still sapient.

It's pretty well documented that they're not sapient until long after birth. Of course, if you want to argue that really they are but we can't tell, but should give them the benefit of the doubt, then you're just bending the rules to suit yourself and not following any consistent measure or definition.

One reason why we might argue for simple intelligence, and early sapience is that there is good research, thats stood fairly well over time, showing that babies recognise the voice of their mother that they've heard while in the womb. So they have basic voice recognition and memory, even prebirth - theres at least some cognition on display there.

That's not sapience though. A dog will recognize his masters voice, but neither is that sapience.

Personally, I'd tend to err on the side that, as we don't know, we should treat them as sapient, and protect their lives.

This obviously doesn't apply to zygotes, which have no brains, or even to early stage foetus, with no brain activity.

As I said, this is just bending the rules to suit yourself. If you really want to err on the side of caution, then apply such a view to zygotes to be absolutely sure - if not you're ultimately picking a line in the sand that effectively serves another agenda.

We've got reasonable understanding of how the brain develops as humans grow, but we don't have any understanding about how minds arise from complex neural structures in the brain. We know that certain parts of the neural structures are responsible for certain cognitive functions, but we don't know how.
Thus its very hard to say definitively that the neural structures in a late stage foetus couldn't be sapient at some level.

Actually we have a pretty good understanding at this stage.

This is getting onto a tangent about occams razor... its important to remember, occams razor is only a heuristic.

Absolutely.

Having a mature brain is not the same as being sapient.
Brains don't reach maturity until long after children are sapient.

I don't think I ever suggested otherwise.

I'd love to read something making a detailed argument that we definitely aren't born sapient.

Define sapience and then tell me we're born it.

I see that perspective- its an interesting one. Personally, I think that if the foetus isn't a person (by which I mean sapient) (and a zygote *certainly* isn't) then the mother can do whatever she likes with it for whatever reason.

That is if you accept that sapience is what defines a person, which I've rejected. That sapience does not actually develop unil after brith is only one reason why this meter is questionable. Loss of sapience is also possible in humans, so strictly speaking they should not be human - unless you start adding exceptions to the rule. And when you start to make too many exceptions to the rule, you start sounding like all those geocentric astronomers inventing convoluted reasons for why the planets seemed to act so oddly.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue they are the same.

I don't want to be pedantic, but you'd be incorrect. My blood is alive, for example, but it's not an organism.

It's right doesn't supersede I'd argue. I personally can't see how it should be the right to allow anyone to take the life of another person unless it is as I've said an issue where it is pragmatic to save one life rather than lose two.

You're not taking a life though, you're simply removing the fetus from an environment where it can survive and allowing it to die - my understanding is that the majority of abortions that are carried out do not actively kill the fetus.

And where it comes to allowing someone else to die, there are plenty of examples out there where we consider it moral, or at the very least not immoral.

It has a right to life, pretty much because we all had a right to life. It is on the principle of empathy generally.

Please take the empathy argument to After Hours tbh. Empathy, is based upon human morality and this is hardly an absolute. If it were, human morality would be unchanging and uniform. But it's not. And neither is empathy.

I would find it much more rational to ask the question "What gives you the right to take life?" rather than asking "What gives you the right to life?". The latter seems more obvious than the former.

Actually, neither is the right question. My right to life does not give me the right to harvest the organs of others, against their will, as long as it doesn't kill them.

Having a right to life does not mean it is absolute in all circumstances.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're not taking a life though, you're simply removing the fetus from an environment where it can survive and allowing it to die - my understanding is that the majority of abortions that are carried out do not actively kill the fetus.

This is killing. Removing a foetus with the clear knowledge that it will kill the foetus is still killing. To say otherwise is mere semantics.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And where it comes to allowing someone else to die, there are plenty of examples out there where we consider it moral, or at the very least not immoral.

This understanding is inadequate. You are removing the foetus with the clear intention of killing it. It's kind of like saying that allowing your finger to pull the trigger of a pistol isn't the same thing as killing someone. It's absurd reasoning.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please take the empathy argument to After Hours tbh. Empathy, is based upon human morality and this is hardly an absolute. If it were, human morality would be unchanging and uniform. But it's not. And neither is empathy.

I'll use it where appropriate. Empathy is entirely appropriate in dealing with this subject. We lack empathy if we are not even willing to consider that we too were given the opportunity of life and that this should be afforded to others in the same situation. It's the centre point of all ethics and morality actually. All morality starts at empathy. Whether or not it is the Judeo-Christian idea that we are all created in God's image (imagio Dei) or that we are just all here together.

It's as valid in Humanities as in After Hours. Actually more valid.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, neither is the right question. My right to life does not give me the right to harvest the organs of others, against their will, as long as it doesn't kill them.

Neither does any perceived right of corporeal integrity give one the right to kill.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Having a right to life does not mean it is absolute in all circumstances.

A right to life is central and should be advocated as one of our key values. Unfortunately most of the civilised world have just given themselves to what is a barbaric practice.

fergalr

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's pretty well documented that they're not sapient until long after birth. Of course, if you want to argue that really they are but we can't tell, but should give them the benefit of the doubt, then you're just bending the rules to suit yourself and not following any consistent measure or definition.

Got a source for any of this documentation?
I really don't think thats true at all.

They might not pass a mirror test until some time after birth, but while that might be a sufficient condition for sapience, its not a necessary one.

I'd like to see anyone make an intelligent and detailed argument which shows humans aren't sapient until long after birth.

Its a very hard thing to argue, but I think we should err on the side of treating them as sapient, unless we've got a compelling argument otherwise.
(An example of a compelling argument otherwise would be: 'they are still too underdeveloped to have a brain, therefore they can't be sapient')

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not sapience though. A dog will recognize his masters voice, but neither is that sapience.

Recognising your parents voice isn't sufficient to demonstrate sapience, I agree with that. However, its demonstrating memory, and complex brain activity. At the point where a human is demonstrating memory and brain activity and where we can see brainwaves on a scan, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and make sure not to kill them, unless there's a compelling argument otherwise.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said, this is just bending the rules to suit yourself. If you really want to err on the side of caution, then apply such a view to zygotes to be absolutely sure - if not you're ultimately picking a line in the sand that effectively serves another agenda.

No, zygotes clearly couldn't be sapient; no brain, no brainwaves, insufficient complexity - and thats just for a start. That's a ludicrous argument, tbh.

The Corinthian wrote: »

We've got reasonable understanding of how the brain develops as humans grow, but we don't have any understanding about how minds arise from complex neural structures in the brain. We know that certain parts of the neural structures are responsible for certain cognitive functions, but we don't know how. [...]

Actually we have a pretty good understanding at this stage.

I really don't think we do.
Could you clarify what you are saying here, and why you are saying it?
Are you saying we do have a good idea of how human minds arise from the complex neural structures in the brain?
Thats not my understanding of the state of the art at all. While we have the basics of how neural networks can perform simple tasks, we don't have any good models of how the vastly more complex networks in the brain yield a person.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Absolutely.

I don't think I ever suggested otherwise.

Define sapience and then tell me we're born it.

I dunno, how about: self knowledge, self awareness, an internal model of self, albeit simple.
I reckon humans may well have this pre-birth.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is if you accept that sapience is what defines a person, which I've rejected. That sapience does not actually develop unil after brith is only one reason why this meter is questionable. Loss of sapience is also possible in humans, so strictly speaking they should not be human - unless you start adding exceptions to the rule. And when you start to make too many exceptions to the rule, you start sounding like all those geocentric astronomers inventing convoluted reasons for why the planets seemed to act so oddly.

'Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.' right? Just because something is complex doesn't make it wrong. Again, occams razor is a heuristic only.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

This is killing. Removing a foetus with the clear knowledge that it will kill the foetus is still killing. To say otherwise is mere semantics.

Is refusing someone an organ (that you can do without, but they cannot) killing? Is not throwing a drowning man a line not killing?

The distinction I am attempting to make is that killing is not a black and white thing. You can kill by action. You can kill by inaction. You can kill by a mixture of the two.

This understanding is inadequate. You are removing the foetus with the clear intention of killing it. It's kind of like saying that allowing your finger to pull the trigger of a pistol isn't the same thing as killing someone. It's absurd reasoning.

Legally, you're not though. Where abortion is available, the killing of the fetus is not the primary aim, only a byproduct.

I'll use it where appropriate. Empathy is entirely appropriate in dealing with this subject. We lack empathy if we are not even willing to consider that we too were given the opportunity of life and that this should be afforded to others in the same situation. It's the centre point of all ethics and morality actually. All morality starts at empathy. Whether or not it is the Judeo-Christian idea that we are all created in God's image (imagio Dei) or that we are just all here together.

Try not to fall back on the divine crutch in this discussion please as it introduces axioms (you call them 'faith') that you expect the rest of us to accept - and we don't.

Empathy is irrelevant only because it is a reflection of the morality of the person feeling that empathy. Where that person believes what they are doing is good or moral, they will feel no empathy - indeed they may even feel that they are doing their 'victim' a favour (the medieval practice of burning of witches being a case in point).

Neither does any perceived right of corporeal integrity give one the right to kill.

Are you not killing through inaction though when you refuse such a transplant?

A right to life is central and should be advocated as one of our key values. Unfortunately most of the civilised world have just given themselves to what is a barbaric practice.

This is a pretty soundbite, but it does not address what I said; that the right to life is not absolute - feel free to address this.

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

Got a source for any of this documentation?
I really don't think thats true at all.

This is an interesting table of child development. You should read it in conjunction with what sapience actually means though.

They might not pass a mirror test until some time after birth, but while that might be a sufficient condition for sapience, its not a necessary one.

Are you redefining what sapience means?

Its a very hard thing to argue, but I think we should err on the side of treating them as sapient, unless we've got a compelling argument otherwise.
(An example of a compelling argument otherwise would be: 'they are still too underdeveloped to have a brain, therefore they can't be sapient')

Grand so - let's do the same for zygotes then.

Recognising your parents voice isn't sufficient to demonstrate sapience, I agree with that. However, its demonstrating memory, and complex brain activity.

Like a parrot can mimic phrases demonstrates similar capacities? Let's give them human rights too then.

No, zygotes clearly couldn't be sapient; no brain, no brainwaves, insufficient complexity - and thats just for a start. That's a ludicrous argument, tbh.

It's not, because you are essentially saying 'let's err on the side of caution' when is suits, and not for any scientific reason. You have absolutely no evidence of any kind of sapience prenatally, yet are asking us to suspend our disbelief? Then when asked a similar leap of faith are unwilling to do so?

Personally I don't think you can have your cake and eat it.

Are you saying we do have a good idea of how human minds arise from the complex neural structures in the brain?

While imperfect, yes, we do have a pretty good idea of roughly what's going on at this stage.

I reckon humans may well have this pre-birth.

And Jakkass reckons we were created in God's image.

'Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.' right? Just because something is complex doesn't make it wrong. Again, occams razor is a heuristic only.

That's true, but all I said is that when someone starts going through increasingly convoluted logical hoops to prove a theory, that's when warning bells start ringing for me.