Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
But the entire thing basically rests on two premeses: 1. a fetus is a human, 2. killing humans is amongst the worst crimes that can be committed.
The first approach to introspection on your views therefore should be to realize that the word "Human" has different meanings in different contexts. For example "Human" means one thing in biological Taxonomy. It refers to little more than the fact your DNA is what it is.
In discussing a PERSON however "Human" what it means to be "Human" and "Humanity" has a different set of meanings. Meanings that go well beyond mere DNA.
You must stop to realize that just about every person who is "pro choice" is also against killing "Humans". We are against murder, rape, violence, assault, torture and all the other serious crimes against humans you might want to list.
This has to tell you something. It has to tell you that how you describe your position above, especially in part "2", does not distinguish your position from ours at all. We share it. We all value what we see as "Human Life" and wish to cherish it, protect it, even revere it. So the difference in our positions lies elsewhere.
The difference is in part 1. In identifying the attributes and characteristics that make us "Human". "Human" in the sense of rights, morals and ethics. Not in the sense of mere biological taxonomy. That is we both deeply value what we see as "Human Life". We simply differ in what we think that defines, and when it begins.
I, for one, have spent long years inquiring into those attributes, debating them, thinking on them, learning about them. And what I have found is that EVERY attribute that could identify a fetus as "Human" in any meaningful and moral sense......... are attributes the fetus being aborted (given that consistently around the world with fetal abortions by choice 96-98% of them tend to happen in or before week 16) lack not just slightly..... but ENTIRELY.
Attributing moral and ethical concern to the fetus is therefore in my view about as meaningful and sensible as trying to apply home insurance to a blue print for a house. To call a blue print a house, let alone a "home"......... is as ridiculous to me as calling a biological entity a "human person" for no other reason than it's DNA. Something more HAS to ground the definition. Mere DNA alone can not do it. Merely being "alive" alone can not do it. It has to go deeper.I can't think of how to scientifically define a person except by their unique set of DNA.
Try doing so by the existence of the faculty of human consciousness and sentience. A fetus at 16 weeks lacks it. Not just slightly. But ENTIRELY. The analogy I often use is to radio. If "radio waves" are analogous to human sentience, then at 16 weeks the fetus does not JUST lack the radio waves...... the radio tower itself that broadcasts them has not even been constructed yet, let alone actually powered or turned on in any way.
Anything that meaningfully defines "Human person", identity, person-hood, or a moral and ethical agent is rooted in sentience. And it is precisely the attribute the fetus lacks. As such while you seem unable to define a person by it, I see no way to define something as a person WITHOUT it.And the vast majority of campaigning or debate from pro-choice activists just refuses to address this central pro-life premise, and instead just ties the issue to progressive issues like women's health or privacy.
I trust, given the above sentence does not describe me at all, that I am a breath of fresh air for you therefore
Because your "central premise" is EXACTLY what I address, as I agree with you 100% that that is the most important thing. The entire abortion debate boils down to a single issue. Does the fetus we wish to abort...... generally in or before week 16..... in fact over 90% usually in or before week 12 as it happens........... have a "right to life" or any rights at all? If so why? As you can see from what I wrote above, I can not identify a single reason why it does, or might, have any moral or ethical concern for us at all. Certainly not on the basis of it being an individual or a person.
If anyone can build a meaningful model of individuality or person-hood WITHOUT the attribute of sentience in it..... it would of course give me pause. But even the user on this forum most prone to one way discussion and soap boxing, has done little more than invent a "right to become sentient" out of thin air. A position he backs up with nothing but repetition, and dodging any attempts to question it. So you can imagine the degree to which I entirely fail to find that approach convincing myself.
I trust also I have treated your post with respect and maturity, and not the "hate" you unfortunately have come to expect for expressing yourself. Long may we continue.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well then it would be a shame not to switch it on!
Agreed! It is the holy grail of AI research to construct and turn on such a thing. I would very much hope that whoever builds one does NOT go on to simply dismantle it to make toasters. But they turn it on.
But there is a chasm of difference between it being a shame, and there being a moral onus on us to turn it on.
I also think every abortion that happens is also similarly unfortunate. It is sad to see them happening. A "shame" if you like. But that does not mean they should not be allowed to happen when people genuinely seek them or even need them.it is not human. We assign more rights to humans than to other life forms. Just because we are humans ourselves.
That may be how it is, but it is certainly not how I believe it should be. Human Hubris is not a sound foundation for building moral arguments. It is just the ultimate in bias, not just arrogance or selfishness. And it is not future proofed in terms of AI or alien life. It is not an approach that informs us on how to treat AI, alien life, or other life on our planet. It does not inform us which life is more important than another on our planet.
But interestingly people DO act in accordance with the kind of thing I am describing even if they do not openly acknowledge it. For example ask people (in the abscence of the chance to test it directly) what they would save running out of a burning building. A cat or a spider. I have yet to find anyone say spider.
Then when I mediate the question to test that result..... by switching in two other animals, or multiple animals (people generally still pick the cat over 10,000 spiders for example) the results fall on a very particular spectrum. That spectrum being that the animal with the higher capacity for sentience is always the one picked, even if there is a large multiple of the less sentience animal. Showing that A) Sentience generally is important to people and
even one instance of a higher sentience is deemed more worthy of saving than 10,000 instances of a lower.
So I am not sure I buy what you are saying. I think the idea we apply higher rights to human just because we are human is a narrative that simply has not been tested. Because there has not BEEN an entity of equivalent sentience to ours to test it. Nor will there be until alien life, or AI, steps in to test it.
But we are splitting hairs here in the end because we are now moving away from the core premise which is that, regardless of WHY we elevate human sentience over any other, there still is no argument to A) afford rights to something not sentience or to claim that we have any onus to help any particular non-sentient entity to realize sentience.The potential is there, and as you say we can't say there is an exact moment when the colour red turns to orange.
No, but for the purposes of abortion we do not need to. Because we CAN say when it is red and when it is orange. And the near totality (approaching 98% in or before week 16 of gestation) of abortions by choice occur very firmly in the time line LONG before we have any concerns that sentience could possibly be on line at any level at all.
We are talking 100% of our current data here. EVERYTHING we know so far about consciousness and sentience tells us there simply is NO REASON at all to expect it in such a fetus. There simply is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer anywhere to suggest there is even a modicum of cause for concern in this regard. The lights simply are not on, and on one is home, in such a fetus.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Because it is human?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »regardless of WHY we elevate human sentience over any other, there still is no argument to A) afford rights to something not sentience
I think you are using this non-sentience thing to deny the humanity of the unborn human. Even if it is assumed that the foetus is not a thinking self aware creature, which seems a reasonable supposition, it is still human.
Which takes us back to the "person in a coma" analogy.
Well I did say No. I agree there is no onus if that entity is non-human. Or not even a life form, as in your AI example.or to claim that we have any onus to help any particular non-sentient entity to realize sentience.0
Advertisement