nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Legalise abortion

SLUSK

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The difference is that the faculty of consciousness is present in these people despite the fact it is not operating within normal parameters. This is not so with the Fetus and the difference here is very distinct.

At certain points in development that faculty just has not developed. No "person" has formed. You can not "dehumanise" it therefore.

However, you are actually dehumanizing it by choosing criteria for defining a human being and saying it is not human because it lacks them.

Additionally, the use of such criteria requires numerous caveats such as "not yet developed" and "operating within normal parameters" as otherwise it would cover plenty of other individuals. Indeed, what are "normal parameters" - after all, senility ultimately hits us all if we live long enough (some at 60, some at 120).

On the other hand, from the moment the egg splits, however, we have a distinct and healthy biological entity of the Homo sapian species - a human. In a supportive environment, it will develop to maturity - something that does not happen until long after birth. And Homo sapian's need supportive environment's, be they wombs (natural, or in the future artificial) or an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere with access to food and water. Before this point, this cannot happen - eggs and sperm will not develop to become mature humans.

Occam's razor would appear to point to the latter definition, while the former - subjective criteria, caveats and all - increasing looks like something that is desperately attempting to prove an end that was chosen from the onset.

In my view our rights come from us. There appears to be no other source for them, despite some inventing an external one without evidence sometimes.

This is why I consider the use of such subjective criteria to be so dangerous. You define a person by merit of consciousness. But our species is not alone in its possession of consciousness - should we extend the definition to other species?

As I've said, before long your basic premise becomes overburdened with caveats; consciousness, or if you should under normal parameters have consciousness, or if you have had consciousness in the past, and only for Homo sapians - ad infinitum et nausium. When you need to plug so many holes in a definition with caveats, you really should be asking asking yourself if you're not just going down the wrong track.

And all of which rests on how and when we define conciousness - another grey area - or if we should not be using other abstract criteria altogether, such as sentience, IQ, race, age or even eye colour. By comparison, there is no ambiguity, no need for caveats if we define humanity from a purely biological perspective.

Up until about five years ago, this is where my logic concluded, and I would have considered myself pro-life as no one had ever made any reasonable argument that would have deflected my above criticisms. Then, oddly enough here, someone put forward the argument that the right to life does not override all other rights, thus making whether the foetus is human or not potentially irrelevant.

The right to life is not absolute, after all. It is morrally justifiable to take it in self defence, many also would think likewise in scenarios such as war or capital punishment.

Likewise, if you can save another's life by donating a lung (a procedure that would negatively affect your health but not kill you), you cannot be forced to donate, even though it would mean the death of the other person. The same can be argued where it comes to the bodily integrity of a woman because there is no alternative environment for the foetus at present.

Given this, while the above has certainly caused me to revise my view on the subject, I genuinely cannot say whether it would be morally right or wrong and so I find myself in a bit of an impasse.

Fortunately I can skip over this impasse.

Presently the "right to choose" is exclusively reserved to women. This means that she may terminate a pregnancy or go to term and keep the child. A man, on the other hand, has no means of choosing either way; if he wants to be a father and she does not to be a mother, then tough. If he does not want to be a father and she does want to be a mother, then tough. Resulting in a gross inequality in reproductive rights that have far reaching consequences long after the matter has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's bodily integrity (this is an important bit). Not a terribly popular viewpoint and it tends to be met with dismissive clichés, I'll admit, but rationally sound.

But taking this into account, then the impasse is however resolved; either abortion is morally wrong or it is not morally wrong - and if the latter, it represents a simple question of rights, in where one really cannot support a right that is flawed due to it's exclusive nature.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, you are actually dehumanizing it by choosing criteria for defining a human being and saying it is not human because it lacks them.

Well I am afraid by that logic I am dehumanising EVERYTHING that is not human. Cars. Birds, chairs, trees, the sky and just about everything else. If this is your only criteria for dehumanising something then I plead guilty to it every second of every day and I have no problem with that. In THIS context I am referring to "Humans" as that which deserves "rights" and since the fetus up to 16 weeks has not even STARTED to develop the faculty of consciousness, I see no reason to "humanise" it in this context and assign it rights. Not a single reason at all.

Just because something CAN develop into an entity to which we can assign rights does not mean it gets those rights up front before it becomes that entity.

You define a person by merit of consciousness. But our species is not alone in its possession of consciousness - should we extend the definition to other species?

As I said, since it is FROM our consciousness that the notion of rights comes from I think it is also TO that we assign it. If you find another conscious species which holds this concept of rights then by all means let us re-open the discussion and talk of extending the definition to them. I am not aware of any animal which holds a concept of "Right to life" however, are you? In fact we alone seem to be the only species that is aware that it is definitely going to die.

As I've said, before long your basic premise becomes overburdened with caveats; consciousness, or if you should under normal parameters have consciousness, or if you have had consciousness in the past, and only for Homo sapians - ad infinitum et nausium. When you need to plug so many holes in a definition with caveats, you really should be asking asking yourself if you're not just going down the wrong track.

But I have no such caveat and have no need of them. I simply say you attain rights when you first attain consciousness and you retain them until you die. Where is the caveat? Or are you making the error of referring to my whole premise as a caveat to itself?

metrovelvet

How can you dehumanise something that is not human? Isnt that like decarnivoring a carrot?

Rev Hellfire

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I simply say you attain rights when you first attain consciousness and you retain them until you die.

I'm curious what's so special about consciousness, I mean assuming you lose this how come it is not relinquished ?
For example by your standard if I get hit by a train and suffer permanent irreparable brain damage, because I was once conscious my family or the state can't take the logical decision for say economic reasons to terminate my unnatural existence? That's seems unusually harsh and cruel.
What of those who seek euthanasia, should they also be denied cause of this miraculous 'consciousness' ?

metrovelvet

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious what's so special about consciousness, I mean assuming you lose this how come it is not relinquished ?
For example by your standard if I get hit by a train and suffer permanent irreparable brain damage, because I was once conscious my family or the state can't take the logical decision for say economic reasons to terminate my unnatural existence? That's seems unusually harsh and cruel.
What of those who seek euthanasia, should they also be denied cause of this miraculous 'consciousness' ?

What about fainting spells? Can you be aborted during one of those and it be ok?

What about during sedation?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I am afraid by that logic I am dehumanising EVERYTHING that is not human.

Correct - or in some cases even when they are human.

Just because something CAN develop into an entity to which we can assign rights does not mean it gets those rights up front before it becomes that entity.

But it already is that entity, what defines it's rights are the criteria you have mooted - it's still the same entity, just as a person in a coma is.

As I said, since it is FROM our consciousness that the notion of rights comes from I think it is also TO that we assign it. If you find another conscious species which holds this concept of rights then by all means let us re-open the discussion and talk of extending the definition to them.

You are confusing conciousness with sentience - and for that matter civilization. Otherwise you could potentially define primitive tribes that have not developed "this concept of rights" (which concept is another thing, as there is disagreement there) as not meriting rights.

But I have no such caveat and have no need of them. I simply say you attain rights when you first attain consciousness and you retain them until you die. Where is the caveat?

Most vertebrates have consciousness, so you need a caveat for that. If you mean sentience, then you need another caveat so that we don't legitimize the euthanasia of the severely mentally handicapped.

That's before you ask the questions like whether it makes sense to define a person by a criteria and then, even if they no longer qualify, because they had it once, the criteria no longer applies - another apparent caveat.

Or are you making the error of referring to my whole premise as a caveat to itself?

No, your premise is an argument constructed around an expected conclusion and to do this you need to constantly shore up its flaws - weak induction.

An example of this kind of reasoning was the question of whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa. It had become evident by the Renaissance that it really didn't make much sense to put the Earth at the centre, however it did not stop many devising caveat after caveat rule to shore up the problems that they were finding with that model, because this was the conclusion they wanted to have.

I've offered a much simpler definition. There is no ambiguity, it is easily and objectively measurable (conciousness is not), needs no caveats because it cannot be lost and is unique to our species. So, ask yourself, are you choosing the messier argument because it is the best or because you need to arrive at a specific conclusion?

Given this, all I am defining is a person, not whether it has a right to life. That is another argument.

Rev Hellfire

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about fainting spells? Can you be aborted during one of those and it be ok?

What about during sedation?

Clearly there's a difference between a temporary state and a permanent one.
Lets be honest some people are better off dead, this idea that because you had the misfortune to inhale oxygen it now means you will be forced to live no matter what your circumstances or the effect your condition has on others is a nonsense and an unnecessary cruelty.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious what's so special about consciousness, I mean assuming you lose this how come it is not relinquished ?

I covered this but maybe you missed it. No problem repeating it though. Consciousness is where the notion of rights comes from. It is that part of us that makes it up, decides what it should be, who it should be assigned to, how it should be enforced and so on. Therefore it is not a leap to suggest it is TO this faculty we assign it to. It is for that reason mainly I elevate it's importance in this context.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

For example by your standard if I get hit by a train and suffer permanent irreparable brain damage, because I was once conscious my family or the state can't take the logical decision for say economic reasons to terminate my unnatural existence? That's seems unusually harsh and cruel.

It is harsh and cruel, however this is not something I have ever said or a position I have ever espoused, so I do not feel any need to defend myself from it. We have many rights and those of next of kin and passing the power of medical decisions to same when we are not capable are among those I would fight for.

What of those who seek euthanasia, should they also be denied cause of this miraculous 'consciousness' ?

Quite the opposite. I feel that a persons life is their own and any decision that is not directed at anyone else should be theirs alone and not even any of our business. If someone wants to die, they are more than welcome to do so in my book.

nozzferrahhtoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about fainting spells? Can you be aborted during one of those and it be ok?

What about during sedation?

Not at all. Alas this is an easy question to have to ask as we have the same word for two different things. The faculty of consciousness and actually being awake (being conscious) are two different things with, alas, the same term for both. It is to the former and not the latter that I direct my points. Corinthian above suggested "Sentience" is a better word to use. I really do not care which I use, once my clarification of what I mean is accepted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corinthian,

I am so far not aware of dehumanising anything that actually is human. However we can jump between definitions of human until the cows come home in order to make it look like I have. “Human” could be a cancer cell or “Human” could be an entity with a conscious mind. If we jump from definition to definition we are not going to get anywhere.

In the context of this discussion alone I am referring to “Human” as anything that has attained the faculty of consciousness (You suggested sentience might be a better word, I bow to the suggestion but we both know what we are talking about now so I will stick to the word I have been using thus far) as I believe it is to this faculty we assign rights and not to human DNA, human flesh, human hormones or human blood. That said, I am dehumanising nothing in this conversation as nothing to which I refer has become human and it is just a blob of flesh to which some here would assign rights that usurp that of the actual human living mother.

All that is happening is you are calling it "Human" based on one set of criteria, I am by another, and since mine negates yours you are accusing me of dehumanising it. The only thing I am deumanising is YOUR definition in the context of THIS discussion and I have no regrets at doing so.

As I said, I require none of the caveats that exist in your head as I have not been presented a situation where I required any.

Not that this would even be relevant if I did, as it would be a funny world where everything has to be black and white and if it needs caveats or sub clauses it is somehow void. Given a world where any strong law or moral we have has innumerable exceptions, caveats and clauses this does not wash. Even murder has a range of sub definitions from manslaughter to murder in self defence to murder in the category of crimes of passion. With your reasoning it would be better to allow murder for all rather than have to put up with all these pesky caveats.

So not only does my position NOT suffer from the requirement of caveats you are ascribing to it, I find such a requirement irrelevant to voiding the position anyway.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am so far not aware of dehumanising anything that actually is human.

That does not mean that it is not human or, by extension, you are dehumanizing it. We can discuss the semantics of this point all day, if you like.

However we can jump between definitions of human until the cows come home in order to make it look like I have. “Human” could be a cancer cell or “Human” could be an entity with a conscious mind. If we jump from definition to definition we are not going to get anywhere.

Actually, "human" refers to a member of the Homo sapian species. A cancer cell is not, neither is a human finger. To be human you need to be a) Homo sapian and b) possessing of your own DNA. All other definitions are ultimately philosophical assessments of what 'it means to be human'.

In the context of this discussion alone I am referring to “Human” as anything that has attained the faculty of consciousness (You suggested sentience might be a better word, I bow to the suggestion but we both know what we are talking about now so I will stick to the word I have been using thus far) as I believe it is to this faculty we assign rights and not to human DNA, human flesh, human hormones or human blood.

I suggest we switch to the correct term - sentience. Conciousness is simply awareness of the outside world, and in this all animals have 'conciousness'.

That said, I am dehumanising nothing in this conversation as nothing to which I refer has become human and it is just a blob of flesh to which some here would assign rights that usurp that of the actual human living mother.

We're all 'blobs of flesh' ultimately, so that is an irrelvant observation. It is also living and genetically independent. I am also not suggesting that even if human it should have be capable of 'usurping' anyone else's rights - however, I can understand how one would have a harder sell on abortion unless it can be defined as non-human.

I would contend that you have begun with the premise that it is not human and then worked backwards to prove this premise, to the exclusion of all other options. I suspect it is because for you, like all of us, the idea of killing a baby is just unpalatable.

I actually began with the premise that it may or may not be human and have come to the conclusion that it is, because the proof is far simpler and requires fewer 'refinements' than the contrary. At the same time, I am not convinced as to its rights even if human, because many of the pro-Life arguments also require convoluted caveats to allow them to stand up.

As I said, I require none of the caveats that exist in your head as I have not been presented a situation where I required any.

Now, that's not actually true. If you do not, then all concious organisms should be afforded the same rights. If we are talking about sentience, then infanticide should be allowed as infants do not develop sentience until later in development. And if sentience or conciousness is lost thereafter then also we can remove those rights - after all, that is how you define a person.

All of these are flaws in your definition - they are not in my head - and require you to add caveats to your original definition so that it does not fall apart.

Not that this would even be relevant if I did, as it would be a funny world where everything has to be black and white and if it needs caveats or sub clauses it is somehow void.

That's true, however in science, when you need to continually add caveats to a theory, you do have to consider the real possibility that it is flawed. I even gave a historical example of this to illustrate.

A more current example are the attempts to reconcile Creationism with science; because this process is ultimately bound to certain assumptions, it means that caveat after caveat need to be added to any theory that tries to explain the physical universe - otherwise it would fall apart.

Given a world where any strong law or moral we have has innumerable exceptions, caveats and clauses this does not wash. Even murder has a range of sub definitions from manslaughter to murder in self defence to murder in the category of crimes of passion. With your reasoning it would be better to allow murder for all rather than have to put up with all these pesky caveats.

Not at all. Remember, I have not actually said it is morally wrong to terminate a foetus, all I have done is define one part of that question. A murder may be self-defence or manslaughter or whatever, but ultimately we can clearly state that a person has died and that another one was, at least partially, instrumental.

So not only does my position NOT suffer from the requirement of caveats you are ascribing to it, I find such a requirement irrelevant to voiding the position anyway.

I've raised a number of flaws in your definition that require caveats (or refinements if you prefer that word). You can pretend I have not, but they're clearly stated.

nozzferrahhtoo

Your definition of human does not help here. It is not to Human DNA that comes up with “rights” and it is not TO human DNA we assign them. Therefore whatever your subjective definition it does not seem applicable to this conversation. Nor do we assign rights to “blobs of flesh” either.

If we are talking about the “rights” of a fetus it seems before we talk about anything else we must decide at what point a fetus attains these rights. I see no other case of us assigning rights to non-sentient / conscious entities, whatever word you want to use. Nor do I see any other source of rights.

would contend that you have begun with the premise that it is not human and then worked backwards to prove this premise, to the exclusion of all other options.

Entirely false. I started with the notion that rights come from the human faculty of higher consciousness and it is to THAT we therefore assign said rights. I worked up from there.

The entire rebuttal to my position seems to be that this fetus has the potential to BECOME that which we assign rights to, therefore it should get those rights. However I am also not aware of any situation where we execute rights based on what MIGHT be but usually on what IS. We do not lock people up because they are potential murderers, nor do we release them because they are potential rehabilitants. We act on what we know to be true NOW.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to see why your subjective definition of „Human“ is any more relevant or valid than mine in this context.

Occam's razor -it is simpler and requires few, if any, caveats to allow it to function.

However suffice to say that it is not Human DNA that comes up with “rights” and it is not TO human DNA we assign them. Therefore whatever your subjective definition it does not seem applicable to this conversation. Nor do we assign rights to “blobs of flesh” either.

I'm not discussing rights. I'm discussing definition of a (human) person.

If we are talking about the “rights” of a fetus it seems before we talk about anything else we must decide at what point a fetus attains these rights.

You're jumping ahead. Just because someone has rights in one context, does not mean they have it in other contexts. As I said, I am not actually discussing whether the foetus has rights per say, only whether it is a (human) person.

I can see no other case where we give rights to an entity before it has attained this level of consciousness, or sentience or whatever you want to call it. Use whatever term you like, it is clear what I mean.

Odd argument, and false. Irish law gives rights to an entity before it has attained this level of consciousness, or sentience, in its existing abortion laws, for example.

Entirely false. I started with the notion that rights come from the human faculty of higher consciousness and it is to THAT we therefore assign said rights. I worked up from there. I thought that part at least, if nothing else I have said, was clear but your above quote seems to suggest you missed it as you have entirely misrepresented my thought process on this. So it is worth not going any further than this point until it is entirely clear.

I'd believe that if you did not seem absolutely obstinate to retain that initial notion, despite your need to continually shore it up - let's be honest, most would have, at this stage, admitted that maybe the initial premise was flawed and perhaps it was time to test a new one.

However as I said my position on this is entirely falsifiable. If you find another source of rights that is external to that of the human mind then I would be forced to rethink my position vastly. “God” has been suggested to me a few times as such a source but not one person has given me a shred of a scrap of evidence this entity exists so thus far I am secure in my position.

Your position is entirely falsifiable though different means. The most obvious one requires no divinity; there are better - simpler, less dependant on exceptions, more objectively measurable - definitions out there.

The entire rebuttal to me position seems to be that this fetus has the potential to BECOME that which we assign rights to, therefore it should get those rights.

No. Potential is irrelevant - citing that it will grow to maturity is only to demonstrate that it is a separate and distinct organism.

And I actually have not mentioned rights. I've actually repeatedly pointed out that even if human, that does not assure it of any rights.

However I am also not aware of any situation where we execute rights based on what MIGHT be but usually on what IS. We do not lock people up because they are potential murderers, nor do we release them because they are potential rehabilitants. We act on what we know to be true NOW.

Hence the definition I put forward - a) Homo sapian and b) possessing of your own unique DNA. Do you see any 'potential' mentioned?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sorry your post dissections are getting impossible to follow now. If you dissect any more you are going to have a reply after each word I write. Reading over it has become the visual equivalent of staring at a zebra crossing while driving quickly over it. Not to mention the fact you ended up spending so much time at it you ended up quoting a long since edited post.

However we are going to keep going in circles because your entire definition of human appears to be irrelevant to this conversation as yours is entirely taxonomy based and you will get no argument from me on it. I wholly agree with you on it.

The problem is highlighted by you saying “definition of a (human) person”. In terms of Taxonomoy you will get no argument from me on what you have said so far. In terms of RIGHTS however, which is where a conversation on abortion ought to start, it is the “person” that I am referring to here as human in terms of “Human rights”. Not the blob of flesh and its contained DNA.

We should not assign rights based on DNA. We should assign it based on the fact we have the faculty of higher consciousness and this aspect of us has come up with this concept of rights. As such a fetus to a given point, certainly until 16 weeks, has not even BEGUN to develop this faculty and as such I see nothing to assign rights to.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry your post dissections are getting impossible to follow now. If you dissect any more you are going to have a reply after each word I write.

Go back to my original post then, I've not actually changed my argument.

The problem is highlighted by you saying “definition of a (human) person”. In terms of Taxonomoy you will get no argument from me on what you have said so far. In terms of RIGHTS however, which is where a conversation on abortion ought to start, it is the “person” that I am referring to here as human in terms of “Human rights”. Not the blob of flesh and its contained DNA.

If it is not a "(human) person", then it's a slam dunk - it cannot have rights, but if you accept that it is a "(human) person" - as you just have - then it becomes an issue.

As to the answer to this issue of whether it has rights, what those rights are and how those rights interact with the rights of other "(human) persons", well that's another argument. However, arguing that a person has no rights based upon a subjective, arbitrary condition will not get you far. A more rational approach would be to look at how any rights might interact with the rights of others - just as we do with everyone else.

We do not assign rights based on DNA.

We do. Lot's of them. Inheritance for one.

Arguably we ultimately assign all rights from the starting point of a biological entity with unique homo sapian DNA, rather than more philosophical criteria such as sentience. Otherwise Dolphins would probably have the vote.

nozzferrahhtoo

Now you seem keen to change what I am actually saying. You just said:

but if you accept that it is a "(human) person" - as you just have

Which is entirely the opposite of what I am actually saying. Please, if you do nothing else, keep your words out of my mouth. I have clearly enough of my own.

What I am saying is that in terms of Taxonomy you are right to call it “Human” and in terms of rights you are right to call it a “person”. There is a huge difference here but your entire approach seems to be to put the words together “Human Person” and so attempt to argue for rights for the fetus by proxy.

And no, we do not give rights based on DNA. We still give it to the conscious human being. You give Inheritance as an example. The DNA does not inherit. The person does. The way you put it it sounds like a persons membership card is actually the member of the club, not the person himself. In fact much inheritance is thusly club based, not DNA based, which is why spouses inherit too. The inheritance is based on who is a member of this "club" and DNA is only one of the membership cards for this. In fact in many places the spouse inherits before the children do.

This is in fact the exact point where we are talking past each other. The person with the DNA inherits. The DNA does not. The DNA does not have rights. The person does. This is exactly my point and I thank you for the analogy.

Similarly the DNA does not have rights, the person does, and hence in the conversation on abortion I see no reason why the fetus should be assigned rights just because it is a piece of human DNA. DNA does not have rights.

As far as I know in inheritance, the unborn can not inherit anyway can they? Which sort of plays to what I am saying. If there is one child and one fetus and no other next of kin the living child inherits right? Seems the law is at least one step in the right direction if this is true, but I admit I am not sure on that one.

AARRRGH

I think it's a "no brainer" that abortion is wrong, so I don't think it should be legalised.

I understand it is a complex issue though. For example, I am ok with the morning after pill because I personally believe a bunch of jizz and an egg at conception isn't really a life, but I do think a semi-formed baby after a couple of weeks most definitely is a life.

I also disagree with the culture of people using abortions as a type of birth control.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is entirely the opposite of what I am actually saying. Please, if you do nothing else, keep your words out of my mouth. I have clearly enough of my own.

Fair enough. I misread you.

What I am saying is that in terms of Taxonomy you are right to call it “Human” and in terms of rights you are right to call it a “person”. There is a huge difference here but your entire approach seems to be to put the words together “Human Person” and so attempt to argue for rights for the fetus by proxy.

If it is a human person it undoubtedly has rights. What those rights are and how far they extend is another matter. For example, if I need a lung transplant, I cannot force a doner to give one to me, even if it means my death.

And no, we do not give rights based on DNA. We still give it to the conscious human being. You give Inheritance as an example. The DNA does not inherit. The person does.

You mean the person afforded the right to inherit by virtue of DNA - not difficult to understand.

This is in fact the exact point where we are talking past each other. The person with the DNA inherits. The DNA does not. The DNA does not have rights. The person does. This is exactly my point and I thank you for the analogy.

I don't think you understand the analogy. The DNA confers rights to the person - not to the DNA. Also a foetus is not DNA, it possesses DNA. Again, not complicated.

No one has suggested that DNA has or should have rights.

As far as I know in inheritance, the unborn can not inherit anyway can they?

Interesting point, however yes they can. You can inherit even before you're born - but it would likely be held in trust until you reach adulthood.

dlofnep

Is a fetus always a fetus, even 5 seconds before a woman gives birth? When does it become a child? What's the difference between a child inside a womb, or outside? Does it not have the same capacity to think, to feel?

nozzferrahhtoo

Again you are saying much I agree on but it falls apart too soon.

First in terms of Taxonomy I agree whole heartedly with you. DNA is enough to make you human in this sense. However DNA does not get rights and you are wrong to say that DNA allows you to inherit. DNA is just one membership card that allows you in the “club”. You can inherit by marriage or by adoption too which has nothing to do with DNA at all.

Secondly you say if it is a Human Person it has rights and I agree wholly with that too. The issue is WHEN it becomes a person. Where is the line drawn and why. I certainly can not see it being at conception for example. A chunk of DNA is not a person. A sperm and egg do not get rights. What is added when they join that suddenly gives them rights? I can see nothing. What about after the first split? The second split? The third? Where is this magical moment? For me it is clear and easy. When the faculty that creates the notion of rights arises in the fetus, the fetus attains these rights. For it is that faculty that makes us a “person” in the context of rights.

The Corinthian

dlofnep wrote: »

Is a fetus always a fetus, even 5 seconds before a woman gives birth? When does it become a child?

I think a foetus is being referred to here as a convenient term for an unborn human. Medically the term applies only from the second trimester, I think.

What's the difference between a child inside a womb, or outside?

Maturity.

Does it not have the same capacity to think, to feel?

No it does not - at least not until later in a pregnancy. This appears to be the basis for the argument that it is not a person. Problem is that the capacity to think or feel is not limited to our species and the lack there of is not shared by all of our, post-natal, species - which is what complicates this definition.

nozzferrahhtoo

dlofnep wrote: »

Is a fetus always a fetus, even 5 seconds before a woman gives birth? When does it become a child? What's the difference between a child inside a womb, or outside? Does it not have the same capacity to think, to feel?

I think this is essentially the conversation we have been having for the last handfull of posts. I am trying to distinguish between the Human (which it is even before conception depending on your view) and the Person which I am trying to say is what we assign rights to. The Person gets rights not the DNA that makes it human.

To that end I have suggested that the rise of consciousness in the fetus is a good cut off point for deciding abortion issues. This faculty needs MANY things to operate and I find that few of them have even started development, let alone reached completion, even as late as 16 weeks. I therefore argue that this is the sensible cut off and not Birth for example which you ask about above, or conception as some would have it.

Does it not have the same capacity to think, to feel?

We just do not know that one. As soon as consciousness forms we have no idea what it is to subjectively experience it. Do they think, feel, emote, remember, anticipate... who knows? Any who says they do is just guessing. That is why I direct my arguments and my cut off point at the START of the development of consciousness and not the middle or end. We simply have no way to know what the subjective experience of the developing child is once these parts of it start to fire.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

First in terms of Taxonomy I agree whole heartedly with you. DNA is enough to make you human in this sense. However DNA does not get rights and you are wrong to say that DNA allows you to inherit. DNA is just one membership card that allows you in the “club”.

You are simply stating your position.

You can inherit by marriage or by adoption too which has nothing to do with DNA at all.

That does not invalidate my point that DNA alone will qualify one for inheritance.

Secondly you say if it is a Human Person it has rights and I agree wholly with that too. The issue is WHEN it becomes a person. Where is the line drawn and why. I certainly can not see it being at conception for example. A chunk of DNA is not a person.

Genetically it is.

A sperm and egg do not get rights.

No one has suggested this. Quite the opposite - sperm or eggs do not have unique DNA. A zygote does.

What is added when they join that suddenly gives them rights?

Unique, individual, homo sapien DNA.

For me it is clear and easy. When the faculty that creates the notion of rights arises in the fetus, the fetus attains these rights. For it is that faculty that makes us a “person” in the context of rights.

Then you will have to accept infanticide, as that faculty does not appear until long after birth.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again DNA alone is only one membership card. It is no more important that marriage or adoption. Inheritance is not based on DNA, but on a human formed conceptual group of people who can inherit who become part of this group through many avenues. As such, and as I have been saying, the person gets these rights not the DNA and their access to those rights is based on varied criteria only one of which is DNA. Mere words written on a piece of paper usurps DNA and with the stroke of a pen you can disinherit anyone of DNA relation... and even in the cases of some countries I have read about... anyone of your own species (Wont look now but citation available on demand of people leaving their wealth to their pets)

And actually I have to correct your science if you will allow me. Sperm and Egg in fact DO have a unique DNA. Your DNA is made up of 2 “stripes” of uniquely coded information. Each strip is unique but is repeated in every cell of your body.

However recombination occurs when the gametes (the name for sperm and eggs) are formed giving an entirely unique sequence. So if for example your two strips were:

ABCD
EFGH

Your sperm could be:

AFCD
or
EBGD
etc

Which is a unique sequence of DNA that exists no where else in the universe, or at least is so unlikely to exist anywhere else that it is not worth discussing and I would be surprised if you can find a calculator within your pay bracket that can display the number after you raise 2 to the high enough power to calculate the probabilities.

drkpower

The conciousness/sentience argument has far too many 'exceptions' to be workable, aside from the obvious medical/scientific difficulties of actually determining a point at which conciousness/sentience has occurred/not occurred.

The 'unique individual living entity' is also somewhat problematic given the identical twin issue, but at least it is a more definite and, lets be honest, a more credible solution than trying to juggle the science to fit in with a rational beginning point for 'life'.

But, at the end of the day, none of our rights are absolute, whether we are born or unborn, especially where they impinge on the rights of another. A born child doesnt have anywhere close to equal rights to autonomy and privacy, even his right to health is severely curtailed by his parent's own views. The right to life of an adult ranks below the right to health of another adult in certain circumstances. All of our rights are subject to and rank below the common good, even the right to life in certain circumstances.

So why do we have such a difficulty with admitting that a foetus is human, is a life, but that certain of its rights rank below that of certain of the rights of the woman whose body it inhabits? Where and how to balance these rights is the eternal question, but pretending that we need to dehumanise a foetus in order to justify abortion isnt necessary and is usually a dishonest exercise of squeezing a square peg into a round hole in order to justify a particular viewpoint that has already been arrived at.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

difficulties of actually determining a point at which conciousness/sentience has occurred/not occurred.

I both agree and disagree here. You are entirely right that this is an area difficult for us to measure. It IS hard to determine this exactly but I think it is not an issue as we do not need it exactly. Let me explain.

The analogy I give is matter and gravity. We barely know where they come from, what they are, why they are there, where they start and end and so on. However that aside it is not difficult at all to identify a point when they are ENTIRELY absent. If matter is not there you know it. You have empty space in front of you. If gravity is not there you realise it when your head hits the roof.

It is entirely the same with consciousness/sentience. We know many of the building blocks of it, even if we do not know all of them, and when they are entirely absent we know consciousness/sentience is too.

The trick then is to decide such a point and I went to GREAT lengths to do so. I read about all the things required in science journal after journal*, I read about when each on STARTS to form in the fetus, I picked the earliest of all of them and then I added a grossly exaggerated safety margin to allow some fetus’ to develop faster than others.

This left me with a comfortable 20 week cut off point before the safety margin, and 16 weeks after it (completely arbitrary 20% reduction, no reason behind it except I wanted it to be TOO much).

==============
* One example I cite I will re-paste here as I have it to hand…

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

Like I said we do not know at what point conciousness rises. Maybe 20 weeks when it starts? 22 when it is Synced? Or not until it is sustained? We simply do not know.

However at 16 weeks, it plain and simply is not there

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I both agree and disagree here. You are entirely right that this is an area difficult for us to measure. It IS hard to determine this exactly but I think it is not an issue as we do not need it exactly. Let me explain.

Even if you can (which I doubt given our relatively primitive understanding of this area of science/medicine) make such a scientific estimation and add 'zones of safety', you are still left with the consequences of deciding that human life derives only from conscience/sentience (do we devalue those at the other end of life who have neither, or the born child that has never developed conciousness/sentience).

And of course, if you decide that a foetus below whatever cut-off point is not a 'life', a 'being' or whatever, then does it have absolutely no rights as a result? Should there be any restrictions on the manipulation of embryos, foetus'?

Lets say you determine 20 weeks as the cut off: Can an 18 week old foetus' be used for scientific research, either in utero (with the mother's consent) or ex utero, when the science has developed methods to allow the very early foetus survive ex-utero.

While i can see the sense in your argument, it doesnt fully take account of the moral, scieentific and legal complexities involved. We need to get away from the idea that there is a clean black and white solution here, one where we can allow abortion (up to a certain point) while happily pretending to ourselves that it doesnt involve the ending of a life. It does. But as i have already stated, that does not mean that we abortion is not justifiable.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes, I think at this point it should have absolutely no rights. None. It is not a human in this sense, but a blue print for a human. It is about as much a human to me as my IKEA instructions ARE the wardrobe I am building. I feel absolutely no discomfort in saying this.

I understand the appeal to emotion standing behind the question and I do not complain for having it asked of me. It is worth asking. I know myself that even at an early stage that emotionally this is a different thing. They developing zygote become more than a blue print, but the emotion representation of the hopes and dreams of the parents at times. However this is the parents rights and dreams then.

I have no qualms in saying I do not see any reason to assign it rights. Not one. The appeal to emotion inherent in the question is not an issue for me, though I can understand why you ask it.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again DNA alone is only one membership card. It is no more important that marriage or adoption. Inheritance is not based on DNA, but on a human formed conceptual group of people who can inherit who become part of this group through many avenues.

Again; I have not said it is solely based on DNA. I have said that DNA alone can qualify one for inheritance rights - if they have the DNA, they need no further criteria.

Mere words written on a piece of paper usurps DNA and with the stroke of a pen you can disinherit anyone of DNA relation...

Actually you can't in most (Western) countries. In Ireland, for example, you can intentionally omit (disinherit) someone, but if they are a son/daughter they still retain the right to challenge and overturn this - a right afforded by DNA alone.

And actually I have to correct your science if you will allow me. Sperm and Egg in fact DO have a unique DNA. Your DNA is made up of 2 “stripes” of uniquely coded information. Each strip is unique but is repeated in every cell of your body.

Incorrect. Sperm and ova do not posses DNA (a genome would be more correct) - they only have half (23 chromosomes). Human genomes have 46 chromosomes - 23 chromosome pairs.

drkpower wrote: »

The 'unique individual living entity' is also somewhat problematic given the identical twin issue, but at least it is a more definite and, lets be honest, a more credible solution than trying to juggle the science to fit in with a rational beginning point for 'life'.

Never suggested it is the perfect definition, only that it is the best I've come across, largely as most other definitions tend to be too heavily dependant on the axioms they are attempting to validate. I'm open to others.

So why do we have such a difficulty with admitting that a foetus is human, is a life, but that certain of its rights rank below that of certain of the rights of the woman whose body it inhabits?

Because we're squeamish, I suspect. One can rationally and logically argue that even someone is human they do not necessarily have a right to life, but we are not comfortable with that on an emotional level.

nozzferrahhtoo

And again I tell you this is not so. DNA can be usurped and they can have all the DNA they want and inherit nothing. With the mere written word and my signature it doesn’t matter how closely related someone is to me, they will get nothing. They can “Challenge” it all they like, they are “guaranteed” nothing. DNA therefore is not all they need. They need a case.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Incorrect. Sperm and ova do not posses DNA (a genome would be more correct) - they only have half (23 chromosomes).

Incorrect, they indeed do. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts I am afraid.

Sperm* contain chromosomes**, which contain DNA***, which is configured in a unique to the parent string of information. So yes sperm DO have DNA and yes they ARE unique.

* Sperm: They contain only one set of chromosome
** chromosome: A threadlike linear strand of DNA
***DNA : an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes

and just for fun here are some articles on sperm DNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050621095150.htm
http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/del428v1
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?id=/research/headlines/news/article_09_10_21_en.html&item=Infocentre&artid=13393
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2658737.ece

and my personal fave

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/esfh-dsh063009.php