Legalise abortion

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.

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

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?

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 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 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 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.

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?

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 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 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.