Oh my. Despite my intentions not to, I fell asleep, and so have been unable to respond. Here do I make amends.
The question of whether a fetus is a person is strongly tied other questions about consciousness and the mind-body problem. However, I notice that this is only significant because, for some reason, there is a higher value placed on conscious organisms. I, for one, see no reason to have such prejudices. Life is life, and whether it's conscious or not makes little difference to me.
Abortion does not change the "timing" on a child if you have another one. It KILLS a child so that another one can come into existence. This is not the same child. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the abortion is, it is still ending a child's life. Do you really believe that killing a human and killing a carrot are the same morally? Also, to the last point, parents don't have the choice on when their child is going to live. What you are saying is that they have the choice on WHICH child lives, and they don't. This argument is trying to equate having 2 children and killing the first one with only having 1 child. They are not the same thing.
Except that, it seems to me, a parent who has an unexpected child in a situation of poverty is unlikely to have as many children as were planned because of the great strain. In a situation like this, to have the unexpected child is to destroy the expected child's possibility to exist.
And in many ways, yes, I believe killing a carrot is on similar moral ground to killing a person. What distinction would you make between the two?
Even should they be entirely different, killing one that another might live is considered moral. At some point, lethal force becomes reasonable in defending yourself. The moral ideation in war is that without killing these people, others would have far worse lives.
The mother's convenience is not of greater importance than the life of a living human being. Is an unborn child, then, a living human being? In all ways that I can tell, yes, it is.
An abortion is, or can be, undertaken for the sake of the child as much as it is for the mother. Also, is the convenience of this unborn child of greater importance than the convenience of another unborn child? To grant one is to destroy the other's, so neither is of higher moral standing on that alone. When added that one of these unborn children has better circumstances in life, I think the decision becomes clear.
That's probably because your definition is a post hoc jumble designed to justify abortion as a legal practice, not a concrete and useful scientific term. Being inside the mother doesn't change the nature of the organism. An infant that has just emerged from the mother was not mere moments ago a completely different non-entity.
I just want to point out that defining life is extremely difficult. Many definitions arise as a post-hoc jumble to exclude automobiles from the classification. The definition of life is still hotly debated, and under some ideas, the human fetus may not qualify for some time in its development.
I remember mention of abortion being defined as killing, and therefore that the fetus must be alive. I disagree on two counts. One, the definition may be faulty, and two, it is killing when considering the future, but perhaps not the present. And, as I've said before, not undergoing abortion is also killing when considering the future.
You are being misinterpreted by a few people. It might help clarify for them and me if you answer this:
What makes an embryo inhuman? How do you decide who or what is human, and what is not? What is your criteria, and why does a fertilized egg not meet that criteria? Also, are your criteria compatible with the scientific definitions of human life?
You know, so much of this debate is terminology.
The Pro-Life side has an interest in classifying the fetus as "Human" (making it, q.e.d., a Human Life), because (obviously) the proscription against the taking of a "Human" Life forms the bedrock of our sense of morality. They will completely ignore the physical/biological differences between an embryo and a fully formed person, asserting that the one is merely an early stage of development of the other, and that no moral line can be drawn between them (not to mention Scientific lines).
The Pro-Choice side, on the other hand, strongly feels that there's some significant difference between a fully formed person and an undeveloped/undifferentiated embryo in the womb, and this feeling naturally leads them to want to classify it as something other than a "Human Life" which would therefore be something that could be removed/terminated without the same moral consequences.
But the dictinction/importance is not truly in the "Human-ness" of the thing.
So some people (recognizing this) then try to argue it a different way - something like this: while the fetus may, in fact be a "Human Life," it is still not a "Person." "Person" in this case referring to any number of factors self-awareness, consciousness, develpoment or features, self-sustaining organs (viability) - all in an attempt to quantify why they do not consider it the moral equivilanet of a fully formed person.
And the Pro-Life faction of course scoffs at any attempt to draw a moral distinction between what constitutes a "Human" and what constitutes a "Person." Indeed, on it's face, such a thing sounds silly to say.
But there is some difference there.
Ultimately, this is not a question Science can decide. No matter how much we learn about Human development, you will never be able to pin-point a moment when you can scientifically declare "this is the point where it happens." And because you can't pin-point such a moment, the Pro-Life movement would have it that the moment is, in fact, the earliest moment it could possibly be, i.e. the moment of Conception. Everything else is just a slippery slope argument, and science is constantly pushing back the date which a fetus may be "viable" (at least, viable with use of heavy machinery).
Which rankles the Pro-choice movement no end. Because if there was any moment where they could be absolutely sure that this life was not "Human" or a "Person" or whatever, it would be right then, at the moment of conception, where this life form is nothing but a microscopic clump of chromosomes - just about as far removed from a fully formed person as it is possible to be, without even the hint of a brain stem with which to generate the consciousness to (eventually) come.
Which, ultimately, is why I decided long ago that the question was one that each person has to answer for themselves - via their own sense of logic, or Faith, or Religion, or simply via whatever means makes sense to them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Which, ultimately, is why I decided long ago that the question was one that each person has to answer for themselves - via their own sense of logic, or Faith, or Religion, or simply via whatever means makes sense to them.
agreed. 100% it's all about your opinions and thoughts on the matter. i am obviously pro-choice. but to be completely honest, i think it's hard to form a non biased opinion on abortion if you've never been in the situation. for those of us who've never been there and had to make such a decision, we don't truly know what we'd do or how we'd feel about it at the time. if my fiance were to get pregnant right now, abortion would probably be an option for us because there's no way on earth that we could possibly begin to try to raise a child right now. not w/ our financial and living status. i know that there would also be the option for adoption after the baby is born, but as i said above, that's a lot to go through for virtually nothing. a lot of pain and heartbreak and a lot of disappointment. i know that abortion is more of a 'get out of jail free' card, but it's there. and it's legal. why not cash it in?
another question i might ask to try and sway the argument from wether ot not an unborn fetus is a human being is this... regardless of belief or morality or whatever, why do some pro-life people feel the need to stand in front of abortion clinics and protest? now, i understand that they aren't in agreement w/ what's going on inside, but don't you think it's hard enough for these girls as it is. i doubt that they got pregnant on purpose because they wanted to have an abortion. they are there to do something that may haunt them the rest of their lives, but it may just be the right decision for them at the time. some of them may not even want the procedure, they may be forced into by their parents. who knows? but given that, why would these people who don't agree w/ it stand outside the clinics and protest and tell these girls how wrong it is, etc?
i don't believe in god (another argument for another day, please ), but i wouldn't go to my local church and stand outside and protest it. for me, it's like this... who cares? you have your beliefs, and i have mine. i'm not trying to convince you that the way i feel about abortion or whatever is the correct way to feel about it. but i don't think anyone should try to convince me either.
Ultimately, this is not a question Science can decide. No matter how much we learn about Human development, you will never be able to pin-point a moment when you can scientifically declare "this is the point where it happens." And because you can't pin-point such a moment, the Pro-Life movement would have it that the moment is, in fact, the earliest moment it could possibly be, i.e. the moment of Conception. Everything else is just a slippery slope argument, and science is constantly pushing back the date which a fetus may be "viable" (at least, viable with use of heavy machinery).
Which, ultimately, is why I decided long ago that the question was one that each person has to answer for themselves - via their own sense of logic, or Faith, or Religion, or simply via whatever means makes sense to them.
The problem being that no Pro-Lifer is going to sit idly by while innocent "children" (that they have no intention of adopting) get brutally slaughtered.
I'd be happy to leave it up to a matter of personal opinion, but they won't.
The thing is, Science can give us a clear answer but won't be the answer that either side wants. The thing is that nature is wierd. It does strange things that you don't really expect it to do. The problem is when people try to selectively percieve nature and pidgeonhole everything to make it conform to their personal worldview. If someone were to argue however, that a fetus is both a human and not a human simultaneously, I might buy it. Nature is not black and white afterall. It could make sense when you consider that a caterpillar has the same DNA as a butterfly even though they look completely different. If could make sense when you consider that male ants and bees have no father, but only half the DNA of their mother (and sister bees are more related to eachother than they are to their own mother). Nature is just wierd.
A fetus can become a human but that doesn't neccessarily make it a human. Then again it could also become a cyborg if it plays it's cards right. You can never tell with these things. I think that there are enough differences to classify a fetus as a nonhuman and enough similarities to classify it as a kinda-human. Basically, its a little blobby guy. I personally think thats the most accurate way to look at it. Its a sorta-human in the same sense that a Zombie might be considered a sorta-human.
But the dictinction/importance is not truly in the "Human-ness" of the thing.
So some people (recognizing this) then try to argue it a different way - something like this: while the fetus may, in fact be a "Human Life," it is still not a "Person." "Person" in this case referring to any number of factors self-awareness, consciousness, develpoment or features, self-sustaining organs (viability) - all in an attempt to quantify why they do not consider it the moral equivilanet of a fully formed person.
And the Pro-Life faction of course scoffs at any attempt to draw a moral distinction between what constitutes a "Human" and what constitutes a "Person." Indeed, on it's face, such a thing sounds silly to say.
But there is some difference there.
Fascinating position.
In that case, what constitutes the moral difference between killing a person, and a human non-person?
Certainly there are differences, but how might these differences render one less important than the other?
Certainly it is easier to terminate something we perceive only as a bundle of human cells, but that is an emotional distinction, a distinction based on ease, and on our lack of interaction with it. As social animals, we're hardwired to care most deeply about the problems we see immediately around us, not problems in the abstract. Since we do not interact with fetuses or embryos, we cannot look them into the eye, hold a conversation, or watch them learn to walk, it is very easy to write them off as something unimportant or inconsequential. Just as we will not mourn for a mother raped and killed in Darfur when we do not witness the act firsthand, we do not mourn for a bundle of cells in a waste basket.
But ruling out the motive of selfish interest, aren't the problems of those we cannot see, problems in the abstract such as starvation and genocide, as urgent to address as the problems of those we can see, if we are acting selflessly?
So aside from the ease of being apathetic to the fate of someone we label as a non-person, for whatever criteria we choose to imagine, what is the difference between killing a person and a human non-person?
First we have to understand that what makes a human a person is the brain. You might try to pull some kind of slippery slope argument to turn this post into a justification for killing people with Downs syndrome and such, but it's not. An autistic child is always more intelligent and aware of his or her own personhood than a fetus. My cat is more aware of it's own personhood than a fetus. Yes, my cat is a nonhuman person, you want to fight about it?
A person doesn't want to die because they have important things that they have to do, like eating or writing symphonies or chasing a ball of string. Fetuses and corpses aren't really able to think about it though, so what do they care? Actually, I'm not sure about corpses because they could be zombies. Maybe we should start a new thread to debate whether zombies should be considered people, I dunno.
My feeling is, if it's smart enough to not want to die (like a cat or a superintelligent robot), then you should not kill it. If it is not smart enough to not want to die then thats just natural selection at work. So maybe when humans start evolving to develop brains sooner after conception this will be a dilemma for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I'll post more, but first I have to get rid of the rediculous post that is above. Sperm is not a human. It cannot and will not grow into a human. It does not have the DNA of a human. A fertilized egg, however, does have the DNA of a human, and it will grow into a human given time. That argument is idiotic at best.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
First we have to understand that what makes a human a person is the brain. You might try to pull some kind of slippery slope argument to turn this post into a justification for killing people with Downs syndrome and such, but it's not.
How is it not? If sentience and mental awareness is the bar for personhood, how do you avoid applying that standard when it is inconvenient to do so?
How can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
You can still say that it is still not right to kill them, since they might have a will to live, but can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
An autistic child is always more intelligent and aware of his or her own personhood than a fetus. My cat is more aware of it's own personhood than a fetus. Yes, my cat is a nonhuman person, you want to fight about it?
A difference of degree, yes. So, is an autistic child "less" of a person by some degree?
A person doesn't want to die because they have important things that they have to do, like eating or writing symphonies or chasing a ball of string.
My feeling is, if it's smart enough to not want to die (like a cat or a superintelligent robot), then you should not kill it.
If someone is unconscious, sleeping, for that period of time they lack the ability to decide whether they want to live or die, because their brain is incapable of complex cognitive functions and only their subconscious is active. Only in the future will they regain that ability.
So is it morally excusable to kill someone so long as they are not awake and capable of deciding? Would that merely be natural selection at play?
Say that a person who attempted suicide and recently had their stomach pumped is now lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. It is not known whether they wish to live, or will carry through with their suicide attempt.
You are this teenager's guardian. They are dependent upon you for food, clothing, and shelter. Do you have the moral (not legal, but moral) right to make the decision whether this teenager will live or die? Remember, they cannot make the decision for themselves, not until some indeterminate point in the future when (or if, you never know, they might have a heart attack) they awake. So, since you are negatively impacted by them economically and they are incapable of making the decision until a future point in time, are you ethically justified to kill them, not knowing what they might decide for themselves?
As an identical twin, I find the idea that "killing someone and cloning them = not killing them" terribly offensive. Having the same DNA(and I was under the impression that the DNA of identical twins and clones are not actually 100% identical(correct me I'm wrong)) does not make you the same person, and to think so shows a foundational misunderstanding of what a "person" is.
No, it's not true in general, but it is true for an unborn child.
If you end the child's life before it begins - when absolutely no effects of nurture could possibly be had on it at that point; and if you recreate the child's initial conditions (nature, DNA), and put it in the same place, you get something that is as close to numerical identity as you can get - the same in *every way*, except that they are, in fact, distinct items.
I have another thought. Axelrod posted this:
Quote from Axelrod »
But the dictinction/importance is not truly in the "Human-ness" of the thing.
So some people (recognizing this) then try to argue it a different way - something like this: while the fetus may, in fact be a "Human Life," it is still not a "Person." "Person" in this case referring to any number of factors self-awareness, consciousness, develpoment or features, self-sustaining organs (viability) - all in an attempt to quantify why they do not consider it the moral equivilanet of a fully formed person.
And the Pro-Life faction of course scoffs at any attempt to draw a moral distinction between what constitutes a "Human" and what constitutes a "Person." Indeed, on it's face, such a thing sounds silly to say.
But there is some difference there.
So, apparently, there's one kind of argument that says that the fetus lacks certain qualities that make it a complete "person." We see this in ethics in general - there are commonly statements about how entities that are not moral agents have a different standing in the overall world of moral agents.
I think, that I am right to suspect, that the motivation behind valuing the qualities of personhood the way they are, is that, one does not wish to kill or harm something that has the sentience not to want that done unto it; a creature that can see what is being denied it (life) because it is self-aware and has theory of mind (it knows that other things are self-aware too).
That is commonly the basis of moral evaluation, right? I'm expecting a few of the philosophy regulars to say "That's the ONLY basis, you crazy evil [descriptor]" but let's ignore that...
So it seems that this argument, if one makes it and really believes in it, would entail that person's stance on physician-assisted suicide. It seems that anyone who evaluates the morality of an act unto a thing, by considering whether it is sentient, and if it is cognizant of the meaning of having that act done to it, to some sufficient degree; and makes a decision by giving sentient things what are naturally their right (to life, liberty or what have you) - these people would have to allow physician-assisted suicide, or else be hypocrites.
Any thoughts on that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
just about as far removed from a fully formed person as it is possible to be, without even the hint of a brain stem with which to generate the consciousness to (eventually) come.
First we have to understand that what makes a human a person is the brain.
You both assume that a brain is required for consciousness. A non-brain collection of living tissue could have consciousness, too, and there's the possibility of a consciousness existing independent of any physical matter. The mind-body problem has never been solved, to my knowledge. (See mind-body dichotomy)
Actually, I'm not sure about corpses because they could be zombies. Maybe we should start a new thread to debate whether zombies should be considered people, I dunno.
Sounds fun. It'd depend on the zombie, I suppose. I see no reason that a reanimated human once-corpse shouldn't be human by default.
Edit - Good writing there, H_H. I question that basis for moral evaluation, myself, but yeah.
Here's hoping my post on the last page didn't go unnoticed...
The question of whether a fetus is a person is strongly tied other questions about consciousness and the mind-body problem. However, I notice that this is only significant because, for some reason, there is a higher value placed on conscious organisms. I, for one, see no reason to have such prejudices. Life is life, and whether it's conscious or not makes little difference to me.
I just... I can't even see this point of view. Most I can, and just disagree with, but I don't see how you can say that a carrot's life is equivalent to a human's life.
Except that, it seems to me, a parent who has an unexpected child in a situation of poverty is unlikely to have as many children as were planned because of the great strain. In a situation like this, to have the unexpected child is to destroy the expected child's possibility to exist.
Now you're playing word games. It destroys the child's POSSIBILITY to exist, yes, but it does not destroy the CHILD. It does not destroy the child's existence.
And in many ways, yes, I believe killing a carrot is on similar moral ground to killing a person. What distinction would you make between the two?
Even should they be entirely different, killing one that another might live is considered moral. At some point, lethal force becomes reasonable in defending yourself. The moral ideation in war is that without killing these people, others would have far worse lives.
Humans can move, think, have feelings... carrots can't. As for killing one... that's false. Lethal force only becomes reasonable in defending yourself because someone is trying to TAKE your life. That has to do with rights and has no bearing on this conversation.
Also, is the convenience of this unborn child of greater importance than the convenience of another unborn child? To grant one is to destroy the other's, so neither is of higher moral standing on that alone. When added that one of these unborn children has better circumstances in life, I think the decision becomes clear.
Again with the word games. We're not talking about potential, we're talking about life. The first child already has life, the second one doesn't.
I remember mention of abortion being defined as killing, and therefore that the fetus must be alive. I disagree on two counts. One, the definition may be faulty, and two, it is killing when considering the future, but perhaps not the present. And, as I've said before, not undergoing abortion is also killing when considering the future.
Abortion is DEFINED as killing? I've never heard anyone define it as that. And you still have this notion of potential == life. It's not. Whatever is inside a woman is life, whether you decide to call it human or not. Whatever might be in the future does not have life.
i am obviously pro-choice. but to be completely honest, i think it's hard to form a non biased opinion on abortion if you've never been in the situation.
How do you figure that? It seems like it would be harder to form a non-biased opinion if you've been through it. And why do you assume that abortion has never touched any people here? My roommates (M&F) were forced to have an abortion because it was endangering the mother's life, and the child got named after me. The person least affected in that situation was the mother, who didn't care about the consequences of her actions and didn't care about the child.
a lot of pain and heartbreak and a lot of disappointment. i know that abortion is more of a 'get out of jail free' card, but it's there. and it's legal. why not cash it in?
Wow, yes, let's "cash in" on abortion. It's the new cool thing!
regardless of belief or morality or whatever, why do some pro-life people feel the need to stand in front of abortion clinics and protest? now, i understand that they aren't in agreement w/ what's going on inside, but don't you think it's hard enough for these girls as it is. i doubt that they got pregnant on purpose because they wanted to have an abortion. they are there to do something that may haunt them the rest of their lives, but it may just be the right decision for them at the time. some of them may not even want the procedure, they may be forced into by their parents. who knows? but given that, why would these people who don't agree w/ it stand outside the clinics and protest and tell these girls how wrong it is, etc?
People protest outside of abortion clinics because they're protesting what they consider to be murder. I don't see what's so hard about it. I feel for anyone who is forced to get an abortion, or gets one by choice. Most people go through a lot of pain because of it, and the ones who don't need more help (IMO). You won't ever find me outside an abortion center protesting, I don't think it's a very effective tool, and people who bomb them are just as guilty as the people they're accusing.
i don't believe in god (another argument for another day, please ), but i wouldn't go to my local church and stand outside and protest it. for me, it's like this... who cares? you have your beliefs, and i have mine. i'm not trying to convince you that the way i feel about abortion or whatever is the correct way to feel about it. but i don't think anyone should try to convince me either.
calibretto
Why would someone protest a church? They're not in there killing people. I'm glad you think that killing is now a right, but most people are against killing.
The problem being that no Pro-Lifer is going to sit idly by while innocent "children" (that they have no intention of adopting) get brutally slaughtered.
I'd be happy to leave it up to a matter of personal opinion, but they won't.
If someone wanted to make it legal to kill you, you better hope we don't leave it up to personal opinion. And why do you think that people have no intention of adopting?
First we have to understand that what makes a human a person is the brain. You might try to pull some kind of slippery slope argument to turn this post into a justification for killing people with Downs syndrome and such, but it's not. An autistic child is always more intelligent and aware of his or her own personhood than a fetus. My cat is more aware of it's own personhood than a fetus. Yes, my cat is a nonhuman person, you want to fight about it?
Wow, well that's certainly interesting. Your cat is a person... well what about fish? Fish can't feel pain, but they have brains. Is it immoral to kill one?
Quote from HH »
No, it's not true in general, but it is true for an unborn child.
If you end the child's life before it begins - when absolutely no effects of nurture could possibly be had on it at that point; and if you recreate the child's initial conditions (nature, DNA), and put it in the same place, you get something that is as close to numerical identity as you can get - the same in *every way*, except that they are, in fact, distinct items.
That's a very big "except". Just because two things have the same DNA and the same environment does not make them the same. They may be "as close [. . .] as you can get." But that's not equivalent. 3.14159 is as close to pi as you can get with 6 digits, but it's not equivalent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I just... I can't even see this point of view. Most I can, and just disagree with, but I don't see how you can say that a carrot's life is equivalent to a human's life.
Humans can move, think, have feelings... carrots can't. As for killing one... that's false. Lethal force only becomes reasonable in defending yourself because someone is trying to TAKE your life. That has to do with rights and has no bearing on this conversation.
It's hard to prove that a carrot can't think or feel, and I don't see that mobility is of any consequence. So, where do you say that a human life is more important?
The unborn child is, or could be, taking the life of the yet-to-be-conceived child. I move that beings in the future have rights, too, and I'd wager that most conservationists would agree with me.
O_o Oh child, for your sake I'm going to slaughter you.
It's related to euthanasia, which isn't necessarily immoral.
Now you're playing word games. It destroys the child's POSSIBILITY to exist, yes, but it does not destroy the CHILD. It does not destroy the child's existence.
...
Again with the word games. We're not talking about potential, we're talking about life. The first child already has life, the second one doesn't.
...
And you still have this notion of potential == life. It's not. Whatever is inside a woman is life, whether you decide to call it human or not. Whatever might be in the future does not have life.
It all depends on your view of time. The crime of genocide is committed in part to kill the people that exist today, but the intention is often also to kill their potential offspring. Often the greater part of grievance when a young person dies is the potential life they could have led.
We value the potential, the future, already, yet it doesn't extend to this. I don't see that. A potential life is a potential life, and the eventual result of planned conception is every bit as important as the existing unborn child in my eye.
Abortion is DEFINED as killing? I've never heard anyone define it as that.
It showed up earlier in this thread. Something along the lines of "a fetus is alive, it's this very nature that allows you to kill it and have an abortion."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
It's hard to prove that a carrot can't think or feel, and I don't see that mobility is of any consequence. So, where do you say that a human life is more important?
It's hard to prove that an apple falls to the ground, yet we take it as truth. Carrots don't have nerves, nervous systems, brains... anything of the sort. I don't see how you could even pretend that a carrot can think or feel. That's where I say that human life is more important.
The unborn child is, or could be, taking the life of the yet-to-be-conceived child. I move that beings in the future have rights, too, and I'd wager that most conservationists would agree with me.
The unborn child is not TAKING anything, because the potential child of the future never had it to begin with. I doubt that conservationists would agree with the point that you're making. Any that would say that people in the future have rights would say just that... people... not some person that doesn't exist, never has, and probably never will.
It all depends on your view of time. The crime of genocide is committed in part to kill the people that exist today, but the intention is often also to kill their potential offspring. Often the greater part of grievance when a young person dies is the potential life they could have led.
The intention of genocide is to wipe out a race... the reason we see it as bad is because it is taking away the rights of people that exist, not people that don't exist. The grievance when a young person dies is because they existed.
We value the potential, the future, already, yet it doesn't extend to this. I don't see that. A potential life is a potential life, and the eventual result of planned conception is every bit as important as the existing unborn child in my eye.
A potential life is a potential life, sure. But an abortion destroys an EXISTING life.
It showed up earlier in this thread. Something along the lines of "a fetus is alive, it's this very nature that allows you to kill it and have an abortion."
I don't think that killing is in the "definition" of abortion, and I think that your assertion that it is is erroneous. It's just a necessary part of aborting something that is alive. The person you just quoted said that because it is alive, you have to kill it... not you kill it, therefore it's alive (which is what you).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
People protest outside of abortion clinics because they're protesting what they consider to be murder. I don't see what's so hard about it. I feel for anyone who is forced to get an abortion, or gets one by choice. Most people go through a lot of pain because of it, and the ones who don't need more help (IMO). You won't ever find me outside an abortion center protesting, I don't think it's a very effective tool, and people who bomb them are just as guilty as the people they're accusing.
Why does it matter how much anguish someone experiences? How is it justifiable to find someone culpable because their physionomy doesn't make them feel as much 'pain' as someone else?
I didn't feel a thing when the brother of a friend died a few years ago. To give you an idea of what it means not to feel anything, I relay this incident:
One night, recognizing how distraught the death was making my own brother (also a friend of the deceased's brother), I taunted him by repeating "He's dead." I expected him to become angry, possibly try to beat me to death. I was surprised to find it made him weak, and scared of me for a few minutes.
My "heartlessness", and this incident of cruelty that I would only wish on my brother, has nothing to do with my conscious, rational recognition that the death was tragic. I did everything I could to aid the deceased's brother, though that wasn't much (because as I just said, it's usually difficult for me to empathize with people). On the counsel of others, I simply went to see him a lot. I wasn't going to let him feel alone.
And I did this because I can perceive, with reason, the value of assisting others in these times. Why the hell should it matter whether or not I actually felt something for him? Whether I gave two hoots about his brother?
If there's one thing I speak for on these forums, it's to end the baseless association of emotion and moral failings.
That's a very big "except". Just because two things have the same DNA and the same environment does not make them the same. They may be "as close [. . .] as you can get." But that's not equivalent. 3.14159 is as close to pi as you can get with 6 digits, but it's not equivalent.
... you must be misunderstanding me. The one fetus is identical to the other in DNA, and hence entirely, for as long as the other existed. Thereafter, the life that the one leads can only be compared to a life we speculate the other would have lead. However, since they have the same initial conditions, to the degree we consider the lives ahead of both fetuses to be relevantly similar, we can say that the two children (one actual; one hypothetical) are the same.
But they are going to be raised the same - at least, you have the same intention to raise them as well as possible.
If you're in a philosophical lot that says speculation should not be admitted, you are forced to say that the life that did occur is obviously identical to itself, and so there's no ground to proceed to say the other fetus was different at all!
When I said "as close as you can get" I meant the tightest form of categorical identity that exists: The same identity that a car of a given model has, with another car of the same model, freshly constructed, if they both happened to be perfect recreations of the specs.
I don't see what giving pi to six significant digits has to do with anything, either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Why does it matter how much anguish someone experiences? How is it justifiable to find someone culpable because their physionomy doesn't make them feel as much 'pain' as someone else?
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here, so you'll have to repeat it.
When I said "as close as you can get" I meant the tightest form of categorical identity that exists: The same identity that a car of a given model has, with another car of the same model, freshly constructed, if they both happened to be perfect recreations of the specs.
But they are DIFFERENT CARS, just like the two children are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. My neighbor buys the first car straight from the factory, but it gets destroyed on the transport. The car-maker sends him another one. Is it the same car? No. Even though it's the same make, model, options, owner, it is NOT THE SAME CAR. Not to mention that the environment that the children in your scenario would encounter HAS to be different, since they grow up in different times, they could not POSSIBLY turn out to be the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
How is it not? If sentience and mental awareness is the bar for personhood, how do you avoid applying that standard when it is inconvenient to do so?
How can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
You can still say that it is still not right to kill them, since they might have a will to live, but can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
A difference of degree, yes. So, is an autistic child "less" of a person by some degree?
If someone is unconscious, sleeping, for that period of time they lack the ability to decide whether they want to live or die, because their brain is incapable of complex cognitive functions and only their subconscious is active. Only in the future will they regain that ability.
So is it morally excusable to kill someone so long as they are not awake and capable of deciding? Would that merely be natural selection at play?
Say that a person who attempted suicide and recently had their stomach pumped is now lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. It is not known whether they wish to live, or will carry through with their suicide attempt.
You are this teenager's guardian. They are dependent upon you for food, clothing, and shelter. Do you have the moral (not legal, but moral) right to make the decision whether this teenager will live or die? Remember, they cannot make the decision for themselves, not until some indeterminate point in the future when (or if, you never know, they might have a heart attack) they awake. So, since you are negatively impacted by them economically and they are incapable of making the decision until a future point in time, are you ethically justified to kill them, not knowing what they might decide for themselves?
Yes, I would say that morally you could. If they wanteed to diee enough to attempt suicide, I say let them die. If you try to kill yourself, you obviously don't want to live, so yes, ethically, I don't think it would be wrong to euthanize them. I hate using that word, but it's the best that I can think of. If you don't cause pain, and kill them via say an overdose of morphene or some other painkiller, I don't see it as a bad thing. They wanted to die, failed, so I say let them die. Unless of course they rescued themselves/called the hospital/tried to stop their own attempt.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
It's hard to prove that an apple falls to the ground, yet we take it as truth. Carrots don't have nerves, nervous systems, brains... anything of the sort. I don't see how you could even pretend that a carrot can think or feel. That's where I say that human life is more important.
I don't agree with the idea that any specific sort of tissue is inherently necessary for thinking. Again, the mind-body problem, the idea that a mind/consciousness could exist independent of any physical nature. The only reason I see to think that they don't have a mind is that we have no record of them ever expressing themselves as having one, and to me, this is insufficient. Philosophically, they may have them, and just as a fetus may be human, we should treat it as though it is so as to avoid moral wrong.
The unborn child is not TAKING anything, because the potential child of the future never had it to begin with. I doubt that conservationists would agree with the point that you're making. Any that would say that people in the future have rights would say just that... people... not some person that doesn't exist, never has, and probably never will. A potential life is a potential life, sure. But an abortion destroys an EXISTING life.
Which is on equal standing with an existing life in my opinion because of the value I hold in the future. I feel the future is more valuable than the present, but that the present is important in how it shapes the future (provided, of course, anything has value).
The child is taking the future child's life as much as someone who kills a bride-to-be is taking a wife from the groom. It seems to me to be a very real thing to take the plans away from people.
The idea that I think the conservationists would agree with is that we have a moral responsibility to the state of the future. The rest of it may or may not be.
The intention of genocide is to wipe out a race... the reason we see it as bad is because it is taking away the rights of people that exist, not people that don't exist. The grievance when a young person dies is because they existed.
You've never heard of or felt grief over what may have become, or that saving lives is wonderful of itself but also in those descendants you save through them? I'd thought that was a common idea.
I don't think that killing is in the "definition" of abortion, and I think that your assertion that it is is erroneous. It's just a necessary part of aborting something that is alive. The person you just quoted said that because it is alive, you have to kill it... not you kill it, therefore it's alive (which is what you).
Oh, oh. I missed that, and so my comment was against the mistaken belief that the comment was what I'd thought it was. And I wasn't defending that killing is part of the definition, but was instead attacking it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
It's all about your opinions on whether it's ok to kill someone. Down with oppression! Up with choices! Yay freedom!
please, quote one time where i said it was ok to kill someone. i said it's ok to get an abortion, and i also said that i don't think abortion is killing. so, while it's no ok to just go out and kill someone, regardless of your opinion on it, it is ok to get an abortion because getting an abortion is not murder. the fact of the matter is this: murder = illegal. abortion = legal. simple enough for ya?
How do you figure that? It seems like it would be harder to form a non-biased opinion if you've been through it. And why do you assume that abortion has never touched any people here? My roommates (M&F) were forced to have an abortion because it was endangering the mother's life, and the child got named after me. The person least affected in that situation was the mother, who didn't care about the consequences of her actions and didn't care about the child.
i don't remember saying that abortion hasn't touched people here. i said that i don't believe that one can form a real unbiased (based on religioius beliefs or whatever) w/o having been in the situation. a person may go through their whole life believing that abortion is wrong and thinking that they would never do such a thing, but that idea might change once they are in that position to get one. so yeah, once you've been through it you can form an unbiased opinion on it, regardless of beliefs or moral values.
but even that's a matter of opinion. you believe the fertilized egg is human, i don't. and giving the baby up for adoption leaves the mother (and perhaps the father) w/ nothing. the mother went through nine months of what can sometimes seem like pure hell and now she has nothing to show for it. at least w/ abortion, she can realize her mistake early and undo it.
Wow, yes, let's "cash in" on abortion. It's the new cool thing!
again, when did i say this? i said to cash in your get out of jail free card. as in monopoly. it's a metaphor. and what i meant is that because abortion is perfectly legal, if a mother doesn't want to go thru w/ the pregnancy why should she have to? the abortion option is there... why shouldn't she take advantage of it?
Why would you want to take the argument away from the core issue about abortion? I've never really understood that.
because there's not just one core issue about abortion. it's not just about 'is the fertilized egg a human or is it not?' there are plenty of issues that can come up when debating abortion. the protesting issue i brought up, should a rape victim have an abortion, is abortion ok if the baby will be born w/ a mental illness or if the mother's life may be at stake? there are all kinds of abortion "issues" besides just the is it murder or not issue.
People protest outside of abortion clinics because they're protesting what they consider to be murder. I don't see what's so hard about it. I feel for anyone who is forced to get an abortion, or gets one by choice. Most people go through a lot of pain because of it, and the ones who don't need more help (IMO). You won't ever find me outside an abortion center protesting, I don't think it's a very effective tool, and people who bomb them are just as guilty as the people they're accusing.
ok... they 'consider' it to be murder. that's their opinion. so they are protesting their opinion. now... my opinion is that god is a myth... a fictional character. (and i'm not trying to start a god argument here) why wouldn't it be ok for me to protest outside of a church? "keep god out of my town!" why wouldn't that be ok? it's the same principle. their opinion vs my opinion.
Why would someone protest a church? They're not in there killing people. I'm glad you think that killing is now a right, but most people are against killing.
why would you protest outside of an abortion clinic? they're not in there killing people. they are performing medical procedures. and again, please take your words out of my mouth. i didn't say killing was ok. i said abortion was ok and that's two different things.
i don't remember saying that abortion hasn't touched people here. i said that i don't believe that one can form a real unbiased (based on religioius beliefs or whatever) w/o having been in the situation. a person may go through their whole life believing that abortion is wrong and thinking that they would never do such a thing, but that idea might change once they are in that position to get one. so yeah, once you've been through it you can form an unbiased opinion on it, regardless of beliefs or moral values.
This rings true for me. A friend of mine was strongly against abortion until she skipped three periods and had to face the possibility. She rather quickly lost her grounding and was beginning to feel that abortion was the only option when the issue subsided. The whole situation was very hard on her, though, so I've not asked her final opinion on the matter, but at the least she is at a point of understanding it.
ok... they 'consider' it to be murder. that's their opinion. so they are protesting their opinion. now... my opinion is that god is a myth... a fictional character. (and i'm not trying to start a god argument here) why wouldn't it be ok for me to protest outside of a church? "keep god out of my town!" why wouldn't that be ok? it's the same principle. their opinion vs my opinion.
why would you protest outside of an abortion clinic? they're not in there killing people. they are performing medical procedures. and again, please take your words out of my mouth. i didn't say killing was ok. i said abortion was ok and that's two different things.
Well, if you believe it's murder, you might want to protest the act, but at the same time, if you think it's brainwashing, damagingly false, or cultish, you may wish to protest a religion. And neither of them is wrong. Misguided, perhaps, but entirely defensible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
First we have to understand that what makes a human a person is the brain.
That's, of course, solely your personal opinion, whereas most people use the term "person" as synonymous with "a living human," without any poetic contingency on brain activity.
The Supreme Court has said that it is a woman’s choice so there it is. You can call it murder or immoral but it will still be a woman’s right. Which brings me back to the question why is it anybodies business what other people do? The people that protest outside of abortion clinics are just plain nosey people that have nothing better to do with there time. Yes they have the right to protest but come on now do they have to wave around signs that show aborted fetus so I have to come up with a story to tell a 3 year old rather than the truth. That is sole reason is why I will gladly walk anybody thru the protest lines. If that is there choice.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
@calibretto: You say it's opinion whether it's a human or not. You have yet to make a good argument for why it's not human, though. The only things you have come up with to show your "opinion" are things such as "It's not killing because killing is illegal." etc etc... circular arguments. Surely you have a REASON for your opinion... right? Please tell us what that is. That's what people have been trying and trying to get you to do, but you keep ignoring them. It makes me believe that you have no real reason.
@Atog: The Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before. Let's please not use what they decide as what is moral or what should be law, considering that those are 9 people with huge agendas. And as I've already said... when someone wants to kill you, you better hope people don't say "It's none of my business."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
[quote=Sutherlands;2160048
@Atog: The Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before. Let's please not use what they decide as what is moral or what should be law, considering that those are 9 people with huge agendas. And as I've already said... when someone wants to kill you, you better hope people don't say "It's none of my business."[/quote]
That could very well happen someday but at least I can feel safe calling myself a human life and be sure of it. The problem most people have with abortion is that it is not there choice or even the choice that they would ever consider making until the are in trouble. But it is amazing how quickly people change their view on morals when there life is about to change for good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
In that case, what constitutes the moral difference between killing a person, and a human non-person?
Certainly there are differences, but how might these differences render one less important than the other?
Certainly it is easier to terminate something we perceive only as a bundle of human cells, but that is an emotional distinction, a distinction based on ease, and on our lack of interaction with it. As social animals, we're hardwired to care most deeply about the problems we see immediately around us, not problems in the abstract. Since we do not interact with fetuses or embryos, we cannot look them into the eye, hold a conversation, or watch them learn to walk, it is very easy to write them off as something unimportant or inconsequential. Just as we will not mourn for a mother raped and killed in Darfur when we do not witness the act firsthand, we do not mourn for a bundle of cells in a waste basket.
But ruling out the motive of selfish interest, aren't the problems of those we cannot see, problems in the abstract such as starvation and genocide, as urgent to address as the problems of those we can see, if we are acting selflessly?
So aside from the ease of being apathetic to the fate of someone we label as a non-person, for whatever criteria we choose to imagine, what is the difference between killing a person and a human non-person?
You misunderstand.
I am not, in fact, arguing that it is correct to make a distinction between being a "Human Life" and being a "Person." I am pointing out that this is a distinction that has been made. And, furthermore, I am saying that I can understand how people come to make such a distinction.
Imagine two scales, on one side of the scales exists a fully formed person, living, breathing, independant. On the other side of the scales...nothing.
Wait! It's not nothing. Look closer... Under a microscope we can see that there is, in fact, something there. A collection of cells. Growing, to be certain, but still undifferentiated cells.
Now the Pro-Life advocate comes along, declaring that the two sides are equal. That there can be no moral distinctions drawn between the two. Both are Human. Both are equally valuable. Killing the one is no different from killing the other.
What I am saying is that it is not an unreasonable position to take to say that the collection of cells is in at least some way fundamentally different from the person. And I am not claiming that "consciousness" is the key distinction, or "viability," or anything really. But something. And that I can appreciate and even sympathize with such a viewpoint.
It doesn't have to do with "convenience," or the fact that the cells are hidden and we do not "interact" with them directly. I think that's a rather self-serving argument. It's a genuine belief that there's a difference. Even when you are not able to precisely explain exactly what that difference is.
Frankly, I have yet to hear the argument for why we should consider a fetus the moral equivilent of a fully formed person that did not spring directly from said person's Religious beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with that either. One just has to recognize that it's a Religious argument at that point, and that not all individuals will share your religious views.
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question of whether a fetus is a person is strongly tied other questions about consciousness and the mind-body problem. However, I notice that this is only significant because, for some reason, there is a higher value placed on conscious organisms. I, for one, see no reason to have such prejudices. Life is life, and whether it's conscious or not makes little difference to me.
Except that, it seems to me, a parent who has an unexpected child in a situation of poverty is unlikely to have as many children as were planned because of the great strain. In a situation like this, to have the unexpected child is to destroy the expected child's possibility to exist.
And in many ways, yes, I believe killing a carrot is on similar moral ground to killing a person. What distinction would you make between the two?
Even should they be entirely different, killing one that another might live is considered moral. At some point, lethal force becomes reasonable in defending yourself. The moral ideation in war is that without killing these people, others would have far worse lives.
An abortion is, or can be, undertaken for the sake of the child as much as it is for the mother. Also, is the convenience of this unborn child of greater importance than the convenience of another unborn child? To grant one is to destroy the other's, so neither is of higher moral standing on that alone. When added that one of these unborn children has better circumstances in life, I think the decision becomes clear.
I just want to point out that defining life is extremely difficult. Many definitions arise as a post-hoc jumble to exclude automobiles from the classification. The definition of life is still hotly debated, and under some ideas, the human fetus may not qualify for some time in its development.
I remember mention of abortion being defined as killing, and therefore that the fetus must be alive. I disagree on two counts. One, the definition may be faulty, and two, it is killing when considering the future, but perhaps not the present. And, as I've said before, not undergoing abortion is also killing when considering the future.
You know, so much of this debate is terminology.
The Pro-Life side has an interest in classifying the fetus as "Human" (making it, q.e.d., a Human Life), because (obviously) the proscription against the taking of a "Human" Life forms the bedrock of our sense of morality. They will completely ignore the physical/biological differences between an embryo and a fully formed person, asserting that the one is merely an early stage of development of the other, and that no moral line can be drawn between them (not to mention Scientific lines).
The Pro-Choice side, on the other hand, strongly feels that there's some significant difference between a fully formed person and an undeveloped/undifferentiated embryo in the womb, and this feeling naturally leads them to want to classify it as something other than a "Human Life" which would therefore be something that could be removed/terminated without the same moral consequences.
But the dictinction/importance is not truly in the "Human-ness" of the thing.
So some people (recognizing this) then try to argue it a different way - something like this: while the fetus may, in fact be a "Human Life," it is still not a "Person." "Person" in this case referring to any number of factors self-awareness, consciousness, develpoment or features, self-sustaining organs (viability) - all in an attempt to quantify why they do not consider it the moral equivilanet of a fully formed person.
And the Pro-Life faction of course scoffs at any attempt to draw a moral distinction between what constitutes a "Human" and what constitutes a "Person." Indeed, on it's face, such a thing sounds silly to say.
But there is some difference there.
Ultimately, this is not a question Science can decide. No matter how much we learn about Human development, you will never be able to pin-point a moment when you can scientifically declare "this is the point where it happens." And because you can't pin-point such a moment, the Pro-Life movement would have it that the moment is, in fact, the earliest moment it could possibly be, i.e. the moment of Conception. Everything else is just a slippery slope argument, and science is constantly pushing back the date which a fetus may be "viable" (at least, viable with use of heavy machinery).
Which rankles the Pro-choice movement no end. Because if there was any moment where they could be absolutely sure that this life was not "Human" or a "Person" or whatever, it would be right then, at the moment of conception, where this life form is nothing but a microscopic clump of chromosomes - just about as far removed from a fully formed person as it is possible to be, without even the hint of a brain stem with which to generate the consciousness to (eventually) come.
Which, ultimately, is why I decided long ago that the question was one that each person has to answer for themselves - via their own sense of logic, or Faith, or Religion, or simply via whatever means makes sense to them.
agreed. 100% it's all about your opinions and thoughts on the matter. i am obviously pro-choice. but to be completely honest, i think it's hard to form a non biased opinion on abortion if you've never been in the situation. for those of us who've never been there and had to make such a decision, we don't truly know what we'd do or how we'd feel about it at the time. if my fiance were to get pregnant right now, abortion would probably be an option for us because there's no way on earth that we could possibly begin to try to raise a child right now. not w/ our financial and living status. i know that there would also be the option for adoption after the baby is born, but as i said above, that's a lot to go through for virtually nothing. a lot of pain and heartbreak and a lot of disappointment. i know that abortion is more of a 'get out of jail free' card, but it's there. and it's legal. why not cash it in?
another question i might ask to try and sway the argument from wether ot not an unborn fetus is a human being is this... regardless of belief or morality or whatever, why do some pro-life people feel the need to stand in front of abortion clinics and protest? now, i understand that they aren't in agreement w/ what's going on inside, but don't you think it's hard enough for these girls as it is. i doubt that they got pregnant on purpose because they wanted to have an abortion. they are there to do something that may haunt them the rest of their lives, but it may just be the right decision for them at the time. some of them may not even want the procedure, they may be forced into by their parents. who knows? but given that, why would these people who don't agree w/ it stand outside the clinics and protest and tell these girls how wrong it is, etc?
i don't believe in god (another argument for another day, please ), but i wouldn't go to my local church and stand outside and protest it. for me, it's like this... who cares? you have your beliefs, and i have mine. i'm not trying to convince you that the way i feel about abortion or whatever is the correct way to feel about it. but i don't think anyone should try to convince me either.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
The problem being that no Pro-Lifer is going to sit idly by while innocent "children" (that they have no intention of adopting) get brutally slaughtered.
I'd be happy to leave it up to a matter of personal opinion, but they won't.
The thing is, Science can give us a clear answer but won't be the answer that either side wants. The thing is that nature is wierd. It does strange things that you don't really expect it to do. The problem is when people try to selectively percieve nature and pidgeonhole everything to make it conform to their personal worldview. If someone were to argue however, that a fetus is both a human and not a human simultaneously, I might buy it. Nature is not black and white afterall. It could make sense when you consider that a caterpillar has the same DNA as a butterfly even though they look completely different. If could make sense when you consider that male ants and bees have no father, but only half the DNA of their mother (and sister bees are more related to eachother than they are to their own mother). Nature is just wierd.
A fetus can become a human but that doesn't neccessarily make it a human. Then again it could also become a cyborg if it plays it's cards right. You can never tell with these things. I think that there are enough differences to classify a fetus as a nonhuman and enough similarities to classify it as a kinda-human. Basically, its a little blobby guy. I personally think thats the most accurate way to look at it. Its a sorta-human in the same sense that a Zombie might be considered a sorta-human.
There is an imposter among us...
Fascinating position.
In that case, what constitutes the moral difference between killing a person, and a human non-person?
Certainly there are differences, but how might these differences render one less important than the other?
Certainly it is easier to terminate something we perceive only as a bundle of human cells, but that is an emotional distinction, a distinction based on ease, and on our lack of interaction with it. As social animals, we're hardwired to care most deeply about the problems we see immediately around us, not problems in the abstract. Since we do not interact with fetuses or embryos, we cannot look them into the eye, hold a conversation, or watch them learn to walk, it is very easy to write them off as something unimportant or inconsequential. Just as we will not mourn for a mother raped and killed in Darfur when we do not witness the act firsthand, we do not mourn for a bundle of cells in a waste basket.
But ruling out the motive of selfish interest, aren't the problems of those we cannot see, problems in the abstract such as starvation and genocide, as urgent to address as the problems of those we can see, if we are acting selflessly?
So aside from the ease of being apathetic to the fate of someone we label as a non-person, for whatever criteria we choose to imagine, what is the difference between killing a person and a human non-person?
A person doesn't want to die because they have important things that they have to do, like eating or writing symphonies or chasing a ball of string. Fetuses and corpses aren't really able to think about it though, so what do they care? Actually, I'm not sure about corpses because they could be zombies. Maybe we should start a new thread to debate whether zombies should be considered people, I dunno.
My feeling is, if it's smart enough to not want to die (like a cat or a superintelligent robot), then you should not kill it. If it is not smart enough to not want to die then thats just natural selection at work. So maybe when humans start evolving to develop brains sooner after conception this will be a dilemma for me.
There is an imposter among us...
I consider it murder because it stops and brutally MURDERS MILLIONS of potential babies! Same with masturbation!
It's impossible to really know for sure what really is "moral" or not.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
How is it not? If sentience and mental awareness is the bar for personhood, how do you avoid applying that standard when it is inconvenient to do so?
How can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
You can still say that it is still not right to kill them, since they might have a will to live, but can you avoid saying that they are less of a person?
A difference of degree, yes. So, is an autistic child "less" of a person by some degree?
If someone is unconscious, sleeping, for that period of time they lack the ability to decide whether they want to live or die, because their brain is incapable of complex cognitive functions and only their subconscious is active. Only in the future will they regain that ability.
So is it morally excusable to kill someone so long as they are not awake and capable of deciding? Would that merely be natural selection at play?
Say that a person who attempted suicide and recently had their stomach pumped is now lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. It is not known whether they wish to live, or will carry through with their suicide attempt.
You are this teenager's guardian. They are dependent upon you for food, clothing, and shelter. Do you have the moral (not legal, but moral) right to make the decision whether this teenager will live or die? Remember, they cannot make the decision for themselves, not until some indeterminate point in the future when (or if, you never know, they might have a heart attack) they awake. So, since you are negatively impacted by them economically and they are incapable of making the decision until a future point in time, are you ethically justified to kill them, not knowing what they might decide for themselves?
No, it's not true in general, but it is true for an unborn child.
If you end the child's life before it begins - when absolutely no effects of nurture could possibly be had on it at that point; and if you recreate the child's initial conditions (nature, DNA), and put it in the same place, you get something that is as close to numerical identity as you can get - the same in *every way*, except that they are, in fact, distinct items.
I have another thought. Axelrod posted this:
So, apparently, there's one kind of argument that says that the fetus lacks certain qualities that make it a complete "person." We see this in ethics in general - there are commonly statements about how entities that are not moral agents have a different standing in the overall world of moral agents.
I think, that I am right to suspect, that the motivation behind valuing the qualities of personhood the way they are, is that, one does not wish to kill or harm something that has the sentience not to want that done unto it; a creature that can see what is being denied it (life) because it is self-aware and has theory of mind (it knows that other things are self-aware too).
That is commonly the basis of moral evaluation, right? I'm expecting a few of the philosophy regulars to say "That's the ONLY basis, you crazy evil [descriptor]" but let's ignore that...
So it seems that this argument, if one makes it and really believes in it, would entail that person's stance on physician-assisted suicide. It seems that anyone who evaluates the morality of an act unto a thing, by considering whether it is sentient, and if it is cognizant of the meaning of having that act done to it, to some sufficient degree; and makes a decision by giving sentient things what are naturally their right (to life, liberty or what have you) - these people would have to allow physician-assisted suicide, or else be hypocrites.
Any thoughts on that?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
You both assume that a brain is required for consciousness. A non-brain collection of living tissue could have consciousness, too, and there's the possibility of a consciousness existing independent of any physical matter. The mind-body problem has never been solved, to my knowledge. (See mind-body dichotomy)
Sounds fun. It'd depend on the zombie, I suppose. I see no reason that a reanimated human once-corpse shouldn't be human by default.
Edit - Good writing there, H_H. I question that basis for moral evaluation, myself, but yeah.
Here's hoping my post on the last page didn't go unnoticed...
Now you're playing word games. It destroys the child's POSSIBILITY to exist, yes, but it does not destroy the CHILD. It does not destroy the child's existence.
Humans can move, think, have feelings... carrots can't. As for killing one... that's false. Lethal force only becomes reasonable in defending yourself because someone is trying to TAKE your life. That has to do with rights and has no bearing on this conversation.
O_o Oh child, for your sake I'm going to slaughter you.
Again with the word games. We're not talking about potential, we're talking about life. The first child already has life, the second one doesn't.
Abortion is DEFINED as killing? I've never heard anyone define it as that. And you still have this notion of potential == life. It's not. Whatever is inside a woman is life, whether you decide to call it human or not. Whatever might be in the future does not have life.
It's all about your opinions on whether it's ok to kill someone. Down with oppression! Up with choices! Yay freedom!
How do you figure that? It seems like it would be harder to form a non-biased opinion if you've been through it. And why do you assume that abortion has never touched any people here? My roommates (M&F) were forced to have an abortion because it was endangering the mother's life, and the child got named after me. The person least affected in that situation was the mother, who didn't care about the consequences of her actions and didn't care about the child.
Except a human's life, yeah nothing.
Wow, yes, let's "cash in" on abortion. It's the new cool thing!
Why would you want to take the argument away from the core issue about abortion? I've never really understood that.
People protest outside of abortion clinics because they're protesting what they consider to be murder. I don't see what's so hard about it. I feel for anyone who is forced to get an abortion, or gets one by choice. Most people go through a lot of pain because of it, and the ones who don't need more help (IMO). You won't ever find me outside an abortion center protesting, I don't think it's a very effective tool, and people who bomb them are just as guilty as the people they're accusing.
Why would someone protest a church? They're not in there killing people. I'm glad you think that killing is now a right, but most people are against killing.
If someone wanted to make it legal to kill you, you better hope we don't leave it up to personal opinion. And why do you think that people have no intention of adopting?
Wow, well that's certainly interesting. Your cat is a person... well what about fish? Fish can't feel pain, but they have brains. Is it immoral to kill one?
That's a very big "except". Just because two things have the same DNA and the same environment does not make them the same. They may be "as close [. . .] as you can get." But that's not equivalent. 3.14159 is as close to pi as you can get with 6 digits, but it's not equivalent.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
It's hard to prove that a carrot can't think or feel, and I don't see that mobility is of any consequence. So, where do you say that a human life is more important?
The unborn child is, or could be, taking the life of the yet-to-be-conceived child. I move that beings in the future have rights, too, and I'd wager that most conservationists would agree with me.
It's related to euthanasia, which isn't necessarily immoral.
It all depends on your view of time. The crime of genocide is committed in part to kill the people that exist today, but the intention is often also to kill their potential offspring. Often the greater part of grievance when a young person dies is the potential life they could have led.
We value the potential, the future, already, yet it doesn't extend to this. I don't see that. A potential life is a potential life, and the eventual result of planned conception is every bit as important as the existing unborn child in my eye.
It showed up earlier in this thread. Something along the lines of "a fetus is alive, it's this very nature that allows you to kill it and have an abortion."
The unborn child is not TAKING anything, because the potential child of the future never had it to begin with. I doubt that conservationists would agree with the point that you're making. Any that would say that people in the future have rights would say just that... people... not some person that doesn't exist, never has, and probably never will.
Except that in euthanasia the "victim" is a willing participant.
The intention of genocide is to wipe out a race... the reason we see it as bad is because it is taking away the rights of people that exist, not people that don't exist. The grievance when a young person dies is because they existed.
A potential life is a potential life, sure. But an abortion destroys an EXISTING life.
I don't think that killing is in the "definition" of abortion, and I think that your assertion that it is is erroneous. It's just a necessary part of aborting something that is alive. The person you just quoted said that because it is alive, you have to kill it... not you kill it, therefore it's alive (which is what you).
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Why does it matter how much anguish someone experiences? How is it justifiable to find someone culpable because their physionomy doesn't make them feel as much 'pain' as someone else?
I didn't feel a thing when the brother of a friend died a few years ago. To give you an idea of what it means not to feel anything, I relay this incident:
One night, recognizing how distraught the death was making my own brother (also a friend of the deceased's brother), I taunted him by repeating "He's dead." I expected him to become angry, possibly try to beat me to death. I was surprised to find it made him weak, and scared of me for a few minutes.
My "heartlessness", and this incident of cruelty that I would only wish on my brother, has nothing to do with my conscious, rational recognition that the death was tragic. I did everything I could to aid the deceased's brother, though that wasn't much (because as I just said, it's usually difficult for me to empathize with people). On the counsel of others, I simply went to see him a lot. I wasn't going to let him feel alone.
And I did this because I can perceive, with reason, the value of assisting others in these times. Why the hell should it matter whether or not I actually felt something for him? Whether I gave two hoots about his brother?
If there's one thing I speak for on these forums, it's to end the baseless association of emotion and moral failings.
... you must be misunderstanding me. The one fetus is identical to the other in DNA, and hence entirely, for as long as the other existed. Thereafter, the life that the one leads can only be compared to a life we speculate the other would have lead. However, since they have the same initial conditions, to the degree we consider the lives ahead of both fetuses to be relevantly similar, we can say that the two children (one actual; one hypothetical) are the same.
But they are going to be raised the same - at least, you have the same intention to raise them as well as possible.
If you're in a philosophical lot that says speculation should not be admitted, you are forced to say that the life that did occur is obviously identical to itself, and so there's no ground to proceed to say the other fetus was different at all!
When I said "as close as you can get" I meant the tightest form of categorical identity that exists: The same identity that a car of a given model has, with another car of the same model, freshly constructed, if they both happened to be perfect recreations of the specs.
I don't see what giving pi to six significant digits has to do with anything, either.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
But they are DIFFERENT CARS, just like the two children are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. My neighbor buys the first car straight from the factory, but it gets destroyed on the transport. The car-maker sends him another one. Is it the same car? No. Even though it's the same make, model, options, owner, it is NOT THE SAME CAR. Not to mention that the environment that the children in your scenario would encounter HAS to be different, since they grow up in different times, they could not POSSIBLY turn out to be the same.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Yes, I would say that morally you could. If they wanteed to diee enough to attempt suicide, I say let them die. If you try to kill yourself, you obviously don't want to live, so yes, ethically, I don't think it would be wrong to euthanize them. I hate using that word, but it's the best that I can think of. If you don't cause pain, and kill them via say an overdose of morphene or some other painkiller, I don't see it as a bad thing. They wanted to die, failed, so I say let them die. Unless of course they rescued themselves/called the hospital/tried to stop their own attempt.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Which is on equal standing with an existing life in my opinion because of the value I hold in the future. I feel the future is more valuable than the present, but that the present is important in how it shapes the future (provided, of course, anything has value).
The child is taking the future child's life as much as someone who kills a bride-to-be is taking a wife from the groom. It seems to me to be a very real thing to take the plans away from people.
The idea that I think the conservationists would agree with is that we have a moral responsibility to the state of the future. The rest of it may or may not be.
You've never heard of or felt grief over what may have become, or that saving lives is wonderful of itself but also in those descendants you save through them? I'd thought that was a common idea.
Oh, oh. I missed that, and so my comment was against the mistaken belief that the comment was what I'd thought it was. And I wasn't defending that killing is part of the definition, but was instead attacking it.
please, quote one time where i said it was ok to kill someone. i said it's ok to get an abortion, and i also said that i don't think abortion is killing. so, while it's no ok to just go out and kill someone, regardless of your opinion on it, it is ok to get an abortion because getting an abortion is not murder. the fact of the matter is this: murder = illegal. abortion = legal. simple enough for ya?
i don't remember saying that abortion hasn't touched people here. i said that i don't believe that one can form a real unbiased (based on religioius beliefs or whatever) w/o having been in the situation. a person may go through their whole life believing that abortion is wrong and thinking that they would never do such a thing, but that idea might change once they are in that position to get one. so yeah, once you've been through it you can form an unbiased opinion on it, regardless of beliefs or moral values.
but even that's a matter of opinion. you believe the fertilized egg is human, i don't. and giving the baby up for adoption leaves the mother (and perhaps the father) w/ nothing. the mother went through nine months of what can sometimes seem like pure hell and now she has nothing to show for it. at least w/ abortion, she can realize her mistake early and undo it.
again, when did i say this? i said to cash in your get out of jail free card. as in monopoly. it's a metaphor. and what i meant is that because abortion is perfectly legal, if a mother doesn't want to go thru w/ the pregnancy why should she have to? the abortion option is there... why shouldn't she take advantage of it?
because there's not just one core issue about abortion. it's not just about 'is the fertilized egg a human or is it not?' there are plenty of issues that can come up when debating abortion. the protesting issue i brought up, should a rape victim have an abortion, is abortion ok if the baby will be born w/ a mental illness or if the mother's life may be at stake? there are all kinds of abortion "issues" besides just the is it murder or not issue.
ok... they 'consider' it to be murder. that's their opinion. so they are protesting their opinion. now... my opinion is that god is a myth... a fictional character. (and i'm not trying to start a god argument here) why wouldn't it be ok for me to protest outside of a church? "keep god out of my town!" why wouldn't that be ok? it's the same principle. their opinion vs my opinion.
why would you protest outside of an abortion clinic? they're not in there killing people. they are performing medical procedures. and again, please take your words out of my mouth. i didn't say killing was ok. i said abortion was ok and that's two different things.
calibretto
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Well, if you believe it's murder, you might want to protest the act, but at the same time, if you think it's brainwashing, damagingly false, or cultish, you may wish to protest a religion. And neither of them is wrong. Misguided, perhaps, but entirely defensible.
That's, of course, solely your personal opinion, whereas most people use the term "person" as synonymous with "a living human," without any poetic contingency on brain activity.
@Atog: The Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before. Let's please not use what they decide as what is moral or what should be law, considering that those are 9 people with huge agendas. And as I've already said... when someone wants to kill you, you better hope people don't say "It's none of my business."
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
@Atog: The Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before. Let's please not use what they decide as what is moral or what should be law, considering that those are 9 people with huge agendas. And as I've already said... when someone wants to kill you, you better hope people don't say "It's none of my business."[/quote]
That could very well happen someday but at least I can feel safe calling myself a human life and be sure of it. The problem most people have with abortion is that it is not there choice or even the choice that they would ever consider making until the are in trouble. But it is amazing how quickly people change their view on morals when there life is about to change for good.
You misunderstand.
I am not, in fact, arguing that it is correct to make a distinction between being a "Human Life" and being a "Person." I am pointing out that this is a distinction that has been made. And, furthermore, I am saying that I can understand how people come to make such a distinction.
Imagine two scales, on one side of the scales exists a fully formed person, living, breathing, independant. On the other side of the scales...nothing.
Wait! It's not nothing. Look closer... Under a microscope we can see that there is, in fact, something there. A collection of cells. Growing, to be certain, but still undifferentiated cells.
Now the Pro-Life advocate comes along, declaring that the two sides are equal. That there can be no moral distinctions drawn between the two. Both are Human. Both are equally valuable. Killing the one is no different from killing the other.
What I am saying is that it is not an unreasonable position to take to say that the collection of cells is in at least some way fundamentally different from the person. And I am not claiming that "consciousness" is the key distinction, or "viability," or anything really. But something. And that I can appreciate and even sympathize with such a viewpoint.
It doesn't have to do with "convenience," or the fact that the cells are hidden and we do not "interact" with them directly. I think that's a rather self-serving argument. It's a genuine belief that there's a difference. Even when you are not able to precisely explain exactly what that difference is.
Frankly, I have yet to hear the argument for why we should consider a fetus the moral equivilent of a fully formed person that did not spring directly from said person's Religious beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with that either. One just has to recognize that it's a Religious argument at that point, and that not all individuals will share your religious views.