Abortion - What do you think about it?
- Thread starter Grisu
- Start date
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
This is true, but I ask you, is there any chance that the other sibling will ever seperate from the first? Of course not. In this case, the second child is effectively in a permanent vegetative state, having no head, but able to use its sibling as a life-support unit. Since there is no benefit in keeping the second child alive without any hope of recovery, it is seperated from its sibling, so they can lead a normal life.
This situation is entirely different from an underdeveloped but otherwise healthy embreyo. It will fully 'recover' from its current state, and be healthy and normal.
What I fail to accept in this argument is the idea that just because there is not now a recognizable brain, it is somehow implied that there never will be, or even that playing 'Beat the Clock' against a human life is somehow not morally repulsive.
I don't. I won't. You shouldn't, after reading the above.
Even the most far reaching option does not go far enough IMHO. I could agree on a set time period, but 12 weeks is a to limited time period. Abortion is a heavy decision for a pregnant woman. Also it says "after the last menstruation", that means in reality it is not 12 but 8 weeks after conception.
The personal distress criterium a) can be very subjective and b)does not take into account what the individual really wants herself.
No or poor laws on abortion can and will lead to illegal and dangerous abortions performed by probably unprofessional people in a late state of pregnancy. Talking about personal distress.
Abortion was a big discussion in Holland 20 years ago so I forgot most details. Some call the Dutch approach to liberal yet abortion is not a real issue here anymore, apart for the individuals tragic circumstances.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Or they'll just go abroad en-masse, like they do in Ireland to The UK, to have the abortion. I can't see any logical pragmatic reason for banning it outright.
roadwarrior
Warlord
The first trimester isn't arbitrary, up until that point the fetus can't feel anything due to lack of nervous system. If it can't sense and interact with its environment, it is not alive. The ability to interact with your environment is a critical part of being considered "alive."
If my wife/girlfriend got pregnant I would probably not want to get an abortion, but I am not the one to make that decision. I don't think that it is "wrong," or a "sin," and I don't think it's murder. Yes, people could be more responsible, but that doesn't give me the right to insist some random person whom I will never know must have her child. What if the mother is angry that she was forced to have the kid and is bitter and resentful his entire childhood, screwing the kid up emotionally? Someone's (more if you count the rest of the family) life now sucks, because people felt compelled to impose their morals on other people.
If my wife/girlfriend got pregnant I would probably not want to get an abortion, but I am not the one to make that decision. I don't think that it is "wrong," or a "sin," and I don't think it's murder. Yes, people could be more responsible, but that doesn't give me the right to insist some random person whom I will never know must have her child. What if the mother is angry that she was forced to have the kid and is bitter and resentful his entire childhood, screwing the kid up emotionally? Someone's (more if you count the rest of the family) life now sucks, because people felt compelled to impose their morals on other people.
Hurricane
Sleeping Dragon
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 1,197
First you agree to my statements, and then you say you don´t?
I think you (just like Akka) are so obsessed after a long debate with your very precise own beliefs that you can´t agree to anything any of your opponents say.
So to summarise: we all agree that human DNA does NOT make a human being. You agree. I agree.
Now, when this fact is settled, we could move on towards the factor where our views differ, that is: if it is murder to destroy a cell pack that probably in some time will become a human?.
I say no, because pregnancy is a perfectly natural and relatively easy process that can be repeated countless times. The ordinary woman can during her lifetime maybe get a maximum of 10 children. Most will get far fewer. Even if she did a hundred abortions during her lifetime, she would have enough time to give birth to those same 10 children. The end result is the same.
Just so you don´t get me wrong, I DO NOT see abortion as a way of contraception, and a woman who regularly makes abortions has probably mental problems and should meet a psychologist. Still, my theoretical example makes sense.
Abortions do not reduce the number of children in the world, only the number of unwanted children.
allan2
Gone Fishing
After a hiatus of a couple days, so a few responses:
FL2: "allan2-
"If the quote in your sigline means anything to you, then let me ask you if you think it is possible that the atrocity of Roe vs. Wade armed this generation for the atrocities of apalling violence directed at the born youths of today."
That is a good reason for discussing whether or not abortion a few weeks after conception is in fact an atrocity (murder) or not.
The interesting thing here is that the Bible never said anything about it, even though the practice was very likely going on then.
So we are down to how we define "human BEING".
Now, I capitalized "being" to empasize NOT just something that carries human DNA, but a "being" meaning an ENTITY, an EGO, a something that goes beyond the human animal, into that which makes a human become greater than the animals.
When a woman miscarries, do we have a funeral for the miscarried fetus? Generally not, not even in the Christian faith. Now why is that, when we have funerals for infants and even the stillborn? Is that not implying an intuitive recognition, going back probably to the dawn of humans, that there is a difference between the human in the womb, and the human outside? And basic moral principle generally comes from intuitive sense--the conscience--and whether you say this comes from God, or from genetically-stored information (or both
), or whatever, it is probably the best moral compass we can have.
Now my intuitive sense also indicates that we should err on the side of inclusiveness when defining "human being", believe it or not. Just not as far as you have. I.e. I believe a MIND is the operative for making a human BEING (not just a human). It is the mind that makes self-identity and self-awareness possible, even unconsciously. And yes, there is a significant difference between even the severely mentally handicapped person (who HAS a mind, and a self-awareness, consciously or un-), and something that does not have a mind at all. And another significant thing about a mind in a human is physiological--the mind coordinates and integrates the functions of all the other bodily organs into a discrete whole--before that, it is the mother's mind and body that run everything in the embryo, after that the embryo moves gradually toward physical self-sufficiency.
And again, our religions (at least not the Bible--I've read all of it at one point--and I don't recall anything in the half of the Koran I've read, and not any Buddhist teachings I've heard of) don't touch this for some strange reason. Ever wonder why?
Nor do we reckon age from conception, but from birth ("we" here in the West--many Asian cultures reckon a child "one year old" when born). Nor do we allow fetuses or embryos to be counted in censuses (and I think this too goes way back). And like I said, we don't have holy funerals for miscarried unborn. I would think that if God wanted us to recognize the unborn as equal to the born, he would have said so, or at least put that into our intuitive senses enough so that these senses would tell us we should treat them as equal, which they don't and we don't (and haven't for millennia).
So at least, God maybe wants us to work that one out among ourselves--to figure it out using our reason. Which is what we are doing (at least some of us), and which is why I can say in all honesty, "I don't know yet." Because I'm not going to lie to you, I DON'T.
But yes I am concerned about it. I would strongly counsel my daughter or sister against doing it. I would also counsel my daughter to abstain, but if she didn't abstain, to use contraception. It would be a good thing if there were less abortions (even if they are not murder), for health reasons, less medical expense (either for the paying patient or for taxpayers or insurance holders), and less fanaticism leading to less women getting bombed in clinics that do abortions but also do stuff like routine pap smears and mammograms....
FL2: "allan2-
"If the quote in your sigline means anything to you, then let me ask you if you think it is possible that the atrocity of Roe vs. Wade armed this generation for the atrocities of apalling violence directed at the born youths of today."
That is a good reason for discussing whether or not abortion a few weeks after conception is in fact an atrocity (murder) or not.
The interesting thing here is that the Bible never said anything about it, even though the practice was very likely going on then.
So we are down to how we define "human BEING".
Now, I capitalized "being" to empasize NOT just something that carries human DNA, but a "being" meaning an ENTITY, an EGO, a something that goes beyond the human animal, into that which makes a human become greater than the animals.
When a woman miscarries, do we have a funeral for the miscarried fetus? Generally not, not even in the Christian faith. Now why is that, when we have funerals for infants and even the stillborn? Is that not implying an intuitive recognition, going back probably to the dawn of humans, that there is a difference between the human in the womb, and the human outside? And basic moral principle generally comes from intuitive sense--the conscience--and whether you say this comes from God, or from genetically-stored information (or both
), or whatever, it is probably the best moral compass we can have. Now my intuitive sense also indicates that we should err on the side of inclusiveness when defining "human being", believe it or not. Just not as far as you have. I.e. I believe a MIND is the operative for making a human BEING (not just a human). It is the mind that makes self-identity and self-awareness possible, even unconsciously. And yes, there is a significant difference between even the severely mentally handicapped person (who HAS a mind, and a self-awareness, consciously or un-), and something that does not have a mind at all. And another significant thing about a mind in a human is physiological--the mind coordinates and integrates the functions of all the other bodily organs into a discrete whole--before that, it is the mother's mind and body that run everything in the embryo, after that the embryo moves gradually toward physical self-sufficiency.
And again, our religions (at least not the Bible--I've read all of it at one point--and I don't recall anything in the half of the Koran I've read, and not any Buddhist teachings I've heard of) don't touch this for some strange reason. Ever wonder why?
Nor do we reckon age from conception, but from birth ("we" here in the West--many Asian cultures reckon a child "one year old" when born). Nor do we allow fetuses or embryos to be counted in censuses (and I think this too goes way back). And like I said, we don't have holy funerals for miscarried unborn. I would think that if God wanted us to recognize the unborn as equal to the born, he would have said so, or at least put that into our intuitive senses enough so that these senses would tell us we should treat them as equal, which they don't and we don't (and haven't for millennia).
So at least, God maybe wants us to work that one out among ourselves--to figure it out using our reason. Which is what we are doing (at least some of us), and which is why I can say in all honesty, "I don't know yet." Because I'm not going to lie to you, I DON'T.
But yes I am concerned about it. I would strongly counsel my daughter or sister against doing it. I would also counsel my daughter to abstain, but if she didn't abstain, to use contraception. It would be a good thing if there were less abortions (even if they are not murder), for health reasons, less medical expense (either for the paying patient or for taxpayers or insurance holders), and less fanaticism leading to less women getting bombed in clinics that do abortions but also do stuff like routine pap smears and mammograms....
allan2
Gone Fishing
FL2: "Once again, I point out that the brain damaged and the comatose also meet these criteria for non-human status. Like them, an embreyo has no mind."
Once again, the comatose are not brain-dead (else they are declared "dead" by the doctor, coroner, etc.). They have a mind, that functions MINIMALLY. Big difference between that and NO mind.
I'm still a couple pages from the end of this thread, and I see that your tactics have not changed, FL2. You give a few lines of refutation to an argument, and assume that your refutations are irrefutable and the last word. You did not SAY this in so many words, but your manner bespeaks such an attitude when you read between the lines. You selectively ignore certain things that are pointed out to you like "the comatose have minds" (I've said this before), making people have to repeat themselves to you. I've seen this before in you too. Maybe that's not what you intend to convey, so I am letting you know that's how you are coming across, so perhaps you may want to review your debate tactics--the present ones aren't working, and I'm telling you this from someone still very undecided on this issue, who could one day go either way.
And being as I am a person who cares about morals, as you do, it distresses me that you have this flaw in your debate tactics--believe me, I DO listen to what you say, and understand it for the most part. I think that in many ways, you have some VERY good things to say, and I defer to you over someone who is amoral (and I agree that the Troquilet uses reasoning that indicates morals mean little to nothing to him--not picking on you Troquilet, just calling it as I see it). But that doesn't mean that your moral sense is perfect--God did not make humans perfect.
Just some thoughts for you.
Once again, the comatose are not brain-dead (else they are declared "dead" by the doctor, coroner, etc.). They have a mind, that functions MINIMALLY. Big difference between that and NO mind.
I'm still a couple pages from the end of this thread, and I see that your tactics have not changed, FL2. You give a few lines of refutation to an argument, and assume that your refutations are irrefutable and the last word. You did not SAY this in so many words, but your manner bespeaks such an attitude when you read between the lines. You selectively ignore certain things that are pointed out to you like "the comatose have minds" (I've said this before), making people have to repeat themselves to you. I've seen this before in you too. Maybe that's not what you intend to convey, so I am letting you know that's how you are coming across, so perhaps you may want to review your debate tactics--the present ones aren't working, and I'm telling you this from someone still very undecided on this issue, who could one day go either way.
And being as I am a person who cares about morals, as you do, it distresses me that you have this flaw in your debate tactics--believe me, I DO listen to what you say, and understand it for the most part. I think that in many ways, you have some VERY good things to say, and I defer to you over someone who is amoral (and I agree that the Troquilet uses reasoning that indicates morals mean little to nothing to him--not picking on you Troquilet, just calling it as I see it). But that doesn't mean that your moral sense is perfect--God did not make humans perfect.
Just some thoughts for you.
allan2
Gone Fishing
Troquilet: "Look, people do wrong things. We try and stop it when we can, and usually we CAN stop it, but when the majority of the people WANT to do things that are "wrong" or stupid, like drinking or smoking or wearing miniskirts, we just try and choose the LESSER EVIL."
That is the question of the role of government and laws: when is the use of force wrong (government IS force).
I would start with the assumption that use of force is, in and of itself, wrong. However, if it is used to stop another, initial act of force (murder, rape, robbery, even theft--claiming the fruits of one's labor, similar to having a slave), it becomes as you say a necessary evil--i.e. we make laws (use force) against such things, and (in some countries anyway) we allow people to defend themselves using deadly force.
Now, miniskirts, smoking and drinking, whether or not these are all wrong (I'd argue the first one isn't at all
), are NOT acts of force against another, that mitigate the use of force to protect a victim. Therefore, force against them is itself immoral, and therefore there shouldn't be laws.
(And I argue ceaselessly that using force against victimless "crimes" is immoral, is wrong, and should cease--I'm a libertarian after all....)
But we're talking about abortion, which IF IT IS WRONG, would be wrong because it would be murder--i.e. an act of force against a victim. Like I said, I'm not sure if it is murder (or better stated, when it becomes that), but WHENEVER it is murder, use of force to intervene or punish would be justified, as it would be in any murder.
That is the question of the role of government and laws: when is the use of force wrong (government IS force).
I would start with the assumption that use of force is, in and of itself, wrong. However, if it is used to stop another, initial act of force (murder, rape, robbery, even theft--claiming the fruits of one's labor, similar to having a slave), it becomes as you say a necessary evil--i.e. we make laws (use force) against such things, and (in some countries anyway) we allow people to defend themselves using deadly force.
Now, miniskirts, smoking and drinking, whether or not these are all wrong (I'd argue the first one isn't at all
), are NOT acts of force against another, that mitigate the use of force to protect a victim. Therefore, force against them is itself immoral, and therefore there shouldn't be laws. (And I argue ceaselessly that using force against victimless "crimes" is immoral, is wrong, and should cease--I'm a libertarian after all....)
But we're talking about abortion, which IF IT IS WRONG, would be wrong because it would be murder--i.e. an act of force against a victim. Like I said, I'm not sure if it is murder (or better stated, when it becomes that), but WHENEVER it is murder, use of force to intervene or punish would be justified, as it would be in any murder.
allan2
Gone Fishing
There, now THAT'S a good argument.
However, I look at humans as INDIVIDUALS, not as a collective (a "nation"). I.e. a human is not a human BEING without his individual self--and what makes the "self"? The mind. Before that, he has no "self", therefore is not a BEING.
So the debate is, when does human MATERIAL become a human "self" (which is something higher than the material)? We humans have special status among the living (by God, and/or by our own intuitive self-evidence) because we have a "self" higher than the material.
So LIFE begins at conception, but a HUMAN BEING begins with his (or her) SELF. At least the way I see things.
But the question is, is killing a POTENTIAL human being wrong, namely murder? On one hand, it is not a human BEING yet, so no. But on the other hand, if left alone it would become one, so you have an argument there. Not enough to convince me yet though. Sorry, you can be a good debater, but you're just not that good here....
But feel free to elaborate your position--maybe something you say can knock me off the fence yet....
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
allan2,
In response to the last post, I ask one question:
Why does a game of 'Beat the Clock' seem appropriate in a discussion about life?
To wit: we seem to agree that an unmolested human fetus will, in short order, acquire all the characteristics of a human, and that it starts out with some. This being the case, why is it acceptable to kill this under-developed human before it acquires the rest of those traits, when we know that it will if we don't kill it?
A follow-up:
If I fire-bomb a house that has not yet been completed, can I be charged with arson? Why?
In response to the last post, I ask one question:
Why does a game of 'Beat the Clock' seem appropriate in a discussion about life?
To wit: we seem to agree that an unmolested human fetus will, in short order, acquire all the characteristics of a human, and that it starts out with some. This being the case, why is it acceptable to kill this under-developed human before it acquires the rest of those traits, when we know that it will if we don't kill it?
A follow-up:
If I fire-bomb a house that has not yet been completed, can I be charged with arson? Why?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Do you know what the minimal functions of a comatose brain are? Autonomic signals that tell the diaphragm and heart to perform their functions, galvanic skin responses, and bowel and bladder movement. Non-conscious functions that are essential to life. None of which are yet required by a fetus, as all of these functions, or their purposes, are handled by the umbilical cord and placenta.
At that stage in its development, an embreyo or fetus has no need of autonomic functions so it does not have them. Other than this lack of need for minimal brain functions, and level of development, the embreyo and coma patient are identical. Both are human, both are effectively mindless, and both have a right to life.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Right, the sentince question. But again, I do not require sentience of a human before I will protect them, their blood tie to me is sufficient.
Because it is hard to bury a puddle of blood, especially if it is soaked into the sheets. I know very few women who simply go on with their lives as if nothing had happened after a miscarriage. Most are inconsolable for days/weeks, almost as if they had lost a child...
I've known fathers equally struck by the loss of a child in utero...Originally posted by allan2
Is that not implying an intuitive recognition, going back probably to the dawn of humans, that there is a difference between the human in the womb, and the human outside? And basic moral principle generally comes from intuitive sense--the conscience--and whether you say this comes from God, or from genetically-stored information (or both
Everyone and everything in the universe has to have a beginning, and that beginning starts small, and builds from there. Using the sentience argument to defend abortion is similar if not identical to saying that a thing under construction does not exist until the ribbon-cutting ceremony is complete. The logic falters.
Because there were no abortion clinics?
I believe (and it seems intuitive to say so) that the reason for this stems more from lack of knowledge of basic biology when the customs were created, than from any other consideration.
Again, I have witnessed the grief of those who have lost children in utero, and that puts the lie to these words above, no offense intended. People do recognise the loss of life in a miscarriage. But would you have the strength to pick through the bloody sheets for your lost baby, the size of a grain of rice, to hold a funeral, or would you simply mourn, and dispose of the sheets?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I agreed to one part. You bundled several arguments together, and I only accepted part of one.Originally posted by Hurricane
First you agree to my statements, and then you say you don´t?
No, I agreed that a Siamese twin in which only one brain had developed was a single person since no other baby would form. While at the outset, this looks like I agree with the no brain = no baby argument, it is modified by the undeniable fact that the other half of the Siamese twin is NEVER going to develop a brain, whereas an embreyonic baby will. There is a world of difference. The first is just body parts to be amputated, the second is a child in and of itself, that has not finished forming yet.
If 100 people are going to pass through a door, but only 10 were invited to the party, can I shoot 90 of them? This argument fails.
So do you feel that abortion should or should not be provided to women who want it merely for contraception?
Go look up some statistics on the number of people waiting in line to adopt, and try making that statement again.
Hurricane
Sleeping Dragon
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 1,197
I can burn MY OWN house if I want to, no matter if it´s still under construction or if it´s complete. Your example makes no sense.
That is not what I said. I said that if I invite 10 to the party, does it make a difference WHEN I invite them? No, it doesn´t.
Yes, it should, as long as it is before the fetus has developed into a human.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Glad to see some sense from Beamuppy, Roadwarrior, Hamlet... thank God we have other countries to try our idiotic ideas on first! 
just kidding!
"The ordinary
woman can during her lifetime maybe get a maximum of 10 children."
JS Bach had 15 or more in his lifetime. Granted that was with multiple mothers... but not more than 1 at a time!
Allan and others: several have pointed out to me my utter lack of morals. To be abrupt, I don't need a moral code because I am confident in my ability to judge each situation.
As we have seen with Fearless, anyway, a strict moral code only leads to fallacy. Look at what he wants to do! He'd watch his own wife bleed to death. If that's the morals you want, you can have them.
Also several have seemed to indicate that they think I think abortion should not be stopped. That is true in a sense. I am completely against abortion! I just think it's a waste of time to outlaw it. As you can see it's been done in other countries with no good results. IMHO it's much better to just teach sex education and protection, and still leave abortion for emergencies.
" And again, our religions (at least not the Bible--I've read all of it at one point--and I don't recall anything in the
half of the Koran I've read, and not any Buddhist teachings I've heard of) don't touch this for some strange
reason. Ever wonder why?
Because there were no abortion clinics?"
Wrong. Women have been doing abortions for thousands of years. Just the inconvenient way. If God wanted an 11th Commandment on the topic he'd easily have included it.
Please don't say it's already included under thou shalt not kill, because we haven't even determined if we're killing or not.
----------------------------
By Fearless' argument, each egg cell in a mother (there are about 500 of them I think) should be surgically extracted and conceived in petri dishes. Then the mother should be charged with negligence to her future children for not having a body fit to bear all of them, jailed, and the 500 kids should be farmed out to adoption.
Hell! If that's the way you argue, that's eventually the kind of world we'd have! Wonder what it would do to the unemployment rate...
just kidding! "The ordinary
woman can during her lifetime maybe get a maximum of 10 children."
JS Bach had 15 or more in his lifetime. Granted that was with multiple mothers... but not more than 1 at a time!
Allan and others: several have pointed out to me my utter lack of morals. To be abrupt, I don't need a moral code because I am confident in my ability to judge each situation.
As we have seen with Fearless, anyway, a strict moral code only leads to fallacy. Look at what he wants to do! He'd watch his own wife bleed to death. If that's the morals you want, you can have them.
Also several have seemed to indicate that they think I think abortion should not be stopped. That is true in a sense. I am completely against abortion! I just think it's a waste of time to outlaw it. As you can see it's been done in other countries with no good results. IMHO it's much better to just teach sex education and protection, and still leave abortion for emergencies.
" And again, our religions (at least not the Bible--I've read all of it at one point--and I don't recall anything in the
half of the Koran I've read, and not any Buddhist teachings I've heard of) don't touch this for some strange
reason. Ever wonder why?
Because there were no abortion clinics?"
Wrong. Women have been doing abortions for thousands of years. Just the inconvenient way. If God wanted an 11th Commandment on the topic he'd easily have included it.
Please don't say it's already included under thou shalt not kill, because we haven't even determined if we're killing or not.
----------------------------
By Fearless' argument, each egg cell in a mother (there are about 500 of them I think) should be surgically extracted and conceived in petri dishes. Then the mother should be charged with negligence to her future children for not having a body fit to bear all of them, jailed, and the 500 kids should be farmed out to adoption.
Hell! If that's the way you argue, that's eventually the kind of world we'd have!
Wonder what it would do to the unemployment rate...
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
It's not against the commandment to kill foreigners, Christian or Muslim... the Bible says I can technically take Canadian slaves.
Not that I'd want to of course!
Not that I'd want to of course!
allan2
Gone Fishing
FL2: "Do you know what the minimal functions of a comatose brain are? Autonomic signals that tell the diaphragm and heart to perform their functions, galvanic skin responses, and bowel and bladder movement. Non-conscious functions that are essential to life. None of which are yet required by a fetus, as all of these functions, or their purposes, are handled by the umbilical cord and placenta.
At that stage in its development, an embreyo or fetus has no need of autonomic functions so it does not have them."
Yes it has need that certain functions happen in it, which the mother's body fulfills in entirety. Like I said, it is still ENTIRELY part of the mother at that point. It is "life", but not a "self" in even the most rudimentary sense.
"Other than this lack of need for minimal brain functions, and level of development, the embreyo and coma patient are identical."
But one can argue that a "self" exists in a coma patient, unconscious or dormant. The existance of this self is established already, and when coma patients wake up IT IS STILL THERE. I.e. there is a continuity. The self is not DEAD at that point, but dormant--hence this continuity observed in coma patients. Death means "no more". (Of course if you believe in an afterlife, then it's probably that "self" passing into another plane of existence and consciousness--but NO MORE in THIS plane....)
But in an embryo (pre-brain), the self has not established its existence. There is not even UNCONSCIOUS awareness of a "selfdom". (Animals can be said to be at least UNCONSCIOUSLY self-aware--perhaps like a human in lucid-dream state, in a way. But even humans in normal dream state have a self-awareness.)
Can you see a difference between a DORMANT self (coma patient) and a self that doesn't even exist yet?
I don't see it as a "beat-the-clock" game. I see it as, are you killing a "self"? You either are or you aren't.
"Both are human, both are effectively mindless, and both have a right to life."
Well, one has a dormant self, and one does not have a self at all.
(And to clarify, "self" doesn't mean "sentience"--sentience is a STATE of self. "Self" is merely the knowledge (conscious or unconscious) that "I exist!" When I said I err on inclusiveness, I wasn't joking. I could state with relative certainty that a fetus who has just developed its brain isn't yet sentient. But it is aware of sensations, and as some have claimed memories from the womb, it does have a rudimentary "self". But sentience is very subjective (I mean, who can define it, or judge externally when it has appeared?)--so an OBJECTIVE standard, in order to err on the side of inclusiveness, would be the minimal apparatus needed to have a "self" which may or may not be sentient--a brain. So I think that abortion after brain development should be considered murder. What I have my doubts about is BEFORE. When does the BEING (the self) begin to exist?)
DNA does not determine a human being. Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA, yet are two separate AND DIFFERENT selves entirely. And would a clone of Hitler automatically become Hitler? Surely the SELF is the operating factor for "beinghood". The "self" is what transcends the material--and it is in the mind.
At that stage in its development, an embreyo or fetus has no need of autonomic functions so it does not have them."
Yes it has need that certain functions happen in it, which the mother's body fulfills in entirety. Like I said, it is still ENTIRELY part of the mother at that point. It is "life", but not a "self" in even the most rudimentary sense.
"Other than this lack of need for minimal brain functions, and level of development, the embreyo and coma patient are identical."
But one can argue that a "self" exists in a coma patient, unconscious or dormant. The existance of this self is established already, and when coma patients wake up IT IS STILL THERE. I.e. there is a continuity. The self is not DEAD at that point, but dormant--hence this continuity observed in coma patients. Death means "no more". (Of course if you believe in an afterlife, then it's probably that "self" passing into another plane of existence and consciousness--but NO MORE in THIS plane....)
But in an embryo (pre-brain), the self has not established its existence. There is not even UNCONSCIOUS awareness of a "selfdom". (Animals can be said to be at least UNCONSCIOUSLY self-aware--perhaps like a human in lucid-dream state, in a way. But even humans in normal dream state have a self-awareness.)
Can you see a difference between a DORMANT self (coma patient) and a self that doesn't even exist yet?
I don't see it as a "beat-the-clock" game. I see it as, are you killing a "self"? You either are or you aren't.
"Both are human, both are effectively mindless, and both have a right to life."
Well, one has a dormant self, and one does not have a self at all.
(And to clarify, "self" doesn't mean "sentience"--sentience is a STATE of self. "Self" is merely the knowledge (conscious or unconscious) that "I exist!" When I said I err on inclusiveness, I wasn't joking. I could state with relative certainty that a fetus who has just developed its brain isn't yet sentient. But it is aware of sensations, and as some have claimed memories from the womb, it does have a rudimentary "self". But sentience is very subjective (I mean, who can define it, or judge externally when it has appeared?)--so an OBJECTIVE standard, in order to err on the side of inclusiveness, would be the minimal apparatus needed to have a "self" which may or may not be sentient--a brain. So I think that abortion after brain development should be considered murder. What I have my doubts about is BEFORE. When does the BEING (the self) begin to exist?)
DNA does not determine a human being. Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA, yet are two separate AND DIFFERENT selves entirely. And would a clone of Hitler automatically become Hitler? Surely the SELF is the operating factor for "beinghood". The "self" is what transcends the material--and it is in the mind.
Similar threads
- Poll
