The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[cav scout]

To get back to the question the OP posed for just a sec: I think HIPAA would prohibit disclosure of this sort of info.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am indeed confused

 

[Truronian]

And there's nothing wrong with that; biology can't be everyone's forte. However, it's worth keeping in mind a good rule of thumb for such situations: when you find a topic confusing, don't call for people's executions.

 

[El_Machinae]

The reality is my ethical proposition is that it is HUMAN life that should not be destroyed (Except as punishment for a crime or in self-defense) not SENTIENT life.

You don't really believe this, we've already discussed this. We've established that trimming the 'spare' limbs from an unfortunate co-joined twin incident (purely for aesthetics or convenience) is okay. Except when the extra limb is a head. At that point, it becomes scarily complicated. It's entirely the sentient life that changes the scenario, and nothing else.

while a person in a coma might not actually ever become sentient again.

A person that cannot be recovered and is believed to suffer from permanent sentience loss is considered brain-dead, and will hopefully be used for their organs. If the organs are usable, they're (by definitions) alive, so it's very obvious that it's the death of the sentience that we care about.

A person that's temporarily insentient is absolutely not the same this as a non-sentient organism. It's like claim that a canvas and tray of paints is the equivalent to a painting, and a painting that's currently in the dark should be destroyable if the blank canvas is allowed to be burned.

"Can become sentient" is not the same thing as "sentient", just like "can become a beautiful painting" is not the same thing as "is a painting".

Remember, a two-headed baby is different from an eight-limbed baby, despite the fact that they're both co-joined twins

 

[Farm Boy]

You still have the conundrum that a fetus or embryo is "very likely to become sentient" rather than "has the possibility of doing so." I mean the whole point of an abortion is that it's assumed but for the abortion it will become sentient. Other than that, I'd say you are right on.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You don't really believe this, we've already discussed this. We've established that trimming the 'spare' limbs from an unfortunate co-joined twin incident (purely for aesthetics or convenience) is okay. Except when the extra limb is a head. At that point, it becomes scarily complicated. It's entirely the sentient life that changes the scenario, and nothing else.

The difference is the limbs in question will never become a separate living human being with a brain either. A perso in a permanet coma would be in a similar case. But a person in a temporary coma (And thus temporarily not sentient) has a lot in common with an embryo that is also temporarily not sentient, but will become so in a few months.

I'm not really interested in debating this, but maybe that will help explain where I'm coming from. Two beings that will most likely become sentient at some point, but are not currrently sentient, I would consider morally equivalent. On the other hand, a person who is permanently in a coma or a "Person" which is a bunch of limbs that will never become a brain are also close to moral equivalence, they will never be a sentient lifeform again, regardless of whether they once were or not.

 

[Traitorfish]

You still have the conundrum that a fetus or embryo is "very likely to become sentient" rather than "has the possibility of doing so."

That's really the same claim, all you're doing is being more specific about what that possibility is.

The difference is the limbs in question will never become a separate living human being with a brain either. A perso in a permanet coma would be in a similar case. But a person in a temporary coma (And thus temporarily not sentient) has a lot in common with an embryo that is also temporarily not sentient, but will become so in a few months.

Who said that people in comas were non-sentient?

 

[El_Machinae]

Even if they aren't sentient at the time, their personhood begins when they became sentient. At that stage, they gained overship of the body that their mind resides in, and their wishes regarding their insentient periods along with (and this is important) the disposition of the neuronal coding become factors of society

You still have the conundrum that a fetus or embryo is "very likely to become sentient" rather than "has the possibility of doing so." I mean the whole point of an abortion is that it's assumed but for the abortion it will become sentient. Other than that, I'd say you are right on.

Yes, it is a conundrum, because if you know it's likely to become sentient, you take on a series of responsibilities to that future person. Eat your veggies, go for walks, keep your stress down, visit the doctor, etc.

This responsibility, however, goes backwards in time well-before the fusing of the two zygotes. Take care of the sperm, to avoid mutations. Take folic acid, to prevent developmental issues. Reduce stress & obesity on the (future) father, to avoid deleterious epigenetic effects.

Deliberately harming the sperm, egg, or parents, in such a way as would cause developmental issues becomes wrong if the fetus is intentionally brought to term. The baby has a moral claim on the sperm, egg, and womb that were used in its creation.

But, the part that's 'not a conundrum' is that "very likely to become" is not the same as "is". They're not the same thing. And, even more importantly, just because something will happen "naturally", it doesn't mean that there's some type of moral onus to let it do so.

 

[ParkCungHee]

To be fair, the "happens naturally" argument treats the mothers body as a fixed object that, if it does nothing, will bring the embryo to term rather then an ongoing and complicated process.

The fact is that it is stupendously unlikely that a mother without any outside interference would bring a child to term.

 

[classical_hero]

And once again we find GhostWriter calling for the prosecution (and execution, or have you backed down from that?) of people that have and administer abortions. This is despite the fact that you have on multiple occasions admitted to not knowing very much about foetal development, not being able to give a logical and scientific explanation for why embryos should be given humans rights and acknowledging that there are a number of elements of reproduction that you don't understand or can't explain. Let's face it GW, your belief that human rights starts at conception come from your faith; it's probably something that your pastor has proclaimed. You have previously indicated that you don't think that things that you consider immoral because of your faith should be made illegal, which is a very noble and sensible mantra. Why then do you not apply it to your scientifically unjustifiable opinions on embryonic human rights?

Tell me one person who is alive today that hasn't been born through all the stages inside the womb?

 

[Traitorfish]

..."Born through all the stages inside the womb"? Pardon?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

..."Born through all the stages inside the womb"? Pardon?

Why confused? It's clear that CH meant that no one is yet to be born without being an embryo brought to term inside the womb.

 

[El_Machinae]

Tell me one person who is alive today that hasn't been born through all the stages inside the womb?

Okay, I cannot. All stages inside the womb are terrifically important to creating something we both consider 'a person'.

Name one person alive that wasn't originally an essential and unique egg and an essential and unique sperm.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why confused? It's clear that CH meant that no one is yet to be born without being an embryo brought to term inside the womb.

Oh, right. The phrasing threw me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Okay, I cannot. All stages inside the womb are terrifically important to creating something we both consider 'a person'.

I should hope not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_Birth

 

[El_Machinae]

Good point, and that raises to mind the other counter-point of IVF people. But, I am responding the gist of CH's point.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Lets look at it from another angle:

Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.

That is from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

Now if you look at it that miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is something quite common and "natural" then you can see that socalled problem has practicaly vanished and all is left is bunch of screaming ignorant religious fanatics...

 

[Farm Boy]

Even if they aren't sentient at the time, their personhood begins when they became sentient. At that stage, they gained overship of the body that their mind resides in, and their wishes regarding their insentient periods along with (and this is important) the disposition of the neuronal coding become factors of society



Yes, it is a conundrum, because if you know it's likely to become sentient, you take on a series of responsibilities to that future person. Eat your veggies, go for walks, keep your stress down, visit the doctor, etc.

This responsibility, however, goes backwards in time well-before the fusing of the two zygotes. Take care of the sperm, to avoid mutations. Take folic acid, to prevent developmental issues. Reduce stress & obesity on the (future) father, to avoid deleterious epigenetic effects.

Deliberately harming the sperm, egg, or parents, in such a way as would cause developmental issues becomes wrong if the fetus is intentionally brought to term. The baby has a moral claim on the sperm, egg, and womb that were used in its creation.

But, the part that's 'not a conundrum' is that "very likely to become" is not the same as "is". They're not the same thing. And, even more importantly, just because something will happen "naturally", it doesn't mean that there's some type of moral onus to let it do so.

True. It's not the same thing. Overstating the importance of now is still a weakness. How much do we blind ourselves to the near future in the quest to clean the morals of now? Take your temporary coma patient, just because he will wake up naturally doesn't mean there is there not some type of moral onus to provide him with care that perhaps he can't pay for? Just because the drunk man sleeping with his head on the railroad tracks will naturally wake up in a period hours does not mean there is some type of moral onus to walk on to the tracks to pull him off to someplace he won't be run over? I understand what you are saying and the comparisons aren't perfect. Really, it's closer to do you have the moral onus to do something difficult and somewhat dangerous to protect a sleeper when the only way to avoid doing so would be to shoot them in the head before they wake up.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I agree. We have a moral onus to charity and to protect people from natural harms. Whether it's rescuing drunks, adopting infants, fighting the spread of malaria, or limiting our carbon production - all of these easily fall into Kant's and Jesus's moral suggestions. I like them, too.

 

[Global Skeptic]

And I assume you'll immediately start lobbying for all the poor kidnapped prisoners? And all the poor speeders who were stolen from when they received a fine?

The logical result of "Death penalty is murder" (Which is what you're insinuating) is anarchistic thought. Since you aren't an anarchist, I'd recommend you stop, unless you'd like for me to demonstrate why the logic fails AGAIN.

Since there are Christians, who would call death penalty murder and Christians, who are anarchistic, we can try logic again.

1. A=A
2. Non(A and non-A)
3. Either A or non-A

What does that mean and where do we find that in the Bible?