Abortion, part deux

[Gaudere]

I don’t believe there’s an obligation to create a being, but we are compelled to protect, or at least not harm, an existing being. Our brain-dead guy belongs in this category, as do the pre-born, who may not have fully developed any of a number of critical attributes, but who clearly are themselves a good bit more than potential. An egg is not yet a being; it is merely raw material, no more worthy of protection than the meal you ate that provided the nourishment that helped you to produce the egg. Women have no moral obligation to keep themselves perpetually pregnant. But once pregnancy occurs, the circumstance is substantially different.

Hm…but you define a person (being) as “potential sentience”. A fetus is not “a good bit more than potential [sentience]” until it is actually sentient. An egg has potential sentience (easliy achieved and within its lifetime, too), so why isn’t it a being? Sure, an egg takes a physical act to realize its potential sentience, but then again, so do most brain-dead people.

A fetus has potential sentience. A brain-dead person has potential sentience. Assuming that both the fetus and brain-dead person would acquire sentience if they are not interfered with, you would consider it immoral to impede their achieving or reawakening sentience. Very well. Now say we have a brain-dead person, with potential sentience, but he will not just resume conscious thought “naturally”, we have to take a physical act to get this person to resume sentience (nothing too expensive or unpleasant). You would consider us morally obligated to take that physical act. Why am I not equally required to take a physical act to realize the sentience of an egg of mine? I don’t understand why, if “potential sentience” is the determinant of personhood, we are required to take action to resuscitate a brain-dead person, but are not required to take action to fertilize an egg and carry the fetus to term. Even if we remove sex from the equation out of a wish to avoid making women morally obligated to have sex, let’s say we have an egg in a petrie dish and an eyedropper full of sperm. If we can fertilize and implant the egg (i.e., taking a physical act to allow potential sentience to be realized) with a minor amount of cost, why aren’t we required to do so?

And what the heck happened to Ray, anyhow?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Gaudere *
**Hm…but you define a person (being) as “potential sentience”. A fetus is not “a good bit more than potential [sentience]” until it is actually sentient. An egg has potential sentience (easliy achieved and within its lifetime, too), so why isn’t it a being? Sure, an egg takes a physical act to realize its potential sentience, but then again, so do most brain-dead people.

**Sorry, I was tossing words like “being” and “person” around carelessly, and I think I confused things (it’s always bad darts to abandon a semantical rule once it’s been established in the discussion). I believe that the sentience of a fetus may be only a potentiality, but the fetus is still undoubtedly a human being. And only a human being can possibly have human rights.

But not all human beings have these rights in the same sense or degree (or, perhaps, at all, for some things). Otherwise we could not morally assign a brain-dead patient who will NOT recover to a different moral category than one who WILL recover. Both are undoubtedly human beings–nothing potential about their existence, distinct DNA, all that jazz. But only the being with potential sentience compels us morally in the way I’ve been describing–i.e., possessing “personhood.” A fetus is a human being, thereby making the first cut, who likewise exists within the subset possessing the likelihood of sentience. Eggs miss the boat on the first qualifier (if only they had studied in school, they might have made something of themselves).

**And what the heck happened to Ray, anyhow? **

I’m sure he’s off in the study composing a lengthy and scholarly response to all the questions previously posed. Having eradicated ignorance from the SDMB, he’ll then be off to cure cancer, or install world peace, or something else really cool that nobody else has thought of doing yet.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**… or something else really cool that nobody else has thought of doing yet. **

the time machine?

…d&r…

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
**

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**… or something else really cool that nobody else has thought of doing yet. **

the time machine?

…d&r… **

Right! Then he can go back in time and answer all those questions in this thread instantaneously. Now it all makes sense…

[Gaudere]

I believe that the sentience of a fetus may be only a potentiality, but the fetus is still undoubtedly a human being. And only a human being can possibly have human rights.

Ok, so in order for a being to be a person, it must be a human with potential intelligence. So what about sentient aliens or computers? Can they never be “people”? If you tie personhood to sentience–or potential sentience–alone, I can see how they can be…but if you require them to be human, I don’t see how they are.

[youngfool]

Numerous posts have been made on the subject whether an embryo is really a human being because it is “just a pile of cells”, which aren’t entirely clear, but the first problem with almost all references to the “pile of cells”, is that ALL human beings, all life (except for the debatable category of confidence) is made up of cell(s)
Therefore any arguments that an embryo/zygote, is not a human being are quite clearly ridiculous since all human beings are nothing but “a pile of cells”
However I believe that some some people were arguing that a zygote, or embryo was not a human being, because it contained no recoqnizable human traits. It is true at first glance, the zygote, has no recognizable human traits, and it also true that throughout preganancy, the fetus has wide differences form a human being. However, when making an argument of this nature, the fact that the human genetic has ALL the information for a complete human being, and will develop all the traits.
I’m not sure who said something about “all their sperms being identical,” but it should be noted that sperm are not identical! One of the most basic genetic laws (I’m learning it in grade 11 biology), is the law of independant assortment (developed by mendel), which occurs during meiosis, and randomizes the selection of genes.

Original Quote
Bob Cos:
Here goes: Any entity with the potential for sentience is “alive”–meaning, deserving of protection and possessing the right to live. If this potential exists, it trumps all other rights (except, perhaps, the right of another entity to live).

People must realize that all the cells in our body (except for sex cells, because they only have half the number of chromsomes (haploid)), have the potential for sentience, and to come alive. This fact was firmly proven by Dolly and Polly, who demostrated that genetic information form any cell, is capable of creating new life. So if we inerpret Bob’s statement with that in mind, it would read something like “All the cells in every human body (except sex cells) deserve protection and and the right to live,” which is quite clearly ridiculous.

So if all body cells are capable of creating a new life, how come only zygotes formed from “sex” are liable for protection from abortion for pro-lifers?
As I write this I ralize that I should point out that genetical engineering fetuses are quite unlikely (for now), and try and make the point that life primarily exists in a complete set of genetical code (diploid), so why is genetical code formed from sex more valuable than genetical code formed from mitosis (normal body cell code)?

[youngfool]

apologies if any of my arguments have been covered, I have only gotten partly onto the second page

Original Quote
Gaudere:
The most important thing I have in common with other persons is my capacity for thought, not my DNA sequence.
Your ability to think is a direct result of your DNA sequence, not the other way around! IMO your DNA sequence is more important than your ability to think, because your DNA sequence can create many new beings with capability for thought and it is your DNA sequence which gives you your ability to think.
When you look at the big icture of reproduction, you can see the absolutely vital part DNA plays in life, and I believe that many people will come to conclusion that DNA is the true basis of life, and that DNA you dictates how all the characteristics you share with human beings, not just thought.

If anybody has suggestions on improving readibilty of my posts, I would apprreciate them.

[Gaudere]

youngfool: go here to learn about how to use Vbcodes to allow you to quote, link, italicize, bold, etc.

Your ability to think is a direct result of your DNA sequence, not the other way around! IMO your DNA sequence is more important than your ability to think, because your DNA sequence can create many new beings with capability for thought and it is your DNA sequence which gives you your ability to think.
When you look at the big icture of reproduction, you can see the absolutely vital part DNA plays in life, and I believe that many people will come to conclusion that DNA is the true basis of life, and that DNA you dictates how all the characteristics you share with human beings, not just thought.

If the debate was simply about “what is a human?”, sure, DNA is probably the best way to go if you are not going into metaphorical defintions. However, in this thread we are dealing with “personhood”, not “humanness”, because not all humans have the same rights as a person (ex: brain-dead human), and we can certainly imagine a person with nonhuman DNA (ex: a genetically manipulated clone, or a sentient alien). In the vast majority of cases, people will prefer to give the same right to life to nonhuman sentients as they would to a living, sentient human, yet would deny those rights to a brain-dead human. This shows why it is “personhood”, not “humanness” that any debate regarding the killing of potentially sentient living things generally centers around.

[youngfool]

Point conceded about “humanness” versus “personhood”, but are you saying that most abortion debates are centred on whether abortion is moral only after some semblance of personhood (such as likelihood of sentient though) is present? I think that this may be a misrepresentaions of many pro-lifers, who believe that no zygote should be aborted, even if it doesn’t yet have capacity for sentient thought.

In the vast majority of cases, people will prefer to give the same right to life to nonhuman sentients as they would to a living, sentient human,

A chimpanzee is a sentient being, and i is cerainly not human, yet they do not have the same human rights. Their rights, from the Animal Welfare Act have an exemptions section for non-human primates which includes:

(2) The research facility Committee may exempt an individual nonhuman primate from some, or all, of the required environment enhancement plan for scientific reasons set forth in the research proposal. The basis of the exemption is to be documented in the approved proposal and must be reviewed at appropriate intervals but not less than annually. (3.81(e)(2)).

IMO, this section of the document means that it is not illegal to abuse animal rights if it is a legitimate scientific experiment, so sentient “aleins” do not have the same rights as sentient humans.