I’m pro life…but based upon AHunters earlier post :
I suspect that as long as the woman is “hosting” the being, she has the “right” to terminate its life. (Whether “hosting” means dwelling inside of the uterus or “attached” via cord is a bit unclear)…So, stage of development would not matter…and in the case of the incubator, there is no biological “host” that has right of termination.
—One of the capacities that a zygote has is its potential to be someone like you. There is no other lump of cells with that potential.—
I have the potential to be murderer. Should I be thrown in jail? I have the potential to be a lifeless corpse: is my life then of no more concern than a corpse?
The question is whether that potential (which is NOT unique to zygotes, but indeed could be ascribed to anything along the chain leading to “someone like me”) is a quality of moral concern, or merely our imagination of future individuals (to whom we would ascribe moral concern if they existed, and since they do not, but their images are so compelling, we feel the need to ascribe to their precursors).
A zygote may have the potential to, along with the addition of countless other factors and components, be a being we would all agree would be of moral concern, but does it have interests in being such a being? How can it, when it lacks any capacities beyond what other cells have to have any sort of interests at all? If a small group of cells cannot have interests in their own continued existence (which you destroy by choosing to walk to the bank), then how can zygotes have an interest in any particular type of future existence? How can they have interests in fulfilling whatever it is we imagine is their potential?
Zygotes, of course, do not contain a blueprint of the final being. The DNA contained in zygotes is much more like a recipe: it contains instructions for carrying out the construction of a particular sort of being: instructions which are only just beginning to be followed by the time it is a zygote. If, by frustrating that construction, we do wrong to a future potential individual, then wouldn’t it also be wrong to frustrate or prevent that particular construction anywhere along the line (say, by frustrating the journey of a particular sperm into a particular egg, or by not having enough unprotected sex)?
We can even sequence that recipe and make alterations, thus having the code for a new potential individual: are we then any more bound to bring it into being, simply because we happened to express its potential as a whole on a computer disk? If we could then place that sequence into chemical bases and store it in a stem cell, which we could then chemically signal to begin to divide, would we at THAT point have a moral duty to see to its continued development? Where does the potentiality of something become a moral concern?
—I’m sorry to disappoint you if you’re already poised to type a rebuttal, but here we agree. And frankly, that was my point both here and in the Lot’s wife thread. The label is irrelevant. What matters is what the label identifies.—
In both threads, I am indeed more interested in what the labels identifies than anything else. That’s why I’m interested in characteristics, not designations. I’m not so much interested in whether or not we call an apple that’s been turned in a dog an apple as I am with whether or not it makes sense to say that any “turning into” has occured at all.
Of course zygotes rarely, if ever, undergo elective abortions…so discussing their state of development is a bit of a red herring.
I’m glad I waited for you to respond, Beagledave. Your brilliantly concise post saved me considerable typing.
[NOTE: A similar question was asked by mok]
My proposal would be to have a legally binding symbolic ceremony in the hospital, in which the new Mom, after having had a chance to inspect the newborn, does something ritualistic which represents cutting the umbilical cord, and through this action declares the baby to be alive. Once that declaration has been made, the baby is a legal person and citizen, and entitled to legal protections as such.
Originally posted by me around 1997 on the AOL Straight Dope Board:
Since, as has already been discussed on these boards, God is a CAT*
[/quote]
'Nuff said.
Look, I’ve asked you a number of specific questions of clarification, and you’ve chosen not to answer. I’m not misreading anything. There’s very little to read other than an assertion made with very little supporting explanation.
Not that the cat story wasn’t real convincing, though.
Um, wow. You’re serious?
I don’t think you’ve thought that proposal through. What if Mom died in childbirth or soon thereafter? What if Mom just ran away and abandonded the baby?
In those cases, your proposal would mean that the baby would never be a legal person or citizen, since Mom wouldn’t be around to do the ritual.
And by “inspect the newborn” what do you mean? Do you mean the Mom could decide the baby failed the inspection, and decide not to make the baby a person?
I guess also you mean that until and unless this bizarre ceremony is completed, it would be OK with you to kill this newborn since they aren’t a person yet?
Nah, you’ve got to be kidding.
-mok
Hmm, comparing human babies to a litter of cats? Making laws and decisions about declarling when someone is to be considered a person? Declaring a person to be a non person until such and such a date after birth, doesn’t make it so. Sounds like playing God to me. JMHO and .02.
I agree with His4ever. Science by arbitration is no better than science by consensus. Science is not the branch of philosophy to answer what a rights bearing entity is and when.
beagledave, AHunter gave his answer, and as you can see, that wasn’t his take. AHunter instead brought up this “legal ceremony of baby inspection” proposal.
Responding to your own analysis…the incubator case is the most interesting. The people running the incubator – why don’t they have the right to shut it off whenever they want? It’s their incubator, consuming their resources.
Most people would answer that they don’t have the right to shut off the incubator because they have a responsibility which supersedes that right.
Putting it another way…if stage of development does not matter, then this means that what matters is the fact that the baby is physically inside the mother, regardless of stage, right? If so, then what’s wrong with calling the fetus a person? AHunter’s not saying it’s OK to kill the baby because it’s not a person. AHunter’s saying it’s OK to kill the baby because it’s a person inside another person. At least that’s how I read it.
-mok
WANTED: LINKS TO A RELIGIOUS LEFT WEBSITE OFFERING AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION OF THE PERSONHOOD OF THE FETUS.
CONTESTANTS MAY ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY SUCH A DISCUSSION ANYWHERE ON THE COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE WEBSTITE (http://www.rcrc.org) OR IN THE POSITION STATEMENTS OF ITS AFFILIATED CHURCHES (http://www.rcrc.org/religion/weaffirm/affirm.html)
REWARD: TASTY FETUS RECIPES
Here’s your answer:
I find this arguement to be solely a potentiality arguement.
On that basis, I conclude for pro-life.
By potentiality arguement, I simply mean:
What potential does said human posess?
The first point of relevence to the issue of abortion is that of conception. What is the definiton of human-life conception?
For me, the answer is rock-brain simple:
When someone engages in an act that can bring about the existence of a being, whether or not they know that such an act can or will bring about the existence of a being, then conception for that being has transpired.
The most fundamental conception is thinking. IMO, abortion is just as valid when you pass by someone on the street who is ugly and decide not to pursue further communication.
A rapist de-selecting a victim is commiting abortion IMO.
A life-long celibate is committing abortion IMO.
A super-model who sits on the couch watching T.V. istead of dressing up and going for a stroll in the must scanalous area of town at the most scandalous hour is committing abortion IMO.
Two people who clearly show attraction for each-other, who have no compelling reason to not mate (thus potentiality of pregnancy and birth of a human being) and yet don’t, for undetermined reasons of acasual circumstance, are both complicit in an act of abortion IMO.
Not following a course of action which can provide the conditions for pregnancy at any-time is an act of abortion; as is selecting one partner over another an act of abortion IMO.
De-selecting/Supressing the urge to mate is an act of abortion IMO.
Two twelve year olds having unprotected sex, who are unknowledgable about the possibility and/or profundity of having a child are engaging in an act of conception IMO.
In this case, the act of conception was innitiated by the parents for not informing and/or monitoring their children. It would be like a parent watching their small child chug a gallon of pine-sol, and then writing the official cause of death as suicide, or the pumping of the childs stomach as being against the will of the unconcious child. Maybe they did know what the Pine-Sol would do.
In potentiality, these bizarre scenario’s are as relevant to the topic of conception as a zygote; for the odds of that zygote coming into being and living a life of substantial endurance are not statstically different than any of these cognitively simulated abortions that behaviorally take place all the time.
While conception refers to the potential of whether a life will even be here that could potentially be here were different actions taken; the decision of whether to keep that life before it can sustain itself relies upon the notion of potentiality for the desire of that life.
This life has one of four potentialities:
1.) It never wanted to be born and wished it had been aborted, and hopes that by commiting to a certain act, it will be given the choice/chance of returning back to nothingness.
2.) It always wanted to live and detests the very thought that it lives in a reality where its own abortion is even a possibility. By committing to certain acts it hopes to be given the choice/opportunity to have everlasting life.
3.) It is ambivilent about whether to live or die, eat or starve, and really doesn’t see the point of anything at all.
4.) It does not process self or time, and cannot formulate these desires to even have an opinion.
Numbers one and two are believer potentialities (polar in form)and number three is a nihilistic potentiality, and number four is nihilistic default from cognitive dementia. The first two are associated with religion and belief in meaning, the third and fourth are the defaults; by necessity non-religious. Numbers one, three and four do not care one way or the other about number two having its desire fulfilled. Number two is typically against having numbers 1,3 and 4 from having their desires fulfilled or their potentialities expressed. Number two has the only potentiality for motivation in life (barring numer 1’s desire to get oblivion right for itself while it has the chance), and the only opinions for the life of others.
Life crime has been expressed on potentialities 1, 3 and 4.
Life 2 thrives from this condition.
1,3 and 4 have no desire to tinker with life, and life 2 is dependant upon the resource and complicity of lives 1,3 and 4 to give itself purpose for existence.
Since lives 1,3 and 4 already have their purposes (non-purpose) selected and life 2 has yet to resolve a non-hypocritical purpose - live’s 1,3 and 4 would find no rational reason to extinguish the species of life 2.
They would, by default, exist as a resource for life two to exploit for its own meaning. They would thus, not abort a single child; because the possibility that such a child would be immoral or require a resource to exploit to find meaning in itself; would be exceedingly high. They would not bear children themselves, but do not delete the opportunity for immorality and illogicallity to express itself as a species in reality. For such an act would be illogical, and unnatural to logically derived or cognitively deficient ambivilence.
Pro-Life would thus be the moral, logical and just choice IMO.
Thinking of life simply as good, evil or neutral also solves this solution in a pro-life sense.
The good will by nature posess qualities of:
Compassion
Understanding
Benevolence
Patience
Tolorance
Self-Sacrifice
Forgiveness
Faith
Let’s just say that this person is not going to be put off by being aborted.
One must not forget the potentiality of those who will wish they were never born.
People tend not to concieve of the overwhelming immorality of plucking such a soul from oblivion; the fundamental rape and murder transpiring in the act; absolute in selfishness, irreconcilable in damages.
They get to be the unappreciated martyrs and resource for the third quality:
that leaves only one type of life that is fundamentally being protected by a pro-life stance. The immoral one.
Originally posted by AZCowboy
It most certainly is not a “potentiality” argument, despite the attempt to frame it that way.
The coma patient IS a human being, even without current sentience. The coma patient has a developed brain, with neurological connections which may again function normally, but it would never make a “new” person.
I disagree. The decision whether or not to pull the plug relies on potentiality arguements. How much does it cost, what are the odds of the patient emerging, if they do emerge will it cost as much if not more to care for their deteriorated state, will their life suffer as a result of either decision, will my life suffer as a result of either decision, will my belief systems be compromised if I make one decision over another (i.e. I don’t go to heaven if I let them pull the plug, so I must battle with my eternal soul to make sure they don’t)? The decision to pull the plug or disturb someone when they’re sleeping relies upon value, potentiality of expense and desire fulfillment in relation to belief systems. I understand that this is a real person; that however does not negate to me the potentiality arguement when it comes to life termination. As a whole, I submitted above that I believe the logical answer to be Pro-Life. You did not address my argument, you did however address how I framed it as a potentiality argument. I do not see this process as a sincere process or debate or debunking.
-Justhink
Of course he speaks for himself, but I don’t think I misunderstood his position. He adds a legal “ceremony” to the process to make it all nice and official looking…but basically he is saying…as long as the mom is “host” to the zygote/embryo/fetus (and by “host” …he means umbilically attached), she gets to decide its fate. That includes out of the womb, lying on the moms tummy…breathing oxygen.
IMHO, I don’t know how one calls that anything but infanticide…but hey, at least he’s honest about his position.
Fetus recipe…Cute.
I think we read you the first time. Not all of us buy your argument that the “personhood” argument is the way to approach this issue.
An alternative to your premise is here
BEAGLEDAVE: THIS IS HOW YOUR ALLEGED “ALTERNATIVE TO MY PREMISE” ADDRESSING THE PERSONHOOD ISSUE:
Myth 2: “The product of fertilization is simply a ‘blob,’ a ‘bunch of cells’, a ‘piece of the mother’s tissues’.”
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother’s tissues.”
I WISH THE RELIGIOUS LEFT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE AS DIRECTLY AS THE RELGIOUS RIGHT AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
Please do not use all-caps.
I question whether you actually read beagledave’s link, since said link addresses the personhood issue in the 12th, 13th, and 14th myth/fact pairings.
WRT the 13th myth/fact pairing (the one that most directly relates to my own tentative conclusions on the abortion debate), I believe that the recent evidence that has come to light regarding fetal brain function make Jones’s conclusions somewhat outdated. The point is still philosophically debateable, of course, but IMO the science favors the conclusion that until the third trimester the embryo/fetus is not a “person.”
loinburger: Cute semantic game; I say it’s a person, you say it’s not a human being; I say it’s a human being, you say it’s not a person. In any event, most statutes define the killing of a human being as murder. But my original point was that the religious left sites (including the one I linked and all its many affiliates) irresponsibly ignore this important debate and suggest that the mother make the choice by “dancing her feelings.”
mok
Pretty close, and thank you.
It is OK to remove the baby on the pregnant person’s decision. If the baby can be removed without the result being death to the baby? Yes, I know it contradicts my kitty cat’s umbilical-cord ceremony strategy, but I’m reasonable and flexible. Honestly, I don’t have any objections if a law were to be passed that said that if the fetus/baby can be kept alive outside of the Mom’s uterus without undue duress on the Mom’s part, efforts must be extended to do so, and that the Mom’s authority actually ends with her right to say “I don’t wish to be pregnant any more”.
That’s an entirely reasonable compromise. Keep the products of conception alive if the technology exists to do so without raising the risk to the pregnant person and without violating the first clause, which is that no one should ever have to remain pregnant involuntarily.
Personally, I consider the dividing line to be, more or less, viability. If the fetus can survive outside its dependency upon the mother’s body, it’s an [ insert appropriate terminology for an entity that can have legal protection ]. If it’s not capable of independent survival, it’s a parasite with the potential to become an [ insert appropriate terminology for an entity that can have legal protection ].
In other words, before viability, the fetus is a drain on the mother’s health and personal resources and cannot survive unless she provides those resources and accepts the associated risk to her health. Once the fetus has developed to the point that it can exist without its continued existence being at that price, it’s plausible to start balancing the rights/life/desires of that particular potentially independent entity against the rights/life/desires of the independent entity that is currently hosting it.
I’ve thought about this a great deal, and can’t come up with another position without resorting to theology.
Could you please quote the post(s) in which I play this semantic game? Barring that, could you please stop misrepresenting my argument, and instead offer some reasonable counter-argument?
More specifically, all statutes define the unjust and/or unlawful killing of a human being as murder – that’s what murder means. You’re not telling me anything new here. Please explain why you believe that an embryo/fetus is a person prior to the presence of brain activity (i.e. prior to the third trimester).
Then please give your side on this “personhood” debate. You’ve yet to offer any justification for your position on personhood other than to attack religious left sites, which for purposes of a Great Debate is just a strawman.
If you didn’t intend to get into the “personhood” debate, then I’m not seeing where the Great Debate lies. What, exactly, are you wanting to debate?