You’re describing what happened to my father. He had a stroke on a Saturday morning in 1985. The following Monday, an EEG detected no brain activity whatsoever. The machines keeping his heart and lungs functioning were turned off as per our instructions and his organs stopped within two or three seconds.
He was dead.
Maybe, some day in the future, we’ll be able to detect the brain activity of a fetus and know whether or not it has acheived sentience (and personhood), but we can’t do that right now. However, that does not mean we stop having abortions because we cannot say with absolute certainty when the fetus is a viable human being. We can say that in the first trimester, no, it isn’t. Late in the third trimester, yes.
But when it crosses the line from fetus to human being, I have no idea. And, IMHO, I don’t think anyone else does, either. I’m glad I’ve never had to make the decision whether to abort or not.
I wonder how people would respond to a slightly modified version of the analogy given above. Let’s suppose that the patient in question had some sort of stroke (or something of that nature) and that although there was an excellent chance of recovery, there would be significant personality changes. In fact, let’s suppose that the person would be so different that they’ll have an entirely different personality.
So, here are the facts:
The person is currently “dead”.
The person has an excellent chance of comming to life.
The person will not have the same personality as they did before.
**
Spider Woman, forgive me if I’m being dense (which is not without precedent), but aren’t you answering my question as to why previous sentience is important in your decision by stating again that this previously established sentience is the reason? I’m still not clear on this distinction.
**
Sorry if I muddied things. My point was (is) that if previous sentience, by itself, is an important distinction, we would never “pull the plug,” so to speak. Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s important, but I am reading your posts to indicate you do (perhaps incorrectly). The important distinction (for the brain dead man) is whether or not there is a reasonable potential for future sentience (in my hypothetical, I offered this as a given).
**
Again, that’s not the question. My question is, do you hold the potential sentience of the fetus as equal to the potential sentience of the vegetative man? And, if you don’t, what is the distinction?
Another valid aspect of the arbotion argument, but not the particular one I was focusing on in my question.
As I understood in my e-mail the quote was made to me.
The people might answear “what will be will be the future´s not ours to see.”
If the question is for me “Gloria” I really cannot see what the question has to do with respecting someothers life, but if that was so. I can tell you of people having several personalities without having any surgery, some of them I know and I love them for what they are. If I knew the person I will try to understand and love and support the new personality, and learn what this person can teach me about respecting each others lifes. And if this person was pregnant, well if she doesn´t has a slightly idea of what is going on, help her to understand the beautiful miracle of life that is about to happen to her.
jab1, I’m very sorry to hear what you had to go through with your father’s illness. It must have been difficult to endure.
It seems I didn’t communicate my question well. Assume that the fetus’s current sentience is not in question–let’s say it does not now exist. But let’s also assume (given what we know about fetal development) that it is very likely that this sentience will develop.
In my hypothetical (which I hope now does not seem callous to you), I offered a vegetative person–declared brain dead–who recovers consciousness. This is not a hypothetical, in that it has occurred (albeit in an extremely small percentage of cases–rare to the point of being ALMOST non-existent, and certainly not a factor I would consider if ever forced to make this decision for a loved one).
The hypothetical part was that we could predict which brain dead patients had a reasonable chance of recovery. For a given injured man who was currently vegetative (but would likely recover all normal function), do we arrive at a different conclusion than we would for a fetus? In other words, does the current lack of sentience alone define human life as has been suggested by some other posters, and could we remove life support in good conscience (which I certainly believe you and your family were able to do)?
Or perhaps more obfuscation, depends on your point of view, I suppose. I think it is not the abortion question. I don’t think the matter of an abortion is amenable to solution in the realm of an entire society. Therefor it is a question very unsuited to solution by state imposed decisions. Each time it happens, a woman is dealing with a lifetime involvement in a very personal matter, her reproductive rights. The state has shown absolutely no inclination to live with the consequences of its decision, either way. The various factions have dissimilar criteria upon which this decision must be made, but almost no thought to any commitment to the outcome of that decision.
That sounds like a description of an uncaring and self-centered point of view, and the state doesn’t even have a self to be comforted by it. It is the imposition of state control over the body of not only the woman in particular, but all women, and in real fact, by precedent, men as well. If the state is allowed to regulate things within my body freedom is a lie.
The question of murder, stealing, also being matters of state control is a straw man. Murders and robberies do not take place inside of citizens. Killing and stealing are not a necessary part of the natural biological function of the human being. State control of those behaviors is not in any way relevant to the issue of state control of human reproduction. The advocacy of abortion law is an appeal for Government control of every aspect of human life, and death. I find it a very threatening thing.
A single pregnant woman does not need a lawyer, a judge, and jury, and six or seven legislative committees to dictate to her the right choices to make. She simply needs to make a decision, and then live with the consequences. The state shows no interest at all in living with any consequences of its imposed decision. I feel that the state cannot do so, by its very nature, and therefor is demonstrated as an unfit source of such judgments.
Well, the question as to whether or not murder can take place within one’s body seems far from settled, as evidenced by this very thread. Thanks for the response, though.
the “line in the sand” of this thread seems to have moved from a human life definition to a “personhood” definition…in determining what rights the fetus/unborn child may or may not have.
… (A Secular Case Against Abortion) …which explores the issue of prenatal personhood a bit more fully…included in her discussion is the case of the comatose, which may be of intererst to the recent parts of this thread
…the issue of whether a woman is “obligated” to allow the prenate to use her body is discussed as well…
This in from the paper: In Nashville, Tennessee, The Tennessee Supreme Court struck down portions of the state’s abortion law yesterday as overly burdensome to owmen, including a 2 day waiting period and mandatory counseling.
No, what I am trying to get across is that sentience is one of my axioms from where I begin to construct my moral ethic. It is what I value as a condition of life, not potential sentience. I would base my decision on my values.
Also, what I am trying to convey is, that I realize your moral constructs are different from mine.
An axiom by definition is a self-evident truth. By self I am talking myself.
I am trying to agree to disagree. In order for me to agree with you and your opinions, I would have to accept the same axioms on which you base your ethic, and I do not.
For what I´m concerned, as English is not my mother language, maybe your already noticed that, this “article” expresses properly my feellings on the subject, I will never do better, because I agree 100 percent on what´s written on it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beagledave *
**I question the axiom that sentience is a phenomenon that only exists outside prenatal life.
I wonder, from the facts that in prenatal life a human being can move his fingers, they even can suck them, the jump and have hicups, that is not a vegetative life, wether those are reflexes or part of senses they are alive, someone quoted that we people are not going to stop abortion just because we don´t know when a human being begins. I rather say we are not going to terminate a life just because we are not sure of where it starts.
Yes, Kyberneticist, it is true, there is a different value placed on the life of a fetus than a human being. Even so, wilfully destroying it is not sanctioned, even if it has a lesser punishment than killing a person.
Generally, yes, as the life of the mother overrides the life of the child, and she has no right (in Jewish law) to sacrifice herself for her unborn child. However, this really should be decided on a case by case basis with a competent Rabbi and the mother’s doctors.
Zev Steinhardt
I can really not be a judge on wether she was a good or a bad exponent, and I think that it has nothing to do with the way that I feel about abortion, there was another quote that to me was more significant that the debate that you quoted and it is When a Human Being begins it is also hanging somewhere in this debate channel and was posted by beagledavle
shrugs It is generally possible to see in a debate if one person consistently avoids a questioned raised by the other, which she did. At the end of the debate, she still had not responded to the challenge raised in several of the rebuttals for her to offer a basis for equating potential humanity with humanity.
In any case, the debate is worth reading simply because a large number of the points raised by both sides in online abortion arguments were covered, and the format was both civil and researched.
And if you could grab a link to that other thread you liked (links to particular posts you found particularly telling would be nice too) I’d appreciate it.
BTW, something that I thought was worth bringing up, since the original purpose of this thread was to challenge Pro-Lifers who claim they would allow abortion in the case of rape.
It is quite possible that they claim they would allow it now so as not to outrage the general populace (which possibly uses as a subconscious basis for its support of abortion restrictions, a desire to punish those engaging in irresponsible actions).
In Mexico, where Pro-Life is much stronger, attempts have already been made to ban abortion in the case of rape (bill was veto’d but that resulted in a storm of protest). And a young teenage girl was pressured into having her rapist’s child by “pro-life” forces in her community…
Sickens me how destroying a person’s life is considered pro-life. If these people were given the chance to abort, any children they had once older, more financially secure and emotionally stable would be less fucked up.
You want to talk about potential life? The potential of a happy mother and happy future child seems better to me then an over-worked, inexperienced teenage mother whose child has a much better chance of seeing the inside of our prison system.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
**shrugs It is generally possible to see in a debate if one person consistently avoids a questioned raised by the other,… which she did… not responded to … you want responses, but please don´t take it as confrontation, about the debate I still don´t agree with Jennifer Roth´s oponent, even if you think that that is not an answear, unless you want me to rebutte the whole Roth´s rebate, that of course I won´t. Answearing humanity with humanity, well of course I don´t agree with a man that rape´s a woman she is the agraviated, she is agraviated by him, and then agravieted by a lot of stangers asking her to make what they think is the best decission for her, “abortion” that is the second agraviation because other than helping her to overcome the terrible rape situation they are telling her that the child that she is carrying doesn´t deserve to live!!! let me remind you some facts about the product… he has have of her gens. About Mexico… let me tell you that I will have a better idea of what is going on there because there is where I live, soy Mexicana y estoy muy orgullosa de serlo y no te digo mas porque por ignorancia puedes pensar que te estoy insultando… so therefor let me tell you that we have a lot of American people that come and live in our country very, very, happy and secure… and you take an isolate case to represent a whole country, yes we have a lot of poor people and let me tell that we are concerned about their education, only that as you know we are a third world country but we still are worried about their lifes, we don´t see each othe as fucked people as you call us, we have strong believes about our families, we don´t abandon our old people in so called retired homes, they live with us we care for them, and we love them and we learn from their wisdom because that is what age gives you, our kids have grand parents and I could go on an on, no, I won´t agree to punish a poor little girl that was raped, but yes I will agree to get the rapist and put him in jail, make him responsible of his acts, but yes I will agree that a woman that does not want to have a baby can take her womb out is she wants to, and have as many sex as she wants, but she doesn´t have the right to take away a life just because the pill didn´t work. And I think that I already said that, maybe you didn´t read it.