Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

martoman

Obliq wrote: »

Answering this bit first! Well, IMO the difference is that you can see her, hold her, hear her, smell her.....and she can experience the world as her own independent being outside of her mother. In the lead up to birth, the baby exists inside you but your emotional attachment is more than likely based on the notion of nurturing this unseen little being AND your imagination of what your baby might look like, etc.

You seem to be ruling out the power of emotions from our capacity for moral reasoning, and that's not really how we humans work, is it?!

It’s true: in the presence of a defenceless, but adorable, infant, we become attached and fond pretty quickly.

The notion of ending the life of an innocent baby engenders morally repulsive reactions. However, the reality that our moral intuitions are part of human nature still doesn’t imply that they are right or that we ought to blindly follow them. These conclusions should make us suspicious about depending on our intuitions. Human inclinations and intuitions in many cases are full of error and fall short of logical consistency. Just because the killing of an infant over a foetus triggers stronger emotions, does not mean there really is an intrinsic difference between a foetus and newborn. If you depend on moral intuitions too much, you could allow a pro-lifer to also say that abortion is emotionally disturbing as therefore wrong.

I agree: emotions do matter when looking at these topics: in fact, it’s questionable whether infanticide should be legalised by a state at all, and if it can be permitted, without doubt we should draw very stringent circumstances on its permissibility. If we are to say infanticide is wrong because, if justified, could cause psychological trauma to citizens – some pro-lifers say abortion does this already – or create potential slippery slopes to justify other forms of intentional killing that would actually be harmful to agents, this, I believe, is a much diluted argument against infanticide. In other words, these arguments don’t have any concern about the newborn, but only to other agents.
It might be true that the majority of people won’t be open to accept the premises here – even if they are more logically consistent. Even if we accept this, it does not follow that we ought to continue accepting the status quo and ignore better arguments.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

martoman wrote: »

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/the-ethics-of-ending-innocent-human-life.html?view=magazine

I've just read it now. I'd suggest you amend the title - I gave it an eye, expecting it would be some pro-life screed, and was pleasantly surprised by what you've produced. I think you've done a really good job of setting out the ethical concepts in play, and I do understand what you mean by your title, but I'd suggest you just call it something like "moral arguments for and against abortion", or people will mistake your intentions and possibly even ignore a helpful contribution to deliberations on this topic.

I'm a moral nihilist, so I'm afraid I've nothing useful to contribute to the substance of your case. I'd only observe that, indeed, if we could identify some objective basis for moral obligations - whether it's viability, or capacity, or personhood or whatever, the rest would follow. But, clearly, from my perspective there's no reason why any of those things would imply a moral obligation.

I might just point out a few factual points in your opening section, that I think you may need to do a little more research into. They don't impact on the rest of your piece - but it's just so the practical context is correctly described.

in 1983 an amendment to Ireland's constitution states that an embryo, from the point of conception, is an Irish citizen and, therefore, is entitled to the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the state.

Does it? I thought it just guaranteed the right to life of the unborn. How does that constitute citizenship?

<..> was allowed to travel abroad given that her legal team evoked legislation held within the European convention on human rights.

I thought the significance of the X case was that it deemed abortion within Ireland to be lawful where there was a real risk to the life of the mother, including a risk of suicide. That's the issue that Government is promising legislation now.

Subsequent to a recent European Court of Human Rights case, the Irish government is now looking at whether a law that ....

The significance of this case is that the Court has ruled that a legal right to abortion, per se, is no demanded by the the Convention, but people do have a right to know what is and isn't permitted. In other words, the fault they found is that Irish law is unclear.

robindch

martoman wrote: »

Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion:

Martoman - thanks for posting that.

Please note that posting the same thing twice constitutes soapboxing and it's prohibited by A+A's forum charter (which you might like to take some time out to read).

thanks again,

- One of Your Friendly Mods.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I cannot for the life of me understand how you could actually come up with "travel to the UK is quite easy" as the "plausible" explanation for the silence around abortion.

The plausible explanation? I said

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

A plausible explanation ...

I mean exactly what I say.

Which is not the same as I say exactly what I mean, to avoid any further confusion.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The plausible explanation? I saidI mean exactly what I say.

Which is not the same as I say exactly what I mean, to avoid any further confusion.

Ahh bollicks. I meant to take out that "the" before posting. Well done matey, you're still no.1 pedant. :cool:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

Ahh bollicks. I meant to take out that "the" before posting. Well done matey, you're still no.1 pedant. :cool:

Why did you have it there to begin with?

Clearly, I know why. The question is just for the benefit of our viewers.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why did you have it there to begin with?

Clearly, I know why. The question is just for the benefit of our viewers.

*snort*

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*snort*

Think that was directed at derpington.:p

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Feck, now I've two of them sniffing around my genitals. And about twenty years too late.

scidive

Death dealt out to innocent victims is one of the greatest sins which man can inflict on his brother. It is the most grevious sin of the flesh and causes Me deep pain. The lack of regard that mankind today has for human life is becoming increasingly evident in the world.

Life is a precious gift from God. No man has the right to take the life of another. No man has the right to take the life of a child still to take his first breath at the time of birth. This crime is heinous and unforgivable. All souls come from my Eternal Father and are created at the moment of conception. Little children, innocent souls, are being murdered by the very people sent to nurture them – their own mothers, who are responsible for their being denied the right to be born.

Why do My children stand back and do nothing? In the name of freedom these little angels from My Father’s Kingdom are being taken off this earth before the time assigned to them, as children of God, has taken place. Do these women not understand that the lives they place so little value on are those of God? These children are suffering. They endure agonizing pain during their murder. And it is justified by Governments, the medical profession and these women’s families. Have they no remorse in their souls?

Do they not realise that their heinous act is no different to that act when man murders man?

In fact it is an even greater sin as these children are helpless. These women must ask for mercy if they are guilty. Or ask for guidance from Me if they are considering an abortion. Either way they will be judged by their sin. Sins of the flesh are the most offensive in my Father’s eyes. No amount of justification for murdering another fellow being is acceptable by Me or My Eternal Father.

Wake up now My children and understand that the taking of life will lead the perpetrators into the eternal fires of hell. There will be no return from this abyss full of demons. Those same demons, who through the work of The Deceiver – Satan – convinces the murderer that what he or she is doing is right! He will cunningly convince mothers, for example, that they are making the ‘right decision’. Using every trick associated with human reasoning he will make the person justify the act even though it is wrong. He will use the lie that the murderer has rights of their own. That they must look after their own interests first. In the name of human rights the lie is manifested so that the rights of a mother and her freedom to live life as she chooses is to be admired. The lie then convinces her that it is right and correct to murder her child.

Please understand that the escalation of genocide in the world has been foretold. It is one of the many signs spoken of in relation to the End Times.

Stop all of you now. Listen. Murder is a very serious offence. Do it and you will not be saved. There is no going back. Repent those of you who have committed this terrible sin. Ask for forgiveness now. I, through My Mercy, will hear your prayer. You can, and will be saved, if you are truly sorry for your grevious sin. I will listen. I will forgive. But time is not on your side.

Believers pray hard for these lost and wandering children of mine who have been misled by The Deceiver and his minions in positions of power. They need your prayers now. You must, all of you, defend the right to human life which cannot be tampered with by human hands in any circumstances.

Pray to Me every day. Offer any sufferings you may have for the innocent victims.

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

Obliq

martoman wrote: »

It might be true that the majority of people won’t be open to accept the premises here – even if they are more logically consistent. Even if we accept this, it does not follow that we ought to continue accepting the status quo and ignore better arguments.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” (Marcus Aurelius) and that other well known phrase "Might is Right" are both running around in my head now.
I'm drawing no conclusions except to say that what matters in defining a moral stance these days is less about the personal thought process and more what they're saying in "groupthink" on facebook. Debating abortion is one thing, infanticide is ACTUALLY quite another - perhaps not morally - but realistically.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Feck, now I've two of them sniffing around my genitals. And about twenty years too late.

I feel ill.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Feck, now I've two of them sniffing around my genitals. And about twenty years too late.

*vomit*

Obliq

scidive wrote: »

Death dealt out to innocent victims is one of the greatest sins which man can inflict on his brother. It is the most grevious sin of the flesh and causes Me deep pain. The lack of regard that mankind today has for human life is becoming increasingly evident in the world............................

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

Who writes this bollicks anyway? Does the author not realise that we have historians here. Also, most people heard that god started all this killing business. Had a great line in murdering male infants I am given to understand (which is topical, what with the infanticide discussion...).

Bannasidhe

scidive wrote: »

Death dealt out to innocent victims is one of the greatest sins which man can inflict on his brother. It is the most grevious sin of the flesh and causes Me deep pain. The lack of regard that mankind today has for human life is becoming increasingly evident in the world.

Life is a precious gift from God. No man has the right to take the life of another. No man has the right to take the life of a child still to take his first breath at the time of birth. This crime is heinous and unforgivable. All souls come from my Eternal Father and are created at the moment of conception. Little children, innocent souls, are being murdered by the very people sent to nurture them – their own mothers, who are responsible for their being denied the right to be born.

Why do My children stand back and do nothing? In the name of freedom these little angels from My Father’s Kingdom are being taken off this earth before the time assigned to them, as children of God, has taken place. Do these women not understand that the lives they place so little value on are those of God? These children are suffering. They endure agonizing pain during their murder. And it is justified by Governments, the medical profession and these women’s families. Have they no remorse in their souls?

Do they not realise that their heinous act is no different to that act when man murders man?

In fact it is an even greater sin as these children are helpless. These women must ask for mercy if they are guilty. Or ask for guidance from Me if they are considering an abortion. Either way they will be judged by their sin. Sins of the flesh are the most offensive in my Father’s eyes. No amount of justification for murdering another fellow being is acceptable by Me or My Eternal Father.

Wake up now My children and understand that the taking of life will lead the perpetrators into the eternal fires of hell. There will be no return from this abyss full of demons. Those same demons, who through the work of The Deceiver – Satan – convinces the murderer that what he or she is doing is right! He will cunningly convince mothers, for example, that they are making the ‘right decision’. Using every trick associated with human reasoning he will make the person justify the act even though it is wrong. He will use the lie that the murderer has rights of their own. That they must look after their own interests first. In the name of human rights the lie is manifested so that the rights of a mother and her freedom to live life as she chooses is to be admired. The lie then convinces her that it is right and correct to murder her child.

Please understand that the escalation of genocide in the world has been foretold. It is one of the many signs spoken of in relation to the End Times.

Stop all of you now. Listen. Murder is a very serious offence. Do it and you will not be saved. There is no going back. Repent those of you who have committed this terrible sin. Ask for forgiveness now. I, through My Mercy, will hear your prayer. You can, and will be saved, if you are truly sorry for your grevious sin. I will listen. I will forgive. But time is not on your side.

Believers pray hard for these lost and wandering children of mine who have been misled by The Deceiver and his minions in positions of power. They need your prayers now. You must, all of you, defend the right to human life which cannot be tampered with by human hands in any circumstances.

Pray to Me every day. Offer any sufferings you may have for the innocent victims.

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

Dear Jesus.

May I complement you on your command of the English language and ability to utilise forms of technology unheard of in your day.
A minor point - it is considered rather egotistical to refer to oneself as 'Me' - perhaps this is the norm in Aramaic but is jolly rude in English.
Anyway, now that you are back do I have time to dispose of my stocks/shares and go forth and commit many many sins - I will of course immediately repent- before the judging begins?

Regards.

A Complete UnBeliever.

(and cranky Historian)

Morag

in 1983 an amendment to Ireland's constitution states that an embryo, from the point of conception, is an Irish citizen and, therefore, is entitled to the full rights of every man, woman and child living in the state.

This is not the case, before 24 weeks of pregnancy it is not recognised by the state, it is just a miscarriage.

Once the pregnancy hits 24 weeks if there is a miscarriage or a still birth, a still birth cert is issued and the person/citizen is recorded even given a pps number.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/miscarriage_and_stillbirth/registering_stillbirth.html

All stillbirths occurring in Ireland since 1 January 1995 must be registered, if the baby weighs at least 500 grammes or has a gestational age of at least 24 weeks.

You (the parents) can choose to register the stillbirth yourselves, but if you are unable to do so, you may ask a relative of either parent to act as qualified informant to register it on your behalf. If a stillbirth is not registered within 12 months, the hospital, midwife or medical practitioner who attended the birth may asked to register it.

If you do wish to register the stillbirth yourselves, the medical practitioner who attended the birth or examined the baby must give you a signed medical certificate stating the baby's weight and gestational age, and the name and address of the hospital or other institution where the stillbirth took place.

If you wish to register a stillbirth that happened before 1 January 1995, you can do so at any time. You will need specific evidence to prove that a stillbirth occurred. This evidence could be an authoritative written statement from your hospital, nursing home, medical practitioner or midwife, but the registrar may accept other forms of evidence.

Again, the stillbirth can only be registered if the baby weighed at least 500 grammes or had a gestational age of at least 24 weeks.

If your baby was stillborn in hospital, the hospital staff will usually help you to complete a Birth Notification Form (Form BNF/01). In the case of a home birth, the midwife or doctor will do this. The form outlines the information to be recorded in the Register of Stillbirths. This form will be forwarded to a registration office to inform the registrar that the stillbirth has occurred. The registration process will only be complete when the parent(s) or other qualified informant attends the registrar's office in person and signs the Stillbirths Register.

The following information is recorded in the Register of Stillbirths:

Time, date and place of birth of the child
The child's gender
The child's weight and gestational age
The child's Personal Public Service number (PPSN) (this will be allocated at registration)
The child's forename(s) and surname
The mother's forename(s) and surname
The mother's birth surname
Birth surname of the mother's mother
All previously used surnames of the mother (if any)
The mother's normal occupation
The mother's normal address at the date of birth
The mother's date of birth
The mother's marital status
The mother's Personal Public Service number (PPSN)
Similar information is entered for the father.

So the state already differentiates between an embryo and a viable fetus.

martoman

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've just read it now. I'd suggest you amend the title - I gave it an eye, expecting it would be some pro-life screed, and was pleasantly surprised by what you've produced. I think you've done a really good job of setting out the ethical concepts in play, and I do understand what you mean by your title, but I'd suggest you just call it something like "moral arguments for and against abortion", or people will mistake your intentions and possibly even ignore a helpful contribution to deliberations on this topic.

I'm a moral nihilist, so I'm afraid I've nothing useful to contribute to the substance of your case. I'd only observe that, indeed, if we could identify some objective basis for moral obligations - whether it's viability, or capacity, or personhood or whatever, the rest would follow. But, clearly, from my perspective there's no reason why any of those things would imply a moral obligation.

I might just point out a few factual points in your opening section, that I think you may need to do a little more research into. They don't impact on the rest of your piece - but it's just so the practical context is correctly described.Does it? I thought it just guaranteed the right to life of the unborn. How does that constitute citizenship?I thought the significance of the X case was that it deemed abortion within Ireland to be lawful where there was a real risk to the life of the mother, including a risk of suicide. That's the issue that Government is promising legislation now.The significance of this case is that the Court has ruled that a legal right to abortion, per se, is no demanded by the the Convention, but people do have a right to know what is and isn't permitted. In other words, the fault they found is that Irish law is unclear.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions GCU Flexible Demeanou. I assumed the information on Irish regulation was pretty accurate since it took mostly taken from Irish Times and Examiner news articles.

I’ve changed the title to "A Critique of Abortion and Infanticide" which has less change to be misinterpreted.

From a meta-ethical perspective, I would say I'm a moral sceptic at most (in the Humian sense), but I wouldn't go as far as moral nihilism. But that’s another debate.

ShooterSF

scidive wrote: »

Pray to Me every day. Offer any sufferings you may have for the innocent victims.

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

Considering this post from your account is clearly by someone other than Jesus Christ you might be in breach of account sharing rules Jesus. That's a big sin here but being omniscient you'd know that right?

Hotblack Desiato

scidive wrote: »

Pray to Me every day. Offer any sufferings you may have for the innocent victims.

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

David Icke, is that you?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

martoman wrote: »

I assumed the information on Irish regulation was pretty accurate since it took mostly taken from Irish Times and Examiner news articles.

Unfortunately, the papers can either summarise too much - or, sometimes, just get it plain wrong. I'd suggest two sources that might be helpful.

The Report of the Expert Group on the A, B and C cases gives some useful background on what the legal position is, and what the ECHR decision actually means.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/11/judgment_abc.pdf

The Report of the Constitution Review Group is lengthy, but it includes a section on the problems in interpreting the concept of the "unborn" which I think is helpful. It starts at about page 250.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110721123125/http://www.constitution.ie/reports/crg.pdf

Turtwig

Martin, did you really have to post your essay on Youth Defence's webpage?

Morag

Jernal wrote: »

Martin, did you really have to post your essay on Youth Defence's webpage?

and on various pro choice and anti choice facebook pages.

kylith

martoman wrote: »

Basically I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but not in the way most abortion defenders suggest. I also argue that there is no intrinsic difference between a foetus and a newborn baby; so if we can say it's defensible to justify abortion, we can also justify infanticide.

Only if you see no difference between something with no brain which cannot survive outside the womb, and something with a brain which can survive outside the womb.

scidive wrote: »

Death dealt out to innocent victims is one of the greatest sins which man can inflict on his brother. It is the most grevious sin of the flesh and causes Me deep pain. The lack of regard that mankind today has for human life is becoming increasingly evident in the world.

Life is a precious gift from God. No man has the right to take the life of another. No man has the right to take the life of a child still to take his first breath at the time of birth. This crime is heinous and unforgivable. All souls come from my Eternal Father and are created at the moment of conception. Little children, innocent souls, are being murdered by the very people sent to nurture them – their own mothers, who are responsible for their being denied the right to be born.

Why do My children stand back and do nothing? In the name of freedom these little angels from My Father’s Kingdom are being taken off this earth before the time assigned to them, as children of God, has taken place. Do these women not understand that the lives they place so little value on are those of God? These children are suffering. They endure agonizing pain during their murder. And it is justified by Governments, the medical profession and these women’s families. Have they no remorse in their souls?

Do they not realise that their heinous act is no different to that act when man murders man?

In fact it is an even greater sin as these children are helpless. These women must ask for mercy if they are guilty. Or ask for guidance from Me if they are considering an abortion. Either way they will be judged by their sin. Sins of the flesh are the most offensive in my Father’s eyes. No amount of justification for murdering another fellow being is acceptable by Me or My Eternal Father.

Wake up now My children and understand that the taking of life will lead the perpetrators into the eternal fires of hell. There will be no return from this abyss full of demons. Those same demons, who through the work of The Deceiver – Satan – convinces the murderer that what he or she is doing is right! He will cunningly convince mothers, for example, that they are making the ‘right decision’. Using every trick associated with human reasoning he will make the person justify the act even though it is wrong. He will use the lie that the murderer has rights of their own. That they must look after their own interests first. In the name of human rights the lie is manifested so that the rights of a mother and her freedom to live life as she chooses is to be admired. The lie then convinces her that it is right and correct to murder her child.

Please understand that the escalation of genocide in the world has been foretold. It is one of the many signs spoken of in relation to the End Times.

Stop all of you now. Listen. Murder is a very serious offence. Do it and you will not be saved. There is no going back. Repent those of you who have committed this terrible sin. Ask for forgiveness now. I, through My Mercy, will hear your prayer. You can, and will be saved, if you are truly sorry for your grevious sin. I will listen. I will forgive. But time is not on your side.

Believers pray hard for these lost and wandering children of mine who have been misled by The Deceiver and his minions in positions of power. They need your prayers now. You must, all of you, defend the right to human life which cannot be tampered with by human hands in any circumstances.

Pray to Me every day. Offer any sufferings you may have for the innocent victims.

Your Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ

According to God, your dad, breath is life. Therefore there can be no life before breath (i.e. birth), therefore the bible does regard the unborn as alive. The biblical penalty for performing an abortion is a fine, rather than death, indicating that it was seen as less serious than blasphemy, disobeying your parents, or wearing a wool/linen mix tunic.

Also, St. Brigid performed at least one abortion, and she's a saint, so it must be ok.

doctoremma

martoman wrote: »

A foetus and newborn have a right to avoid pain and suffering, but they do not have a right to life.

I disagree. I think the right to life, in some part, depends on ones ability to sense that "life" exists. In a second trimester fetus, without a functioning cerebral cortex, this is impossible.

Now, I know I don't remember anything before I was, say, two years old, so it's impossible for me to argue (either for or against) whether late foetuses and infants have a sense of "life". But I'd certainly err on the side of caution here and take the position that as adults, we simply might not have the ability to detect an infant's recognition of "life". This is also the same argument I apply when pro-lifers draw parallels between "killing babies" and "killing mentally-disabled people". I would never be sure of a lack of sense of "life" unless the individual in question doesn't possess the basic anatomy to sense "life".

martoman wrote: »

Moreover, if you object to the killing of a late foetus and newborn, do you also object to the killing of an adult pig or cow? If not, why has the infant or late foetus more moral status than the pig or cow? Sanctity of human life?

I don't know if this question has been addressed thoroughly, although I know Obliq has a pragmatic attitude to it.

But my answer is a hearty "Yes". I completely object to the unnecessary killing of sentient animals (I don't object very strongly to killing adult craneflies!). I am vegetarian, I force my husband to eat vegetarian whenever I can, and if I ruled the world in a dictatorship, we'd all be vegetarian

For me, placing special status on human animals over any other is arbitrary. However, that doesn't mean I'm not speciesist. I think it's entirely natural (as an evolutionary strategy that is now instinct) to "look after your own". And if it came down to me starving or killing a cow, I'd be sharpening my steak knife. Similarly, I wouldn't push a child under a car in order to save her dog.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

kylith wrote: »

Only if you see no difference between something with no brain which cannot survive outside the womb, and something with a brain which can survive outside the womb

In fairness (and, hopefully, he'll be back himself) he does discuss the issue in his paper. The issue in play is that availability of medical technology has moved the goalpost on what's viable. It's not a clear dividing line, with a brainless unviable foetus on one side and a viable brainful pre-term on the other. I'd only observe (I think I already said something like this before) that people seem to be expecting to find some absolute right here - whether it's protecting the innocent from evil abortionists, or enabling women to be rid of a brainless parasite. But there is no absolute right. All choices involve damage, and it's just a question of establishing how much of each kind of damage we can tolerate. I'd feel more progress would be possible, if we weren't investing quite so much time in asserting (whichever side we're on) that we're the angels, with a monopoly of right, and the other crowd are devils who only do wrong.

martoman

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness (and, hopefully, he'll be back himself) he does discuss the issue in his paper. The issue in play is that availability of medical technology has moved the goalpost on what's viable. It's not a clear dividing line, with a brainless unviable foetus on one side and a viable brainful pre-term on the other. I'd only observe (I think I already said something like this before) that people seem to be expecting to find some absolute right here - whether it's protecting the innocent from evil abortionists, or enabling women to be rid of a brainless parasite. But there is no absolute right. All choices involve damage, and it's just a question of establishing how much of each kind of damage we can tolerate. I'd feel more progress would be possible, if we weren't investing quite so much time in asserting (whichever side we're on) that we're the angels, with a monopoly of right, and the other crowd are devils who only do wrong.

Yes, you're right GCU Flexible Demeanour. Foetus viability is relative to the availability of technology. The argument doesn't say anything about the actual status of the foetus. If in the future it were possible to sustain the life in the very early stages of a foetus, would it be wrong to abort it?

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Yes, you're right GCU Flexible Demeanour. Foetus viability is relative to the availability of technology. The argument doesn't say anything about the actual status of the foetus. If in the future it were possible to sustain the life in the very early stages of a foetus, would it be wrong to abort it?

How early?

What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped?

An embyro becomes classified as a foetus at 9 weeks - but is about the size of a strawberry, is only developing muscles, the mouth and nose cavity are still joined and although the brain is present - it, and the neural pathways, are only starting to develop.

martoman

doctoremma wrote: »

I disagree. I think the right to life, in some part, depends on ones ability to sense that "life" exists. In a second trimester fetus, without a functioning cerebral cortex, this is impossible.

Now, I know I don't remember anything before I was, say, two years old, so it's impossible for me to argue (either for or against) whether late foetuses and infants have a sense of "life". But I'd certainly err on the side of caution here and take the position that as adults, we simply might not have the ability to detect an infant's recognition of "life". This is also the same argument I apply when pro-lifers draw parallels between "killing babies" and "killing mentally-disabled people". I would never be sure of a lack of sense of "life" unless the individual in question doesn't possess the basic anatomy to sense "life".

doctoremma, what you seem to be distinguishing “consciousness” and “self-consciousness”. I'm glad to see you hold moral regard for animals as well, and avoid inconsistency in the matter.

I agree that an ability to sense that "life" exists (or being conscious) is a morally relevant factor. But at the same time, mere consciousness is not enough for one to have a right to life; in this case I argue, one only has the right to avoid pain and suffering. Ending a being’s life that is conscious (but not self-conscious) does not harm them if carried out painlessly. On the other hand, ending the life of a self conscious being (one that is aware of what is happening) would cause trauma and suffering. There is an important distinction here.

If you use the ability to sense that "life" exists line of reasoning, we would also have to regard the life of all conscious non-human animals (even ones with rudimentary sense thresholds) as worth preserving.

You say humans have an innate tendency to protect our own: that may be true. But does that give us a moral reason to blindly follow our nature? Some evolutionary theorists argue that humans are hard-wired to be racist. If so, does this mean we have to excuse those who say that an innate tendency to favour their own race or tribe at the expense of others is defensible? As I claim, our prejudice towards animals may not be much different to other forms of discrimination.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How early?

What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped?

An embyro becomes classified as a foetus at 9 weeks - but is about the size of a strawberry, is only developing muscles, the mouth and nose cavity are still joined and although the brain is present - it, and the neural pathways, are only starting to develop.

I used this though experiment to see if people really do see viability as the crucial factor. In your case, it seems that it doesn't. As I've shown viability is an arbitrary factor and says nothing about the actual characteristics of the unborn. If you still want to mark a dividing line between the moral status of a early foetus, a late foetus and infant you will need some other criteria than viability.

True, with a late foetus or infant differences of size, location, dependency, and development exist, but these are also morally irrelevant. Self-consciousness, on the other hand, I believe is a more relevant factor to consider.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

I used this though experiment to see if people really do see viability as the crucial factor. In your case, it seems that it doesn't. As I've shown viability is an arbitrary factor and says nothing about the actual characteristics of the unborn. If you still want to mark a dividing line between the moral status of a early foetus, a late foetus and infant you will need some other criteria than viability.

True, with a late foetus or infant differences of size, location, dependency, and development exist, but these are also morally irrelevant. Self-consciousness, on the other hand, I believe is a more relevant factor to consider.

No.

I questioned why technology would be used to give 'life' (in reality a vegetative existence) to a seriously underdeveloped foetus which lacks even basic brain functions never mind had consciousness.

You then went off on some tangent of your own which utterly failed to answer my question.