Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure no problem if that is what you want. I think the first place to start that conversation would be with a simple "why?". Why do you hold that position? What is, for example, your moral and ethical issue with the termination of a 10 week old fetus?

The premise to my arguement is that the unborn child is an individual human being from day 1 (conception). It’s pretty much undisputed in biology that that is the point at which life begins. Therefore if we can agree that something is human, then undoubtedly it must be entitled to human rights, right? I don’t believe that circumstances outside of the womb should entitle us to summarily decide if it can be kept alive or not.

I’m all for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies but once the new human has been created, I think it deserves protections equal to all other humans.

Pherekydes

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The premise to my arguement is that the unborn child is an individual human being from day 1 (conception). It’s pretty much undisputed in biology that that is the point at which life begins. Therefore if we can agree that something is human, then undoubtedly it must be entitled to human rights, right? I don’t believe that circumstances outside of the womb should entitle us to summarily decide if it can be kept alive or not.

I’m all for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies but once the new human has been created, I think it deserves protections equal to all other humans.

Life began many millions of years before conception, and continued unbroken right up to your or my conception.

To suggest that a zygote is an individual human being is absurd, and is definitely not undisputed in biology. The only people who claim this are diehard religious fanatics.

Also, the idea that if something is human it deserves human rights is also absurd, as no one would be able to cut their fingernails or visit the dentist!

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The premise to my arguement is that the unborn child is an individual human being from day 1 (conception). It’s pretty much undisputed in biology that that is the point at which life begins. Therefore if we can agree that something is human, then undoubtedly it must be entitled to human rights, right? I don’t believe that circumstances outside of the womb should entitle us to summarily decide if it can be kept alive or not.

I’m all for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies but once the new human has been created, I think it deserves protections equal to all other humans.

something can be human but not A human. a foetus contains none of the qualities that make us human. it has no consciousness for instance.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The premise to my arguement is that the unborn child is an individual human being from day 1 (conception). It’s pretty much undisputed in biology that that is the point at which life begins.

I thought that would be your answer but I wanted to not put words in your mouth and have you say it first.

The problem with me for that line of reasoning is that you list attributes....

Individual.
Conception.
Life Begins.
Human.

.... that if you look into and study the philosophy of "rights" "morality" and "ethics" are not actually used. A tree is "individual" for example. A cow had "conception". And every bit of life you see "began".

Yet clearly "individual" "conception" and "began" does not afford them rights. We kill them all the time. Paper kills trees. Vegetable production kill insects. Meat kills animals. Medical intervention kills bacteria and viruses.

Sometimes we kill in the 1000s sometimesin the billions. But we kill ALL the time flora and fauns to which the things you list ALSO apply.

Which just leaves you with the word "Human". And not one person who I have EVER met denies that the fetus is "Human". What they do deny is that "Human" purely in terms of biological taxonomy (which is how you used it here) is not a predicate point of rights, morality or ethics.

So let me put that another way........

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Therefore if we can agree that something is human, then undoubtedly it must be entitled to human rights, right?

.... no not right. What you have done here is the most common error we see in the abortion debate and it is what is called "Begging the question".

You see there is one word "Human" but it means many different things in different contexts. In taxonomy, how you used it, it has a meaning in biological species differentiation. But in philosophy it has another meaning entirely. A very different one. It means that thing when in the old Star Trek Dr. McCoy says to Spock "Where is your humanity Spock?". A sentence that was not making ANY appeal to Spock being biologically "human".

So what I mean by "begging the question" is you are taking nothing more than words. The words "Human" and "Human rights" and basically assuming that because they both have the word "Human" they must automatically link.

Rather what you should do is drop the labels and ask specifically WHAT IS IT that we assign rights to, and more importantly WHY to we do it. I can answer that for you if you like, but it helps if you try to stop and give it a go yourself for awhile. Ask yourself the following questions:

1) What are rights?
2) What is morality/ethics?
3) What are they FOR?
4) What do they do?
5) To what do we actually apply them and why and on what basis?

The result of that introspection is likely to be, as it was for me, a list of attributes and ideas. And what you will notice is that NONE of those attributes and ideas are present in a 10 week old fetus (when the significant majority of abortion actually occurs).

Hope that helps get you started! Any questions welcomed.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

something can be human but not A human. a foetus contains none of the qualities that make us human. it has no consciousness for instance.

Could you please define some of the qualities that make us human that the foetus lacks.

Also if something is only human if it has consciousness, does that mean if you were to find yourself in a coma from which you may wake up, your not a human anymore? It’s okay to kill you then?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Could you please define some of the qualities that make us human that the foetus lacks.

Also if something is only human if it has consciousness, does that mean if you were to find yourself in a coma from which you may wake up, your not a human anymore? It’s okay to kill you then?

This is almost always the first question we get asked actually I would estimate 99% of the time.

But it is, thankfully, an easy one to answer.

The difference between a coma patient and a 10 week old fetus is that the former HAS the faculty of consciousness. Sure, it is not functionally correctly in that moment, but it is still there. And in fact we have evidence to even suggest coma patients show some level of awareness.

So just like a car is not more or less a car when you start it, or shut it off..... an instance of human sentience is STILL an instance of human senteince when it is unconscious, asleep or in a coma.

In a fetus however the faculty in question is not non-operational. It is absent. Not only is it absent in fact, but many of the pre-requisites of it are too.

An analogy: Imagine consciousness is radio waves. In a fetus it is not that the radio waves are not there..... or that the radio broadcasting tower is switched off or something............. the tower itself has not even been built yet!

King Mob

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’m all for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies but once the new human has been created, I think it deserves protections equal to all other humans.

Do you believe that all miscarriages then should be investigated as rigorously as all deaths in case it is in fact a murder?

Why do you believe that life begins at conception?
And at what point in conception does this take place, and why?
Why do you believe that human rights shouldn't be extended to sperm and eggs given that each of them as the exact same potential for life?

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is almost always the first question we get asked actually I would estimate 99% of the time.

But it is, thankfully, an easy one to answer.

The difference between a coma patient and a 10 week old fetus is that the former HAS the faculty of consciousness. Sure, it is not functionally correctly in that moment, but it is still there. And in fact we have evidence to even suggest coma patients show some level of awareness.

So just like a car is not more or less a car when you start it, or shut it off..... an instance of human sentience is STILL an instance of human senteince when it is unconscious, asleep or in a coma.

In a fetus however the faculty in question is not non-operational. It is absent. Not only is it absent in fact, but many of the pre-requisites of it are too.

An analogy: Imagine consciousness is radio waves. In a fetus it is not that the radio waves are not there..... or that the radio broadcasting tower is switched off or something............. the tower itself has not even been built yet!

Seems like you are assigning rights based on "legacy"
Person in a coma and foetus - neither has consciousness but one previously had it.
Both have the potential to develop it.

The foetus, almost certainly.
The person in a coma, maybe.
Nevertheless, both are human beings.

Sean.3516

Pherekydes wrote: »

Life began many millions of years before conception, and continued unbroken right up to your or my conception.

To suggest that a zygote is an individual human being is absurd, and is definitely not undisputed in biology. The only people who claim this are diehard religious fanatics.

Also, the idea that if something is human it deserves human rights is also absurd, as no one would be able to cut their fingernails or visit the dentist!

It is a fact that when the sperm meets the egg and the chromosomes are arranged that individual human being begins, it has it’s own unique DNA and is absolutely a human being. Just because it’s at a stage of development where it’s physically unrecognizable from a human that is developed does not mean it isn’t human.

Also if you’re going to assert that it isn’t a human being from the point of conception, you must be willing to say when it starts being a human being.

As regards human rights, I was referring to human beings, not individual human cells.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Seems like you are assigning rights based on "legacy"
Person in a coma and foetus - neither has consciousness but one previously had it.
Both have the potential to develop it.

The foetus, almost certainly.
The person in a coma, maybe.
Nevertheless, both are human beings.

do you have evidence to support your assertion that people in a coma have no consciousness? Not working at one particular time does not mean it is absent.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It is a fact that when the sperm meets the egg and the chromosomes are arranged that individual human being begins, it has it’s own unique DNA and is absolutely a human being. Just because it’s at a stage of development where it’s physically unrecognizable from a human that is developed does not mean it isn’t human.

Also if you’re going to assert that it isn’t a human being from the point of conception, you must be willing to say when it starts being a human being.

As regards human rights, I was referring to human beings, not individual human cells.

so as soon as fertilisation occurs it is human? so the morning after pill is therefore murder, do i understand you correctly?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Seems like you are assigning rights based on "legacy"
Person in a coma and foetus - neither has consciousness but one previously had it.

Well no I just said the exact opposite of that in my post. Not sure why you would want to change what I said into what I did not say.

I did not say "neither has consciousness". I very clearly, intentionally and openly said the coma patient HAS consciousness. Did you just decide to ignore that for your own ends, to pretend I said the EXACT opposite of what is there in black and white?

recedite wrote: »

Both have the potential to develop it.

Nope, one has it and has the potential to return to a full operational level of it, the other has the potential to develop it. Quite the difference.

recedite wrote: »

The foetus, almost certainly.
The person in a coma, maybe.
Nevertheless, both are human beings.

Biologically they are yes. But as I pointed out to our new visitor biological taxonomy does not really offer a useful predicate for philosophy.

Imagine for example we realize one of the current goals of science and transfer your consciousness into what, appearancewise, is essentially a toaster. Clearly the toaster will not be "Human".

But if your consciousness is in a toaster, and your body is running on a perfect life support..... which one do you think I should hold the most moral and ethical concern for and why?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It is a fact that when the sperm meets the egg and the chromosomes are arranged that individual human being begins, it has it’s own unique DNA and is absolutely a human being. Just because it’s at a stage of development where it’s physically unrecognizable from a human that is developed does not mean it isn’t human.

Here I agree with you 100%. What something LOOKS like should have absolutely nothing to do with it. If your body died tomorrow and I transferred your consciousness into a machine for example, you might LOOK like a toaster. But I would still have moral and ethical concern for you.

Why? You do not look human. You are not biologically human. Hell you are not even biological any more. So why do you think I would hold moral and ethical concern for you? Why would it be wrong for me to program software that tortures you to the full extent of your conscious ability?

Maybe it is because biology and "Human" actually has nothing to do with morality and ethics?

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is almost always the first question we get asked actually I would estimate 99% of the time.

But it is, thankfully, an easy one to answer.

The difference between a coma patient and a 10 week old fetus is that the former HAS the faculty of consciousness. Sure, it is not functionally correctly in that moment, but it is still there. And in fact we have evidence to even suggest coma patients show some level of awareness.

So just like a car is not more or less a car when you start it, or shut it off..... an instance of human sentience is STILL an instance of human senteince when it is unconscious, asleep or in a coma.

In a fetus however the faculty in question is not non-operational. It is absent. Not only is it absent in fact, but many of the pre-requisites of it are too.

An analogy: Imagine consciousness is radio waves. In a fetus it is not that the radio waves are not there..... or that the radio broadcasting tower is switched off or something............. the tower itself has not even been built yet!

It’s an interesting point.
I would agree that the faculty of consciousness is non operational up to a given point in the foetus, however this faculty and (many others) are in development from pretty much day 1. The genetic groundwork for the development of all humanly features and organs is layed at conception and brain waves can be detected in the first trimester.
The nervous system of a newborn baby differs from an adult beachside it is not as developed. I think you are conflating the lack of development in this area with absence all together.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a foetus contains none of the qualities that make us human.

it does. starting from 1 and receiving them as it grows and develops.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it has no consciousness for instance.

neither does someone in a coma. consciousness is just one of many many qualities which makes us human, something a fetus will have long before it's born.

Pherekydes

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It is a fact that when the sperm meets the egg and the chromosomes are arranged that individual human being begins, it has it’s own unique DNA and is absolutely a human being. Just because it’s at a stage of development where it’s physically unrecognizable from a human that is developed does not mean it isn’t human.

Also if you’re going to assert that it isn’t a human being from the point of conception, you must be willing to say when it starts being a human being.

As regards human rights, I was referring to human beings, not individual human cells.

But the sperm and the ovum are individual human cells. Yet, when they come together you are ascribing some magic to make them a human being. They may have the genetic information required, but it's a long road of development before it achieves personhood. A brain and a central nervous system are an absolute necessity.

If embryos are human beings why are their deaths not investigated at least by the health service, if not the Gardaí.

As regards the moment something human becomes a human being, you must decide what is meant by the word "being".

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

neither does someone in a coma. consciousness is just one of many many qualities which makes us human, something a fetus will have long before it's born.

But how can this be, when according to you, abortion is not murder?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s an interesting point.
I would agree that the faculty of consciousness is non operational up to a given point in the foetus

I have to be pedantic here because it is actually the most important part of my position. The faculty is NOT "non operational up to a given point in the foetus". It is ABSENT.

This is not a small difference, but is paramount to everything I say on the subject of abortion, and human rights.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

however this faculty and (many others) are in development from pretty much day 1.

Hmmm "in development" is one of those things that says too much and too little. It risks implying more than it should so we need to be cautious here. It risks implying the faculty is in some way in there from day 1.

For example if I am building a house, but I have done nothing but start to dig the hole (for the later foundations) would it not be a little ridiculous to say the "Upstairs main bedroom is now in development"?

Pedantically it is true. The moment I start to dig the foundations, the upstairs bedroom is in some way "in development". But realistically it is not, it is entirely absent from anything but the plans, and the bedroom itself is not going to be "in development" until much much later in the process.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The genetic groundwork for the development of all humanly features and organs is layed at conception and brain waves can be detected in the first trimester.

The "genetic groundwork" to develop all those things is in every cell of your body potentially. Given enough medical advancement I could likely in the future take any cell from your body and develop an individual human from it, fully conscious and alive.

A blue print is not a house however, in the exact same way a zygote is not a person. If I steal the blue print for a car, I am not going to be prosecuted for Grand Theft Auto.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The nervous system of a newborn baby differs from an adult beachside it is not as developed. I think you are conflating the lack of development in this area with absence all together.

Nope, I am pointing out something that is actually ENTIRELY absent. It is your good self conflating the plans for something with the presence of the actual something. Which is no small error I am afraid.

King Mob

Pherekydes wrote: »

If embryos are human beings why are their deaths not investigated at least by the health service, if not the Garda
.

We also have the fact that 50% of fertilised eggs are not implanted and are lost.
Would this not count as negligence?

And what of IVF embryos. Should that not be stopped as it's putting "humans" in a position of only 50% survival?

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Here I agree with you 100%. What something LOOKS like should have absolutely nothing to do with it. If your body died tomorrow and I transferred your consciousness into a machine for example, you might LOOK like a toaster. But I would still have moral and ethical concern for you.

Why? You do not look human. You are not biologically human. Hell you are not even biological any more. So why do you think I would hold moral and ethical concern for you? Why would it be wrong for me to program software that tortures you to the full extent of your conscious ability?

Maybe it is because biology and "Human" actually has nothing to do with morality and ethics?

Well, yes, I’d agree with some of this. I think that the intersection between biology and morality is that we hold it morally wrong to kill fellow human beings without just cause, and therefore the question in the case of abortion becomes what we define as human beings. I think the whole abortion debate always circles back to the question: Is this a life of is it not?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well, yes, I’d agree with some of this. I think that the intersection between biology and morality is that we hold it morally wrong to kill fellow human beings without just cause, and therefore the question in the case of abortion becomes what we define as human beings. I think the whole abortion debate always circles back to the question: Is this a life of is it not?

That is the exact same thing, just worded differently, that I called "Begging the Question" earlier. We find it wrong to kill fellow human beings as you say, sure. But WHY do we? On what basis. What are the fundamental attributes involved in why we think such a thing is wrong.

I move that the attributes in question are EXACTLY the ones missing in a 10 month old fetus. Try it and see yourself if I am right.

"Life" has the same issue as "Human" for me though. It says too much and too little. The last food you ate was "life". The last paper you wrote on was "life".

Clearly "life" therefore is not really the point we mediate our morality on. Rather "life" happens to be an attribute that occurs parallel to the ones that we are actually concerned for.

Sean.3516

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so as soon as fertilisation occurs it is human? so the morning after pill is therefore murder, do i understand you correctly?

Yea, I’d agree with that. However I think legislating for that would not be good, since it would be impossible to know if it simply failed to implant in the womb by natural causes or due to the morning after pill

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yea, I’d agree with that. However I think legislating for that would not be good, since it would be impossible to know if it simply failed to implant in the womb by natural causes or due to the morning after pill

well seeing as you are at that end of the spectrum not really much point in rehashing conversations i have had dozens of times already.

seamus

end of the road wrote: »

neither does someone in a coma. consciousness is just one of many many qualities which makes us human, something a fetus will have long before it's born.

The coma argument is a really terrible one, because there are a series of tests designed to determine if someone in a coma is actually alive, or whether they're a corpse attached to life support machines. In other words, designed to determine if they're a living human being with rights, or a 70kg bag of cells without rights.

How many of those tests do you think a zygote would pass?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

neither does someone in a coma.

Yes they do though, which you have been explained many times before but continue to act like you have not.

A coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness. It is clearly not operating correctly or fully, or maybe not at all in some patients. But that does not make it not there.

In a fetus however it is not just not functioning. It is entirely and wholly absent. It simply is not there at all, in any way.

This is no small difference you so desperately try to sweep away.

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is the exact same thing, just worded differently, that I called "Begging the Question" earlier. We find it wrong to kill fellow human beings as you say, sure. But WHY do we? On what basis. What are the fundamental attributes involved in why we think such a thing is wrong.

I move that the attributes in question are EXACTLY the ones missing in a 10 month old fetus. Try it and see yourself if I am right.

"Life" has the same issue as "Human" for me though. It says too much and too little. The last food you ate was "life". The last paper you wrote on was "life".

Clearly "life" therefore is not really the point we mediate our morality on. Rather "life" happens to be an attribute that occurs parallel to the ones that we are actually concerned for.

I suppose on a fundamental level, the reason we find murder wrong goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments that said we can’t murder fellow humans. Yea, your right, I was pretty much interchanging the terms life and human. I’m happy to stick with the term human since it’s more precise to what we’re talking about.

We find it morally wrong to kill our fellow humans because well, they’re our fellow humans, we can relate to them on a level we can’t with other species. I’m sensing that you want me to define the “attribute” as you say that makes it wrong to kill someone. I would define it as “membership of the human race” which I believe is attributed at conception. You said earlier that you agreed with me that that was where life began, but you don’t agree with me that it is a human at that point. Then what is it? If it’s alive, then to what species does it belong? There’s no such species as “Zygote” or “Foetus”.

.......

This post has been deleted.

King Mob

Sean.3516 wrote: »

the reason we find murder wrong goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments that said we can’t murder fellow humans.

The concept of murder existed long long before the Ten Commandments.
And "cause they say so" is not a reason, never mind a good one.

Also:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:11-22&version=NRSVCE

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Could you please define some of the qualities that make us human that the foetus lacks.

Also if something is only human if it has consciousness, does that mean if you were to find yourself in a coma from which you may wake up, your not a human anymore? It’s okay to kill you then?

Re question 1, if you see having a working brain as a quality, that's a definition.

Your second [two-part] question is answered by the fact that your comatose person is a born human entity and the feotus is not. The law here is clear on the separate issue of terminating a comatose human's life. Hopefully these answers help you. It'd be only fair to let you know the same questions from others have been answered here regularly in the past.

Sean.3516

....... wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is human but it is not yet a human being.

And finding murder wrong has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. Tribes in deepest darkest Africa have a murder taboo just as much as any religious person or group. Its because we have empathy and we develop morality as we grow.

Okay, so tell me when it stops being human and starts being a human being?

Yes, I’ll concede your second point but the moral premise to murder law in most parts of the world stems from a religious belief that murder is wrong because it says so in the Bible.