Thread: Foeticide: a Holocaust of Babies

Originally Posted by SpaceCricket79

So what if it can't?

Because if it cant we owe it no right to life.

Originally Posted by SpaceCricket79

Again that's just begging the question - it's no different than me just saying that Megadeth fan has no right to life because his taste in music sucks, and going from there.

But then I would ask why and you'd have to justify it. I can justify my position - you lifers cant. That's what makes me right and you wrong.

Originally Posted by SpaceCricket79

That's not an argument, it's just begging the question.

Indeed, but the argument follows the question, if not then the evident fact the person's position, which is questioned, is unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Yeah but so what? It still cant facilitate an interest in being alive until around 28 days after birth.

Thats incorrect. Certainly a newborn infant wants to not be harmed at least from birth. Probably sooner.

Unconscious or comatose person also cannot facilitate any interest. Presence of mind, or high possibility of it existing is enough for protection IMHO.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Thats incorrect.

How so?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Certainly a newborn infant wants to not be harmed at least from birth. Probably sooner.

But, how can it "want" anything if it has no mental capacity to even realize it exists?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Unconscious or comatose person also cannot facilitate any interest.

Indeed, but a fetus cant.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Presence of mind, or high possibility of it existing is enough for protection IMHO.

I totally agree. The problem is the fetus has none of these abilities until roughly 28 days after birth

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

But, how can it "want" anything if it has no mental capacity to even realize it exists?
I totally agree. The problem is the fetus has none of these abilities until roughly 28 days after birth

28 days after birth? Big citation needed. Newborns certainly do have mind, and realize they exist. Fetuses after 22 weeks also most probably have a mind, as evidenced by synchronised brain waves in the cerebral cortex. The only thing we know for sure is that fetuses before 20 weeks do not have a mind, because there is no necessary brain activity in the cortex.

Would you agree with killing newborns?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

28 days after birth? Big citation needed.

Not really. This is the figure reached by a number of bio-ethicists, including but not limited to Michael Tooley, Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse. I cant find an online source for the figure outside of news articles. Will they suffice?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Newborns certainly do have mind, and realize they exist.

No, they dont. Please provide evidence to this claim.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Fetuses after 22 weeks also most probably have a mind, as evidenced by synchronised brain waves in the cerebral cortex.

I didnt say they had no mind I said they had no self-awareness and consciousness to constitute a desire to be alive.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

The only thing we know for sure is that fetuses before 20 weeks do not have a mind, because there is no necessary brain activity in the cortex.

We also know for certain that a fetus cannot realize it is separate entity until after birth.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Would you agree with killing newborns?

In principle, yes, however since, as I said, since its only a around 28 weeks a baby gains self-awareness, I think we should limit abortions to before birth. Infanticide is ethically permissible, however.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Not really. This is the figure reached by a number of bio-ethicists, including but not limited to Michael Tooley, Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse. I cant find an online source for the figure outside of news articles. Will they suffice?

Yes.

No, they dont. Please provide evidence to this claim.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise

Exposure to maternal speech sounds in the muffled confines of the womb enables the fetus to pick up statistical regularities so that the newborn can distinguish its mother’s voice and even her language from others. A more complex behavior is imitation: if Dad sticks out his tongue and waggles it, the infant mimics his gesture by combining visual information with proprioceptive feedback from its own movements. It is therefore likely that the baby has some basic level of unreflective, present-oriented consciousness.

I didnt say they had no mind I said they had no self-awareness and consciousness to constitute a desire to be alive.

We dont know that for certain. All our self-awareness tests are hopelessly inadequate and prone to false negatives. They dont test consciousness (as it is a qualia impossible to test directly), they test responses. And since it is possible to be conscious and not respond at the same time, they are always prone to error.

We also know for certain that a fetus cannot realize it is separate entity until after birth.

No we dont. See above.

And if we dont know it for certain, then cautious approach (presuming that they are) should be preffered.

The only objective correlate of the mind we have so far are brain waves in the cerebral cortex. Thats what we should use.

Using consciousness and desire to live as a criterion for personhood also means sleeping or unconscious people can be killed. Presence of mind is far better criterion for personhood than conscious desire to live. Minds that do not consciously desire to live at the moment are still protected then.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I didnt say they had no mind I said they had no self-awareness and consciousness to constitute a desire to be alive.

So you are saying it is okay to terminate the life of a baby that has been injected with sedatives, because it is not self-aware, and has not yet developed the conception of what it means to be alive?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Yes.

Here's one about Singer, whose the most famous of the three, but whom I dont entirely agree. I think Tooley has a slightly sounder argument, from a consequentialist viewpoint, in emphasizing capacity alongside immediate interests.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/37903/

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...iousness-arise

Your link proves my point. The baby has no self-awareness, self-consciousness. No concept of past, present future. No rationality or autonomy of thought. It cannot sustain an interest in its own life for these very reasons. Read this to see what I am talking about:
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/phil...nfanticide.pdf

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

We dont know that for certain. All our self-awareness tests are hopelessly inadequate and prone to false negatives. They dont test consciousness (as it is a qualia impossible to test directly), they test responses. And since it is possible to be conscious and not respond at the same time, they are always prone to error.

I agree, but it is flat stupid to say a fetus has complete self-awareness, autonomy of thought, consciousness and rationality inside the womb of a woman at any stage. Its physically impossible for the brain to be that developed. But as I said, outside the womb it can get uncertain, hence I dont support infanticide on that basis.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

No we dont. See above.

Yes, we do.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

And if we dont know it for certain, then cautious approach (presuming that they are) should be preffered.
The only objective correlate of the mind we have so far are brain waves in the cerebral cortex. Thats what we should use.
Using consciousness and desire to live as a criterion for personhood also means sleeping or unconscious people can be killed.

Well that's the thing Tooley brings up, which Singer seems to gloss over. Tooley defends that criticism however by emphasizing the capacity of an interest rather than the interest itself that is important, hence why you'd also probably restrain a depressed person from killing themselves because they are not fully enacting their capacity to have an interest, because they are depressed. Read the second link for this point.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Presence of mind is far better criterion for personhood than conscious desire to live.

I agree - the element of consciousness and self-awareness to which is not existent until after birth.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Minds that do not consciously desire to live at the moment are still protected then.

Only if they have the capacity to do so - something a fetus does not, like a newborn cat.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

So you are saying it is okay to terminate the life of a baby that has been injected with sedatives,

Sedatives should be used to alleviate physical pain - for the fetus as well imo. A fetus is only capable of feeling pain after around 24 weeks, however even after this recent studies have shown it exists in a natural state of sedation. Still, if medicine is required to ensure this state I'd very much encourage it.
Here is one such study I refer to from the UK:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...t-says-no.html

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

because it is not self-aware, and has not yet developed the conception of what it means to be alive?

Basically, yes. I'd phrase it differently to that, specifically that the fetus has no desire or interest in existence due to limited brain capacities.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

the fetus has no desire or interest in existence due to limited brain capacities.

So presumably you would also support the euthenisation of those with Down Syndrome?, since they have the mental capacity of monkeys, and are unable to understand what it means to be alive.