That abortion is morally acceptable.

But you havent shown why it is prudent. You have not given a reason as to why we should wait for a fetus to have the capacity to have an interest.

No it isnt because the fetus has no interests. Get it?

1. The consensus means nothing. In Nazi germany there was a consensus jews were worthy of death. Did that make them right? No. Consequently...
2. In saying that all huamn life must be protected you need to give an objective and rational argument, not a reliance on social intuitions or prejudices.

Because you need to have an interest in being alive before you cna have an interest in anything else, like running to get a ball your owner throws, for example.

Lets leave animals out of this ethical debate for now. We can discuss that somewhere else. Incidentally however, as you point out you do agree about the suffering, if you agree to it on the basis Singer outlines, cannot you not see the same basis in the equal consideration of interests principle underlying the abortion position I put forward, that is, cannot you see the extension of universalizing the consideration of suffering to a universalization of considering interests?

 

It seems that 90% of this issue boils down to what does "having interest in" actually mean. I believe we are not using the word in the same way so lets clarify this.
I was using interest in the sense of "to concern (a person, nation, etc.) in something; involve"

Not really. To me using the temporary lack of self-consciousness of the fetus means abusing the situation for personal interest. Since the fetus cannot defend itself society should recognize the inherent will to live that the fetus has and protect it's interests.

 

That is way to vague - you haven't touched on what the word is really concerned with: conscious capacity. I'll give a definitive explanation and definition of the word tomorrow, since I have to go now. I will define interest in relation to personhood, or more specifically personism. You can read about it here, which might give you a better grasp of the principle I am applying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personism

How would it be "abusing" the situation? That is, how would that be wrong to act as you just described?

I will explain tomorrow how the fetus has no serious notion of "will" that should concern us. The personhood link is a good warm up.

 

I would just like to point out that we need to do this only after thalamocortical connections develop (about 26 weeks). Since all external stimuli pass though the thalamus (except vision), it is impossible for the fetus to feel anything before 26 weeks.

For the topic, I would argue that there is a moral difference between preventing the future appearance of a new mind (as in abortion), and preventing the continuation of a merely "paused" mind, which was already conscious in the past, and is still encoded in the existing neural pathways with all the memories and personality (thus it already exists in some form), even tough its not expressing itself at the moment (as in comatose patients).

 

My niece was born between 23-24 weeks. She FELT THINGS. Although we could not touch her…the doctors could she had many surgeries and they did not just slice into her without meds. What you say on any level is barbaric. She responded to stimuli…when touched. Have you ever seen a child move in the womb? I used to push real hard on one side when I would feel or see a foot….and my babies would move. The thought of killing an unborn child because you think it can't feel is horrendous. You can shove all the information you have on this…you know where…a heart says something different and what medicine says becomes secondary. You are trying to justify killing ANY WAY YOU CAN….even at a time that the child might feel something. But even that should not matter….no unborn should be killed. Nothing is impossible……...

 

"A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234."

"Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427"

"Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980"

"Real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Lily — the father of fetology."

Even as far back as 1945…...

In The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (1945, Harper Bros.), Arnold Gesell of Yale University wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."


"There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurological response to pain. P. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain," Amer. Review Psychology, vol. 28, 1977, p. 42"

"The cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. "Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex." Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology, W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178"

"The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case Western Univ."

An unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock.

What is true here however is this pain thing is not an issue for the pro-abort. They do not care that killing will produce pain…they see the unborn as nothing….the woman's rights trump what rights the unborn has period…..so pain is not and never should be an issue.

Why they present anything about this….to suggest that abortion is still ok even if the unborn can't feel….is idiotic, cold and inhumane. They will use any trick in the book to champion killing the unborn.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_perception

What "heart" says is often deceptive.

 

Yes what is on Wiki is scientifically the best and honest truth.

Nothing in life matters without a heart…….

 

Actually I think pain is very much an issue glossed over by pro-abortion people, I agree. We should try to mitigate the pain with available medical resources, which is easily done.

Pain does not make abortion, amoral however, since pain does not constitute a desire to live.

Why is abortion these things? Explain it.

 

LOL Actually what matters in life is your brain before anything else.

 

Who wants a brain that is devoid of emotion and love? Get it?

 

Dont know, not me. A fetus doesn't want anything - it doesn't even know it exists.

No, could you elaborate? A fetus has no emotions. You can love a fetus as much as you love a rock - in both cases it will not create a mind within the fetus or the rock.

 

Youve destroyed your own baby killing argument.

 

You without a doubt are the most sick person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting on the internet. Your views repulse me…absolutely make my stomach turn. You talk about things that I am sure Ted Bundy would have talked about….for me you are one in the same. You are one scary individual I don't care to even talk too. Life is to short…it is one thing to debate against people who have evil thought…but again another to look in the eyes of evil. I do not choose to do it.

 

Does this conclusion and contention only apply to humans with the status "fetus" or is it morally acceptable to kill any humans that lack self awareness?

At what point does a human become sentient? Is a human sentient the moment it exits its mother?

What about premature infants? Do you feel they are more cognitively advanced then their full term counterparts? Research tends to dispute this premise.

Can a human lose sentience? Can I walk into an intensive care ward and morally kill all the patients that display limited brainwave function?

Do I have to be related to the organism in some way? If I punch a mother in the stomach in an attempt to kill her fetus, is that in some way different than the mother choosing to terminate her fetus?

Would it be moral for me to kill an advanced Alzheimer's patient, or a patient with dementia without family consent?

 

Hows that? I know you like one liners, but they dont cut it unless you justify yourself, which you havent done here.

 

The honor is mine. LOL

Funny how you can never prove them wrong eh?

Ok... so?

Interesting psychology there.

Then it looks like "evil" will rule - because can never actually show how it is in fact evil.

haha your ted bundy stunt was quite funny. Care to throw in Obergruppenführer or something as well?

 

Who lack the general capacity of personhood, yes. Also to animals.

Its not entirely known, but its been placed by a lot of neuroscience at about 26 days after birth. And to your second question, no, but I would oppose infanticide on the basis that it ensures people dont act in a way that violates the mental integrity of the baby.

Premature birth is irrelevant to the point I've made here.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes, very much so.

Depends, but generally no.

 

Based on your terse answers it appears you need to rethink your contention and conclusion. If you still subscribe to the opinion that sentience is the only metric by which moral homicide is determined, then you've contradicted yourself multiple times above. Perhaps you should elaborate.

 

Which terse answers?

Point that out please. I'm totally willing to change my position you realize.

Perhaps you should point out the contradiction so I can so, because it would appear you have not understood my contention.

 

Let's start with this contradiction:

Your position:
1. It is moral to kill any life that lacks sentience.
2. A human may lose sentience.
3. It is not moral to kill a human who lost sentience.

Evidence for your position:

Fangebeer: is it morally acceptable to kill any humans that lack self awareness?

Megadeth: Who lack the general capacity of personhood, yes. Also to animals.

Fangbeer: Can a human lose sentience?

Megadeth: Yes.

Fangbeer: Can I walk into an intensive care ward and morally kill all the patients that display limited brainwave function?

Megadeth: No.

Conclusion:

It cannot both be moral to kill any life that lacks sentience, and immoral to kill a patient in an intensive care ward that lacks sentience. There must be some other metric by which you measure the morality that you subscribe to.

 

Just letting you know I'm getting off my computer now so I'll continue the conversation tomorrow. I didnt want you to get the idea I just bailed.

Fair enough. The problem is, within the abortion context, the question has a different set of conditions. Killing a fetus is different to killing another autonomous person, since the fetus is within a woman's body and is both not autonomous but also contingent upon the mother's interests. A human who is , say, disabled and in hospital is autonomous in terms of bodily and mental integrity. His only crutch is, assuming the appropriate conditions, the facilities of the hospital, thus the interest at play is the provider of the facilities. However there may be other conditions at play once more. He could have fallen into a coma, thus in keeping him alive one recognizing his capacity to continue pursuing his interests when he wakes up. In this instance, one recognizing his preexisting interest and/or his capacity to have an interest. When you say 'non-sentient' this is a highly condition term. It could be temporary, as in both cases, but it doesnt include extenuating conditions - such the lack of autonomy of the fetus and so on. Does that make sense? I can try ad clarify further if needs be. Also, you wouldnt just go into a hospital of non-sentient people and just killing them because of the obvious drawback that their families have an interest in them being alive. If they didnt then there might be a basis in killing them but again other conditions of their state would have to be considered. Its ultimately about considering existing interests, and best outcomes. You might have to kill a perfectly healthy individual if the hospital badly needed the resources for others, etc etc. So in the case of abortion, the avenues of action are almost always clear cut, whereas in the other situation there are a lot of factors in play.
I hope this clarifies was indeed appeared a contradiction. I was merely talking in general terms relative to the conditions a decision made as described above.

 

This brings up your second contradiction. I specifically asked:

Do I have to be related to the organism in some way?

To which you responded no. Relationships go beyond familial groups. People who have relationships have an interest in one another. To draw an analogy to your non sentient plant example, we could say that it certainly would not be moral for me to go and trample my neighbor's azalea because she has an interest in them. This is despite, (or in spite) of the fact that they are non sentient and don't give a hoot about my view of the neighborhood. Beyond that, I can't go into the state forest in the lot next to mine and morally chop down all the trees because people, in the form of the state, have an interest in them.

Wait a minute now. Now you've expanded your contention to recognizing the capacity to achieve sentience. Are you sure you want to do that?

So far these are the things that you appear to have added to your contention:

1. Moral homicide is dependent on another human having an overriding interest.
2. Moral homicide is dependent on the capacity to achieve sentience.

Do you wish to clarify?

 

1. Value of any kind is a subjective concept, not an objective property, just as the concept of morality itself is subjective, (unless we can agree upon some place that morality exists outside of the human mind and that's really the subject of an entirely different debate)

2. Since value and morality are assumed to be subjective, they must be assumed to be determined by the law of supply and demand, and not just by self esteem.

3. Supply and demand dictates that the value of something is regulated by a consensus of opinion.

As it is in the azalea example I gave, the azalea has value because my neighbor values it. It is immoral to trample the azalea despite the azalea ascribing zero value to itself. If went to my next town hall meeting and was able to convince enough people that the azalea was poorly maintained, and subtracted from property values, I might be able to build a consensus that the azalea should be destroyed despite my neighbor's value of the plant.

Let's apply this to the subject of moral homicide. It is not generally considered moral for a sentient being to commit suicide. In this instance, the life form attributes a much lower value to itself then society, yet society asserts that the self assesment is incorrect. Society will even go so far as to put the individual on suicide watch, and physically prevent them from ending their own life. There have been instances of terminally ill people taking their own lives with the assistance and consent of others, but in general it's not a commonly accepted practice.

Therefore I reject your premise. Moral homicide cannot be dependent on whether the human values themselves. Life of any kind acquires value when someone values it. The more people that value it, the greater value it acquires. With this logic in mind it is clear that your statement needs revision. Sentience is an indicator that the life form has > 0 value due to the value the life form attributes to itself, however, the logic does not follow that non sentient life has a value = 0 as all that is required is for someone else to value the life.

So I think that necessarily means that specific types of value need to be qualified and ordered. What you appear to be saying is that the mother's value of the life inside of her determines the morality of homicide rather than the father's value of that life, a grandparent's value of that life, a neighbor's value of that life, or even a societal value of that life.

If this assumption is true, on that point I also disagree that a mother's ability to determine value is necessarily more qualified than that of society. In short, a mother is not inherently the best judge of whether a life inside her has value.

1. The mother could be disabled and unable to comprehend the factors that determine value.

2. The mother could simply be ignorant of the factors that determine value.

3. The mother could be influenced by factors that do not take the value of the life inside her into account.

While I'm loathe to argue this point because it opens the door to forced abortions like we witness in China, it must be stated that a mother is not inherently the sole arbiter of moral action in regards to the termination of pregancy.

 

Well no, because once again in the case of abortion you need to violate the interest of the mother and her autonomy - something you would ALSO do by rocking up to a hospital and killing people. There is no contradiction here and you have not pointed one out. Also, with the people in the hospital, they have preexisting interests the fetus does not. The result is that when it comes to abortion only the mother's interest need be considered, since the fetus has none and the events resides in her autonomous body - totally different to someone in a hospital.

Both must be considered. There is no such thing as an overiding interest, I never said there was such a thing. In the case of the mother and the fetus, the mother has an interest the fetus doesnt, thus only the mother's interest need be considered. In the case of say a guy in a hospital who is in a coma, he has a preexisting interest, as well as the mental capacity (outside of the fact he is currently unconscious) to possibly regain self-awareness etc. There is also the interests of the hospital and his family who provide for his medical support, so their interests must be considered, equally, with his. So where the hospital is well resourced, the man's family can take care of him etc etc, there is little question as to the opportunity to keep him alive. But if the hospital were drastically under resourced - requiring the medical resources for other patients, and which his family cannot afford, plus his odds may be slim, the need to end his life may be compelling. Does this clarify my point?

Also, sorry for the late reply, I had computer troubles.