long winded fool

So when does consciousness develop? If you don't know and advocate abortion anyway, then aren't you the allegorical hunter firing indiscriminately into the rustling bush without first checking to see what it is you're blasting? To know that the bush is too small for it to be another hunter and then fire is just as criminally negligent. If there is even the remotest of possibilities that a child could be in the bush, aren't you being criminally irresponsible? If it turns out by some horrible miscalculation that it actually was a child, won't you face criminal charges? If it turns out that consciousness develops slightly earlier than you'd thought, then logically any and all abortionists who aborted fetuses even a day after this point should face manslaughter charges.

I know you feel that before 40 days there can be no consciousness, but what about those who abort in the grey area? Should they be charged as criminals? And what references do you have that the capability to notice you exist and the capacity to experience the world as a participant rather than an object to be influenced is what grants one the right to life?

I most certainly do not exclude any person on grounds of (Age, race, mental capacity, or disability ... from the inalienable right to life.) However, I don't equate a twenty day old embryo with these people. Why? Because it has no capacity to experience. It doesn't know it exists. It wouldn't "notice" not existing. Once it would, then obviously it has passed the boundary of personhood. I don't exclude any being that has knowledge of its existence. I do think that you can include a large number of animals in this category, so, hey, possibly go veggie!

Of course, they aren't inalienable "person" rights. They are inalienable human rights. What if we conclude that only caucasians are persons? Or only conscious human beings are persons? Why is this logically any different than concluding that only human beings with the capability to experience are persons?

Where is the cut off? Certainly, terminating pregnacy at 40 days is acceptable under this standard. I would hazard to say that any point before neural tube development is "safe", and perhaps even any point before brain activity and neural mapping begins. But you know what? In this case, it's not for me to say definitively, because I'm not an expert at developmental biology. (one third year university course does not an expert make). But then, neither are you. So, I don't think that in the course of this discussion, the two of us could hammer out a safe boundary, as neither of us is qualified to talk knowledgably about it. (I wonder if anyone else monitoring this thread is. Speak up and tell me that I'm full of shit, because you have a basis for knowledge, not opinion.) Still, I think we can evaluate the theory. Already, we can both agree that consciousness is something that develops, and isn't present in a freshly fertilized ovum. So abortion itself isn't the issue, knowing when the upper limit of "safe" abortion is. Given appropriate knowledge about when the capacity to notice existence develops, we could come to an understanding.

Then by implication you do feel that age determines value, since accidentally killing an embryo a day after it attains enough consciousness to be considered human and therefore attains the inalienable right to life is not a bad enough mistake to warrant the outlawing of abortion until we are sure. You don't bulldoze a school unless you're sure that there are no children inside. "Probably, but haven't checked," is not an acceptable response. There is certainly a better chance that you'll be correct than incorrect, but it only takes one time to become a murderer of a human being.

What if we put a hold on abortion until this examination was made? Would that satisfy you? I'm not recom mending we do so (I think that's unrealistic), but is you problem really with unexamined abortion, or abortion itself? I thought you were arguing the latter point, but now I'm not so sure.

My argument is that legal abortion is irrational. By accepting your premises, I'm merely attempting to show that your logic is faulty when followed through.

Unfortunately, pregnancy is not just a temporary inconvenience. The act of being pregnant means that, in essence, there is a lifeform parasitically attached to you that not only consuming your bodily resources and grossly changing your physical shape and capacities, but it in essence completely changes every hormone balance, your blood chemistry, even your brain chemistry. It's a wonderful experience, yes, but it is true that being pregnant is not just having to cope with passenger. It's a houseguest that completely rearranges the furniture in every room of the house, builds itself an addition, rewallpapers everywhere and resets the thermostat constantly. It steals your food, and air, and clothing (heh). It requires a great amount of input from the mother in order to realize its potential. Once it notices it exists, one crucial potential is realized, and from that point it would be wrong to kill it. Before that, it's just potential, and if you decide to be selfish and not share your "stuff" with someone else, that's up to you. Keep in mind, there's no killing involved at that point, so only the mother's rights need be considered. After consciousness, obviously it's a different story. Not all embryos are human. Humanity is a developed characteristic of the species homo sapiens.
I take issue with the statement that "women are free to never get pregnant." Exhibit A: rape. Defence rests. Not all types of pregnancies are preventable.

Very true. Pregnancy has to be neither preventable nor only temporarily inconvenient to make abortion illogical. No matter how much pain and suffering your uninvited houseguest causes you, no matter how much he eats your food and destroys your house and your life, it is murder to kill him unless he's threatening your life. Prosecution rests. (Just kidding. I'm too long-winded for such a short argument!) The mother's rights need never be considered (with the exception of her right to life) as long as all human beings have the inalienable right to life and the embryo is a human being. According to the dictionary, an embryo at any stage, including the stages where it is incapable of experience and consciousness, is a human being. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all members of the human family have the inalienable right to life, i.e. all human beings the right to life including but not limited to persons, scuba divers, etc.

Finally, without specific reference, a few mischaracterizations:
It's not the number of cells that counts, but the ability of those massed cells to be aware of its environment and of its existence. Early stage fetuses have neither one of these capabilities. Something with the potential to develop this capacity should not be given more right than something that has already developed it.

Not true. The condition of being a human being grants inalienable rights. A human being is any and all members of the family Hominidae of the group homo. I reference the HyperDic Online Dictionary and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted by the UN in 1948.

It's not the length of experience that matters, or the type or ability to remember it. It's the ability to experience itself that I am positing as the characteristic by which to evaluate right to continued existence. If you won't notice the cessation of existence, then ending it won't matter to you, it will just happen.

Whether it matters to the victim or not is irrelevant. It is wrong to revoke the right to life from an innocent human being.

ps: Let me approach this from a different tack: in the book Fresco by Sheri S. Tepper, she envisions an alien race that 'rapes' and impregnates every man who feels that abortion for reasons of "convenience" is morally wrong. These aliens are in mental contact with their offspring at every moment. It's a more than a little bit "out there" for a thought experiement, but really. What would you do?

A fascinating question. I'll have to check that book out. I'll pose a counter analogy then answer yours. Suppose one day you wake up in a bathtub full of ice to find that you're missing several of your organs. Later, you find out that they were forcibly removed and inserted into a child who needed them to survive. What would you do?

As for your question, aside from what I would do about the alien rapists, I would bear and give birth to the alien child so long as my life wasn't forfeit by doing so. It wasn't the child's fault. (I don't know what I would do with it after it was born, however that is not relevant to the question of abortion.) You don't have to get pregnant anymore than you have to donate organs to dying children, though either of these scenarios could be forced on you by an outside party. You have to allow the human being to use your organs once they have started to do so, whether it was consensual or not. You can prosecute the person who forcibly removed your organs and transplanted them into another, but you don't have the right to take them back. Similarly, you can prosecute the rapist but you can't deny your body to the human being who is using it, any more than the organ donor (even the unwilling organ donor) can take his organs back.

Psychic

If hadn't known better I would have called you a Racist! but an evolutionary one!
What is it all about the human beings, the human rights, the human family ...etc do you think that the human race is a transcendent creature or something? our knowledge of the origin of our species and all other species should have given us some feeling of equality with our close ancestors and cousins.
I don't want to get with you on the length debate of "dogs can smell better, tigers can run faster, and humans can think better ... and who's to say which is the best? " but suffice saying that were are not so different!
and without being any particular kind of a specialist, I would for sure know that following fact to be true: a 2-year old rabbit is surely more conscious than a 8-month old human fetus, can feel pain more, and on any scale from my point of view the rabbit is closer to the "person" you define.
Humans don't have the right to live merely because they are humans! I see no where you can derive such a premise except from our emotions towards our race. but what we feel most of the time fails to correlate with what is true.

nermal

Oh, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

I'm confused. Are you arguing for animal rights and for abortion, but saying it's ok to kill a human fetus and not ok to kill a bunny, because a bunny is more conscious but being more conscious does not make people better than bunnies even though it makes bunnies better than fetuses or? Scratches head.

BTW the word you're looking for is "specieist."

Ed

Psychic

:banghead: I am not talking about killing anyone! I am not talking about the morality of killing a bunny or a fetus. I am just pulling Long-winded fool's horses about the humans issue.
a human fetus doesn't deserve the right to live just for being a HUMAN fetus. and if he uses the argument of "don't kill it because it might be conscious" then he should really pack his stuff and go defend the bunnies, because they, being more conscious than a fetus they are more ligible for a right to live.

Another important point is: how do you define consciousness? there is alot of research going on to design a self-conscious robot for example, which is able to conceive its presence and know its boundaries. also equiped with some AI. how ethical is it to kill such a robot?

dk

Ok, I'll bite,
1) What does a human life deserve?
2) What does a rabbit life deserve?

Psychic

Man forget about the bunny thing man! It was just a analogy to show that it’s not how conscious the fetus is the only thing that matters, nor being a HUMAN fetus is the only thing that matter. Why did you all get stuck with the bunny?1
1) a rabbit, deserves to be treated as an organism that is capable of feeling pain (although it might not be related to OUR subjective feeling of pain).
2)regarding the fetus, I chose “infanticide is ok!” based on my view that a person is the continuous interaction between genes and environment to produce a state of the mind that’s is capable and expected to do certain actions, and have certain feelings. Based on the fact that a fetus is just a brain with no memories (memories in the womb are only tactile memories, and in my opinion are disregarded as insignificant) no previous experiences, and not even a mature synaptic development. In addition to many deviancies.
Usually if the mother has reached a point of seriously contemplating abortion you can be sure of certain things to be a fact:
The pregnancy has negative psychological effects on her.
The pregnancy is more likely to be unplanned, and thus hazardous.
The child is unwanted
The child is less likely to be treated with all the care and attention the mother is capable of.
As a consequence the child is more likely to have a rough childhood. And more likely to be a menace to society.
I am not saying that prohibiting abortion will make all children psychopaths. But I can argue that it will bring some individual with something wrong in the head as a consequence of a not-so-perfect childhood. A very very minor draw back right to the prohibition right? But that very minor effect is enough to me to justify infanticide. There are much more fetuses where that one came from, it’s not so precious to me. But a person with life experience and mental maturity is a precious being.

dk

Hey you posed the analogy, then refuse to answer it.

1) What does a human life deserve?
2) What does a rabbit life deserve?

PS: The number of unwanted babies in the US has increased substantially since abortion and abortafaciants became available. A quick tally of the number of children "in the system" makes the point.

nermal

Ah. Thank you for setting me straight.

Ed

Psychic

another question: is it moral to insert whatever you wish while Quoting ME!!!! J

Increment in value exactly my point! Let’s consider the value of the three; the 20-year-old human, human fetus or infant, and a rabbit.
The 20-year-old, has been fed for 20 years, has been taken care of for 20 years, loved for 20 years, went to school (probably a private school!), went to college ..etc and has a vast experience in life, capable of many skills, and has a genuine ideology. And a very important sense of presence, conscious of its presence, conscious of the outer world and has a survival instinct that makes leaving this world a terrible experience. Not to mention others who love and care and recognize it as a being with known characteristics. Let’s put a number to it: his value is around 100 LU (life units).
A human infant, is a product of intercourse that was done for its pleasurable effects, has been living with the mother for 9-months, draining her energy and turning her whole physiological system into a factory to supply it with what’s needed (a parasite giving nothing in return). Capable of doing nothing, not even walking, no skills, no cognition, totally useless. Its since of presence or consciousness is disputable. Has no name! True psychological attachment to it needs 1-2 weeks to develop in parents. And if they don’t want it anymore it will never develop. Practically I’ll give it 10 LU for the mothers efforts and for the fathers money they invested in it, and for the fact that it has good potentials IF you decided to continue your investment in it.
A rabbit, is conscious of life and the world around it, feels pain, edible, needed a a lot of time to reach this size and maturation.…etc I’ll give it 2 LU, you haven’t put much effort and money in it, and it is not potentially a good investment.
Now let’s consider the mother and the father,

these ill effects of an unwanted child are grave to the couple, and it’s gonna surely put a burden on them. You might say now: why didn’t they think of this when they were in bed, or why did they allow the pregnancy to proceed?
I’ll say, the wife or the husband lost its job, there house was confiscated. Something happened that they don’t want a child anymore.
Now all this I’ll give it 50 NLEU (Negative Life Events Unit)
So who decides what is more 20 LU or 50 NLEU? I think this is up to the couple! A very simple math.

Psychic

just i thought
How many LU Do I cost?

I don't know from where my mind comes with these things, I guess it the genes, cause environment can't do this!

to be fair with myself I think I make 220 LU!


How about you guys?