Freethought & Rationalism Archive

elwoodblues · 10-30-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

The point is that self-awareness is what makes a person a person (unlike half the people I knew in High School).

It's generally a good rule of thumb not to kill something that can ask you not to. I really don't see any reason to go about making creatures miserable for no reason, though, so whatever.

Okay, but you're talking about 2 different things here. Self-awareness (which is incredibly tough to pin down in the first place) and language production (maybe the dolphins ARE asking; we're just not listening well enough).

Albion · 10-30-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

As I have argued elsewhere, viability does not work for personhood unless people on pacemakers and other life-support technology also fail to qualify as persons.

If you're disagreeing with me, I'd just point out that I didn't way it did. I said that viability for me is the criterion for independent life, not personhood. Personhood to me implies some sort of personality or self-awareness or at least the possession of the equipment necessary for that.

Viability in the medical sense has a specific meaning as far as foetuses are concerned. The fact that a seriously ill person may need life support in order to survive is a different issue. Before the point of viablilty, life support won't help a foetus. Life support takes over the functions that a person has lost, assuming that thre's enough infrastructure left for the life support to work. An inviable foetus doesn't have those functions to start with. You can mechanically pump all the air you like into the lungs of an inviable foetus and it won't keep it alive because the lungs simply aren't at the stage of being able to work yet.

echidna · 10-30-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith:
Refer to original qy at this thread >>>> How about "A *person* is an entity ( = existing thing) which calls itself/can call itself 'I'."
This definition is a shorthand glyph to include all the other competencies wh/ being-able to call oneself "I" implies. Abe

If I follow, this definition would exclude babies up to the age of 2 or so. Self-awareness is an emergent quality occurs gradually after birth.

I wouldn�t subscribe to it.

echidna · 10-30-2002, 08:12 PM

The trouble is, while treasuring every spermatozoa as precious is clearly ridiculous (I hope), to a large extent humans do treasure the potential which even a newborn baby represents.

Functionally it cannot think.
Functionally it likely does not feel love.
Functionally it is not even self-aware.
Functionally it merely responds to basic stimuli much as a lab rat.
Functionally an adult German Shepherd exceeds most of its abilities.

But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature. So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question �why just then ?�

Myself ? I�m pro-choice, but in my Utopia, abortion wouldn�t be necessary.

echidna · 10-30-2002, 08:40 PM

Another difficult concept to cloud the issue, is the subject of the definition of manslaughter when it comes to pregnancy.

When a man deliberately punches a pregnant woman in the stomach (and it happens each year), killing her unborn child, in most OECD countries the man will be guilty of assault, but not of murder, or manslaughter.

It�s a legal quagmire, but while I am pro-choice on conscious abortion, I definitely find myself feeling that the assailant should be guilty of at least manslaughter.

I find this quite inconsistent of myself, that manslaughter can only be associated with the killing of personhood.

For those others who are pro-choice, when a man deliberately assaults a woman to bring about a miscarriage, is he only guilty of assault ?

Nataraja · 10-31-2002, 02:05 PM

That is a very interesting question. Perhaps there should be laws covering this sort of situation.

echidna · 10-31-2002, 03:14 PM

There are already in most OECD countries. It got raised her last year by some Sydney tabloids screaming indignation at such an incident last year.

A man deliberately caused a miscarriage & yet according to the law was only charged with assault. Well, you can imagine the popularist outcry to change the laws so he could be convicted of murder.

The problem is that those people now crying for the law to be changed, are significantly represented by the pro-choice lobby & one can�t have one�s cake AND eat it too. If the assailant is a murderer, then so is the doctor who performs the abortion.

Conversely, a man deliberately causing a miscarriage is only guilty of assault & the deliberate death of the foetus is only relevant in the direct health effect which it has to the mother. The life of the foetus is legally non-existent.

The Other Michael · 10-31-2002, 03:49 PM

Hi echidna:

But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature. So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question �why just then ?�

It is probably better to say " we hope ". What about the case of a largely acephalic infant with just enough brainstem to support breathing/heart/digestion?

And rational seems a big leap for some people.

Myself ? I�m pro-choice, but in my Utopia, abortion wouldn�t be necessary.

Sounds good to me.

cheers,
Michael

Pomp · 11-01-2002, 05:03 AM

echidna,

The trouble is, while treasuring every spermatozoa as precious is clearly ridiculous (I hope), to a large extent humans do treasure the potential which even a newborn baby represents.

If the person carrying the potential baby treasures that potential enough to keep it, fine, that's her choice. If she doesn't, also fine. I don't care how much you or anyone else treasure that potential, I can't condone forcing her to act as an incubator for something that you value and she does not.

But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature.

How so? In what sense can we say is it necessary to value anything? The fact that there are people (myself included) who do not value potential human life to any significant degree seems to disprove the motion that it is necessary to value it.

So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question “why just then ?”

Because that's the latest point on the personless-blob-of-cells-to-person continuum that we can get widespread agreement on as a cutoff point. After that, a fetus looks enough like a baby to trip "cute" alarms.

Pseudonymph · 11-01-2002, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pomp:


How so? In what sense can we say is it necessary to value anything?

I'm sorry but I don't follow this logic at all. Maybe I'm missing something. If you were to not value a potential life of a victim in a coma, does that mean the family has the right to kill this person? What if you knew that person would wake up in exactly 9 months?

I never understood the logic of "if the baby means nothing to the mother, then I don't mind her killing it"....Well the homeless guy who asks me for change everyday bothers me and doesn't really mean much to me either...should I kill him because he is "causing a strain" on me?

I posted something here earlier that no one responded to that I'd like to hear some thoughts on. I just don't understand this whole debate.

10-31-2002, 03:49 PM	#78
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hi echidna: <strong>But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature. So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question �why just then ?�</strong> It is probably better to say " we hope ". What about the case of a largely acephalic infant with just enough brainstem to support breathing/heart/digestion? And rational seems a big leap for some people. <strong>Myself ? I�m pro-choice, but in my Utopia, abortion wouldn�t be necessary.</strong> Sounds good to me. cheers, Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2002, 08:12 PM	#74
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	The trouble is, while treasuring every spermatozoa as precious is clearly ridiculous (I hope), to a large extent humans do treasure the potential which even a newborn baby represents. Functionally it cannot think. Functionally it likely does not feel love. Functionally it is not even self-aware. Functionally it merely responds to basic stimuli much as a lab rat. Functionally an adult German Shepherd exceeds most of its abilities. But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature. So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question �why just then ?� Myself ? I�m pro-choice, but in my Utopia, abortion wouldn�t be necessary.

10-30-2002, 08:40 PM	#75
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Another difficult concept to cloud the issue, is the subject of the definition of manslaughter when it comes to pregnancy. When a man deliberately punches a pregnant woman in the stomach (and it happens each year), killing her unborn child, in most OECD countries the man will be guilty of assault, but not of murder, or manslaughter. It�s a legal quagmire, but while I am pro-choice on conscious abortion, I definitely find myself feeling that the assailant should be guilty of at least manslaughter. I find this quite inconsistent of myself, that manslaughter can only be associated with the killing of personhood. For those others who are pro-choice, when a man deliberately assaults a woman to bring about a miscarriage, is he only guilty of assault ?

10-31-2002, 02:05 PM	#76
Nataraja Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NC Posts: 433	That is a very interesting question. Perhaps there should be laws covering this sort of situation.

10-31-2002, 03:14 PM	#77
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	There are already in most OECD countries. It got raised her last year by some Sydney tabloids screaming indignation at such an incident last year. A man deliberately caused a miscarriage & yet according to the law was only charged with assault. Well, you can imagine the popularist outcry to change the laws so he could be convicted of murder. The problem is that those people now crying for the law to be changed, are significantly represented by the pro-choice lobby & one can�t have one�s cake AND eat it too. If the assailant is a murderer, then so is the doctor who performs the abortion. Conversely, a man deliberately causing a miscarriage is only guilty of assault & the deliberate death of the foetus is only relevant in the direct health effect which it has to the mother. The life of the foetus is legally non-existent.

11-01-2002, 05:03 AM	#79
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	echidna, The trouble is, while treasuring every spermatozoa as precious is clearly ridiculous (I hope), to a large extent humans do treasure the potential which even a newborn baby represents. If the person carrying the potential baby treasures that potential enough to keep it, fine, that's her choice. If she doesn't, also fine. I don't care how much you or anyone else treasure that potential, I can't condone forcing her to act as an incubator for something that you value and she does not. But we know that one day this infant will be a rational, emotional, self-aware human being and as such it is entirely necessary to value this creature. How so? In what sense can we say is it necessary to value anything? The fact that there are people (myself included) who do not value potential human life to any significant degree seems to disprove the motion that it is necessary to value it. So when a pro-choice person dictates the cut-off point as being the third trimester for instance, there is the automatic question “why just then ?” Because that's the latest point on the personless-blob-of-cells-to-person continuum that we can get widespread agreement on as a cutoff point. After that, a fetus looks enough like a baby to trip "cute" alarms.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.