Abortion and capital punishment

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
It can't. Leave the zygote in the womb, and it will form a brain.

Leave it in the womb, and there exists the probability that it will form a brain. It's not yet a certainty, and will remain an uncertainty until such time as the brain actually forms and begins to function. It's more likely that the zygote will form a brain than that a singular sperm/egg will fuse with a singular egg/sperm and create an organism that will then develop a brain, but nevertheless it's still just a probability game.

This is different from the brain-dead person.

Yes, but it isn't different from the singular sperm/egg. If the zygote is a person because it is an independent organism, then the brain-dead patient must be afforded the same rights. If the zygote is a person because it will eventually develop into a person, then a sperm/egg must be afforded the same rights.

Why does one have to function as a person to be one?

You agreed that the brain-dead patient is not a person. What non-functional difference exists between you and the brain-dead patient such that you are a person while the brain-dead patient is not? As far as I can see, the only difference (the fact that the brain-dead patient has a non-functioning brain) is functional, and this difference also applies to the zygote/embryo.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
After 21 weeks, the fetus' lungs are formed enough that it can breathe outside the womb.

How does a mother know she is pregnant, K-man?

That doesn't make the fetus a human being. Dogs can breathe too, so can swines and cows.

You have to show that the fetus is a human being, i.e., it has a sentience.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You have to show that the fetus is a human being, i.e., it has a sentience.

Squishy word that I've already seen two definitions for.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by cae_raven
The thing I want to challenge you all here, is to think in the prospective of the woman, and the economical and emotional change that incurs with the production of a child. If the woman deems that she is unwilling to sacrifice apart of her life for a child that has yet to have reason and sentience, then who is able to restrict her of her decision? The one thing I can not stand is when someone makes the decision for another.

The point is, if the fetus can be shown to be sentient, it will be wrong to have an abortion, regardless of other conditions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Squishy word that I've already seen two definitions for.

Is this a drive-by shooting?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is this a drive-by shooting?

No.

[Urban Ranger]

Okie.

My definition of "sentience" is "the recognition of the self," or "self-awareness."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My definition of "sentience" is "the recognition of the self," or "self-awareness."

When does that happen?

[Urban Ranger]

When? That's the sticking point isn't it? IIRC, not even a newborn baby is sentient, but I am just giving it benefit of the doubt.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When? That's the sticking point isn't it?

Given that I've heard someone in this thread state in all seriousness that at least until it reaches one year old an infant can be killed because of a lack of sentience, I'd have to say so.

[Urban Ranger]

If infants won't be sentient until one year old, Krop is not ethically wrong. I will admit that the position is a bit hard to defend, however.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Given that I've heard someone in this thread state in all seriousness that at least until it reaches one year old an infant can be killed because of a lack of sentience, I'd have to say so.

It's pretty difficult to prove what somebody is thinking, unless you're able to definitively prove that they're not thinking (due to, e.g., the lack of a brain). The problem with Krop's position is that it relies on the assumption that babies are stupid. Maybe it's not the most outrageous assumption in the world (I certainly wouldn't want a newborn to hold public office), but it's an assumption nevertheless. (Babies are actually capable of some pretty amazing feats of mind, e.g. a child is able to do elementary mathematics at the venerable age of 2 days, so really the burden of proof lies on Krop here, and the assertion that babies are so stupid that they are not self-aware is probably unprovable.)

[Urban Ranger]

I am not sure if a being cannot be stupid and sentient at the same time. AFAIK, one of the simplest way of testing sentience is the "mirror test." Put a mirror in front of a subject. If the subject recognises itself, it is sentient. If it doesn't and displays the "fight or flight" reaction, it is not sentient.

[Ben Kenobi]

loinburger:

What non-functional difference exists between you and the brain-dead patient such that you are a person while the brain-dead patient is not? As far as I can see, the only difference (the fact that the brain-dead patient has a non-functioning brain) is functional, and this difference also applies to the zygote/embryo.

Sorry for the delay,

Given time, someone who is brain-dead cannot regain brain function. Given time, a zygote will gain brain function. The different is in the intrinsic capacity of the zygote, something not present for the brain-dead patient.

Intrinsic capacity is a non-functional difference between the zygote and the brain-dead patient since it does not represent the actual functions present in the person, but rather, what the person can achieve, given proper conditions of nourishment and shelter.

UR:

I am not sure if a being cannot be stupid and sentient at the same time. AFAIK, one of the simplest way of testing sentience is the "mirror test." Put a mirror in front of a subject. If the subject recognises itself, it is sentient. If it doesn't and displays the "fight or flight" reaction, it is not sentient.

What about pain sensation? Would this count as well for sentience?

Here's a source with the cited medical journals.

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

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Given time, a zygote will gain brain function.

This is far from being a given -- IIRC there is only a 60% probability that a zygote will mature into a newborn (since, e.g., it might not attach to the uterine lining).

The different is in the intrinsic capacity of the zygote, something not present for the brain-dead patient.

But this capacity also exists in a singular sperm/egg. True, the sperm/egg requires assistance in order to mature into a sentient being (namely a counterpart egg/sperm with which it can fuse, in addition to a uterus etc.), but at the same time the zygote/embryo also requires assistance in order to mature into a sentient being (namely a uterus etc.). In terms of sentience (or capacity to develop sentience) the only non-functional difference is one of probability (since there is a lower probability of any given sperm/egg developing into a sentient being than that of a given zygote/embryo developing into a sentient being).

Intrinsic capacity is a non-functional difference between the zygote and the brain-dead patient since it does not represent the actual functions present in the person, but rather, what the person can achieve, given proper conditions of nourishment and shelter.

But this is a functional difference, since "developing a functioning brain" is itself a function that is possessed by the zygote/embryo but is lacking in the brain-dead patient (and, it should be noted, is also lacking in you, since you're incapable of growing a second brain). The reason that a rock cannot develop a brain is that it lacks the necessary functionality to do so, not that it is lacking some metaphysical power or whatever have you.

What about pain sensation? Would this count as well for sentience?

Only if you want to attribute sentience to, e.g., a dog, or a slug, or whatever have you.