Abortion and capital punishment

[Gibsie]

A year. Hahahaha.

[Kropotkin]

The two year old is much bigger.

No but really, there's some research into the field that puts a line somewhere around one year for some of the things I believe defines being a human. I'm sure there's a great diversity amoungst the scientist though. It doesn't matter that much as I'm not planning to kill any infants anytime so. Meanwhile however it suits well into my support of abortions as not being questionable from a moral ground. Not that I believe in a objective value for human lifes beyond the context of society but that's another issue.

[loinburger]

Pro-choice, pro-DP. Seems as though this thread is really only on abortion, though, so, same-old same-old...

I believe that if somebody is fundamentally incapable of rational thought that, even if they qualify as an independent human organism, they are not a "person." F'rinstance, I see nothing wrong with pulling the plug on a brain-dead hospital patient. By the same token, I also see nothing wrong with aborting a 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus -- the unborn child's respirator is natural while the brain-dead patient's is artificial, but BFD.

A 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus has the potential to develop the capacity for rational thought, but so does a sperm-egg pair. Yes, of course there's a difference biologically between the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair, but that just means that the sperm-egg pair is less likely to develop the capacity for rational thought -- both the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair are equally incapable of rational thought at the present time. It becomes a probability game -- it becomes acceptable to eliminate a potential human with only a 1% probability of developing rational thought (e.g. through use of condoms, birth control pills, abstinence, etc.), but unacceptable to eliminate a potential human with a 50% probability of developing rational thought. Why draw the line at one probability and not another? IMO it would make more sense to draw that line at either 0% or 100%, and since drawing it at 0% would require us all to **** like bunnies it makes more sense to draw it at 100% if for no other reason than that a human population explosion would probably not be very beneficial.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
For how long does it have to [have the potential to] survive? A 5th month baby can sometimes last for an hour on its own. Does this qualify? Or would it have to live for a few weeks? A few years? Or a normal human lifespan? Clarify, please. I agree with your statement, but it's vague.

If it can live using the current medical technology.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
there's some research into the field that puts a line somewhere around one year for some of the things I believe defines being a human.

1) Such as?
2) What research?

[Kropotkin]

This is a theoretical-philosopical argument. I don't have any recollection over names or titles of any such research-papers in psychology over the level of self awareness amoungst infants.

[JCG]

I oppose the death penalty. If the guy can't be reformed, then keep him locked up 'til he expires.

I personally am pro-life and anti-abortion....but I believe other parents should indeed have a chance to choose for themselves...so I regretfully voted pro-choice.

[Ben Kenobi]

A 1st/2nd trimester embryo/fetus has the potential to develop the capacity for rational thought, but so does a sperm-egg pair.

What is a sperm/egg pair called?

A zygote.

The distinction between the zygote and a sperm and egg seperated is that we must intervene to stop the zygote from developing, whereas sperm will not grow on its own.

less likely to develop the capacity for rational thought -- both the embryo/fetus and the sperm-egg pair are equally incapable of rational thought at the present time.

So personhood = capacity to develop rational thought?
I can agree on that.

However, why do we need percentages? Who decides what percentage is sufficient to merit personhood?

Suppose someone said you have to be rational in order to become a person, ie, have 100% rationality? Why would this definition be flawed, as opposed to a 30%?

Also, are you always rational, loinburger?

[SlowwHand]

Don't get me started on people's rationality.

[Gibsie]

A zygote will grow and develop on its own? Is the person acting as the incubator supplying all the nutrients really so insignificant as to completely ignore their existence?

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Garth:

I'm going to defend slowwhand's position, although, as you notice, this is not my own. Abortion and the death penalty are two seperate issues. The way you seperate the issues is to make an exception clause for innocent human persons.

The essence of the argument is this:

a)Abortion kills an unborn child.
b)Unborn children are innocent human persons.
c)It is wrong to kill innocent human persons.

Therefore, killing abortion, as it kills an innocent human person, is wrong.

a) is a fact.
c) is a value.
Does anyone oppose c), that it is wrong to kill innocent human persons?

Wow, I thought this thread was dead.

The sole point I was trying to make was that Slow, and others, have an exception that approves of abortion in the case of rape.

Using your argument against abortion, I fail to see the logic in that exception. I understand the emotional response, as Slow presented, and since I am pro-choice I have no problem with it.

But I was wondering how somebody who is pro-life and uses your argument against abortion makes an exception and allows it.


Plus, thanks Slow for answering.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
What is a sperm/egg pair called?

A zygote.

A zygote is a fused sperm/egg pair. I was referring to sperm/egg pairs that have not yet fused, e.g. that are still residing in the female's ovaries or in the man's testes.

However, why do we need percentages? Who decides what percentage is sufficient to merit personhood?

I'm not referring to "percentages of rationality" -- I'm assuming that rationality is a boolean value, i.e. either you're rational or you're not, otherwise the distinction becomes too clouded. Percentages refer to the odds that a human will develop rationality, i.e. that the human will develop a functioning brain. A zygote has no brain, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational (how can it think without a brain?). An embryo has no brain activity, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational for the same reason. A third-trimester fetus exhibits brain activity that is substantively equivalent to the brain activity exhibited by a fully grown human, and while it may be a stretch to attribute rationality to a third-trimester fetus, there is no good justification for withholding that attribution.

Somebody who is drunk may not be particularly rational, but they still exhibit brain activity and thus are capable of rationality, which is why it is illegal to liquor somebody up and retroactively abort them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

which is why it is illegal to liquor somebody up and retroactively abort them.

It seems like you've tried this .

[SlowwHand]

"Plus, thanks Slow for answering."

Well, sure thing, bud. I'm not all butthead.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gibsie:

A zygote will grow and develop on its own? Is the person acting as the incubator supplying all the nutrients really so insignificant as to completely ignore their existence?

I'll clarify a bit.

If you leave the zygote alone in the womb, it will grow and develop.

An unfertilised sperm and egg do not have this capacity to grow. You can give them nutrients, and shelter, they will not grow and develop.

This is an important difference, because it signifies the an intrinsic capacity possessed by the zygote, held in common with all other human people.

A zygote will, given the right conditions, provided inside the mother's womb, develop into an embryo, fetus, eventually a newborn.

Insignificant? Nothing could be more significant to the survival of the unborn child, then having a mother to take good care of them, the same as with a newborn.


Loinburger:

Thanks for clarifying your definition of rationality.

A zygote has no brain, thus it is impossible to consider it to be rational (how can it think without a brain?).

True.

A third-trimester fetus exhibits brain activity that is substantively equivalent to the brain activity exhibited by a fully grown human, and while it may be a stretch to attribute rationality to a third-trimester fetus, there is no good justification for withholding that attribution.

I also agree with you here.
However, how does one define 'brain activity substantively equivalent to a fully grown human?'
Would this be possible to detect?

Part of the problem you face is your 'bright dividing line.' Fetal development is a continuum from conception onwards, with each step relying on previous steps. You cannot reason without a brain, but how does a brain form?

Coming back to your earlier post.

Why is it 'natural' to put a preemie on a respirator, but not someone who is brain-dead? What's the essential difference between the two cases?