|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion)
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Though the Declaration and Constitution carry soaring words about right to life and no deprivation thereof without due process, anglo-american legal common-law precedent confines these to born humans, so that's where the distinction comes from. There is no evidence that the Framers intended Constitutional guarantees to apply to an 8-week fetus.
Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. I will note, however, that the Declaration says all men are created equal, not born equal.
But anyhow you're going afield of my point to Belle, which was that simply even if it's true that "fetuses have rights" is something we have to consciously decide to believe, that doesn't make it de facto wrong. (Belle seemed to be suggesting otherwise.)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's not paint with too fine a brush here. My position isn't intended to be specifically applied to any one person, but in general terms.
But of course it will be applied to specific persons! And if you draw the line at the wrong place, they will be dead!
[Edited to fix quote UBB]
[ 12. December 2003, 08:39: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
"Wizards in trousers? Not in my university! It`s sissy. PeopleŽd laugh." said Ridcully
-Terry Pratchett: Soul Music
Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Kyralessa - I do feel that in general the mother should have the casting vote on what happens to her body - but I'm not suggesting that because I feel something it is The Right Moral Answer. I simply can't know that - but then we are all forming our opinions based on our own moral compasses together with the information we have on the subject aren't we?
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
A person who wishes to remain anonymous has asked me whether there is any evidence that the Framers did or didn't consider life to cover the unborn for the purposes of the Constitution and Declaration. I answered thus:
The short answer is, I doubt they thought of abortion at all in this context. At the time, the big debate for some was whether there was any justification for the continued disinfranchisement through slavery of the male Africans we imported to pick our cotton, because it was accepted that God had created all men equally. There was really no question of their sweeping rhetoric being applied to women, much less anything else.
It is my understanding that early laws here as well as elsewhere allowed termination of pregnancy until quickening, a subjective point that would occur anywhere between 15 and 20 weeks, depending on the sensitivity of the mother.
But thanks to you, I'll devote some time this afternoon to answering that question.
I'll add to my answer that I'm well aware that one cannot argue from a lack of evidence, except that we do know that they argued about the coverage of "all men", at least with regard to chattel slavery of Africans, so that is part of the known "legislative history" of these documents.
I agree, also, that what the Framers did or did not think about it is only part of the inquiry. However, for those who find a right to life for unborn persons in the Constitution, rather than through a new Constitutional Amendment of some sort, it is highly relevant what the Framers meant, as does the common law precedent about such things.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
as i understand it, at the time of the american revolution,(and hence the declaration of independence and the constitution) abortion was legal up to the age of "quickening" (the time movement is first felt). since theres no evidence that i've ever heard of that the founding fathers wished to change this, i rather suspect that they were not intending to extend their concept of rights to the moment of conception.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Here, from Religioustolerance.org is a really interesting history of the early Christian religious positions on abortion:
Abortion History
Here's a link to their umbrella page on abortion questions. Abortion:all sides to the issue. They begn with a note on bias:
quote:
All web sites that deal with abortion are written by people who have specific beliefs about two different, but related, questions:
Under what conditions they would personally choose to have an abortion, and
Under what conditions they feel that other women should be free to make this choice.
This web site, ReligiousTolerance.org is an inter-faith group staffed by individuals who have diverse beliefs about these topics. Almost all other sites on the Internet are either strongly pro-life or pro-choice. Some are seriously lacking in objectivity and accuracy. Some distort data; others ignore information that contradicts their views. We try to present both sides to all topics clearly, completely, objectively and accurately.
I think they do a good job.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Again, re: the Constitutional question, as far as US law goes, although the Constitution is silent about abortion (as it is about whether PAC money and the internet), as the constituted body which passes on the constitutionality of laws and government actions under that Constitution, the Supreme Court has decided through its line of abortion cases that the freedom to terminate pregnancy in the first trimester is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. So the "right to life" for fetuses cannot be found in the Constitution at the same time.
One interesting thing I read in the "Ethical Views on Abortion" on religioustolerance (which specifically doesn't take sides on any issue) was an article discussing the question of what is alive vs. dead. We determine death in this country in most states through "flat-line" status, or when there is no cortical activity. To quote:
quote:
In most jurisdictions in North America, Europe, and elsewhere, the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If this is the end of human life, one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.
According to author Richard Carrier: "...the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month (an event we call 'quickening.' This activity might only be a generative one, i.e. the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex, the one unique feature of human -- in contrast with animal -- brains, begins to develop, and is typically complete, though still growing, by the sixth month. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a human mind to exist in at least a primitive state."
...
Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, perhaps as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then we could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks. Abortions could then be requested up to the start of the 20th week for normal pregnancies, or at a later time if unusual conditions existed. Many state and provincial medical associations in North America have actually adopted this limit, probably using a different rationale.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
Papio: quote:
As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.
But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?
Marvin: Yes, I think a thread about 'what is a person?' would be good. Probably start one later.
So we don't care whether someone suffers or not because animals can suffer?
What a silly arguement.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.
I think you are presenting something highly dubious as if it was a fact.
From the BMJ
Anti-abortionists hijack fetal pain argument The consensus seems to be that precautions against a fetus feeling pain are taken from 20 weeks onwards and that is erring on the side of caution. The key event is generally reckond to be the quote:
penetration of the cortex by the thalamic fibres
which happens at about 22 weeks.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology paper on fetal awareness
It's a big difference from your '12 weeks' contention
L.
Well, I may be wrong about the exact length of time it takes before a baby can feel pain although I doubt if either side in this is totally objective....
The point is that after a baby can feel pain it is clearly a sentient life-form and NOT simply "a part of the mother's body".
I should also say to chestertonian that I am a veggie and don't really agree with eating meat in any case, but that is a different thread.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Laura, assuming its accuracy, the text you quoted on using activity in the cerebral cortex as the determinant of personhood is perhaps the most persuasive thing I've seen on either side of the argument, even if it doesn't quite match my own opinions. Thanks for finding and posting it.
--------------------
Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
The point is that after a baby can feel pain it is clearly a sentient life-form and NOT simply "a part of the mother's body".
Well it's certainly a valid consideration and one I would take into account, however I don't think most neuroscientists have come to the conclusion that the earliest possible date for this is 20 weeks because they're mad keen on people having abortions as late as possible. Surely nobody in this debate is hell-bent on causing unnecessary pain - the difference is over how best to prevent suffering.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
missed the edit window -
I would also see the issue Laura brings up about personhood and brain activity as a very good one - it also points towards 20 weeks.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
What a strange world we live in.
A day-old baby lying in its little criblet in the hospital. The nurse walks up and notices that it doesn't appear to be breathing. Does she (a) shrug and say, "Well, so much for that one" or (b) check pulse and vital signs, and start making efforts to keep it alive? In any such instance we stave off death with every conceivable effort; we battle to keep people from the grave.
But so long as the baby is incased in its mother's womb, we feel free to pontificate on whether it really merits being alive or not, and we don't get terribly uptight at the thought that our designated "point of life" before which it's OK to terminate might just be the wrong point...which would mean we're taking a life. So long as someone can come up with a reasonable basis on which we can draw a line and say "Babies older than this must life, but babies younger than this may die if it's deemed expedient" we don't worry about it.
We even argue that there should be no death penalty, because the state isn't competent to administer it...and yet we have no problem with finding the state competent to rule that it's OK to terminate a pregnancy, that at point X no life is taken when we do so.
What a strange world we live in.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
A day-old baby lying in its little criblet in the hospital. The nurse walks up and notices that it doesn't appear to be breathing. Does she (a) shrug and say, "Well, so much for that one"
if theres a "do not recesitate" order, thats exactly what shes supposed to do.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
Papio:
As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.
quote:
Chestertonian:
But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?
Papio:
quote:
So we don't care whether someone suffers or not because animals can suffer?
No, I'm saying how do you decide that a foetus is a person, when the criteria you're presenting hold good for non-persons?
[ 15. December 2003, 08:36: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
quote:
Papio:
As Bentham said "the question is not "can they think? but can they suffer?"
An unborn baby can consciously suffer at 12 weeks.
quote:
Chestertonian:
But so can a dog. Or a horse. Or a cow or pig. So we can't ask 'do they suffer' unless we're going to equate human and animal life. I don't think we want to?
Papio:
quote:
So we don't care whether someone suffers or not because animals can suffer?
No, I'm saying how do you decide that a foetus is a person, when the criteria you're presenting hold good for non-persons?
Oh, I see. In that case, I apologise for misunderstanding you. I suppose that, IMO, it doesn't much matter if the feutus is a "person" in the strict sense if they can still suffer.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
But would you have equally strong objections to the suffering of animals?
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
have just skimmed through purg and there doesn't seem to be a thread on animal right there.
So, if you want to continue the tangent re: animal rights please join me in purg. Cheers.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Kyralessa,
Discussing the legality/morality of abortion requires that we discuss such things as points at which medical events happen that mean that the fetus is now officially "alive" for the purposes of the abortion debate. If you feel that there's never any justification for abortion, fine and good. So to you, this is not a meaningful exercise. I happen to think it is.
I actually happen to think that (assuming it can be established, and I think it has been) the initiation of complex cortical activity minus about a month is probably the best ethical bright-line I've heard so far for setting a point beyond which abortion should not be legally available. And it's something a court could adopt, and something that isn't likely to change over time, the way viability does.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
In the last few decades viability has only been pushed earlier and earlier. That ought to tell us something.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
quote:
I actually happen to think that (assuming it can be established, and I think it has been) the initiation of complex cortical activity minus about a month is probably the best ethical bright-line I've heard so far for setting a point beyond which abortion should not be legally available. And it's something a court could adopt, and something that isn't likely to change over time, the way viability does.
I don't see why such emphasis should be placed on the brain. The heart seems fairly important to me too.
Most of the arguments, e.g. about personhood, are incredibly abstract. Are we not, in our inherent conservatism, just attempting to justify the status quo?
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
I think we can only talk meaningfully about the subject if we decide how to view the foetus. We can't work out our attitude to the foetus unless we know what manner of life it is. Hence the discussions about personhood. They may be abstract, but they are necessary.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
FWIW, viability has only been pushed earlier and earlier because of improved incubation machines.
Independent viability hasn't changed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paddy Leahy
Apprentice
# 3888
|
Posted
quote:
Hence the discussions about personhood. They may be abstract, but they are necessary.
Personhood is more of a legal term. Doesn't really make any difference to the general debate only a legal one. We're talking about whether it's right or wrong to kill an unborn human universally (I think this is a better term since it encompasses both embryo & human).
quote:
FWIW, viability has only been pushed earlier and earlier because of improved incubation machines.
Independent viability hasn't changed.
That is of course partly true but it doesn't really matter since the baby is no less human simply because it's survival was aided by an incubation machine.
Paddy
Posts: 43 | From: Kent, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
I think we can only talk meaningfully about the subject if we decide how to view the foetus.
I think you are wrong.
If we admit that we don't know what kind of personality a foetus has; that we have no idea what if anything is objectively meant buy the word "soul"; and even if we did we can't describe how, when, or where it comes into being; then we can still have an opinion on these things.
Which seems to me to obviously be that if we don;t know we must be cautious, not reckless.
To kill something that you aren't sure is human or not seems to be a morally risky act.
It's up to those who want to propose the easy availibilty of abortion to demonstrate that a foetus is not human, not the other way round. Doubt on the matter is enough to make it morally safer not to use abortion.
[ 16. December 2003, 12:00: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Paddy Leahy: quote:
Personhood is more of a legal term. Doesn't really make any difference to the general debate only a legal one. We're talking about whether it's right or wrong to kill an unborn human universally (I think this is a better term since it encompasses both embryo & human).
I don't think a 'pro-choice' person would agree that 'unborn human' is a good term, since it presupposes that the foetus is human, which is exactly the point they would object to.
Ken: quote:
To kill something that you aren't sure is human or not seems to be a morally risky act.
It's up to those who want to propose the easy availibilty of abortion to demonstrate that a foetus is not human, not the other way round. Doubt on the matter is enough to make it morally safer not to use abortion.
Nobody can 'demonstrate that the foetus is not human' until we decide what 'human' means. Otherwise they could say, "it's not human," and you could say, "yes it is," and there would be no way of deciding. If they say the foetus is not human because it isn't x, you need to decide whether x is a necessary quality of people.
[ 16. December 2003, 12:20: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
just to clarify that "personhood" is *not* just a legal term, but an area of key debate within ethics. This is the distinction between according "rights" to someone(thing) simply because it is human - but rather looking to see if they are a person. How you might categorise that includes whether someone can reason, ability to feel pain etc.
This has *huge* impact on ethical decisions surrounding euthanasia, treatment of mentally ill, coma patients, animal rights, as well as abortion.
prof Singer is one of the main advocates of the term "personhood"...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
I don't think a 'pro-choice' person would agree that 'unborn human' is a good term, since it presupposes that the foetus is human, which is exactly the point they would object to.
This moderate pro-choicer accepts fully that a foetus is an unborn human as a matter of biological fact (it's scarcely an unborn rabbit is it?!). It is a human organism, the point is - is it a person?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Ok. I would distinguish between 'human' and 'human tissue' in a way you wouldn't. As far as I can tell it's just about word choice, though, so if you replace 'unborn human' with 'unborn person' you see my point. I think 'human', like 'church', requires a certain degree of development.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
Nobody can 'demonstrate that the foetus is not human' until we decide what 'human' means. Otherwise they could say, "it's not human," and you could say, "yes it is," and there would be no way of deciding.
Exactly. And while there is no way of deciding, the morally safest thing to do is to oppose abortion, just in case.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
What I was actually saying in that post was that there is no way of deciding unless we decide what the word 'human' means. I don't think this should be beyond our capabilities.
Are dogs human?
Is your liver human?
Are Northerners human? If you can answer these you must be using a definition of 'human' to decide each case. What is that definition?
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
What is that definition?
Of "human"?
Biologially descended from humans. That's pretty easy.
Of "person"?
That's much more complicated & also more relevant here. There may be things that are human that don't count as people. And there may be people who aren't human.
It's not a question that needs to be answered to decide about abortion.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Strictly speaking, your liver is biologically descended from humans. And do I need to point out that '"human" means descended from humans' is a circular definition which gets us nowhere?
[ 16. December 2003, 15:53: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
My liver is certainly human.
It may be a circular definition but its the only one that works. (I'm sure you don't want the full half-hour lecture on Cladistics...)
Anyway, if we met someone who wasn't human, (a rational sentient intelligent soul-freighted creature), it would still be murder to kill them, so that's not a relevant question.
--------------------
Ken
Lamor che move il sole e laltre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Your definition of 'person'
quote:
a rational sentient intelligent soul-freighted creature
contains two non-identifiable characteristics ('sentient' and 'soul-freighted'*) and two terms that don't apply to a foetus. So they aren't people. Is that what you're saying?
PS I don't think you can use cladistics to define 'human', in any useful way. We're not talking about descent in itself, we're talking about ethics, and the vaguenesses of biology are awkward if imported into philosophy.
*I love the phrase "soul-freighted". Did you pick it up somewhere or is it of your own devising? It's really sonorous.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's much more complicated & also more relevant here. There may be things that are human that don't count as people. And there may be people who aren't human.
It's not a question that needs to be answered to decide about abortion.
Ken - I think many people would disagree with you here. You have picked up on what is actually *key* in the abortion debate. Many people think that what is wrong is not to kill something *human* ( including those on life support for 10 years, embryos etc) but what is a person.
It is precicesly the points that you pick up which is what makes the ethical debate interesting..... eg..
quote:
That's much more complicated & also more relevant here. There may be things that are human that don't count as people. And there may be people who aren't human.
This is precicely the point singer makes....
perhaps we ought to give higher order functionaing animals more respect than foetuses - as they have more aspects of "personhood". Perhaps some humans dont count as people - early foetuses, those on life support...
Singer makes a radical step with saying we are undergoing a revolution in ethics - in defining personhood.
It is silly to say we dont want to take that leap - as in many ways this is allready happening....
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
My first post on this very interesting thread. I think you are missing the point trying to put a rizla between 'human' and 'person'. the isue is more about atitude to life and who's life it is.
The mother's or a life of its own. So its back to how do you define 'life', when dose life start and when dose it end?
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An Uncertain Ratio
Shipmate
# 5293
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Exactly. And while there is no way of deciding, the morally safest thing to do is to oppose abortion, just in case.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Also incredibly difficult. It seems odd to take a wager on the possible personhood of a foetus, but also strangely, poignantly, important to do it.
On a slight tangent, lots of Shipmates have posted that no-one sees abortion as itself desirable, though it may be the only option in certain circumstances. Is this the view held by most people? I seem to recall reading that Marie Stopes or some such clinic decided most abortions were not in fact stressful and did not lead to long term consequences. Is this true, does anyone know? does anybody actually treat the subject as a trivial one? I realise this may sound offensive but I am asking out of a sense I get from the way the subject is treated in most media discourse, as it seems to me.
[Edited to fix UBB quote codes]
[ 17. December 2003, 08:41: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Forty two??
Posts: 177 | From: South East England | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
An Uncertain Ratio
Shipmate
# 5293
|
Posted
dammit.
Sorry about my total ineptitude, but you get the idea. I need preview practice, etc etc....
[HSWS - Practice makes perfect, as they say. The easiest way to quote another post is the use the big 'quote-marks' icon at the top of the post, and then to carefully delete any unwanted words (customarily indicating the deletion in some way). At all cost avoid the square-bracketed UBB commands unless you understand what you are doing!
There is a thread in The Styx (Practice UBB ...) where you can play to your heart's content without anybody sneering at your efforts.
The 'Preview post' button will show you how your post will look - I use it virtually every time!
Initial thread fixed: duplicate attempt deleted.
Edited as described above]
[ 17. December 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Forty two??
Posts: 177 | From: South East England | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
My first post on this very interesting thread. I think you are missing the point trying to put a rizla between 'human' and 'person'.
Not at all. Imagine at the other end of life, someone who is brain dead but can be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. A living human organism, clearly, but do you want to claim that they are, strictly speaking, a 'person'?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Yes. but are they alive? If you can define 'live' then you can define 'not live'. That's the trouble with the whole debate life is so dammed hard to pin down. For reasons of practicality we must define death at some stage, now we need to define life. Legally and metaphysically.
The whole person thing is a way to allow killing live people by defining them nonpersons.
[ 16. December 2003, 23:11: Message edited by: lapsed heathen ]
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
The whole person thing is a way to allow killing live people by defining them nonpersons.
From what you just said, though, you're clearly assuming that there is a definite group of 'live people', without being willing to explain why they are people. If something isn't a person (e.g. an animal or a computer, or an organ of the body), it has fewer legal rights, and requires less of others morally, than something which is a person. So what is a person?
Though I agree that the definition of 'life', in the case of abortion and life-support cases, is another important part of this problem.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lapsed heathen:
Yes. but are they alive? If you can define 'live' then you can define 'not live'. That's the trouble with the whole debate life is so dammed hard to pin down. For reasons of practicality we must define death at some stage, now we need to define life. Legally and metaphysically.
Then why not use the same criteria? Maybe we can get to a reasonable definition of where life starts by deciding where it ends?
[ballsed my code ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ]
[ 17. December 2003, 09:44: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
Why?
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
because you then open the door to all sorts of unpleasent and yukky stuff involving murder and maltreatment of the "feeble minded" and those not able to live independantly.
If someone you loved became unable, for whatever reason, to think rationally then you would be perfectly happy to say that your brother/mother/friend/lover/neighbour/co-worker etc was no longer a person?
would you? honestly?
I wouldn't. The whole idea makes me feel ill.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
As I've said elsewhere, "I don't like it" is not the same as "this is not true". You appear to be defining 'person' as 'something I care about' which means the same as 'something I want to think of as a person'. This leads to dogs, horses, children's toys and people's cars as being 'people'. This is untenable. I assume you don't mean this, so how would you define 'person'? Just very roughly.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
1. Can you define it in terms which allow us to determine whether borderlines are or aren't persons?
2. What is a human being?
3. The Holy Spirit is a 'Person'. Is the Holy Spirit a 'human being'?
[ 17. December 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
