Sklansky on Abortion

I might have missed something. Are you suggesting that any one particular fetus, like a mole, can't be proven to grow into a person?

[Joey Legend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the only case I consider legitimate is one where the life of the mother is threatened, which is rarely the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

When abortion was illegal, many women died obtaining "back-alley" abortions. If abortion was to be made illegal, the same would happen today. Therefore, by providing legal abortions, the healthcare system is saving the lives of countless women.

As a result of this, even if you believe abortion to be immoral it would be horribly crule of you to call for the outlawing of abortion because in doing so you would be causing thousands of women to die.

In making laws with such vast consequences to the health of thousands of Americans one must look at the real world consequences of those laws and not just spout morality without any concern for the effect that that morality would produce.

[/ QUOTE ]

In not outlawing driving we cause tens and tens of thousands to die each year in car crashes. Is it terribly immoral to allow people to drive?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you want to be consistent, you should use the same criteria to denote when a person ceases to exist. If you look at the Terry Schiavo case, you can see what science thinks we should look at: higher brain activity. Before you get it, you are't a person. After you lose it, you aren't a person. In either case, the family is the one that gets to decide what happens with the body.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think you can equate these two things at all. In the case of Terri Schiavo, you of corse remember that there was a significant controversy between family members on what should be done with the body. This controversy did not only deal with her current mental state, but also with her prospects to “get better” and heal the damage in her brain. After life was terminated an important after-the-fact justification was the autopsy that showed Schiavo’s brain was destroyed beyond the ability to ever repair itself in any significant fashion, at least according to our current scientific understanding. You cannot say this about a fetus or small infant. While Schiavo would have, in all probability, never again developed higher brain facility, the fetus or small infant almost defiantly will. Schiavo’s life was terminated because her future contained nothing but brain death. Based on this I would argue that an otherwise healthy fetus or infant should not be terminated because, despite its current state of understanding, its future contains certain “higher brain life.”

[/ QUOTE ]

When Terri Schiavo's life support was removed, was she still a person (meaning she had the right to life)? If so, Terri was killed. If not, Terri was already dead. That is the question. Medical Science determined that she was already dead. She was currently no longer a person. Removing life support from a non-person is not killing them (because they are already dead).

Those are your options. Either she was currently a person, or she wasn't.

A fetus without a brain is in the same current state that Terri was in. By saying what it will be is simply admitting that it is not that right now. It's either a person now, or it isn't. I maintain that the criteria defining personhood is higher brain activity (memories, thought, feelings/emotion, personality). If you don't think that's what makes a person a person, then I'd like to hear what you think does, and how medical science can use that to determine when someone is no longer a person.

[ QUOTE ]
I might have missed something. Are you suggesting that any one particular fetus, like a mole, can't be proven to grow into a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please rephrase your question. Proven to grow into a person? What does that mean?

[imported_luckyme]

thanks for the comments, Kip.
On your- [ QUOTE ]
I am giving the dualist an "out" by allowing for the existence of a soul,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that's necessary in the case of BTirish since his positin is [ QUOTE ]
my point is that it is not for Christian belief but for science and natural reason to inform us when human life has begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, science doesn't lead to such an either/or position on this topic or other topics as BTirish holds. ( an entity is either alive or dead, for example). Scientific reasoning leads to a phased view of most things that a lay person may see as black-white. Entities aren't either conscious or not-conscious, male or female, animal or vegetable, or alive or dead. Essentially, in many cases the boundary simply doesn't exist and one clear state slowly morphs into another clear state with plenty of grey states in between. It's not a on-off situation.
Viruses don't fit the definition of a life form but we talk of killing them. So, at the least you can be alive, dead, a virus, a viroid, perhaps a prion or various partial versions of any of those states.

"Viruses are strange things that straddle the fence between living and non-living. On the one hand, if they're floating around in the air or sitting on a doorknob, they're inert. They're about as alive as a rock. But if they come into contact with a suitable plant, animal or bacterial cell, they spring into action."Copyright © 1999 American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

People create categories for conceptual and communication reasons and then want to treat the category as representing an actual fixed, well-bounded event/entity existing in reality. It's a philosophical trap that needs avoiding.

[Joey Legend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you want to be consistent, you should use the same criteria to denote when a person ceases to exist. If you look at the Terry Schiavo case, you can see what science thinks we should look at: higher brain activity. Before you get it, you are't a person. After you lose it, you aren't a person. In either case, the family is the one that gets to decide what happens with the body.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think you can equate these two things at all. In the case of Terri Schiavo, you of corse remember that there was a significant controversy between family members on what should be done with the body. This controversy did not only deal with her current mental state, but also with her prospects to “get better” and heal the damage in her brain. After life was terminated an important after-the-fact justification was the autopsy that showed Schiavo’s brain was destroyed beyond the ability to ever repair itself in any significant fashion, at least according to our current scientific understanding. You cannot say this about a fetus or small infant. While Schiavo would have, in all probability, never again developed higher brain facility, the fetus or small infant almost defiantly will. Schiavo’s life was terminated because her future contained nothing but brain death. Based on this I would argue that an otherwise healthy fetus or infant should not be terminated because, despite its current state of understanding, its future contains certain “higher brain life.”

[/ QUOTE ]

When Terri Schiavo's life support was removed, was she still a person (meaning she had the right to life)? If so, Terri was killed. If not, Terri was already dead. That is the question. Medical Science determined that she was already dead. She was currently no longer a person. Removing life support from a non-person is not killing them (because they are already dead).

Those are your options. Either she was currently a person, or she wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

True... I suppose I was only saying that it would be immoral to end her physical life if her mental non-functioning was a temporary state.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

A fetus without a brain is in the same current state that Terri was in. By saying what it will be is simply admitting that it is not that right now. It's either a person now, or it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Accepted, sort of. However, in several months the fetus will undisputably be a human being.
In several months, on the other hand, Terri will be the same non-person she is now. This is the critical difference. I would say that part of what is being a human is the ability to project ourselves into the future and understand how events in the present can impact events yet to come. When civil damages are awarded in a wrongful death lawsuit it is not just the act of murder that is being punished, but also the impact the lack of that person in the future will have (for example, in the wrongful death of a man who was the primary wage earner in the family).

[ QUOTE ]

I maintain that the criteria defining personhood is higher brain activity (memories, thought, feelings/emotion, personality). If you don't think that's what makes a person a person, then I'd like to hear what you think does, and how medical science can use that to determine when someone is no longer a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've got about 15 minutes right now, and I think that would take more time to get into it... I'm not really trying to get into an argument on exact definitions, but I think its immoral not to consider something eventual fate when making “life or death” decisions on its part....so for now, lets say that what makes personhood is "a".

Then my definition of what has personal/human value and thus deserves perservation would be along the lines of;

"Something that is human because it has "a" or something that will develop "a" and is in the process of doing so."

We can rationally understand that a fetus has the exclusive goal of developing into a particular human. A human with as much value as any one of us. As members of the human race we can recognize that, at the very least we have the primary goal to live (to which all other goals, such as the biological imperative for reproduction are subsidiaries). Since all humans have the same value, we should work to preserve the life of humans. Further, in the same way it is our responsibility to be careful with the resources of this world to preserve them for future generations, we should also work to preserve the life of to-be-humans.

Just to take a stand against a potential argument with me here, I don’t take this to mean that sperm and eggs are in need of protection because they are potential humans. I’ve got nothing against birth control, or even the mourning after pill, based on David’s reasoning that twinning is still possible then, so the zygote is doing the work of developing, but not into a PARTICULAR human. But a fetus is the kind of thing that is in the exclusive business of becoming a human. Without some kind of health problem or intervention it will do so. This is not true of a sperm or an egg. A sperm is the kind of thing that is unlikely to ever impregnate an egg, and is probably far more likely to be deposited and die on the pages of a “big bust” magazine. An egg is the kind of thing that will probably never be impregnated by a sperm, more likely that it will be discarded as part of a woman’s natural cycle. A fetus is something else, and is inherently valuable because of its future, not neccecarily because of its present state.

[ QUOTE ]
for now, lets say that what makes personhood is "a".

Then my definition of what has personal/human value and thus deserves perservation would be along the lines of;

"Something that is human because it has "a" or something that will develop "a" and is in the process of doing so."

[/ QUOTE ]

I must commend you for one of the most thought out presentations of this point of view that I've ever read. And all in under 15 minutes. I'm impressed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Your argument is basically that a certain type of potential is the actual. A potential person (in a certain set of circumstances) is an actual person.

I would submit that every person is potentially a dead person. And further, it could be argued that we are CURRENTLY dying. Yes, we are alive... but we are in the process of dying. Similarly, a fetus is in the process of becoming a person, but is not currently a person. We don't treat potential dead people as if they were already dead, and we shouldn't (have to) treat potential people as if they were already people.

[imported_luckyme]

The key to understanding where this "it's not a person, but it likely will be a person someday, so it is a person" strange line of thinking comes from is this - [ QUOTE ]
A fetus is something else, and is inherently valuable because of its future, not neccecarily because of its present state.

[/ QUOTE ] IOW, the belief that a fetus has "value" brings on the logical contortions to try and equate it with personhood so it will be assured it's value is recognized. Yet, there is no need to use such a flawed argument ( potential = acheived) in order to argue that a fetus deserves higher valuation than a tumor and it cheapens the real value to have it fronted by such poor representation.

That aside, I was struck by the number of statements put out that actually need to be substantiated or at least clarified.

[ QUOTE ]
I was only saying that it would be immoral to end her physical life if her mental non-functioning was a temporary state.


[/ QUOTE ] For some, there is not a dualist situation, we have one life. 'ending her physical life' would require "SHE" has two or more.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
I would say that part of what is being a human is the ability to project ourselves into the future and understand how events in the present can impact events yet to come.

[/ QUOTE ] It's doubtful a fetus can pass this personhood test either (conceded it's not a problem for those who argue that a fetus doesn't need personhood attributes to be a person). [ QUOTE ]
We can rationally understand that a fetus has the exclusive goal of developing into a particular human.

[/ QUOTE ] Again, it's unlikely that a fetus itself has 'goals' any more than water has a goal to run downhill. Even stating, from an outside view, that the goal of the fetus is as you claim would run into stiff argument from several other views of the goal of a fetus. [ QUOTE ]
A human with as much value as any one of us......Since all humans have the same value, ...

[/ QUOTE ] Even a 15 minute glance around should find plenty of evidence that we don't value all humans equally, even if we say it. [ QUOTE ]
Further, in the same way it is our responsibility to be careful with the resources of this world to preserve them for future generations, we should also work to preserve the life of to-be-humans.

[/ QUOTE ] A poor analogy ( and not just because you can't argue from within an analogy) because the resourses we are trying to conserve are non-renewable or difficult to renew not such easily renewable ones such as fetuses. [ QUOTE ]
A fetus is something else, and is inherently valuable because of its future, not neccecarily because of its present state.

[/ QUOTE ] So, why not argue that case? Why attempt an argument the would make a fertilized egg a chicken or a spore a mushroom? Or a live person a dead person ( as Kip touched on). The possible=acheived approach demeans a fetus, as if it's value ( whatever it is) depends on slight of mind.

[Joey Legend]

[ QUOTE ]

I must commend you for one of the most thought out presentations of this point of view that I've ever read. And all in under 15 minutes. I'm impressed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, Thanks. I did end up running a little over on time once I'd gotten started :-)

[Joey Legend]

[ QUOTE ]
The key to understanding where this "it's not a person, but it likely will be a person someday, so it is a person" strange line of thinking comes from is this -

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
A fetus is something else, and is inherently valuable because of its future, not neccecarily because of its present state.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
IOW, the belief that a fetus has "value" brings on the logical contortions to try and equate it with personhood so it will be assured it's value is recognized. Yet, there is no need to use such a flawed argument ( potential = acheived) in order to argue that a fetus deserves higher valuation than a tumor and it cheapens the real value to have it fronted by such poor representation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not totally sure I get what you saying. But I did try to avoid saying potential person = actual person, because thats not really what I think. I was more driving at the idea that potential person = valuable enough to preserve.

[ QUOTE ]
For some, there is not a dualist situation, we have one life. 'ending her physical life' would require "SHE" has two or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I could say something along the lines of "halting the relatively easy support of her physical function if her lack of mental capacity is very temporary, and would be restored in, say, nine months." and make my point without use of the term life.

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that part of what is being a human is the ability to project ourselves into the future and understand how events in the present can impact events yet to come.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's doubtful a fetus can pass this personhood test either (conceded it's not a problem for those who argue that a fetus doesn't need personhood attributes to be a person).

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I wasn't trying to claim that a fetus would pass that test. The statement was more on the general ability of society to understand future value in a fetus, where we could then get to the need to protect a "person" even one that "won't exist until the future"

[ QUOTE ]
We can rationally understand that a fetus has the exclusive goal of developing into a particular human.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Again, it's unlikely that a fetus itself has 'goals' any more than water has a goal to run downhill. Even stating, from an outside view, that the goal of the fetus is as you claim would run into stiff argument from several other views of the goal of a fetus.


[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose I was using the word goal in a teleology inspired sense. Call it an unthinking goal, or a goal via it's design. A goal in the sense that viruses have the goal of survival through infection without thinking about it persay. I suppose if you wished I could say "the natural end of a fetus is to become a human" with close to the same meaning.

[ QUOTE ]
A human with as much value as any one of us......Since all humans have the same value, ...

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Even a 15 minute glance around should find plenty of evidence that we don't value all humans equally, even if we say it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps not personally, but our legal code, inspired by enlightenment philosophy, certainly has that idea near its core. As a society, I think its important that there some core level where we view humans as equal creatures. At the least we try to do this as far as the passing out of human rights goes. To do otherwise seems to invite such nasties as slavery. [ QUOTE ]
Further, in the same way it is our responsibility to be careful with the resources of this world to preserve them for future generations, we should also work to preserve the life of to-be-humans.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
A poor analogy ( and not just because you can't argue from within an analogy) because the resourses we are trying to conserve are non-renewable or difficult to renew not such easily renewable ones such as fetuses.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake for not being more clear with this analogy. I didn't mean to equate fetuses with the non-renewable resources, the fetuses were more to represented by the "future generations" that we responsably should conserve resorces for. I suppose that, if anything, the natural resources would be equated with life of the fetus (or existance, or whatever we want to say a fetus has). I would argue that the "life" of an individual fetus would be a pretty damn nonrenewable resource in the context of the specific potential person that the specific fetus has the ability to become. In fact I would say it was unique. We may be equal, but we're not all alike.

[ QUOTE ]
A fetus is something else, and is inherently valuable because of its future, not neccecarily because of its present state.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
So, why not argue that case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. My point was that a thing has at least some measure the kind of human value we assign to actualized humans if it is a potential human.. more that just potential, actully.... I suppose a sperm could be a potential human. a fetus is, on the other hand, a likely person. In fact, aside from complications/outside forces, its near a certainty to become one.

[ QUOTE ]

Why attempt an argument the would make a fertilized egg a chicken or a spore a mushroom? Or a live person a dead person ( as Kip touched on). The possible=acheived approach demeans a fetus, as if it's value ( whatever it is) depends on slight of mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still working out in my head how to respond to Kip's idea about a live human being a potentially dead human and could be treated as such under my statements. My gut reaction is that a to be a living human has real value. To be a dead human has no great value (at least in the case of a "dead human" that will not become a living one). Thus we should take into account a thing that is not yet human but will become one's eventual state of valuable "humanhood" when we decided how to treat the thing, but we should be less concerned with the less valuable/important eventual state of something as a "dead person" when we decide how to treat it.

As far as "the chicken and the egg" goes, an egg may not = a chicken, sure. On the other hand, if a person had some great need of a living chicken in a few months then they would be fools to despair because all they had at the moment was a fertilized chicken egg.