Sklansky on Abortion

[ezratei]

[ 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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? This is like saying that crime should be legal so criminals aren't killed carrying them out. If abortion were to be outlawed in a particular place (presumably because that fetus is worth protecting) than that woman getting the back alley abortion is attempting to commit murder. If she dies trying to do so, why should I pity her any more than the attempted rapist who is shot by his victim?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do we know the tumor isn't a person? Maybe it looks like a tumor at first... but after we observe it kinda looks like a person? (This isn't science fiction, by the way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little weak, and Vulturesrow isn't stupid. A tumor has never gone on to exhibit properties that most people would deem worthy of personhood, whereas fetuses (sp?) repeatedly have.

I address to you the same question that I asked Vulturesrow: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3996895

[/ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=teratoma
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981002a.html

The point of this is that there is something that makes the combination of cells a person.

To answer your questions:

Grant: when a human body has a functioning cerebral cortex.
Revoke: when a human body no longer has a functioning cerebral cortex.

[/ QUOTE ]

*pounds desk*

Dammit, dammit, dammit, I ran into the same problem with you as I did vulturesrow. Let me rephrase my poorly worded question:

Why, from a social perspective, is it advantageous to grant rights at a specific point (in your case, the functional cortex)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grant: when a human body has a functioning cerebral cortex.
Revoke: when a human body no longer has a functioning cerebral cortex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, from a social perspective, is it advantageous to grant rights at a specific point (in your case, the functional cortex)

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked your first question better. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I guess it starts with the assumption that a person's "right to life" is inalienable. (We could go into why this is beneficial, but that would be a different topic, I'd think.) Then, the society needs to know what constitutes a "person". For one, how do we know when it's OK to bury someone? The definition of "death" has changed over the years, as medical science has gained the capability (not just the potential ability, but the actual ability) to revive people from various things: not breathing, heart stopped.

So, basically, we don't want to bury people that are still people. We want to know that their personhood is gone before we resign them to a grave.

[hmkpoker]

Here's my take.

Assuming there's no God or Heaven or Hell, and abortion (heck, even murder) is not a sin. An unwanted pregnancy is likely to bring more unhappiness than happiness. Therefore, there should be no societal problem killing the fetus.

However, we run into a problem when we find ourselves able to use the same logic on babies. Children 0-5 (and possibly older) are completely dependant, expensive, and produce nothing for society other than "potential," and likely grow into another average joe. We should be able to terminate their existence at our inconvenience.

However, there is a problem here that doesn't exist with the unborn. Allowing post-natal abortions up to a certain age (let's say, three) is likely to cause a poorer quality of parenting and upbringing. The societal reactions toward a child with no rights could be detrimental to its upbringing, and lead to problems in the person's development. These problems then become our problems. The fetus, far less affected by societal influence, will suffer much fewer problems in its development.

One could argue that trivialising the life of the unborn could also lead to bad parenting/influence, and to some extent I'd agree. To confirm same would require a study that I am not sure how to implement. Regardless, I still think having abortion as an option does more harm than good.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I still think having abortion as an option does more harm than good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you got here. I read your post 2 times. I don't think I understand it at all.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Grant: when a human body has a functioning cerebral cortex.
Revoke: when a human body no longer has a functioning cerebral cortex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Per your request in the other thread, I'm willing to discuss the notion of personhood here. I will begin by asking what it is that is so special about a "functioning cerebral cortex" such that entities which possess one cannot morally be killed (as a general rule) while entities that don't possess one can be. You assert that the functioning cerebral cortex has a moral status not possessed by anything else in the universe? Why so?

Ultimately I suspect your answer will have to be given in terms of the kinds of activities for which you suppose a functioning cerebral cortex is the necessary and sufficient condition. That is, in terms of things like speaking, thinking, self-awareness, logical reasoning, etc. Is this the case?

I will be articulating a case very similar to that of vulturesrow. Hopefully I will be able to aid him in clarifying exactly what it is to have a capacity or faculty, why we must admit that the capacity or faculty must be considered to be present in the zygote, and why it is on the basis of the faculty or capacity that we are to consider a human zygote to be no less human (in terms of simply answering the question "what is it?") than a fully-grown human.

First, however, I await your answer to my previous question.

[ QUOTE ]
I will begin by asking what it is that is so special about a "functioning cerebral cortex" such that entities which possess one cannot morally be killed (as a general rule) while entities that don't possess one can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will answer your question from a philosophical perspective. However, I will first ask that you acknowledge the fact that medical science uses the criteria of a functioning cortex as evidence of personhood. When someone no longer has a functioning brain, they are considered "brain dead", and subsequently they no longer have a "right to life" (ie: their body is buried in the ground, cremated, etc.). Do you acknowledge this fact? If so, what do you think about that? Is it a good criteria? Why or why not? What criteria would you suggest that medical science should use to indicate when someone is "dead" and therefore no longer has the right to life and can be buried?

Now... to answer the question philosophically (I guess):

What makes me, me? Is it my arm? If I lose my arm, I am the same person, so that can't be it. Is it my heart? If I receive a heart transplant, I'm still the same person, so that can't be it. No part of my physical body is what we would call "me". Except for one part, perhaps. What makes me, "me", is my thoughts, my feelings/emotions, my personality, my memories. Some people call these things the "soul". But, evidence shows that these things are either identical with a functioning cerebral cortex, or at least completely contingent upon one. If you are brain damaged, all of those things can and usually will change. You may not remember some things. You may not be able to think like you used to. You may in fact have a completely different personality (I've seen this happen). Either the brain damage changes the soul, or the brain doesn't let the "real soul" act anymore, or the brain funcionality IS the soul. I think the latter, but that's not necessary for my argument.

The point is, the PERSON is damaged, when the brain is damaged. Who that person is (at least on this earth since you subscribe to the body/soul dualistic idea of Christianity), has been altered. I would submit that if you damage the brain even more, then you further damage the person (his/her memories, thoughts, personality, feelings/emotions). If you kill the brain, or remove it entirely, the body that remains has none of those things (memories, thoughts, personality, feelings/emotions). Medical science obviously has no problem declaring that person to be dead. And, philosophically, I don't have a problem with it either. Who that person is/was, is no longer in that body. Their brain functionality was either identical with their personhood, or completely required for it. Either way, no brain means no person.

If you disagree (which I'm sure you will), I would appreciate it if you went into as much detail as I have here in explaining what you think constitutes personhood, and why that is.

What criteria defines personhood? How do we know when someone is no longer a person (ie: dead)?

[imported_luckyme]

Kip, I hope you don't mind if I pop in here, I've been probing BTirish in a related area so I'm interested in his comments here. While you're waiting, would you mind commenting on this aspect of your statements-
[ QUOTE ]
Their brain functionality was either identical with their personhood, or completely required for it. Either way, no brain means no person.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The mind is what the brain does" is perhaps the simplest way I can express how it appears to me. "Me-ness" is an emergent property of the brain. Running only exists while I'm running and when I'm sitting I'm a sitter not a runner. I'd love to hear your comments, even "that's idiotic because ... " since you seem very able to finish a 'because' statement with some clarity.
I'm not a cartesian or xtrian dualist but I seem to differentiate mind and brain in a stronger sense than you perhaps do ( it's that aspect that I'd like to hear a bit more on) or refer me to a thread you've covered it on
thanks

Is the nature of personhood really that important? Since rational people clearly can't agree on a definition, maybe we should we should just go and ask the irresponsible people who get pregnant by accident to deal with the consequences of their actions. At least until it is proven more substantially that a cell/fetus/human life form/person is not worth saving at the expense of a 22 year old's party years.