Sklansky on Abortion

I can see how continuing a pregnancy can be more analogous to providing food/shelter. Then again the state does not require parents to provide the best food/shelter that is available. Children are raised in trailer parks and fed McDonalds all the time. Premature babies are at a disadvantage, but they have a 60-90% survival rate (depending on birth weight and quality medical care) as early as 26 weeks. Should women be able to opt for the lower quality of food/shelter that an incubator could provide as opposed to finishing the pregnancy?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A fetus isn't a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is. A link to the false assumption I think you're making.

[/ QUOTE ]

A potential person is not an actual person. By the very admission that the fetus is going to be a person, the doctor is conceding that it is not a person right now. If he is saying it is a person right now, then what it's going to be is irrelevant. Then, however, the doctor will somehow have to explain how a group of cells is considered to be a person. Which is why I asked: what criteria determines personhood? That is the essential question in the debate. The only rational answer that I have seen is that higher brain activity is the defining criteria. All else is secondary. Without brain activity, there is no "person". Brain activity requires a brain, hence, a fertilized egg isn't even close.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how continuing a pregnancy can be more analogous to providing food/shelter.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's good.

[ QUOTE ]
Premature babies are at a disadvantage, but they have a 60-90% survival rate (depending on birth weight and quality medical care) as early as 26 weeks. Should women be able to opt for the lower quality of food/shelter that an incubator could provide as opposed to finishing the pregnancy?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be a big step up from killing it. I would be fine with a law that replaced abortion with this method. Plus, I believe some (many?) hospitals have policies where you can drop off a newborn kid and walk away, no questions asked, in case the mother/father can't afford or don't want to take care of the child.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
A potential person is not an actual person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. A sperm is not a person and an egg is not a person. Both will not be "born" by themselves after ~9 months of gestation. A fetus is a person, however, because under most conditions, that fetus will be born.

[ QUOTE ]
By the very admission that the fetus is going to be a person, the doctor is conceding that it is not a person right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that's his argument. He's using a pro-choicer's argument to show why the assumption that *something* changes in the essential nature of the fetus that makes it a "person" is false.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I asked: what criteria determines personhood? That is the essential question in the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. I think that that "group of cells" is a person because it will be born (under normal conditions) and continue to live and grow (given nourshiment and care). This means that any arguments such as "well are my fingernails considered a person?" don't work because there is no other group of cells that will continue to mature into an adult like a fetus.

[ QUOTE ]
. The only rational answer that I have seen is that higher brain activity is the defining criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have trouble accepting this criteria, especially with regards to abortion. Is there a way to prove with absolute certainty whether a given fetus has higher brain activity? If there isn't, and that is the criteria for personhood, where do you draw the line for when they can be killed and when they can't? If you can't know for certain, then you may be executing an "actual" person.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A potential person is not an actual person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. A sperm is not a person and an egg is not a person. Both will not be "born" by themselves after ~9 months of gestation. A fetus is a person, however, because under most conditions, that fetus will be born.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "will be born" criteria for personhood doesn't work. Do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also, they most certainly will NOT be born "by themselves" -- they need lots of outside help. But, let's not go there... this is not a good criteria in defining personhood.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the very admission that the fetus is going to be a person, the doctor is conceding that it is not a person right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that's his argument. He's using a pro-choicer's argument to show why the assumption that *something* changes in the essential nature of the fetus that makes it a "person" is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm and an egg change when they fuse together.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I asked: what criteria determines personhood? That is the essential question in the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. I think that that "group of cells" is a person because it will be born (under normal conditions) and continue to live and grow (given nourshiment and care). This means that any arguments such as "well are my fingernails considered a person?" don't work because there is no other group of cells that will continue to mature into an adult like a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basically saying it's a person because it will grow into a person. That is conceding that it is NOT a person right now. If it IS, then we need criteria that designate it's personhood RIGHT NOW. I'm a person. Not because I will grow and develop into a person, but because I AM. Right now. What is it that makes me a person? That's the question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only rational answer that I have seen is that higher brain activity is the defining criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have trouble accepting this criteria, especially with regards to abortion. Is there a way to prove with absolute certainty whether a given fetus has higher brain activity? If there isn't, and that is the criteria for personhood, where do you draw the line for when they can be killed and when they can't? If you can't know for certain, then you may be executing an "actual" person.

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters, brain activity requires a brain. So, no brain = no brain activity = no personhood. We have the capability of measuring brain wave activity, and studying embryonic development to know with relative certainty when brain wave activity begins.

In the case of Terry Schiavo, numerous doctors agreed that she no longer had higher brain wave activity. (Were they "absolutely certain"? No. Outside of math, there is no absolute certainty.) At that point, she could be declared legally dead, and her family had the right to choose what to do with her body (political intrusions not withstanding).

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. The only rational answer that I have seen is that higher brain activity is the defining criteria.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have trouble accepting this criteria, especially with regards to abortion. Is there a way to prove with absolute certainty whether a given fetus has higher brain activity? If there isn't, and that is the criteria for personhood, where do you draw the line for when they can be killed and when they can't? If you can't know for certain, then you may be executing an "actual" person.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really accept that brain function is indicative of personhood, but if that's where we want to make the line, I'd be fine with that. Philosophically, I'm more inclined to believe that if it will be then it already is. However, I'm no Plato and I don't consider my position to be rock solid. If the consensus is higher brain function then, like I said, I can accept that. But BCPVP, you are wrong with your assumptions. There are ways to know for sure if a fetus has higher brain functions or not. I think Doctors, right now, know when the brain begins to develop and when it begins to control the functions of the body. I'm sure some brains will develop sooner than others but there must be a point where it would be almost impossible for the fetus to have higher brain functions. At that point, we could safely say that Mr and Mrs Fetus Nazi [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], you are safe to abort this pregnancy.

Then it seems we have reached a compromise. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The "will be born" criteria for personhood doesn't work. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]
The "will be born" criteria is merely to eliminate the silly arguments that a fetus is just like any other group of human cells. It isn't. It is unique.

[ QUOTE ]
A sperm and an egg change when they fuse together.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not a fetus before that point, is it? I'm talking about after conception.

[ QUOTE ]
You're basically saying it's a person because it will grow into a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
No that's not what I'm arguing. It's a person that is at a very early stage of growth. It cannot become anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, brain activity requires a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell when exactly that baby develops that brain? If not, and you still allow abortions, aren't running the risk of killing a person? And I think you can understand how it would be easier to measure Terri Schiavo's brain activity as opposed to a fetus, so let's not make an already complicated issue even more so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're basically saying it's a person because it will grow into a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
No that's not what I'm arguing. It's a person that is at a very early stage of growth. It cannot become anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes it a person? That's the question. You aren't answering it. I've posited what I think it is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For starters, brain activity requires a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell when exactly that baby develops that brain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes (I mean a doctor/scientist can). Are you agreeing with my criteria for personhood?

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you can understand how it would be easier to measure Terri Schiavo's brain activity as opposed to a fetus, so let's not make an already complicated issue even more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Terri Schiavo case is a most suited comparison for the discussion on what criteria determines personhood.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes it a person?

[/ QUOTE ]
It belongs to the human species.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes (I mean a doctor/scientist can).

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean exactly, as in the moment a particular baby's brain is developed and active.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you agreeing with my criteria for personhood?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
The Terri Schiavo case is a most suited comparison for the discussion on what criteria determines personhood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if you accept that brain activity is the determining factor. I don't.