Abortion... is it morally neutral?

[chromanin]

Firstly, I appreciate the apology, thanks.

 

If person A says, " I feel that abortion is wrong because at the moment of conception the egg has the potential to form into a "human being"". And person B says "I feel that regardless of that potential, abortion is not wrong". I don't understand how that would not be classed as subjective opinion.

 

I think you have misunderstood what I said (or I may have not made myself clear) as I've never said reality is subjective, in fact, Reality is objective and consistent, UPB.

Over the years, I've put forward all the arguments and had the "debates", asked all the questions, most pro-lifers don't want to listen, they have a belief (usually religious or people who go on about people who aren't able to have kids) and no amount of reasoning will change their mind, their irrational.

The illusion of subjectivity is a pet topic of mine, so I got a bit excited there. Fortunately you're patient

 

I would say that either person A or B is more or less objectively wrong but doesn't realize it. How much capacity do feelings have to discern the nature of reality? Where does objective reality end and subjective begin? 

 

Ok, perhaps I did misunderstand. But then I must ask, what is the utility of suggesting a subjective barrier when we're trying to parse an objective reality? That immediately invalidates philosophy and keeps people in the dark as to their true nature. The consequences seem grave.

[AncapFTW]

Does the sensation of pain count as consciousness? A fetus starts moving around by 8wks, so that suggests it is at least partially innervated... Are there any sensations yet or is it just reflexive electrical activity? 

in reference to the OP, aren't reflexes part of who you are?  Other unconscious behaviors are, including subconscious desires/views, so I'd say that it is.

 

 

I would ask them why there is relevantly more potential at the exact instant the egg and the sperm meet as opposed to a nanosecond prior? Further, could the reason be that it is a convenient and definitive line? Further, the sperm and the egg existed prior to conception... was it obligatory to have sex so they might meet?

Seeing as how it begins a process in which the DNA combines shortly after that, usually (85% or so of the time) followed by the fertilized egg implanting into the uterine wall and developing into a human baby, then yes, there is more potential at that point.  If I mix two substances together, starting a chemical reaction (say two part epoxy or concrete), then the act of combining them does make the combined substance significantly different then the two chemicals separate.

 

How you could get that it was obligatory that they be combined, especially when that combination would require forcing people to behave in a specific manner, is beyond me.  Was that a failed attempt at "reducto ad absurdum"?

[Sima]

Fertilized egg is a living creature, here is a spark of life in it,

its not a stone in the stomach, or a plant. Is it ameba? Or a worm? Or a bacteria? 

To what species does this living creature in the mothers stomach belongs?

In animal kingdom what kind of animal is it?

 Is it an ameba or is it a human? 

[Libertus]

It's human. I believe the debate is about whether being human and alive are sufficient conditions for having the right not to be killed, or whether it's some construct called "personhood" that makes all the difference, and why. One side thinks being human and alive is enough, but never makes the case (neither have you), the other side insists on some legalese definition that sounds like an excuse to kill people. Neither seems to be totally convincing. My intuition says, killing a fetus is wrong, since I don't see any reason why an alive human being should not have the same rights as any other.

[chromanin]

It's human. I believe the debate is about whether being human and alive are sufficient conditions for having the right not to be killed, or whether it's some construct called "personhood" that makes all the difference, and why. One side thinks being human and alive is enough, but never makes the case (neither have you), the other side insists on some legalese definition that sounds like an excuse to kill people. Neither seems to be totally convincing. My intuition says, killing a fetus is wrong, since I don't see any reason why an alive human being should not have the same rights as any other.

 

Indeed. Do you think it is reasonable for us to make assumptions about the preferences of the unborn? We can assume that most people would want to exist, but what about children who will certainly starve and die, or otherwise only experience suffering and death? 

[ObserveandReport]

in reference to the OP, aren't reflexes part of who you are?  Other unconscious behaviors are, including subconscious desires/views, so I'd say that it is.

No reflexes are not a part of who you are. A body that is brain dead may exhibit reflexes. A fetus pre-brain development of any kind may exhibit reflexes. They are by definition a part of the body. If it can happen without a brain, it's not what make you, you. It can be replaced. If I give you another body with the same reflexes (all else being equal) you are the same.

 

Seeing as how it begins a process in which the DNA combines shortly after that, usually (85% or so of the time) followed by the fertilized egg implanting into the uterine wall and developing into a human baby, then yes, there is more potential at that point.  If I mix two substances together, starting a chemical reaction (say two part epoxy or concrete), then the act of combining them does make the combined substance significantly different then the two chemicals separate.

 

Regardless of the biological functions that proceed, there is no significantly higher probability or potential the nanosecond the implantation occurs versus the nanosecond prior. Whatever potential exists at the moment of conception exists almost to the exact same extent, immediately before. Again, I'm not arguing there isn't more "potential," I'm arguing the difference is arbitrary.

 

How you could get that it was obligatory that they be combined, especially when that combination would require forcing people to behave in a specific manner, is beyond me.  Was that a failed attempt at "reducto ad absurdum"?

 

If the difference is arbitrary, then we should say it is moral to let the conception happen n+1...then your reducto

Fertilized egg is a living creature, here is a spark of life in it,

its not a stone in the stomach, or a plant. Is it ameba? Or a worm? Or a bacteria? 

To what species does this living creature in the mothers stomach belongs?

In animal kingdom what kind of animal is it?

 Is it an ameba or is it a human? 

'Cancer cells are human. Make an argument, don't just state random facts.

[mishochu]

All this moral agency (or consciousness or reflexes) debate for a fetus seems useless to me. An 18 month old baby isn't a moral agent. Separating yourself (the caregiver) completely (without providing some other means of care) from a 0-18 month old (or older) is just as likely to result in the death of the born baby as it would with an unborn baby. I see no difference in killing a fetus or killing an 18 month old baby. You don't need to debate agency for that.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you view the religious person's ability to reason) I think the Catholic church got this one right. If the human being in the woman is not posing a threat to the woman's life or health she cannot in turn kill that human being. That seems to follow with the N.A.P. quite well.

 

 

'Cancer cells are human. Make an argument, don't just state random facts.

 

Cancer cells are never meant to go on living without you. Fetuses (and the resulting baby) are meant to become capable of living without you. Additionally a malignant cell poses a threat to the host's life. A baby does not (being an inconvenience doesn't qualify in my opinion).

[ObserveandReport]

All this moral agency (or consciousness or reflexes) debate for a fetus seems useless to me. An 18 month old baby isn't a moral agent. Separating yourself (the caregiver) completely (without providing some other means of care) from a 0-18 month old (or older) is just as likely to result in the death of the born baby as it would with an unborn baby. I see no difference in killing a fetus or killing an 18 month old baby. You don't need to debate agency for that.

No, it's not about survival. It's about personal identity. You can't harm a person before they exist, the same way you can't be hurt after death. None of my arguments have to do with the ability to sustain one's own life. 

 

Cancer cells are never meant to go on living without you. Fetuses (and the resulting baby) are meant to become capable of living without you. Additionally a malignant cell poses a threat to the host's life. A baby does not (being an inconvenience doesn't qualify in my opinion).

"Meant" is not an argument. If you mean typical behavior of organic cells, then cancer is "meant" to grow....should we let it? Why does it matter that fetuses will eventually grow into a baby? Most pregnancies end in miscarriages... are they meant to do so? Why? If you would be so kind as to address the arguments I put forward in the OP perhaps we could hash out some real points.

[AncapFTW]

No reflexes are not a part of who you are. A body that is brain dead may exhibit reflexes. A fetus pre-brain development of any kind may exhibit reflexes. They are by definition a part of the body. If it can happen without a brain, it's not what make you, you. It can be replaced. If I give you another body with the same reflexes (all else being equal) you are the same.

 

Regardless of the biological functions that proceed, there is no significantly higher probability or potential the nanosecond the implantation occurs versus the nanosecond prior. Whatever potential exists at the moment of conception exists almost to the exact same extent, immediately before. Again, I'm not arguing there isn't more "potential," I'm arguing the difference is arbitrary.

 

 

If the difference is arbitrary, then we should say it is moral to let the conception happen n+1...then your reducto

'Cancer cells are human. Make an argument, don't just state random facts.

I can type in giant letters to try and make it seem like my arguments are better too.

 

Just stop.  I was wondering if you were trolling us before, but the fact that you think that giant letters are better and write non-arguments in them pretty much guarantees it.  Obviously, there's no point in trying to discuss this with you, since you don't care what others say, you just want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[mishochu]

"Meant" is not an argument. 

Okay, cancer cells are not capable of living without you. If those cells are "allowed" to grow (and they successfully do) they will never become a separate "personal identity". A fetus (if it is allowed to grow and it successfully does) will become a separate personal identity. Thusly cancer cells are different from fetuses in at least the way I've described.

 

It is immoral to kill a person who at one point had a separate personal identity and lost it (as in the case with dementia, assuming they have not requested otherwise in some way wether written or expressly to their loved ones).

 

How is a killing a person that has lost their separate personal identity different from killing a person who has not gained their separate personal identity? They cannot leave a DNR because their brains haven't developed yet. I take that to mean you should wait until it does then ask them what they want. Go on and wait (and nurture) for a couple of decades if you must.

[ObserveandReport]

I can type in giant letters to try and make it seem like my arguments are better too.

 

Just stop.  I was wondering if you were trolling us before, but the fact that you think that giant letters are better and write non-arguments in them pretty much guarantees it.  Obviously, there's no point in trying to discuss this with you, since you don't care what others say, you just want to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you.

font this size is tiny on my computer. That's why I prefer it in this size. If I were shouting it would be in all caps. You still havn't responded to any of my arguments. I would love to have an actual discussion about the points I've raised.

Okay, cancer cells are not capable of living without you. If those cells are "allowed" to grow (and they successfully do) they will never become a separate "personal identity". A fetus (if it is allowed to grow and it successfully does) will become a separate personal identity. Thusly cancer cells are different from fetuses in at least the way I've described.

 

It is immoral to kill a person who at one point had a separate personal identity and lost it (as in the case with dementia, assuming they have not requested otherwise in some way wether written or expressly to their loved ones).

 

How is a killing a person that has lost their separate personal identity different from killing a person who has not gained their separate personal identity? They cannot leave a DNR because their brains haven't developed yet. I take that to mean you should wait until it does then ask them what they want. Go on and wait (and nurture) for a couple of decades if you must.

Right. I'm not sure why it matters that the cancer will not eventually be self sustaining. Also, on the dementia point, there is a disanalogy there. Where there is a deterioration of the brain is not equivalent to a brain incapable of conscious perception. If you have someone who's brain is destroyed to the point that they can never be conscious or even dream...they are brain dead ... They are dead to the world already. That doesn't mean someone in a coma, it means someone whose thalumus and amygdala have been destroyed. At that point what you have is a sack of organs. It's unfortunate, but true.

[labmath2]

The arguments in this thread are unproductive because people are not defining their terms.

To what does morality apply?

The answer to this question should suffice to resolve the abortion problem. The inability to answer this question has led to many special categories in moral philosophy.

 

The easiest answer is that morality applies to all humans (before death) and can even carry over into death with things like will. It only took babies and the mentally impaired to eradicate this proposition.

 

The answer Stefan gave in my call in show about animals is the capacity for conceptual language (the ability to communicate morality). There is of course a special category, those who may/will in some future time possess conceptual language to include the baby and the mentally impaired.

 

Pregnancy is also a special category. Some libertarians (the name of the one that came on this show eludes me) have made the case that abortion is an eviction. A case would have to be made that while she owns her body, the babies right to her womb exceeds her self ownership.

 

There exists the counter case for eviction. If i invite a friend on a trip on my personal jet, can i evict him in mid air if he proves to be a nuisance? A case has been made that there is an implied contract with my friend that i will safely (to the best of my ability) return him to the ground. If he was aware i reserved the right to evict him mid flight he would not have come. However, no such contract exists with the baby (this is where it gets tricky). The baby has no capacity to enter into contracts.

 

Lastly some believe an obligation (contractual obligation if you will) is created through unprotected sex to the potential fetus. How this obligation came into existence is attributed to self ownership and by extension the responsibility for one's action.

 

The OP is making the case that morality only exists for conscious beings. A body with two heads is two persons while two bodies with one head is one person. The case has to be made in three stages, brain=consciousness=moral agent. As dsayers pointed out, animals have brains. Your comment on animals is ambiguous, but implies are different types of consciousness. The main problem with your position is that you grant a special aragement of one type of cell the special property called consciousness. This allows you to avoid defining the term consciousness in a precise measurable way so as to know who morality applies to.

 

I will end by positing the same problem you posit to others to you. When does consciousness arise? Is it at 100 neurons? Why is the emergence of the thing you call consciousness any more special that when the sperm and egg merge?

[ObserveandReport]

I will end by positing the same problem you posit to others to you. When does consciousness arise? Is it at 100 neurons? Why is the emergence of the thing you call consciousness any more special that when the sperm and egg merge?

Without a doubt the best comment yet. We can only empathize with the conscious and with that comes the ability to possess, harm, or interact. Specifically, you can't deprive a rock of anything. You cant "harm" a rock. You can't do a rock evil. Even organic versus inorganic is not enough. You can genocide amoebas and there is nothing moral or immoral about it. 

 

On the continuum fallacy you presented first... its not a matter of neurons specifically (the quick answer is killing a zygote is morally neutral and killing a healthy non-agressing 20 year old is not). Consciousness is quite difficult to define because it is literally as subjective as you can get. That being said, we know that whatever consciousness is, it either exists at the level of the brain or supervenes on the brain (imagine a radio tuning into the right station). Brain injuries and in vitro testing have told us that consciousness involves many areas of the brain working in tandem. Specifically I recommend http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/for the neural correlates of consciousness. 

 

As to what it is.... that answer is both obvious and ineffable. Unless you are a computer program, you know what it's like to be you. What it's like to sleep, run, smell, verbs, ect. You don't need to solve the "hard problem of consciousness" to know it has to do with brains. So, as the article listed above states, there is simply no way the brains of 12 week old babies are advanced enough to have thought, pain, experience, reflection, dreaming, or any other analogue or permutation of consciousness. 

[Romulox]

You still havn't responded to any of my arguments. I would love to have an actual discussion about the points I've raised.

 

That seems to be because those who are against your point of view don't see your argument as relevant.  The nanosecond that something achieves the consciousness of a moral agent means nothing to someone who believes it is immoral to kill something that has a personal identity and will likely achieve the status of a moral agent in the future.  How you reach your conclusions regarding the moral difference between a coma patient and an embryo is unclear.  Both are living beings that do not currently have the neural capacity for conscious thought.  Both will likely gain the ability to achieve consciousness in the future.  Whether the physical structure is currently present or not seems irrelevant; the amygdala and thalamus of a coma patient are non-functional might as well not exist at present, but are healing and developing the ability to become functional in the future.  If you can please explain why these two beings sharing very similar circumstances belong in opposing moral categories, we can move on to addressing your arguments. 

[ObserveandReport]

That seems to be because those who are against your point of view don't see your argument as relevant.  The nanosecond that something achieves the consciousness of a moral agent means nothing to someone who believes it is immoral to kill something that has a personal identity and will likely achieve the status of a moral agent in the future.  How you reach your conclusions regarding the moral difference between a coma patient and an embryo is unclear.  Both are living beings that do not currently have the neural capacity for conscious thought.  Both will likely gain the ability to achieve consciousness in the future.  Whether the physical structure is currently present or not seems irrelevant; the amygdala and thalamus of a coma patient are non-functional might as well not exist at present, but are healing and developing the ability to become functional in the future.  If you can please explain why these two beings sharing very similar circumstances belong in opposing moral categories, we can move on to addressing your arguments. 

 

There are two ways to distinguish between the coma patient and the fetus. We treat interrupted consciousness as different than ended consciousness, because paused or interrupted consciousness has already existed and garnered rights. Anytime someone got knocked out or lost consciousness temporarily, it would be ok to kill them if current consciousness or regaining consciousness were the standard because the fact of the matter is that when you get knocked out, you may never wake up. Moreover, if consciousness is perception and thought, then time between sensations and thoughts, where neither is occurring...even if it's a nanosecond, would be an opportunity for morally killing a person. This is absurd and not because that person will have another thought/sensation in a mere nanosecond's time. Rights accrue to people and it takes drastic changes to dislodge those rights (brain death or actual death). Once we know what death is, we know intuitively that one can be harmed after death:

1. An event can affect us only by causally affecting us (the causal impact thesis).
2. We cannot be causally affected by an event while we are nonexistent.
3. We do not exist while dead (the termination thesis).
4. So neither being dead, nor any posthumous event, can affect us while we are dead (by 1–3).
5. We cannot be causally affected by an event before the event occurs (the ban on backwards causation).
6. So neither being dead, nor any posthumous event, can affect us while we are alive (by 1 and 5).
7. So neither being dead, nor any posthumous event, can ever affect us (by 4 and 6).
8. Death cannot affect us after it occurs (by 1–3).
9. Death cannot affect us before it occurs (by 1 and 5).
10. So death can affect us, if at all, only when it occurs (by 8 and 9).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/death/#EpiChaDeaCanAffUs

 

The same is true in reverse. A dead body is not structurally very different from a living one, but we are certain that it is incapable of consciousness so that even if we could frakenstein the body, there would be no moral reasons to do so.

 

On an admittedly weaker note, since the coma patient does have the requisite materials, they may simply be dreaming, or they may even be aware of what's going on. Since we know these things happen, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-trapped-coma-awake-12-4976769and https://www.vice.com/read/being-in-a-coma-is-like-one-long-lucid-dream-511, there is good reason to er on the side of caution and assume they are happening. With the fetus, they simply can't be happening. Especially up until 12 weeks, the point before which 90% of abortions occur. . 

[ObserveandReport]

Also, if they believe my arguments are irrelevant, they should easily be able to point out the premises or conclusions that are erroneous and provide some rigorous arguments of their own. Instead I see beliefs and platitudes. 

[MrVitaminP]

At what point do we assign a fertilised egg/foetus with property rights?.

 

Does the potential for a foetus to develop into a "human being" override the existing property rights of the woman?

The woman does not have a property right to the fetus. She has a property right to the egg. If she didn't want to lose ownership of the egg she then has a responsibility to protect the egg. She does, however, have ownership of her actions and resulting consequences. This is why she has a responsibility to care for the resulting child. If she didn't want that, again, she should have protected the egg.

[dsayers]

The woman does not have a property right to the fetus. She has a property right to the egg.

Who then owns the fetus? Can we charge the woman with kidnapping if she's carrying that around without the consent of whomever the owner is?

[Sima]

Did you charged your mother with your kidnapping?

 

If I take a stray dog from the street and take  home, I am not going to kill him when he is in my house.

I will give him food, and maybe will send him to animal shelter.

Otherwise I wouldnt take the dog with me to my house.

 

The same about women, if she gets pregnant, she lets a creature to this world.

She can keep him or give for adoption.

As a dog didnt enter your house on his own, so didnt the child.

[Donnadogsoth]

Who then owns the fetus? Can we charge the woman with kidnapping if she's carrying that around without the consent of whomever the owner is?

 

Okay, so the woman has the right to her own body?  And the fetus is part of her body, therefore it's her property?  In that case, how would you feel about a woman in the ninth month of pregnancy who, a day before giving birth, has the fetus removed via caesarian section and given to her.  It came out of her body at a time when it was legal to abort, so it must be HER property, and she can do ANYTHING she wants with it.  It has zero rights.  So if she wants to sacrifice it on a bonfire to Molech, that's her right, and you can't say anything against it, because she is merely disposing of her property as she sees fit.

[MrVitaminP]

Who then owns the fetus? Can we charge the woman with kidnapping if she's carrying that around without the consent of whomever the owner is?

The fetus owns itself.

 

Reality comes with certain physical and, in the case of the fetus, biological rules that are present regardless of our preferences. She may prefer not to become pregnant. But, if she wants that to be she has to take actions to prevent it.

 

Self ownership grants that I own the product of my life's labor. But, that doesn't mean I get to ignore the physical rules of reality. For example, I may labor to create a piece of paper. I now own that paper. But, that paper, if I want to continue to own it, needs to be protected. It could rot over time, it could fall apart when exposed to water, etc. If I allow the paper to fall into a fire there is no point in complaining that the paper is consumed and that I can no longer use it. The physical reality is that paper burns. It doesn't matter whether I am aware of this fact or not. My ignorance will not prevent it from burning. My paper is gone, my ownership is gone, and I am responsible for that consequence.

 

The biological reality is that when an egg is exposed to sperm it becomes a new life. It doesn't matter if I didn't want it to become a life. The woman's negligence in protecting her egg has a consequence. And, that consequence is life. If she didn't want to have the responsibility of carrying that life, she shouldn't have had the life in the first place. She chose for the life to be there. Btw, it is not solely a consequence of her actions. She jointly owns that responsibility/consequence with the father.

 

Furthermore, this new life is not a part of her body. She lost that at conception. Her body is merely a vessel in which the new life resides and takes nutrients from. And, it is not kidnapping as at this point in the lifecycle of this new life there is a symbiotic relationship with its mother. It needs to be there. In a quasi-sense it is choosing to be there.

 

On the flip side of this, if the mother owns the child, then there is no self ownership. How could she own the child when she couldn't possibly own herself as her mother would own her and her mother's mother would own her mother... Follow the chain and it goes on forever.

[dsayers]

The fetus owns itself.

On what basis have you concluded that a fetus is capable of owning property? Hint: In order to be philosophically consistent, your answer must pass the grass/hamster test.

 

@Donna: Turbo strawman. You also responded to questions as if they were statements. And asked how I feel as if my feelings have any bearing on the truth values of the statements you were trying to put into my mouth. That's some turbo strawman!

[Sima]

On what basis have you concluded that a fetus is capable of owning property? 

 

Children have very little property rights until they are adults (depends on a country, usually they get financial freedom at 18),

until that age it's the caretakers who are managing children's property.

Babies don't have property rights as well, maybe only to their own body, otherwise it would be ok to kill toddlers.

[Romulox]

There are two ways to distinguish between the coma patient and the fetus. We treat interrupted consciousness as different than ended consciousness, because paused or interrupted consciousness has already existed and garnered rights. Anytime someone got knocked out or lost consciousness temporarily, it would be ok to kill them if current consciousness or regaining consciousness were the standard because the fact of the matter is that when you get knocked out, you may never wake up. Moreover, if consciousness is perception and thought, then time between sensations and thoughts, where neither is occurring...even if it's a nanosecond, would be an opportunity for morally killing a person. This is absurd and not because that person will have another thought/sensation in a mere nanosecond's time. Rights accrue to people and it takes drastic changes to dislodge those rights (brain death or actual death).

 

Thank you for the clarification, that makes your position much more clear.  Now we can argue when a human or potential human initially garners rights.  I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but that exact argument seems to be moving along quite well here in the last few posts. 

 

Just wanted to say this thread has been the biggest challenge to my pro-life position to date.  My original exposure to the issue was "Life begins at conception cause Jesus" and has been drilled into my head since the age of 10, so I want to make sure my philosophical position that comes to the same conclusion is based in reality and not emotional attachment. 

[MrVitaminP]

On what basis have you concluded that a fetus is capable of owning property? Hint: In order to be philosophically consistent, your answer must pass the grass/hamster test

I'm not sure what a grassy hamster is but it sounds delicious. I'd be interested in learning more if you'd like to share.

 

The basis would be the same for how I'd conclude that you're capable of owning yourself. You own yourself because you have an exclusive monopoly on the control of yourself. I'm not looking at it from a point in time perspective but instead as an entirety of your life. For example: if you were to become a paraplegic I'd argue that you wouldn't suddenly lose ownership of self whether you were still able to manipulate that self fully or not. I'd also expect that contracts, such as wills, would still be a valid product of your life even after you're dead. At conception you do not have a brain. You do not have limbs to move or manipulate. But you will. No one else owns those cells - the self ownership is inevitable (at least to the extent that anything can be inevitable in life). Self ownership is universal to the human life and that life starts at conception. 

[ObserveandReport]

 I'd also expect that contracts, such as wills, would still be a valid product of your life even after you're dead. At conception you do not have a brain. You do not have limbs to move or manipulate. But you will. No one else owns those cells - the self ownership is inevitable (at least to the extent that anything can be inevitable in life). Self ownership is universal to the human life and that life starts at conception. 

​Contracts are interesting because they are the taking on of duties, not necessarily connected to the person who made the deal. For example, third party beneficiaries receive rights or goods as the result of contracts frequently in insurance policies and things of the like. Not a good abortion argument. We are not talking about the consenting exchange of duties when it comes to the fetuses or the dead. We are talking about harm. That's why I cited: 

1. An event can affect us only by causally affecting us (the causal impact thesis).
2. We cannot be causally affected by an event while we are nonexistent.
3. We do not exist while dead (the termination thesis).
4. So neither being dead, nor any posthumous event, can affect us while we are dead (by 1–3).

Hope this helps. If you could say that we somehow exist, before our brains do, you would be able to distinguish the death argument from the fetus argument. 

 

Thank you for the clarification, that makes your position much more clear.  Now we can argue when a human or potential human initially garners rights.  I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but that exact argument seems to be moving along quite well here in the last few posts. 

 

Just wanted to say this thread has been the biggest challenge to my pro-life position to date.  My original exposure to the issue was "Life begins at conception cause Jesus" and has been drilled into my head since the age of 10, so I want to make sure my philosophical position that comes to the same conclusion is based in reality and not emotional attachment. 

Your're welcome. I certainly came into the debate with my own opinion and had one prior to my exposure to the arguments I put forward. But, I'd be happy to give up my current beliefs if they are in error. I don't have a personal connection to this one, it's more about knowing the truth. I know that people give significance to DNA, but I think it's a cop out. You could slowly and continuously alter my DNA  via the CRISPR method until I was genetically far away enough to call me someone else, and I would simply state that I underwent a genetic change, not that I ceased to exist. In the same way, you can look at the egg as having undergone a genetic change. 

The arguments in this thread are unproductive because people are not defining their terms.

To what does morality apply?

The answer to this question should suffice to resolve the abortion problem. The inability to answer this question has led to many special categories in moral philosophy.

 

The easiest answer is that morality applies to all humans (before death) and can even carry over into death with things like will. It only took babies and the mentally impaired to eradicate this proposition.

 

The answer Stefan gave in my call in show about animals is the capacity for conceptual language (the ability to communicate morality). There is of course a special category, those who may/will in some future time possess conceptual language to include the baby and the mentally impaired.

 

 

 

Please see the above argument about posthumous harm. "capacity" can be widely or narrowly interpreted. Every skin cell that gets scratched off our body has a complete copy of our genetic blueprints. Given the right laboratory conditions, that cell could be cultured, reverted into stem cells, and grown until sentience. Is that "capacity?" I'm not saying having agreed upon definitions doesn't help, but perhaps their will always be staggering ambiguity that threatens arguments. It is quite literally the reasons lawyers exist. 

[dsayers]

You own yourself because you have an exclusive monopoly on the control of yourself.

So does a hamster. This is insufficient.

 

The difference is that a hamster operates on biological imperative alone. Humans on the other hand have the capacity for reason. That is, the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Because I understand the effects of my behaviors, I am responsible for them. I own them. This is not true of a fetus. Therefore, a fetus cannot own property.

[MrVitaminP]

So does a hamster. This is insufficient.

 

The difference is that a hamster operates on biological imperative alone. Humans on the other hand have the capacity for reason. That is, the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Because I understand the effects of my behaviors, I am responsible for them. I own them. This is not true of a fetus. Therefore, a fetus cannot own property.

The hamster has never and will never be able to. The same cannot be said of the human life.

[Sima]

1. We do not exist while dead (the termination thesis).

 

Fetus exists, he is not dead.

 

Consciousness here is not a requirement.

 

What is more:

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

 

Just born baby doesn't have all theses qualities.  Which level of conciousness is good enough that the baby would own himself?

[ObserveandReport]

Fetus exists, he is not dead.

 

Consciousness here is not a requirement.

 

What is more:

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

 

Just born baby doesn't have all theses qualities.  Which level of conciousness is good enough that the baby would own himself?

Quickly, "the executive control system of the mind" is sufficient. A 12 week old fetus does not have that. A min d can survive the death of the body and in that instance, the person survives. Therefore what we are is our minds. I hate to be repetitive, but you have yet to strike down this argument.

 

There are three main views: animalism, which says that we are human beings (Snowdon 1990, Olson 1997, 2007); personism, which says that we are creatures with the capacity for self-awareness; and mindism, which says that we are minds (which may or may not have the capacity for self-awareness) 

 

We are veering off into tangent land. I fall in the third camp. We already know you fall in the first camp. My arguments defends the third thesis and directly attack the first. Defeat my initial arguments, describe why, even if successful, the arguments don't imply acceptance of mindism, or accept the thesis.

[Donnadogsoth]

So does a hamster. This is insufficient.

 

The difference is that a hamster operates on biological imperative alone. Humans on the other hand have the capacity for reason. That is, the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Because I understand the effects of my behaviors, I am responsible for them. I own them. This is not true of a fetus. Therefore, a fetus cannot own property.

 

It's not true of a two-year-old either.  Or a sleeping or comatose person, or someone having an epileptic seizure, or in advanced-stage Alzheimer's.  Okay to kill them too?

[ObserveandReport]

Well, if there hasn't been many minds changed, at least we may have more definitive arguments for our positions. Cheers.

[Ama-Gi]

Surely it can be said that because a woman owns her body, she owns her womb. And because she owns her womb she has the right to determine who gets to use her womb and for what purposes. It would then follow that she has the right to 'evict' a fetus that is trespassing in her womb.

but you say "Oh she agreed to take the fetus on!" Well thats not always the case, there are often cases of unintended pregnancy, due to rape, due to failure of birth control or due to other accidents. 

Additionally, it is also true that if I invite you over to watch the game, and half way through I decide I no longer enjoy your company, surely I have the right to change my mind and evict you.

Lets imagine that we took in a man in a coma, decided to care for him, he lays on my couch and I feed him using a feeding tube and monitor his vital signs and what not. After about 2 months lets say that I am fed up, am I permitted to evict him? Am I permitted to drive him down to the local hospital and drop him off? Is this not analogous to abortion? Surely I am not morally obligated to care for the man in a coma, and it then follows I am not morally obligated to care for the fetus in my womb.

 

[dsayers]

Surely it can be said that because a woman owns her body, she owns her womb. And because she owns her womb she has the right to determine who gets to use her womb and for what purposes. It would then follow that she has the right to 'evict' a fetus that is trespassing in her womb.

 

but you say "Oh she agreed to take the fetus on!" Well thats not always the case, there are often cases of unintended pregnancy, due to rape, due to failure of birth control or due to other accidents. 

No need to water down your argument. It doesn't matter how the fetus got there because the logical steps you followed prior to bringing that up were sound.

[Donnadogsoth]

Surely it can be said that because a woman owns her body, she owns her womb. And because she owns her womb she has the right to determine who gets to use her womb and for what purposes. It would then follow that she has the right to 'evict' a fetus that is trespassing in her womb.

 

but you say "Oh she agreed to take the fetus on!" Well thats not always the case, there are often cases of unintended pregnancy, due to rape, due to failure of birth control or due to other accidents. 

 

Additionally, it is also true that if I invite you over to watch the game, and half way through I decide I no longer enjoy your company, surely I have the right to change my mind and evict you.

 

Lets imagine that we took in a man in a coma, decided to care for him, he lays on my couch and I feed him using a feeding tube and monitor his vital signs and what not. After about 2 months lets say that I am fed up, am I permitted to evict him? Am I permitted to drive him down to the local hospital and drop him off? Is this not analogous to abortion? Surely I am not morally obligated to care for the man in a coma, and it then follows I am not morally obligated to care for the fetus in my womb.

 

 

 

You're presuming that a hospital exists for the comatose man to be dropped off at.  Abortion isn't dropping someone off at a hospital where they'll be taken care off, it's dumping them in a ditch to die (at best), or dismembering them with a chainsaw.