abortion

Originally posted by KellyJay
It means that as I have pointed out to you, you are supporting the
death of someone at an early stage of their lives. It means that
no matter how you dress it up, where you go to justify your favor
of those deaths, that is what you are doing. You can rationalize
it anyway you want, it doesn't change, someone who could be
here today was killed within a ...[text shortened]... ional thought of your arguments
have only supported the deaths of how many I wonder now?
Kelly

Yes, you've said that about a thousand times. Now go get a cracker.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, you've said that about a thousand times. Now go get a cracker.

So I guess you will never be able to you were not told.
Kelly

Originally posted by Halitose
I am not sure how to interpret this. In one plausible interpretation, the term "human being" denotes a person. But on what grounds can we conclude that the young fetus is a person and hence has rights? It seems to me that unless you make an appeal to the potential properties of the fetus, there is really no clear way to distinguish the young fetus f this post was so long winded - no time to edit it down to the sleek version it should have been.

What I meant, was that this fetus is an immature human.

The fetus is a human organism, no doubt. But I do not see why that in itself should confer moral consideration on the fetus. Since the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness, it cannot suffer, it cannot be harmed in any way, it has no point of view, it has no interests. The fetus is a living thing, but it is morally irrelevant.

Surely you are not so gullible as to think that a stork visits the maternity ward; or a fully formed human baby just pops out.

You are correct: these are not what I think. And stop calling me Surely.

That fetus is a developing, growing, self-contained human - it looks exactly like anyone of us at that tiny age.

You keep personalizing the young fetus by implying that *I* was once a young fetus. This is just an irrelevant subjective detour and an obvious attempt to shower the young fetus with empathy. Despite what you may think, I am trying to approach this ethical question objectively. Since the young fetus lacks any notion of a conscious self, it is incoherent to appeal to these 'imagine you are that poor helpless little fetus' lines of thought: there simply is nothing with which to empathize. Our thinking needs to remain objective here.

I suspect that you are against 3rd trimester abortions, so pray tell, where does this "parasite" metamorphose into a recognised human person? What is the mystical process?

Yes, I am against 3rd trimester abortions. Again, my argument is straightforward: the capacity for consciousness is a necessary condition for moral considerability; the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness; therefore the young fetus is morally irrelevant. So, there is no "mystical process." The fetus becomes a person with rights once it has the capacity for consciousness. This occurs sometime during the 3rd trimester, so in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, the fetus is a morally irrelevant parasite.

The "capacity for conscious self" is criteria attributed to mature humans

The capacity for consciousness is something the 3rd trimester fetus will have; and certainly the baby upon birth possesses it. Are you implying that the 3rd timester fetus and the newborn baby are "mature" humans? I would rather say that the capacity for consciousness is a criterion attributed to persons.

[the lack of capacity for consciousness] doesn't in any way belittle the humanity of this unborn child. This child has its own individual fingerprints, while still in the first trimester.

I am not sure what you mean by "belittle the humanity of this unborn child." And I like how you keep personalizing the fetus by calling it a "child" -- again, subjectivity is rampant in your post. The lack of capacity for consciousness does not mean the young fetus is not a human organism; so in that respect, it does not "belittle" the fetus' humanity. But, on the other hand, I think the lack of capacity for consciousness DOES mean that the fetus is morally irrelevant. Also, I don't see how fingerprints have anything to do with anything: dead carcasses (and aborted fetuses) have fingerprints too, don't they?

Viability...blah blah blah...So essentially you are implying that a fetus in a first world country becomes human before one in a third world country? Soon artificial wombs and incubators will be available, that can support an embryo from the word go, does this mean that you will shift your recognition of personhood with this technology?

Please don't muddy the waters. If you refer back to my very first post in this thread, I made it clear that I DON'T think viability is a necessary condition for moral considerability (e.g., siamese twins). Certainly, though, the fact that the early fetus lacks viability doesn't help your case any. If anything, it helps identify the parasitic role the young fetus plays.

Capacity for consciousness - As stated before, the fetus is still in its developmental stage... and this is a criteria for a mature adult, not a developing human.

Again, the capacity for consciousness is something the 3rd trimester fetus will possess. So it is not a criterion specific only to "mature adults". I believe it to be a necessary criterion for moral consideration.

Genetically it is human. Without any external intervention - other than nutrition and oxygen - this fetus will develop into a mature human with all the capacities for reason etc.

So now you are back to potential properties of the fetus. What happened to saying the young fetus is a person, and not just potentially so? The only son of a king may be considered a potential king in that we may fully expect him to supersede his father one day as king. Does that mean that this potential king, while he is merely a potential king, has the ruling rights of an actual king? Of course not. Why should the young fetus -- a potential person -- have the rights of an actual person?

Don't you think its self-degrading to consider yourself having developed from a parasite?

Again, I am trying to remain objective. Don't I think it would be great if a place called heaven existed where I could experience eternal happiness beyond all comprehension? Sure; but that doesn't change the fact that I see no evidence or justification for such a belief.

A developing human, merits a right to life.

A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I do not "feel" that identity starts at conception. I look upon this as a scientific fact.

The living zygote is a human being with personhood, because it has the necessary information which together with the rest of its "body" forms a unique living entity, a human being with an identity. A human being with an identity is a human person.

You've simply repeated yourself. You have not substantiated it.

I know you think that identity starts at conception. You've stated this
many times. I know you think that a zygote is a person.

You wrote 'a human being with an identity is a human person.'

You also wrote 'a zygote has the necessary information' [to form] an
identity.

Either you feel a zygote has identity or it doesn't. I am going to guess
that you think a zygote *does* have identity.

How do you define 'identity' and why to you believe a zygote has it?

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What I meant, was that this fetus is an immature human.

The fetus is a human organism, no doubt. But I do not see why that in itself should confer moral consideration on the fetus. Since the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness, it cannot suffer, it cannot be harmed in any way, it has no point of view, it has no interests. The fet ...[text shortened]... s a right to life.[/b]

A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.[/b]

A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.

Okay, why, because you say so or someone else? This is the bottom
line, I believe we all agree no person was ever born that was not at
one time a fetus! I'm not sure where the young part comes in as far
as fetus' go, they are only in the mothers womb so long. You could
say only right handed people are persons, if it is only because you
say so, you can say anything and make it so.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, why, because you say so or someone else? This is the bottom
line, I believe we all agree no person was ever born that was not at
one time a fetus!

Kelly:

The issue here is that, while what you say is true, that doesn't
necessarily entail that a fetus has moral status. You write:

'no person was ever born that was not at one time a fetus.'

With a simple exchange:

'no person was ever born that was not at one time a set of gametes.'

Do gametes have moral status? Of course not.

So, from a logical perspective, such a statement doesn't, in and of its
own merits, have any weight in an argument trying to demonstrate that
a fetus has rights.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.

Okay, why, because you say so or someone else? This is the bottom
line, I believe we all agree no person was ever born that was not at
one time a fetus! I'm not sure where the young part comes in as far
as fetus' go, they are only in the mothers womb so long. You could
sa ...[text shortened]... ople are persons, if it is only because you
say so, you can say anything and make it so.
Kelly[/b]

Okay, why, because you say so or someone else?

No -- not because someone just dictates it. That is not the way things get established (case in point: the DCT is a bunch of dung). My claim is based on argument.

Obviously, to establish that the young fetus is a person, we can demonstrate that the young fetus possesses properties that suffice for personhood. On the other hand, to establish that the young fetus is not a person, we just need to show that the young fetus lacks a necessary condition for personhood. My claim that the young fetus is not a person is based on the following logically valid argument:

1. The capacity for consciousness is a necessary condition for personhood.
2. The young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness.
3. Therefore, the young fetus is not a person.

Which of the these premises (1 or 2) do you disagree with?

This is the bottom line, I believe we all agree no person was ever born that was not at one time a fetus!

I agree that all persons who now exist once existed in person form as a 3rd trimester fetus. But if you are suggesting that they also existed in person form as a younger fetus, then you are just assuming that the young fetus is a person. This is exactly what we are supposed to be debating. So I feel like we are going around in circles (logically speaking).

I'm not sure where the young part comes in as far
as fetus' go, they are only in the mothers womb so long.

By 'young' I am referring to the first and second trimesters.

You could
say only right handed people are persons

Yes, but that would be silly.

if it is only because you
say so, you can say anything and make it so.

If you read back through my posts, you will see that I am trying to present an argument. It is NOT my position that the young fetus is not a person just in case LemonJello says so.

You obviously think the young fetus is a person with rights, and I imagine that you disagree with Premise 1 above. So why do you think Premise 1 is false? Also, what properties of the young fetus do you think suffice for personhood?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Kelly:

The issue here is that, while what you say is true, that doesn't
necessarily entail that a fetus has moral status. You write:

'no person was ever born that was not at one time a fetus.'

With a simple exchange:

'no person was ever born that was not at one time a set of gametes.'

Do gametes have moral status? Of course not.

So, ...[text shortened]... erits, have any weight in an argument trying to demonstrate that
a fetus has rights.

Nemesio

If the gametes are left alone what happens to them during their
normal process?

My point is saying the fetus has no rights, can change if the law
says today for now on, fetus has rights. Why, because we grant
rights, it is a made up word we place on whatever we will, it isn't
that a fetus is not important in human development, it is a vital
step no human as bypassed and ended up human.
Our current tastes on what we find acceptable is all that matters,
not how important the fetuses are. Which is why I think the hearts
and minds are more important than our laws, abortions can be
stopped while legal if the lives of those not valued today become
valuable to those women having children.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Okay, why, because you say so or someone else?

No -- not because someone just dictates it. That is not the way things get established (case in point: the DCT is a bunch of dung). My claim is based on argument.

Obviously, to establish that the young fetus is a person, we can demonstrate that the young fetus possesses properties that suffice ...[text shortened]... emise 1 is false? Also, what properties of the young fetus do you think suffice for personhood?[/b]

You can call a fetus a person, or a unborn child, it is what it is.
To say only a person is important is just a title we place on
something. It is a means to move the bar on what can be killed
for money while legal, and what we cannot at this time.

When do you think anyone is at the level of conscieousness that
is necessary for life to be at the level of personhood? I'm interested
in knowing if is only after birth, and what is inside the woman right
before birth lacks this level of conscienousness, and how do you
know that? At what point do the lights come on as far as this
all important conscienousnesses goes that makes something worthy
of life?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which is why I think the hearts
and minds are more important than our laws, abortions can be
stopped while legal if the lives of those not valued today become
valuable to those women having children.
Kelly

That's the way to do it, rather than acting hysterical around abortion clinics and threatening people (my admittedly mediatised perception of pro-life lunatics).

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can call a fetus a person, or a unborn child, it is what it is.
To say only a person is important is just a title we place on
something. It is a means to move the bar on what can be killed
for money while legal, and what we cannot at this time.

When do you think anyone is at the level of conscieousness that
is necessary for life to be at the lev ...[text shortened]... s far as this
all important conscienousnesses goes that makes something worthy
of life?
Kelly

To say only a person is important is just a title we place on
something. It is a means to move the bar on what can be killed
for money while legal, and what we cannot at this time.

You lost me. I thought we were trying to determine whether or not abortion is morally permissible; and if so, under what circumstances.

When do you think anyone is at the level of conscieousness that
is necessary for life to be at the level of personhood?

This capacity is developed in the 3rd trimester.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]To say only a person is important is just a title we place on
something. It is a means to move the bar on what can be killed
for money while legal, and what we cannot at this time.

You lost me. I thought we were trying to determine whether or not abortion is morally permissible; and if so, under what circumstances.

When do you think an ...[text shortened]... r life to be at the level of personhood?

This capacity is developed in the 3rd trimester.[/b]

You have obviously confused KellyJay with someone who actually presents logical arguments to support his views. Rather the "KellyJay System" relies on his ability to repeat over and over and over ad infinitum the same assertions without the bother of any thought at all. Thus KellyJay is completely impervious to any attempts to actually engage him in debate; you might has well discuss quantum mechanics with your microwave. He has a totally, self-contained belief system that no amount of reality is able to penetrate, a invisible shield against the evil of the rational world. Ignorance is more than bliss to KellyJay; it is a imperative of his survival to prevent anything that might resemble independent thought from reaching the dark caverns of his mind. His posts in this thread show he has succeeded to the utmost limit of Man's capability in making himself a automaton.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You've simply repeated yourself. You have not substantiated it.

I know you think that identity starts at conception. You've stated this
many times. I know you think that a zygote is a person.

You wrote 'a human being with an identity is a human person.'

You also wrote 'a zygote has the necessary information' [to form] an
identity.

Eith ...[text shortened]... e identity.

How do you define 'identity' and why to you believe a zygote has it?

Nemesio

Nemesio: "Either you feel a zygote has identity or it doesn't. I am going to guess
that you think a zygote *does* have identity."

I'm missing your point here. What do you mean ? I do not feel anything about the fact that a zygote has an identity.

Nemesio: "How do you define 'identity' and why to you believe a zygote has it?

The zygote has a body which is formed by the cell, the cell in which the DNA information is stored. The DNA can be IDENTIFIED as human DNA. On top of that it can be established that this specific DNA in the cell is a UNIQUE living human structure. It represents the information necessary to identify this living human being as a unique living human being. There is no other human being like it.

This will have to do for the moment. I'm sorry if it isn't satisfying in your view.

I'm afraid you'll also have to wait for an exact definition of what Identity is.

I'm still thinking about this, so I hope you do not mind if my answer isn't satisfactory yet.

PS. You haven't adressed my comment on the brain-dead you mentioned.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What I meant, was that this fetus is an immature human.

The fetus is a human organism, no doubt. But I do not see why that in itself should confer moral consideration on the fetus. Since the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness, it cannot suffer, it cannot be harmed in any way, it has no point of view, it has no interests. The fet ...[text shortened]... s a right to life.[/b]

A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.[/b]

Thanks for the post LJ, I'm just a little pressed for time at the moment. Will rebut later... 😴

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What I meant, was that this fetus is an immature human.

The fetus is a human organism, no doubt. But I do not see why that in itself should confer moral consideration on the fetus. Since the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness, it cannot suffer, it cannot be harmed in any way, it has no point of view, it has no interests. The fet ...[text shortened]... s a right to life.[/b]

A person merits a right to life. But the young fetus is not a person.[/b]

Okay, LJ. Ding! Ding! End of round one. Judges? What is the score so far?

After the opening punches and jabs, I need to consolidate my side of the debate and as such need a couple clear answers from you.

1. What exactly do you mean by a capacity for consciousness? Brain activity? Neural infrastructure? How would one ascertain or measure this?

2. Why would this (consciousness capacity) be considered the determining factor for moral considerability as it deviates slightly from the classical criteria?

3. Why the 3rd trimester? This type of discrete marking point, such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo is merely an artificial construction of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize fetal development for academic purposes. This position is also supported by recent research that revealed fertilization itself not being an instantaneous event, but rather a 20-22 hour process between the time the sperm penetrates the ovum and the formation of a genetically diploid cell. Fetal development is so gradual that there isn't a non-arbitrary point where before this point it is non-human in nature, and after it, it has human capacity.

Just a couple quotations in support of my stance on the beginning of human life, which I'm sure by this time is hardly a point of contention:

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book." (p. 55)."
O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.