04 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJay
If the gametes are left alone what happens to them during their
normal process?
Nothing. And, if you do not keep a fetus in the womb it will not
develop either.
If you do not treat cancer in its 'normal process' then it kills the
organism, so 'normal processes' are not intrinsically good or bad.
What makes a human being or child valuable? What makes it such
that we know they have rights?
What is it that they have in common with a fetus?
Saying, as Ivanhoe does, that 'it has human DNA which gives it
unique characteristics' is no different than saying 'it is human.'
If you're argument is that simple (a fetus is worthy of preserving
because it is human), then let me ask you this:
If an alien race came down to this planet and enslaved us, would
that be morally permissible? Their argument is: they can enslave
you with moral impunity because you are not an alien.
According to the 'because its human' argument, this would be a
logical and morally permissible action. Do you think so?
Nemesio
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe
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.
In other words, you are saying 'because it is human:' a human being
should be respected because it is a human being. They have a certain
combination of neucleotides in their DNA strands, therefore have
rights.
To expand on my example above with the alien:
The reason this argument makes no sense is because it is arbitrary.
Some necleotides confer rights, while some do not. Chimpanzee
neucleotides do not grant them rights, while human neucleotides
(from conception onwards) do.
There is no logical reason why you couldn't, for example, arbitrarily
say that only white people should have rights because black folk do
not have certain neucleotides which create light skin pigmentation. Or
only people with brown hair and brown eyes, because certain neucleotides
are missing in them (while others are present). You can see where
this is going. If you are going to make divisions on the basis of
neucleotide content, who is to say your divisions are right? Why not
the KKK's definitions of humanity?
This will have to do for the moment. I'm sorry if it isn't satisfying in
your view....I'm still thinking about this, so I hope you do not mind if
my answer isn't satisfactory yet.
I hope you will address my issues because, as an argument, you are
basically saying 'Humans should have rights because they are human.'
That's not really an argument. I look forward to your considered reply.
(No rush.)
Nemesio
04 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose1. What exactly do you mean by a capacity for consciousness? Brain
activity? Neural infrastructure? How would one ascertain or measure
this?
There is cognitive hardware, so to speak, that is necessary to support
consciousness, with 'consciousness' itself being not so trivial to define.
However, if these cognitive faculties are not present, then the capacity for
consciousness is likewise not present. There is a wealth of research that
demonstrates that the fetus does not possess this cognitive hardware until
the third trimester. If you scholar google it, you can access a number of
papers that deal with this issue.
2. Why would this (consciousness capacity) be considered the determining
factor for moral considerability as it deviates slightly from the classical
criteria?
I am not sure what you mean by "the determining factor." All that I
have intended to argue thus far is that the capacity for consciousness is a
necessary condition for consideration as a moral person; and that it
is a necessary condition which the young fetus lacks. I have not been
concerned with detailing conditions that suffice for personhood,
which is another very difficult problem. Also, what is this "classical
criteria" of which you speak? I have read numerous papers on moral
considerability and personhood and lots of people seem to have lots of
different views on the subject.
3. Why the 3rd trimester?
See my response to question 1 above.
Halitose, although the following essay by Feinberg is somewhat lengthy, I
really recommend it. Feinberg discusses not only the problem of the
"status of the fetus" but also includes an interesting discussion of the
problem of "conflict of claims." The article discusses several different
views on criteria of personhood, including potentiality arguments. If you
want to know where I am coming from, my views probably most closely
resemble the "Actual-Possession Criterion." I would also be interested in
your view on the famous 'Plugged-in Violinist' example, which Feinberg also
discusses.
http://www.ditext.com/feinberg/abortion.html
I also found the following link interesting. It is sort of a follow-up to
Feinberg's essay, but Chrucky also advances an interesting view of
personhood based on duties:
http://www.ditext.com/chrucky/decelles.html
But, like I said: there are a whole lot of views on the matter. There are
even some who say that the concept of personhood should be avoided
altogether in the abortion debate because it suffers from a serious form of
vagueness that gives rise to sorites paradoxes.
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloJust curious, according to your perspective:
[b]1. What exactly do you mean by a capacity for consciousness? Brain
activity? Neural infrastructure? How would one ascertain or measure
this?
There is cognitive hardware, so to speak, that is necessary to support
consciousness, with 'consciousness' itself being not so trivial to define.
However, if these cognitive faculties are not present ...[text shortened]... ebate because it suffers from a serious form of
vagueness that gives rise to sorites paradoxes.[/b]
Are chimpanzees conscious?
Cows? Bluejays? Lizards? Fish?
Nemesio
04 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioLike I said, consciousness is not so trivial to define. But in certain respects, everyone would agree that the animals you have listed are conscious: for example, when they are awake they possess a conscious awareness related to their environment and their sensations. However, it is highly debatable whether or not they possess other forms of consciousness, such as self-consciousness.
Just curious, according to your perspective:
Are chimpanzees conscious?
Cows? Bluejays? Lizards? Fish?
Nemesio
Here's a link which discusses animal consciousness:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
EDIT: To answer your question: yes, I think they are conscious. But concerning whether or not they possess self-consciousness and phenomenal consciousness, I don't know -- I would have to think about it a lot more and do some research.
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloNice. Give me a day or two for rebuttal.
[b]1. What exactly do you mean by a capacity for consciousness? Brain
activity? Neural infrastructure? How would one ascertain or measure
this?
There is cognitive hardware, so to speak, that is necessary to support
consciousness, with 'consciousness' itself being not so trivial to define.
However, if these cognitive faculties are not present ...[text shortened]... ebate because it suffers from a serious form of
vagueness that gives rise to sorites paradoxes.[/b]
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEvery group has them, the goal becomes so important they become
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).
what it is they are against some times, which are people willing and
able to kill in the case of the extreme ones. This takes away from
the discussion itself, and why what is being killed in each abortion
is a loss to the human race, since we lose one of our own that would
have been here in only a few months.
Kelly
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't know why I lost you, personhood is something we anoint
[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]
that life within the woman at a point we choose, it could be anywhere
we want to put it, even outside of the womb, even at two years old it
only matters what we decide we want to do with our terms. All
the while fetus are still part of the process of human life, killing a
human at any stage of its life ends it, be it as a teenager or a
fetus, the life is over. Justifications for death as I read your posts are
because you have set a standard and you morally justify the deaths
of all those lives because of a standard you put up. You could have
just as easily moved that standard forward or backward in the grand
scheme of human development accepting other parts of human
development as all important, such as breathing, and that would
simply allow all abortions right before birth. You pick the part of
development you like, you label it personhood you promote
the killing of the rest.
Kelly
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioThat is right nothing, but not so with the fetus, naturally unless
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]If the gametes are left alone what happens to them during their
normal process?
Nothing. And, if you do not keep a fetus in the womb it will not
develop either.
If you do not treat cancer in its 'normal process' then it kills the
organism, so 'normal processes' are not intrinsically good or bad.
W ...[text shortened]... argument, this would be a
logical and morally permissible action. Do you think so?
Nemesio[/b]
something goes wrong out pops an infant in just a few months.
The natural processes if allowed to carry on will do what they
will do, stopping them along the line is something you are promoting
and like another's comparison to his spit, we are talking about
a human life, it may yet not be fully developed, but given time
under the natural conditions it is in, will be. You think it is natural
to compare a fetus to a cancer, where is your head at?
Stick to the subject here, if you want to go back into our slavery
discussion start another thread.
Kelly
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOk. Let's say an alien race came down and started to kill people
That is right nothing, but not so with the fetus, naturally unless
something goes wrong out pops an infant in just a few months.
The natural processes if allowed to carry on will do what they
will do, stopping them along the line is something you are promoting
and like another's comparison to his spit, we are talking about
a human life, it may yet not ...[text shortened]... e subject here, if you want to go back into our slavery
discussion start another thread.
Kelly
like you say people kill fetuses.
Would you say, just because the aliens anoint themselves as
valuable and not us that it is morally permissible?
Nemesio
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIn your case, you are labelling personhood as you like.
You pick the part of
development you like, you label it personhood you promote
the killing of the rest.
To wit: Entities with human DNA are persons because I said so.
That's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. However,
the imposition of that opinion on people who do not share it
is unacceptable. If you demonstrate why your opinion
is logically sound, then you might find that people are compelled.
Lemonjello, for example, is saying that the capacity consciousness
is his criterion. We can all see that consciousness is valuable because
unconscious entities -- like rocks and trees -- don't have interests
and are not worthy of consideration but conscious entities like humans
have interests, and thus are worthy.
However, his view, as he himself has admitted, is somewhat incomplete,
because we have yet to define consciousness. If he simply means the
ability to interact with surroundings, then how would he define consciousness
versus tropism response? Does he afford blue jays and starfish the same
rights he affords himself?
He is starting with an axiom: consciousness confers moral consideration
because consciousness entails ... (and here is where I am not sure what
he means) 'the ability to intereact with the environment' (I doubt it) or
'the ability to recognize self' (perhaps) or 'the ability to recognize that
one's life has gotten better or worse' (maybe?).
He may not 'like' this axiom (to use your word) because it might entail
increased moral responsibility on his part (that is, he has to respect the
rights of cows, even though he loves steak, for example). But at least
his position would be both non-contradictory and non-arbitrary.
Yours suffers from being arbitrary and, as such, is simply an opinion.
Until you demonstrate why your opinion is worthy of consideration, you
have no right to impose it on others.
Nemesio
04 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou pick the part of
I don't know why I lost you, personhood is something we anoint
that life within the woman at a point we choose, it could be anywhere
we want to put it, even outside of the womb, even at two years old it
only matters what we decide we want to do with our terms. All
the while fetus are still part of the process of human life, killing a
human at any stag ...[text shortened]... t of
development you like, you label it personhood you promote
the killing of the rest.
Kelly
development you like, you label it personhood you promote
the killing of the rest.
This is a very cynical and grossly distorted view of my arguments. You clearly are not willing to approach the questions being debated here with any objectivity. Please point out precisely where I "promoted the killing" of young fetuses. I am only promoting the notion that the woman should be free to choose to abort the young fetus if she so desires based on arguments aimed at showing that the young fetus is not morally considerable. Could you please get with the program here?
Also, if you don't start at least attempting to support your claims and views, I am going to be forced to give them the exact amount of consideration they deserve.