Abortion

[निताइ dasa]

the fetus does not have any higher or significant brain function, only core basics. In any case, it is not a "person", "baby", or even a human, I would argue. They are fated to be a human, but at that point they are, scientifically, parasites.

It seems to me that mere brain function is not sufficient to grant any object, 'personhood' rights. Animals also have developed brain functions yet the law does not provide them with inalienable rights like we do with humans. This definition of personhood seems to be at odds with our considered moral intuitions.

d. This also allows one to expand rights to proto-persons like higher mammals that share some properties of the mind that make one a person. I would broadly agree with the psychological continuity view of personhood that was first proposed by John Locke and on which most of the language of rights is based.

It is not necessary to be a 'person' currently in order to have the rights given to that particular class. Sometimes eventuality is enough. Assuming Locke's definition of personhood (i.e a being that is rational, conscious and self aware), there are several groups who do not fit. In particular, Coma patients, Brain-dead patients etc. Even newborn infants, are not rational, nor self-aware. Therefore these groups do not qualify as "persons". Yet we still grant them certain rights (right of life, autonomy ). From this it seems to me that these rights extend not only to persons, but also eventual persons (note potential is different from eventual. Eventual means, if left naturally, without willful interaction from another conscious agent, one enters into that state. Potentially means that there needs to be a willful incident or event to bring about the state.)

Locke called the period from conception to the development of a rational mind as the "imperfect state of childhood" and argued that while individuals in such a stage were not rational persons, there is a strong duty and moral imperative to protect them.

Locke's idea of "self ownership" was that it is not an absolute right but a limited one that is bound by our natural duties to others.. For example he adds in his second treatise:

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence, though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone. And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. (II.6)".

Although I will admit, the line does get blurry.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The parasite terminology is completely wrong and should not be used. Scientifically no offspring or kin can be called parasites as they share genetic material.

They share genetic material, but that's not what defines a parasite. A parasite is an organism that takes from a host without reciprocity. Which is what a fetus does; it does not give anything back to the mother. We even say much the same about developed people who behave in such a manner.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It seems to me that mere brain function is not sufficient to grant any object, 'personhood' rights. Animals also have developed brain functions yet the law does not provide them with inalienable rights like we do with humans.

Yes it does. There are laws against animal cruelty. You cannot just go out and start killing. There are even strict regulations and procedures on hunting deer. Why do you think we have such a criminal as a poacher?

 

[Curious George]

I agree. I rationalize it like this. In all parts of the person's growth is essential to be a person. If you stop the process early is no different than stopping the process of aging by killing a mid-aged man. Once conception begins, life does. Our brains don't have to be completely formed for us to have life.

I'll believe you when people start scooping spontaneous abortions out of toilets and purchasing $10k coffins as they do for middle age men who die.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well there are people out there who claim to be pro-life yet believe a living, breathing woman should have less bodily autonomy than a cadaver (there are places where it's illegal to extract organs from a corpse without the deceased's express permission) so yes.




You can't murder something that isn't legally a person.

How does defining something legal define when life actually begun?

I disagree. You can have artificial, hands, feet, transplanted kidneys, liver, blood, even artificial heart etc. (even sex change). But one cannot have a brain transplant. A person is only dead when he is brain dead even if all his other organs are healthy and can be saved. Thus the key criteria of being a person or not depends on the brain and the activity of the brain that we call the mind. This also allows one to expand rights to proto-persons like higher mammals that share some properties of the mind that make one a person. I would broadly agree with the psychological continuity view of personhood that was first proposed by John Locke and on which most of the language of rights is based.
http://www.philosophyideas.com/files/mind/Locke on Personal Identity.pdf

The key recent contribution is that psychological continuity of the subconscious states of mind are also to be added to the over conscious continuity and recall that Locke envisaged. A fetus before 20 weeks does not have even the rudimentary brain structure to support any subconscious or conscious mental states. Thus he/she cannot be a person on whom the language of rights apply.

One doesnt need to be legally defined as a person to kill an unborn child. If I wanted a garden and grow a plant, Id need soil, water, and the seed. Once these things start making the plant grow, I dont wait until its a full plant to say Im killing nature. Im already doing so by starting the process and haulting it.

Humans arent special. We are not different. If we value life in all stages, no matter the legal pr scientific term, taking a life that has already began growing is wrong. To me its murder.

Its not like a plant that whithers and dies. Abortion is actually stopping the growing process of a child.

 

[निताइ dasa]

es it does. There are laws against animal cruelty. You cannot just go out and start killing. There are even strict regulations and procedures on hunting deer. Why do you think we have such a criminal as a poacher?

My point is, brain function does not make someone a "person". Otherwise animals would be "persons" and be granted inalienable human rights like autonomy and right of property and right of life. If mere brain function was enough to grant personhood, then animals should be given all the rights that humans do (including right of property, right to vote etc). If you argue that humans have greater rights, then brain function is not enough to grant "personhood". Animal rights, and "person" rights, are two different categories.

According to your definition, we would have to charge someone for murder for killing an chicken, or a horse. But the law does not recognize this. Animal rights are never equal to Human rights in our socoety. They are not inalienable rights, because they depend on the values prominent in each society. While human right transgressions are much more serious (they are called murder). If you kill a baby infant, and if you kill a baby chimp, they are two very different charges and very different punishments. In-fact we can argue that our animal rights are rooted in human ends (it is acceptable to kill, for example a chicken to eat it, but not a dog, because dogs have important sentimental value to our society, while chickens are a source of food).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll believe you when people start scooping spontaneous abortions out of toilets and purchasing $10k coffins as they do for middle age men who die.

Huh???

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

According to your definition, we would have to charge someone for murder for killing an chicken, or a horse.

No, because murder is legally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Butchering a chicken is not unlawful, and it's not murder. Killing a chicken in public for sport is animal cruelty, is a crime (that's why cockfights are illegal), and is a jailable offense. As is wrongfully killing a horse.

But either way you slice it, a fetus prior to 21 weeks cannot rationally or scientifically be called a human being. It has no developed brain function (and loss of brain function prior to biological development is not the same, so "braindead" patients are incomparable), and has not reached a stage where it can survive outside the womb at all.

There's an old example that follows as such: Say in my hand I've got a newborn infant, and in the other hand a petri dish with a human fetus. I'm going to drop one, and you choose which one I don't drop. Shot in the dark, I bet you pick the newborn, because it is recognized that there is a difference. Now all that is left is admitting that.

 

[निताइ dasa]

No, because murder is legally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Butchering a chicken is not unlawful, and it's not murder. Killing a chicken in public for sport is animal cruelty, is a crime (that's why cockfights are illegal), and is a jailable offense. As is wrongfully killing a horse.

You are moving the goalpost. Our laws are based upon moral ones. Just because something is lawful does not mean it is correct. The definition that most philosophers use for murder is "immoral or unjustified killing of human being". In Nazi Germany, the law made it possible to lawfully kill Jews, but I strongly condemn that act is murder, not because it was unlawful, but because it was, is, and always will be immoral. Laws are meant to preserve those objects with value, and uphold the moral principles of a society.Moral principles underlie legal ones. If you take morality away, then the legal system falls apart.

But either way you slice it, a fetus prior to 21 weeks cannot rationally or scientifically be called a human being. It has no developed brain function (and loss of brain function prior to biological development is not the same, so "braindead" patients are incomparable), and has not reached a stage where it can survive outside the womb at all.

Scientifically, a human being is formed from the moment of conception, because at the moment a unique individual is formed (with human DNA).

If we look at it in terms of rationality, then please read my response to Sayak. I see no relevant reason to make a distinction between loss of mental function after development.

here's an old example that follows as such: Say in my hand I've got a newborn infant, and in the other hand a petri dish with a human fetus. I'm going to drop one, and you choose which one I don't drop. Shot in the dark, I bet you pick the newborn, because it is recognized that there is a difference. Now all that is left is admitting that.

This is an appeal to emotion, Honestly, I never hope I come to such a scenario, but if I was given a choice, I would pick the newborn. Not because the newborn has any less of a right to live than a fetus. But because the chances of a newborn surviving to personhood is far more likely then a fetus. But that is a pragmatic reason. If I was given the guarantee that both would survive to a certain age, then I could not make a choice.

Its like choosing between a child or an old man. Or a coma patient vs a healthy one. Generally, we must never use any human person as a mere means to an end. Human life is precious and we cannot label them with a value.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

In progressive Europe there have been much reaction against horrific late term abortion. In the US not so much.

It's not a dumb thing or smart thing... it's more a case of a conscience getting hardened again the most helpless and defenseless of people. It's also that the Democratic Party in the US likes to play the abortion card even at the risk of endangering women help by not holding abortion clinics to high medical standards of safety.

Take Kermit Gosnel for example... it was not the medical establishment or government oversight that shut down his horrific practices.... it was a drug bust.

 

[sayak83]

It seems to me that mere brain function is not sufficient to grant any object, 'personhood' rights. Animals also have developed brain functions yet the law does not provide them with inalienable rights like we do with humans. This definition of personhood seems to be at odds with our considered moral intuitions.



It is not necessary to be a 'person' currently in order to have the rights given to that particular class. Sometimes eventuality is enough. Assuming Locke's definition of personhood (i.e a being that is rational, conscious and self aware), there are several groups who do not fit. In particular, Coma patients, Brain-dead patients etc. Even newborn infants, are not rational, nor self-aware. Therefore these groups do not qualify as "persons". Yet we still grant them certain rights (right of life, autonomy ). From this it seems to me that these rights extend not only to persons, but also eventual persons (note potential is different from eventual. Eventual means, if left naturally, without willful interaction from another conscious agent, one enters into that state. Potentially means that there needs to be a willful incident or event to bring about the state.)

Locke called the period from conception to the development of a rational mind as the "imperfect state of childhood" and argued that while individuals in such a stage were not rational persons, there is a strong duty and moral imperative to protect them.

Locke's idea of "self ownership" was that it is not an absolute right but a limited one that is bound by our natural duties to others.. For example he adds in his second treatise:

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence, though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone. And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. (II.6)".

Although I will admit, the line does get blurry.

Good to see you!
Firstly, brain death is the official criteria of death. A brain dead person is taken off life support for that reason.
The coma question is interesting and I would provide the same answer I used before
Abortion
I would also maintain that psychological continuity is retained through coma as evidence by those patients who recover.
Also new research has shown that infants show consciousness as early as 5 months old (the youngest group that can be safely used in the study). I would posit that a fetus at conception (8-9 months of pregnancy) already has rudimentary aspects of consciousness and that substratum is built upon through his/her growth into adulthood. Thus the foundation is already there and psychological continuity is maintained, even if not by overt memory recall.
When Do Babies Become Conscious?

I am far more skeptical of any such thing at 20 weeks when none of the neural machinery is yet in existence.

Cognitive neuroscientist Sid Kouider of CNRS, the French national research agency, in Paris watched for swings in electrical activity, called event-related potentials (ERPs), in the babies’ brains. In babies who were at least 1 year old, Kouider saw an ERP pattern similar to an adult’s, but it was about three times slower. The team was surprised to see that the 5-month-olds also showed a late slow wave, although it was weaker and more drawn out than in the older babies. Kouider speculates that the late slow wave may be present in babies as young as 2 months.

This late slow wave may indicate conscious thought, Kouider and colleagues report online today in Science. The wave, feedback from the prefrontal cortex, suggests that the image is stored briefly in the baby’s temporary “working memory.” And consciousness, Kouider says, is composed of working memory.

Hinduism philosophy deviation:-

I would also note that the situation is not as clear cut in Hinduism as one thinks. Consider the case of Santanu allowing Ganga to drown her first 7 babies in the water. Regardless of what Santanu had promised, the story would not have worked if Ganga went ahead and killed an adult, say Santanu's some minor wife or the other. Santanu may have thought her heartless and cruel, but not a murderer, maybe not even a criminal (as Kamsa was who killed the newborns against her mother's wishes) because then, as king he would have to give her the death penalty no matter what. This is the case of a mother killing a newborn and the go-to book regarding Hindu ethics is quite ambivalent about it. So I am not convinced that early term abortion is murder and hence criminalize it is going to fly.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Good to see you!
Firstly, brain death is the official criteria of death. A brain dead person is taken off life support for that reason.
The coma question is interesting and I would provide the same answer I used before
Abortion
I would also maintain that psychological continuity is retained through coma as evidence by those patients who recover.
Also new research has shown that infants show consciousness as early as 5 months old (the youngest group that can be safely used in the study). I would posit that a baby at 9 months old already has rudimentary aspects of consciousness and that substratum is built upon through his/her growth into adulthood. Thus the foundation is already there and psychological continuity is maintained, even if not by overt memory recall.

Good to see you too

Haha sure, I remember that discussion we had before. So we won't continue here. Your points are well noted.

\

would also note that the situation is not as clear cut in Hinduism as one thinks. Consider the case of Santanu allowing Ganga to drown her first 7 babies in the water. Regardless of what Santanu had promised, the story would not have worked if Ganga went ahead and killed an adult, say Santanu's some minor wife or the other. Santanu may have thought her heartless and cruel, but not a murderer, maybe not even a criminal (as Kamsa was who killed the newborns against her mother's wishes) because then, as king he would have to give her the death penalty no matter what. This is the case of a mother killing a newborn and the go-to book regarding Hindu ethics is quite ambivalent about it. So I am not convinced that early term abortion is murder and hence criminalize it is going to fly.

Yeah I have to agree with you here. I think different sects have different opinions on when the soul actually enters the body (either during conception or some month of pregnancy).
The dharmashatras however do condemn abortion as one of the 6 types of murder, a very heinous crime.. But it is little less serious than killing a born human being though. And there are provisions where it is acceptable to kill a fetus as a means to save the mother's life.

In Hinduism, I think there is a huge emphasis on a parent's duty to their children. Like a parent should generally protect their children (including unborn ones), but I agree there was no legal penalty for the act of abortion I think (although Karma will balance everything in the end). But there are other stories where its taken quite seriously. Like, in Mahabharata, Ashwatthama shot an arrow at the unborn child of Uttara (Pariksit) and Lord Krsna punished him in quite a severe way:

"Krsna said "You will carry the burden of all the people’s sins on your shoulders and will roam alone like a ghost without getting any love and courtesy till the end of Kaliyuga, You will have neither any hospitality nor any accommodation; You will be in total isolation from the mankind and society; Your body will suffer from a host of incurable diseases forming sores and ulcers that would never heal. May you, Ashwathama, lead the most wretched life anyone can ever lead. May you never receive love or affection ever in your life unto the end of Time ”."

But, I'll have to humbly disagree with you here. I don't think abortion is seen in a good light at all by Hindu scripture. Whether it should be legal or not...is another question ahahah.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are moving the goalpost.

If anything, I'm moving them back. Comparing abortion to murder, and then killing animals to murder as well, is moving the goal posts.

The definition that most philosophers use for murder is "immoral or unjustified killing of human being".

Okay, "of a human being." Lacking sufficient brain function and biological development, a human fetus is not a human being.

Scientifically, a human being is formed from the moment of conception, because at the moment a unique individual is formed (with human DNA).

"Individual" denotes thought and identity. It is a unique organism, but so is everything else; that's not a qualifying factor. A fertilized egg is certainly not a human being, and neither is this:

Spoiler: Possibly disturbing image - fetus

This is an appeal to emotion,

And aren't the myriad of anti-abortion arguments? You say that we should never use a human person as a means to an end, and so to should we never use a mother - and her right to bodily autonomy - as a means to personal ends that will have no bearing on her life save forcing a birth. The choice whether to abort or not is up to the parents, not anyone else.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They share genetic material, but that's not what defines a parasite. A parasite is an organism that takes from a host without reciprocity. Which is what a fetus does; it does not give anything back to the mother. We even say much the same about developed people who behave in such a manner.

In lay use, yes, I would agree with you. But you said scientifically. And in biology parasitism concerns a host species and a parasite species. Even in the few cases where the offspring literally eat the mother it wouldn't be considered biological parasitism. I agree with everything else, though.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I have a parasite only being defined as "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense"; no distinction of species. I perhaps should say - as they're the same species - that it's kleptoparasitism, but that really just makes it a semantics game.

 

[निताइ dasa]

If anything, I'm moving them back. Comparing abortion to murder, and then killing animals to murder as well, is moving the goal posts.

The discussion between us was never about abortion. You brought that up. The discussion was about personhood and what are the criteria that define an object as a person, giving them personhood rights. You said brain function is this criteria, but if this was the case, then animals would be given personhood rights. If they were given personhood rights, then to kill and animal would be murder (because even legally, murder is a unjustified violation of right to life).

Okay, "of a human being." Lacking sufficient brain function and biological development, a human fetus is not a human being.

A fetus is a human being. The question is whether it is a human "person". Human beings are cellular organisms who have characteristic DNA (46 chromosomes) as well having the eventuality to develop into a member of the species of Homo Sapien .

You say that we should never use a human person as a means to an end, and so to should we never use a mother - and her right to bodily autonomy - as a means to personal ends that will have no bearing on her life save forcing a birth.

Okay I'll explain this simply. Actions have ends. These are the purposes or the end goals of an action. When I drive to work, the end of my action is to get to work. The means, is some unintended consequence that occurs in order for the ends to be achieved. For example, when going to work, I may have to drive past a green light. So the green light is a means to an end.

In the action of abortion, the woman's goal (i.e the end of abortion) is end a pregnancy. However, in order to do this, she has to kill the fetus. Since I hold the fetus is a human person, the act of abortion uses a human person as a mere means to an end. Therefore it is immoral. Rights cannot be used as means to any end. Human "persons" are not tools that can be manipulated for our convience. If the fetus is a person (I hold it is), then we cannot end her life, even for our own convience. Just like parents can't take their children into a backyard and shoot them while claiming "I have right to control who lives or not in my property" .

 

[sayak83]

"Krsna said "You will carry the burden of all the people’s sins on your shoulders and will roam alone like a ghost without getting any love and courtesy till the end of Kaliyuga, You will have neither any hospitality nor any accommodation; You will be in total isolation from the mankind and society; Your body will suffer from a host of incurable diseases forming sores and ulcers that would never heal. May you, Ashwathama, lead the most wretched life anyone can ever lead. May you never receive love or affection ever in your life unto the end of Time ”."

But, I'll have to humbly disagree with you here. I don't think abortion is seen in a good light at all by Hindu scripture. Whether it should be legal or not...is another question ahahah.

Crimes in increasing order of magnitude:-

Firstly Asvatthama killed a woman's fetus against her will.
Secondly Asvathhama went into the Pandava camp at night and massacred sleeping people in hundreds.
Thirdly Asvatthama released a weapon that would have destroyed the universe if Krishna did not stop it partially.

But otherwise cool. Will table the discussion for now.

 

[Curious George]

Huh???

Just pointing out the false equivalency.

1/3 of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. Many times, the woman never even knows she was pregnant. The result is a heavier than normal menstrual flow. But when a person does know or realize that they were pregnant there is not the same feeling or mourning in the early stages of pregnancy. They flush. Haven't known too many people to pull out the clump and purchase a plot of land and a coffin. Miscarriage later on in the pregnancy is definitely accompanied with more of feeling of loss and mourning. Still don't know too many women who want to have a funeral. Then there is abortion. Have you had a friend that has had one? If you found out a friend had an abortion would you remain friends? I can say unquestionably, if a friend of mine murdered their living child, we would not remain friends. But with abortion, it is different. Why? Because people really do differentiate between killing a baby and killing fetus. Granted, as time progresses and the fetus becomes closer to a baby this line gets blurred. But the line is there nonetheless.

Still the false equivalency persists. And often times it seems that the people who want to prevent abortion also want to prevent aide from reaching living children. Our foster system needs work, our welfare system needs work, and the largest growing population of homeless people are families with children. People want to say they care because it fits with their ideal moral self. But what do their actions actually show?

The truth is people do not see the stopping of life of a fetus as the same as the stopping of life of a middle aged man. We do not view it so emotionally. We do not view it so legally. Unfortunately, because we can form line of reasoning that seems to equate the two cognitively some people like to entertain this. But the truth is that there is disconnect between the ideal that is suggested and reality. If the two were equal we would respond equally. We don't. If the ideal behind the equivalency were truly the ideal the person held we would see them act accordingly. We don't.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Crimes in increasing order of magnitude:-

Firstly Asvatthama killed a woman's fetus against her will.
Secondly Asvathhama went into the Pandava camp at night and massacred sleeping people in hundreds.
Thirdly Asvatthama released a weapon that would have destroyed the universe if Krishna did not stop it partially.

But otherwise cool. Will table the discussion for now.

Once could say that was the action that broke the camel's back. Its pretty dramatically described in scripture

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The discussion between us was never about abortion.

A discussion in a thread titled "Abortion" wasn't about abortion... Sure.

A fetus is a human being.

So you would argue that the fetus I showed is the exact same as you or I?

Human beings are cellular organisms who have characteristic DNA (46 chromosomes) as well having the eventuality to develop into a member of the species of Homo Sapien.

There's a lot wrong with this.

Are you saying that people with Downs Syndrome are more than human? And people with Turner Syndrome are not human? And that you and I are not human beings because we have developed into homo sapiens?

In the action of abortion, the woman's goal (i.e the end of abortion) is end a pregnancy. However, in order to do this, she has to kill the fetus.

Yes.

Since I hold the fetus is a human person, the act of abortion uses a human person as a mere means to an end. Therefore it is immoral.

So this is not, then, based on any verifiable scientific fact, but your own biases and beliefs.

If the fetus is a person (I hold it is), then we cannot end her life, even for our own convience.

You assume that it is purely a matter of convenience, and not a serious and difficult matter for all involved.

Just like parents can't take their children into a backyard and shoot them while claiming "I have right to control who lives or not in my property".

Not the same, at all. You're sensationalizing.