On April 26 2017 20:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:30 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 18:13 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 17:40 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 16:57 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 08:56 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +On April 26 2017 04:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:19 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 02:14 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:50 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:47 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 01:46 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:38 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote:On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote:On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
Yes. Human brain-functions.
I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb.
A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite.
Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite.
Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? No, I am talking about consciousness. I don't believe in the "soul". Argue fairly, if you want to falsely categorize me to this extent then I'll just move on. If you really want to have this discussion, define consciousness. Also define human consciousness. No. I am asking people to consider the consciousness of a late-term fetus. The deflections... Jesus Christ. I'm not defining, in absolute terms, what is consciousness, which is scientifically impossible, currently (which is why the mirror test is BS). I'm just asking "does a late-term fetus have a consciousness?" We do know consciousness exists, obviously. And we can detect it, often through common-sense means, but also from brain-waves. EEG. The struggles to avoid answering the question simply is kind of... I am disappointed. I'll take a break. Because, I'm a little flustered at the inane deflections. If your guys' answer to people's concerns towards late-term abortions is to compare human-babies to pigs, or declare them simply "not human", then this discourse is permanently fucked. You're the ones drawing a line that shouldn't exist and can't be defined -- or should I say, is already clearly defined. If we can't accept that new-born babies are human, anatomically, biologically, common-sense, human, with a sentience that is human, then we've gone off the deep-end. You're the one who brought up consciousness and human consciousness as if they were categorically different. And then when someone said "well, that's basically a soul" got all upset. Either define the difference between "mere" consciousness and human consciousness or accept that pigs are people too. Albeit rather diminished people who walk around on 4 hoofs and habitually get turned into bacon. Hmmmm. Bacon. No. I don't have to define the consciousness itself, all I have to do is define the being that possesses said consciousness. And, for starters, it's not a pig. You guys are creating arbitrary goalposts that science can't define. And yet, what I'm continually asking us is to consider what science can define. And the difference in biology between a late-term fetus and a newborn is...? Not much. The biological differences are much greater during the middle-stages of pregnancy. Somewhere in there are developmental stages that we should consider, clinically. And the reason we should do so is not just create a more "humane" law, but to cool the discourse. One side wants to say, "all life is sacred", and the other seems to reject any notion that humanity exists at all, at least not until the person is walking and talking. LOL, I've honestly just been looking for middle-ground. LOL. It's so bad. Sorry, but if you want to be able to use words in a meaningful way, you need to be able to define what they mean. I am pretty sure that a large amount of disagreements could be resolved simply by people taking the effort to actually define what they mean when they say words, as opposed to saying "Well it is obvious!". If it is obvious, it shouldn't be hard to put it into words. If you can't put it into words, then it isn't obvious. And if your definition of "consciousness" is simply "Something that has something to do with the and, which a human has, but a pig does not", you are gonna run into tons of problems, because that is a shitty definition.Maybe it is just me coming from a maths background, but seriously, it is exhausting to talk to people who are unwilling to define the concepts they use, and then get angry that not everyone has the same view of that concept as they do. I am not even sure if i disagree with what you want to say, because it is very unclear what you actually want to say. You got lost in a semantic argument because you are using poorly defined terms. Discussions become way better, and are far less filled with semantics arguments if the words you use to describe stuff are well defined and clear. I don't think people honestly disagree with the end result you seem to be hinting at, namely that you probably shouldn't abort 8th month pregnancies, and that the point in time until which it is probably ok is somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy. Afaik most countries use something like 12 weeks, unless there are special circumstances. Except that is not how I defined consciousness. It is much more how other's itt decided to define consciousness. And that is/was a completely unnecessary obscurity. Consciousness is a scientifically obscure area, yes. But it is still, nonetheless, something that we know exists, and is rather crucial to defining life. Something with a consciousness can experience suffering. I suppose it bothers some to admit that a late-term fetus would experience suffering, but... they do. That is certain -- it is a certainty you can ask any woman who's ever carried a pregnancy to term. The fetus makes its suffering and impatience quite known to the mother throughout the later-stages of pregnancy. Which is why most mothers at this stage surely don't even refer to it as a fetus, but as a baby. "My baby kicked." Perhaps I should have said "brain activity". But I get the feeling it would not have helped at all, and people would have still questioned whether it exists or is human for the same reasons. Do you think it would've made a difference? Consciousness, not being scientifically understood to fucking absolution, doesn't mean it should be banned from discussion in any serious matter. We do know what it means in laymans's terms. Right? Or are you saying otherwise? I mean, are you saying I need to provide the dictionary-definition of the word? Oh, yeah, no double-standard being raised here! Sorry, I'd like to give people more credit than that. And that actually is what you're saying. I need to define words... Really? Instead of simply acknowledging consciousness, simply as we know it exists, people decided to, imo, cop-out of the question by simply ignoring the fact that consciousness does exist, and instead focused on forcing an impossibly precise definition to something that is not wholly material. Which, for fuck's sake, is not akin to calling it a "soul", as one was eager to put in my mouth, but rather as a process. And what's the point of that? To declare that a fetus doesn't have consciousness? No, they didn't even really argue that to any extent, and it's the only point that actually matters. Apparently they do agree via omission, that fetuses do have consciousnesses. But instead, I'm asked to question the consciousness as being human...? And that saddens me. I think it's just nonsense. It's a consciousness, it kicks and moves on its own terms, and it belongs to a developing human. It is that simple. Or it should have been. And I take ZERO fault for people complicating it. The deflection and pack-mentality has been quite strong in this discussion. And, yes, I know I'm arguing with people that mostly agree with me in regards to the law itself. But this desire to dehumanize what is human, to such extent, as if it's just as likely a pig or a parasite in the womb, is partly what makes discourse on the subject impossible, from both sides. And that is my concern, more than the law itself. And I'm not so sure we do agree on what the law should be, sadly. Late-term abortions are currently just next to illegal, but I get the feeling Kwark and others would just as happily allow all of them, and I think it's obvious that I would not be comfortable with that. Yo . . . wtf? I want to believe you are smarter than this. I don't even know how to respond. You know that no one is arguing with you about whether at some point a fetus/baby develops consciousness right? Right? The discussion is about the nature of consciousness and your invocation of soul-stuff by appealing to a human eidos/ousia to differentiate a fetus's consciousness from a pig's consciousness. Or do you think that babies experience the world like you do? Read your bolded bits again when you aren't drunk and tell me that you don't see soul-talk embedded in there. The problem with the consciousness/personhood criterion is that the "pro-choice" side arbitrarily chooses the time human develops the brain substrate necessary for developing consciousness/personhood as the threshold beyond which abortion should not be permissible (with some exceptions). Neither a late-term fetus nor a newborn baby has consciousness comparable with adult humans. A baby doesn't develop a personality until well after birth either. This leads to all sorts of problems. E.g., should we give late-term fetuses/newborns the same rights we give to dogs/pigs? Or perhaps their potential to develop more advanced consciousness and eventual personality gives them a special status? Why is having the brain substrate necessary for developing consciousness/personhood, i.e. the potential to achieve personhood, used as the threshold, and not, e.g., the potential to develop such a brain substrate? Insofar as I can see, IgnE is pro-choice. I definitely am. I have no idea about leporello, and pretty sure both IgnE and I got dragged into the consciousness argument because of shoddy philosophy, not because it's integral to the argument, because if adult-human level consciousness is a requirement for something to be treated as a person, we are kinda fucked. Mentally disabled, including Altzheimer patients, and babies (probably children in general until the age of 6 or so) would suddenly lose their status as people. If instead we expand it to anything at a newborn level of consciousness gets personhood rights, farmers, hunters and pet owners everywhere are (probably) fucked. I say probably, because we'd first have to establish how to measure consciousness in animals that don't have language, including newborns. Neither are useful approaches. So let's leave consciousness out of it? He'll, I'm quite okay with conceding a fetus is a person from conception (even though I don't actually think it is). A mother still has the right to abort her pregnancy. Just as we all have the right to unplug the violinist from our kidneys. According to your point of view late-term abortions would be permissible because whether the child survives is irrelevant. She could "unplug" the child in a way that allows it to survive, but she would not be obliged to. Not to mention the fact that if you were to concede that a fetus is a person, abortion would have to be considered murder, especially the way it is done in practice. Since you do not concede that, you have to determine when one gains the status of a person and justify why at that particular time. Either way, she can exert her right to bodily autonomy as far as it does not infringe on the fetus's bodily autonomy. The violinist problem is a bad analogy. It doesn't account for the fact that in the case of a pregnancy there is a causal relationship. The mother put the fetus in this position. The fetus didn't just magically appear in her body. By taking a certain course of action, she forfeited some of her liberty. What you are saying is that she can take that particular course of action (have sex) without (potentially) having her liberty limited as a consequence. To use KwarK's earlier example, what you are saying is equal to saying that neglecting to surrender your child to the state does not necessarily mean that you automatically assume responsibility. You can just let it die because your liberty takes precedence regardless of your actions. Firstly, lets make it clear that I don't hold the right to live as a sacrosanct right that supercedes all others. Right to live is definitely a very very very important right, but that doesn't mean it supercedes all others in all situations. Bodily autonomy is also a very very very important right, and clearly the fetus' right to live and the mother's right to bodily autonomy are in conflict here. The cause of that conflict is kind of irrelevant. I'm not saying that it supersedes all others regardless of the circumstances. I am saying that if there is a conflict and agency on one side, then the side responsible for creating the situation automatically forfeits some of their liberty. The cause of that conflict is not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is crucial. Let's consider self-defense, for example. If you attack me and there's a risk of my getting killed, I can kill you in self-defense. Your action automatically leads you to forfeit some of your liberty. Do you disagree?
Absolutely. Actions have consequences. So lets consider the actions, and the potential consequences in the case of abortion. In fact, lets consider the (for my standpoint) worst case scenario: a mature woman has completely unprotected sex and actually wants a child. 6 months and a completely normal pregnancy later, she comes to the insight that she actually doesn't want a child after all.
I think this is reprehensible. Nevertheless, I think she has the right to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of what that does to the fetus. Because the intention of the act is not to kill a person. It is an unfortunate consequence of the act because that person is incapable of sustaining life on its own. If that is your problem with the situation, then lets go with another thought experiment.
A building has collapsed, and I am trapped by a block of concrete crushing my leg. The rescue workers are on their way and will be there in 5 minutes. There is a wall that is slowly collapsing, and you are the only thing holding it from crushing my skull. You know that if you hold on for 5 minutes longer, we will both be rescued, and furthermore, you know you are fully capable of holding on for those 5 minutes, probably without much damage to your own health, but there is a small chance of debilitating injury or even death.
Are you obliged to stop that wall from crushing me? And what if you were responsible (throug a stupid mistake like leaving the gas open) for the building collapsing?
Show nested quote +The violinist case can very easily be extended with you signing a contract that says you get 1 free orgasm, and in return, there is a 1 in a million chance that this will happen to you. Do you have the right to unplug the violinist? I highly doubt that the chance is that small. I'd wager that most unwanted pregnancies are due to not using contraceptives or not doing so properly, which significantly increases the odds. But, yes, in that case it would mean that by signing that contract I would forfeit my liberty in that regard. In my opinion, personal responsibility for one's actions is more important than one's right to having pleasure in life...
Whatever the chance is, it doesn't really matter. The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies aren't for the reasons above. They are mistakes. Possibly stupid ones, and possibly unforeseeable ones (e.g. the condom tore, or that 1 in a few thousand chance that the contraceptive pill fails to do its job). Mostly for pragmatic reasons, we shouldn't really care: writing up a complex code that is mostly unverifiable for when abortions are permitted to try to distinguish shitty luck, stupid mistakes or despiccable choices is simply not going to work: we can't read peoples' minds, and the 5th amendment explicitly protects them from having to incriminate themselves.
That said, I do agree with you that at some point, the mother (and father) enter a social contract with the child and commit to care for it. I feel, in fact, that there are two contracts. The first is with the parents, and the second with society as a whole. As society, we should take care of our vulnerable members, and who is more vulnerable than an unwanted child. Thus if the parents do not take their responsiblity, we should step in. Orphanages, foster homes and the adoption system should be made to function as well as we can. But parents also have a very clear responsibility of care. And in most cases, that works just fine. In the cases where the parents clearly do not want the baby, they should be able to cede that responsibility to society, possibly at a cost. And that cost should clearly depend on the actions so far. Putting restrictions or a fine on late-term abortions is something we can discuss. The same for post-birth giving it up for adoption. But there doesn't seem to be much point in forcing a mother (parents) to care for a child they don't want and are possibly even incapable of caring for. And that starts with pregnancy,.
Show nested quote +I'm not arguing that having an abortion is not a shitty thing to do. I'm arguing that everybody (or rather, every woman) has the right to choose to have an abortion.
And yes, late-term abortions are just as acceptable as early-term abortions. What happens to the fetus after it is out of the body is no longer the concern of the mother. My preferred solution is that the state does its best to keep the fetus alive and finds a nice adoptive home for it. However, with the status of foster care in the USA, it might actually be preferrable to let these fetuses die than to expend significant resources on keeping them alive just to have its life fucked up by rotating through foster homes. But that is another discussion entirely. Let's make this clear. You're arguing that the mother can choose to kill her offspring at any point during the pregnancy, is that correct? Because there is a significant difference between letting the fetus die and killing it. Out of convenience, abortions mean the latter. Based on what does the mother's right to bodily autonomy supersede the fetus's right to bodily autonomy/life? At best, you have an impasse. You have to either give an argument supporting the mother's right over the fetus's or show that their statuses are somehow not equal, which is how we get back to the topic of personhood. Show nested quote +Murder is a legal term and it is defined the way we want it to be. We can define abortion as murder. We can also define abortion as not-murder. Just as there are other actions resulting in someone ending up dead that are not murder. No, murder is universally defined as intentional killing of a being possessing the trait of personhood. Abortion is intentional. It is killing. What we have to determine, is whether the object of abortion is a person.
I don't think assisted suicide is murder. But in any case, the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its life, the mother has the right to revoke permission to use her body. I wouldn't classify that as murder. As kwark's example of being a bone marrow donor: if kwark had revoked his permission to harvest bone marrow (I think? his exact words were stem cells) at the last moment he would effectively have killed the recepient. Nevertheless, that would not be classified as murder. As the law stands right now, not preventing the wall in the thought experiment above from collapsing would also not be murder (unless they could somehow prove that your intention was explicitly to kill me, and not to prevent harm to yourself).
That said, I think that certain restrictions on abortion are completely okay. But those restrictions should not be imposed to erect some kind of artificial barrier on having an abortion. But because abortion is (can be) a particularly traumatic experience, and we need to be sure that the woman asking for an abortion is fully aware and has thought it through: it is a deliberated choice. It has the consequence of ending a human life, and that choice should be given the gravitas it deserves.
|
EPT
