Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Abortion | |
|
the logos
you win  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 28, 2005 Location: Findlay, IL Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 537 |
 #61
Abortion isn't cool. If people were advanced enough mentally, they probably wouldn't be having as much sex, so less women getting pregnant. Sex is for making babies, if you don't want babies, don't have sex. An interesting question: what would the world be like if people only had sex when they wanted kids? Abortion is no different from any other contraceptive, none of them are getting at the roots of the problem. The problem is psychological, in people's heads. Sex is overrated. "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell Man has forgotten how to die because he does not know how to live. (Rousseau) |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#62
myrmecophaga wrote: Recognisable as a human was a poor expression of living homo sapiens outside the womb, essentially you and me. So you're saying that it becomes a "human being" in a moral or metaphysical sense when it resembles a living homo sapiens outside the womb. Care to be more specific? I've taken care of 23-week premature babies living outside the womb, and they in many ways don't resemble full term (40-week) newborns. So what universally acceptable criterion can we use here? Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
myrmecophaga
Student  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 51 |
#63
Swordfishtrombone wrote: So you're saying that it becomes a "human being" in a moral or metaphysical sense when it resembles a living homo sapiens outside the womb. Care to be more specific? I've taken care of 23-week premature babies living outside the womb, and they in many ways don't resemble full term (40-week) newborns. So what universally acceptable criterion can we use here? Consideration has lead me to believe there are further refinements and expansions that can be made: A baby, child or adult that everyone recognises as a human is such, this refers to you and I (Practically you could have a number of people agreeing this). We recognise as a human a cell or group of conjoined cells that we know can become a human as a human. This means that a 23-week child is recognised as a human. If neither of the two points above can provably never be fulfilled, then the 'object' in question is not human. If it is impossible to prove or disprove that the 'object' in question is human from the above, we treat it as if it is, so as to avoid errors. Is this more satisfactory? "It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#64
Myrmecophaga, I don't think you're taking into consideration a great deal of factors here. You think that you're trying to define a "human being" as such based on a priori principles, but your statement is completely and totally dependant upon empirical observation and therefore technology, and subject to the epistemic limitations of empirical observation. Consider the following problems: 1) Without technology, i.e. until about a generation ago, we COULDN'T know what a developing baby looks like except if it was a) born live, or b) born dead. So once pregnancy has been suspected, unless you use technology there is simply no way of 'intuiting' that a woman is carrying a recognizable "human being" and not a mucinous cystadenoma of the ovary (a huge benign tumor). Of course we extrapolate to individual pregnancies based on what we know from research and from prenatal imaging, but this is purely empirical. 2) You cannot even confirm pregnancy without technology. Most pregnancy tests are based on elevated serum or urine levels of Beta-HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin). 3) In order to look and see if a pregnant woman is carrying a conceptus that resembles a "human being", you need technology. Routinely, that means ultrasound, MRI, or fetoscopy. Fetoscopy is a research tool and it's never done -- it involves inserting fiberoptic cameras into the amniotic space and shining light on the fetus. MRI involves applying a very strong magnetic field in order to polarize all atomic orbits in water molecules, then reconstructing a visible image after measuring heterogeneous recoil times after stopping the magnet (my wife, a radiologist, can correct me on the nuances of this). And ultrasound is a computer reconstruction of an inferred physical surface based on the echos of sounds projected at a physical surface -- it's basically sonar. So of these only fetoscopy actually visualizes the fetus. The others are nothing more than computerized constructions of a visual image. Furthermore, the recognizability of one of these images as a human being depends entirely on the type of machine used and the ultrasonography technique. Interpretation of the image is also technical. I'd guarantee you that 99.999% of humanity would NOT recognize a still ultrasound image of a fetus as human unless you're showing a profile of the face. A cross section of the thorax would not be recognizable as such to someone untrained. 4. So how do we determine what "everyone recognizes as human"? A sick, dysmorphic fetus may look like an animal but not human to some untrained observers. A perfectly healthy 7 week fetus when seen on a transvaginal ultrasound may not look human at all to untrained observers, because it's only got little limb buds and barely any recognizable human features. So because we cannot get juries to determine "humanity" on an ultrasound, do we need to poll huge numbers of humans and create objective measurements that determine what is a "human being" when seen on ultrasound? 5. Why do you get to use your technology but I don't get to use mine? While the physical appearance of a fetus on an ultrasound provides some insight as to what's going on in there, so do genetic tests like karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization, and gene sequencing. If I did a karyotype I could identify some morphologically "human-looking" fetuses that WILL NEVER become a viable baby. So it's completely arbitrary for your determinants of humanity to be based on a computer reconstruction of sound waves bouncing off a fetus, but for you to specifically exclude my genetic testing. In summary, this is how your criteria break down, and why they cannot be a deontologic statement about "what is a human being": If you say (I paraphrase) "A human embryo can be defined as a "human being" when it is universally recognizable as such", that means: a) pregnancy has been determined in a human female of childbearing age, based on an empirically validated test of serum or urine beta-HCG levels b) the fetus is visualized using imaging technology (typically ultrasound), using a machine / model with empirically predetermined validity, which is operated by an experienced technologist or radiologist (don't forget that experience is also empirical) c) the resemblance of this fetus to a live-born human baby is determined according to morphologic criteria that are empirically derived from polling large numbers of randomly selected lay-humans. d) the expert opinion of radiologists, obstetricians, clinical geneticists, and other "experts" in this field, is specifically excluded because the determination of "human being" should not be confounded by evidence of pathology. As you can see all of what you're proposing is empirical, and it's not fixed at any point in pregnancy. So it's case-by-case, it's loose, and any determination of "recognizable" is subject to attack on a lot of very legitimate grounds. And this makes your statement subject to the epistemic limits of empirical science, just like any other statement based on empirical science. I can say that "Someone has AIDS if they 1) have HIV infection and 2) have a CD4 count lower than 200" (this is one definition of it). But this requires that I specify what HIV infection is, how it's determined, and the validity of that determination; and also what CD4 count is, how it's determined, and the validity (including clinical correlates) of a low CD4 count. Or I could say "All shield volcanos resemble Mauna Loa", or "Pluto is not truly a planet", etc. But all these assertions require elaboration and are meaningless without technology. Edited by Swordfishtrombone on Dec 27, 2007 - 6:12 AM Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
myrmecophaga
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 19, 2007 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 51 |
#65
I am confident that you are misunderstanding what I am saying- I was unwise in my choice of phrase, "recognisable as a human". I meant by this simply that people, out of the womb, are human. It was not intended to provide any reference to a fetus in the womb. A fetus is human if, and only if, it can reach this state. Supposing we cannot tell whether it can reach it or not, we assume it to be human. This is all I am saying. I am certainly not one to say that a fetus looks like a human nor one to say that abortion is wrong. "It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher |
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#66
Oh, ok, gotcha. In that case I think we're on the same page, more or less. I thought you were making a case for a fetus becoming a human being at some very difficult to define point -- whereas my whole goal in going down this road (with the choriocarcinoma, etc) was to show that it's not so clear that a fertilized egg should always be morally equivalent to a viable, living human. Look, I think that biologically all of these scenarios are human. The gametes (spermatozoa and oocyte, aka sperm and egg) are human, the zygote is human, the embryo is human, the fetus is human, as are all pathologic conditions from prematurity to Down syndrome all the way to extreme things like the choriocarcinoma. I think you and I are in agreement that any biological definition of human need not be synonymous with the moral definition of human being, let alone considerations like when do concepts of homicide or murder become relevant to the situation. Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
|
Inkstain
Another Pen  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 99 |
#67
I'm not entirely sure why I haven't gotten more involved in this issue, seeing as how I'm the one that started it. But here goes anyway. In this issue, many people think of the best interest of the mother. Many people think of the baby as a fetus, and there are so few people, at least who are pro-choice, who can think of it as a child, if not a potential child. Having a child is not like getting a new TV for instance. When you consider getting a new TV, you can decide that you can't afford it at the moment, and don't get it. Having a baby is not like that. If you look around the world, you notice that every person is, well, a person. Each one is different, with a different style, a different personality, a different...life. This is the basis of my realization. All people have one chance at life. It's not like buying a TV, where if you don't get one now, you can get the same type, if not the same one, in a few months or more, no big deal. Maybe you don't want to consider a fetus in the womb alive, but it will be, and it will become a living breathing, unique person. When a woman has an abortion, she puts off having a child, but the child, loses it's one and only chance at life before it can even live it. The child will not wait on the metaphorical "Shelf". I know how emotional it is for a pregnant woman to decide on abortion, but it just doesn't seem right that people can compare emotional suffering to denying life. When it comes down too it, In a given situation, I would rather suffer myself than kill someone else to save myself. That's all I'll say for now. When the clock strikes end, will anyone stop to look over their shoulder? |
|
Wosret
Guru ofthe Custodial Arts  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Location: Nova Scotia Canada Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 3824 |
#68
For me, it is not a moral issue until it can be harmed, and even the destruction of a fully formed fetus visits less suffering upon the world than the killing of an adult cow. The distinction of whether it is a human, a person, alive, or anything I find to be mote, and irrelevent. It causes no suffering to terminate a fully developed human being who has suffered a severe stroke or heart-attack that has caused irreversible, damage to their centeral nervous system. Keep such a person alive is a waste of resources, time and effort. The distinction between whether it is human or not is unimportant, arbitrary, and a frankly indefencible anthropocentric worldview in my opinion. What matters is the lose to gain suffering ratio. If an act causes more harm than benefit then I would be against it. More benefit then harm, then I am for it. Of course taking into consideration the agent in question, not a call to kill one person to harvest the organs to save five. I don't think that many poeple want to life in such a world, and that hurts our ideas of a security, and thus suriving well. If, however, no suffering is visited upon the world, then it is not a moral issue. I find the termination of a fetus with a fully developed nervous system, something that should be avoid, but the harm done to such a fetus is still negligable, in comparison to a fully developed and healthy sentient agent. In such a case that the fetus is developed to the point where it pocesses a fully developed nervous system, then I think that it is a moral issue, and the cost to gain ratio needs to be worked out, and discussed logically and rational. Before that point it is no different than ending the life of a piece of vegetation, which I am guilty of doing daily. The potentially sentient agent is an incoherent argument, which is easily dispersed of with a few good reductio ad absurdums. With today's techonology, any cell that DNA con be extracted from is a potential person. Everytime you masturbate you murder a few million potential people. Everytime you refuse a chance to copulate you have killed a potential person. Everytime you use contraception. Whether given the right circumstances something could someday be wronged is irrevelent to the fact that currently it cannot be. "Cool, Swamp Thing!" - Janitor. |
|
Incision
Dust in the Wind  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The Endless Sea Total Topics: 26 Total Posts: 1432 |
#69
Inkstain, I am sorry for coming in late, but I just joined and I would like to comment on the important points that have been made. Everyone here seems to agree that a live, healthy, born child is a human being. (Although Swordfish has pointed that it may be difficult to say precisely what counts as healthy.) Everyone also seems to agree that there is no one point between conception and birth that the conceptus becomes a full human being. Now, suppose we granted that it is not a human being at conception. This is very controversial, but I will explain why we might grant this in a moment. If we do, it follows that humanity comes in degrees: the zygote's humanity begins at 0 and eventually comes to 1, but not all at once. Since both the ideas that the unborn are fully people or fully not don't seem satisfactory to all people, I would like to hear your opinions on this option. One of the motivations for thinking that even zygotes are people is that to count them as entirely nonpersons is the only alternative and would imply things that go against the intuitions of many, such as that a fetus at 7 months is not a person. But that is not the only alternative. If we say that things can be somewhat human, then we could say that a 7-month-old is mostly a person--or even entirely a person--while not having to say that zygotes are people or drawing an arbitrary line. If we define murder as the premeditated killing of a person who does not wish to die, then since no unborn beings wish to die, if you attempted to kill one then you would be committing murder to the degree that that being is a person. (Sorry, that was a mouthful.) I would suggest that the premeditated killing of a zygote is not at all murder, that for a fetus the day before birth it is fully murder, and for an embryo it is somewhat true that it is murder. Another ethical issue is brought up by Wosret. If terminating a pregnancy harms the mother but does not harm what she is carrying, then barring any other considerations it is ethical to terminate. You could also look at this from a fuzzy perspective. Since (I understand) the capacity to feel pain grows over time, the further along the pregnancy the greater the ethical damage of termination. I would like to suggest this view as the most plausible way to account for our intuitions and the various points that have been brought up. What does every think? The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
|
Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Location: Erdschweinhöhle Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 266 |
#70
I'd put it even more generally. You either have a fixed point or you don't -- and the only fixed points in pregnancy that everyone can agree on are birth and conception. Conception happens extremely quickly on the timescale of human judgements, so I don't know that the 0 to 1 distinction applies; and besides no one knows they're conceiving at the time, so it's immaterial. And it's clearly unsatisfactory for humanity to begin at birth. So I agree with you that humanity (from a moral standpoint) is gained throughout gestation, and this will always be relativistic -- it has in part to do with how much humanity is extrinsically imposed on the fetus. Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.