Abortion

[syntax252]

That has occurred to me before' date=' but I cant really find a reason how to justify it.

 

The argument to me sounds like "value of life is more important than value of convenience", so I'm really tempted to ask "why is it wrong to deprive a person of life?". When I ask myself that question, I genuinely have a hard time trying to answer the question outside of the fact that it conflicts with people's interests and causes them to suffer. So, I'm back to where I started, and I think to myself that it is wrong to coerce a woman to become a parent against her will whereas the unborn person wont suffer at all.

 

[/quote']

 

This sounds like you don't feel that there are any ways to quantify suffering, or to measure the intensity of suffering, that you feel that if one suffers inconvenience, that is equivilant to loss of life.

 

Is this what you think?

 

To me, since you are willing to refer to the fetus as an "unborn person," this would equate to killing a person for his money, since once he was dead, he would not suffer, and then, once you had his money, you wouldn't have to suffer the inconvenience of being broke.

 

This would beg the question--why not commit suicide to avoid the inconvenience of poverty.

 

Also, there is the question of taking responsibility for one's actions. If one engages in sexual relations willingly, and either through carelessness or bad luck, becomes pregnant, do you think that there is a moral or ethical obligation to see it through?

 

In short, I think that there are times when taking a human life is perfectly justified, but that the threshold for justification should be a little higher than mere convenience.

 

IMO

[syntax252]

Quote:

Originally Posted by syntax252

Not that there are not perfectly ligitimate reasons for abortion, but shouldn't a person have to have a pretty good reason to do it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think so, you think so and many people think so. Now, it is a very different thing to have the government say so.

 

I also think that one needs a very good reason to kill another person who has already been born, and that there are reasons that satisfy me.

 

The government has laws that apply to that, why not abortion?

[Cadmus]

I think we're using the word experience in two different ways.

Good catch on your part.

[Aardvark]

I'm not an animal expert' date=' you'll have to ask someone who is to get a more technical answer than I could give. But from what I know, insects act like little automatons, they behave in pre-programmed ways. [/quote']

 

Yes, insects do seem to act like automatons. But that does not offer any fundamental difference from other creatures. It could be reasonably asserted that rabbits are simply more complex automatons. I don't think we are anywhere near making any objective distinctions here.

 

 

Rabbits and higher mammals seem to have many of the same brain structures in common (they are almost physiologically identical)' date=' so I dont think its a stretch to assume they might have a conscious experience of the world. A lot of people seem to have a misconception that humans and human experiences are "special" (whatever that means), but the truth is that many other animals have much more acutely-tuned senses than humans, so I dont see an obvious reason to assume consciousness is unique to humans.[/quote']

 

 

It does seem a stretch that just because rabbit brains have a similair structure to our own they might have consciousness. There are similairities, but also basic differences, size for example. Also this is falling into the same anthrocentric trap you then warn off. You argue that there is no obvious reason to assume humans are unique then use standards of judgement based on how similair something is to humans. 'man as the measure of all things'. Curious.

 

 

I'm not a neurology expert' date=' so its difficult for me to be able to explain in my own words what grounds to detect consciousness. Off the top of my head, I imagine something is conscious if at minimum it can have mental experiences and understand its experiences (I hope that isnt circular logic).

 

I remember asking a friend who is much smarter than I am in topics about the brain and consciousness, and I was pointed to this article called Inner speech and conscious experience. It correlates the experience of human consciousness to a region in the pre-frontal cortex that is responsible for internal monologue (this is important because it allows you to say to yourself "I look nice today, my dress fits very well, I am me"). Its very difficult to develop a sense of self if you cant talk to yourself.

 

So we would define self awareness and therefore rights by the development of part of the pre frontal cortex? On the basis that this is required for an internal monologue, which is required for self awareness? It all sounds a bit like the Nazis going around measuring peoples skulls for racial classification. Forgive me for being perjorative, but that does not sound like a rigourous scientific measurement, simply another baby step on the tortorous road to understanding consciousness.

 

Again' date=' I'm not an animal expert, but if rabbit brains are as similar to human and other mammalian brains, then they can probably talk to themselves. Checking for activity that appears organized passing through the internal-monologue regions of the brain is a possible indication of a sense of self.[/quote']

 

Simply judging rabbit brains by analogy to human brains is flawed for two basic reasons. One, such a standard is completely anthrocentric and therefore utterly subjective. Two, it is'nt actually correct in its assertions. there is no reason to believe that rabbits can hold any kind of internal monologue. At the crudest level, where are the rabbit artists, the rabbit architects? Every action they take appears to be simply followig hard wired instinctive urges.

 

I think I've answered what self-awareness is and a possible way to measure it above.

 

I don't think you' date=' or anyone, has been able to give a reasonable definition of self awareness. Your system of measurement, the development of part of the pre frontal cortex, seems, at the very best, to be speculative and crude.

 

 

So now, to explain what an interest is:

 

If you are familiar with some of the technial definitions that Peter Singer uses, he defines an "interest" at its most fundamental level as something that a being consciously desires or seeks to avoid (i.e. a cat has an interest in not being tormented because it does not want to suffer, at the same time it doesnt make sense to talk about the interests of a bee because supposedly they have no cognitive capacity). The semantics are interesting, but otherwise valid.

 

That completely ignores the question of whether that interest is conscious. How do we know that a cat avoiding pain is acting consciously? I would strongly argue that avoiding pain is a deep rooted instinct that the cat unconsciously acts upon. It still all depends upon a clear defintion of consciousness or self awareness, which i do not believe we are anywhere near producing.

 

Most abortions take place in the first 12 weeks' date=' and almost none take place after 24. The earliest a brain can experience sensations of pain is about 30 weeks in gestation, before that time it is probably inappropriate to interpret some of the reflexes and movements of a fetus as genuine expressions of pain.[/quote']

 

The earliest a brain can definitely fully experience pain is 26 weeks.

 

In this thread arguments have been made for partial birth abortion, 36 weeks. You have stated that you would consider abortion right up to 36 weeks and even in some cases after the child has actally been born.

 

Of course! The aforementioned examples arent meant to be an exhaustive account' date=' just a general approach to considering what kind of practical limits there are to the sanctity of life (most people I notice find the examples unreasonable not because they are wrong, but because they are so wildly unbelievable).[/quote']

 

People would probably dismiss them as unbelievable because ultimately most people put their personal luxuries before other peoples essentials. Actually trying to force them to clearly consider the moral consquences of their actions will result in a shying away with crys of 'unreasonable, or impracticable'. Simply a case of the self serving, self deception and false sentimentality pervasive in the human species.

 

Are we both making the assumption that all humans are self aware? It seems to me from observation, that most humans act on a largely unconscious emotional/instinctive, rather than a rational/ logical basis. I wold consider it more likely that most humans experience glimmers of self awareness at best.

[Mart]

You don't have to be a behaviourist to spot anthropomorphisation.

Anthropomorphisation? Is that a DubYa-type word?

If one is not even sure what consciousness is, and one has no empirical data or repeatable tests that in any way indicate that a rabbit or similar is conscious, then what reason is there to ascribe that characteristic to it as a means of supporting an argument?

I know I am conscious. You know you are conscious. Or do you? How can I be sure? You could be a Zombie - no offence intended - Zombie is a technical term for a creature without consciousness which behaves in exactly the same way as someone with consciousness. I assume you are conscious but I have no empirical evidence for my assumption. And I assume that if you and I are both human then we share human-like characteristics. I also assume that humans and other animals have some similar characteristics. Consciousness may be one of them although it may not be like human consciousness. Whatever consciousness is I know I have some of it

 

Are you conscious? Can you prove it to me?

[Aardvark]

Anthropomorphisation? Is that a DubYa-type word?

 

I know I am conscious.

 

Considering that your entire post was dedicated to demolishing your own argument you might want to reexamine that assumption.

 

Are you conscious? Can you prove it to me?

 

As Sayonara is arguing that consciousness is not yet definable that is your task not his.

[Sayonara]

Anthropomorphisation? Is that a DubYa-type word?

I doubt Bush has ever had cause to use it, unless he was repeating something that someone said about him.

 

 

I know I am conscious. You know you are conscious. Or do you? How can I be sure? You could be a Zombie - no offence intended - Zombie is a technical term for a creature without consciousness which behaves in exactly the same way as someone with consciousness. I assume you are conscious but I have no empirical evidence for my assumption. And I assume that if you and I are both human then we share human-like characteristics. I also assume that humans and other animals have some similar characteristics. Consciousness may be one of them although it may not be like human consciousness. Whatever consciousness is I know I have some of it

It is far more reasonable for you to assume that any given human you can interact with is conscious in the same fashion as yourself, than it is to assume that any given animal is.

 

 

Are you conscious? Can you prove it to me?

That is outside the scope of this discussion.

[Mart]

It is far more reasonable for you to assume that any given human you can interact with is conscious in the same fashion as yourself' date=' than it is to assume that any given animal is.

[/quote']

If you assume that animals have no consciouness then you would you have to assume that consciousness is unique to humans and that there was a "big jump" in evolution that effectively seperated us from animals?

[syntax252]

Can an animal that is not consious of himself have dreams?

 

Because I used to have a rabbit dog who would sleep in front of the fireplace and in his sleep he would be doing little "woff woffs" and sometimes his hind legs would kick a little bit.

 

I figured that he was dreaming about running rabbits. Whaddya think?

[Mart]

Can an animal that is not consious of himself have dreams?

 

Because I used to have a rabbit dog who would sleep in front of the fireplace and in his sleep he would be doing little "woff woffs" and sometimes his hind legs would kick a little bit.

 

I figured that he was dreaming about running rabbits. Whaddya think?

I would guess that a dog that wasn't conscious of anything in it's waking existance would not be conscious when it was asleep. It'd be a bit weird if the only time the dog was conscious was when it was asleep. However, it's still possible that if animals have no consciousness that what your dog was doing was simply a type of automatic action with no consciousness at all. I have my suspicions that Sayonara³ is not conscious.

[Mart]

SayonaraAre you a behaviorist by any chance?

He won't answer you. If he does it'll be an answer to a different question and one you didn't ask.

Rabbits and higher mammals seem to have many of the same brain structures . . . . so I dont see an obvious reason to assume consciousness is unique to humans.

I agree

I imagine something is conscious if at minimum it can have mental experiences and understand its experiences . . .

Interesting and thanks for the link

[Aardvark]

If you assume that animals have no[/b'] consciouness then you would you have to assume that consciousness is unique to humans and that there was a "big jump" in evolution that effectively seperated us from animals?

 

It's called culture.

 

Seen any chimpanzee artists around anywhere?

[Phi for All]

He won't answer you. If he does it'll be an answer to a different question and one you[/b'] didn't ask.

Going out of your way to cause trouble is one definition of trolling. And I don't care if it's a member, a Mod or an Admin, trolling people on this forum drags our credibility down and scares away posters who are interested in thread content.

 

Please stick to the topic, it's much more interesting.

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

This sounds like you don't feel that there are any ways to quantify suffering' date=' or to measure the [b']intensity[/b] of suffering, that you feel that if one suffers inconvenience, that is equivilant to loss of life.

 

Is this what you think?

Have I come off that way? If I have, that is entirely the opposite of how I feel.

 

I dont think all suffering is equal. I really dont think a good argument can be made to say that a girl pricking herself on a sewing needle suffers in same way or as much as a person dying of a terminal illness.

 

Its difficult to quantify suffering and measure its intensity, but not necessarily impossible. Lots of external cues, such as a limp, protection of an injured part of the body, abnormal vocal sounds, change in respiration, physiological changes, and lots of other indicators are good ways to objectify pain. There are also a few different questionaires (among other tools) in use to help measure the intensity of pain, they appear to quite accurate. (Note: suffering isnt limited to physical pain.)

 

Doctors, physicians, and vets have been studying physical pain and ways to minimize it for a long time. And certain types of psychologists and lawyers would be out of a job if it were impossible to quantify non-physical types of suffering (like emotional distress, anxiety, etc.).

 

To me, since you are willing to refer to the fetus as an "unborn person," this would equate to killing a person for his money, since once he was dead, he would not suffer, and then, once you had his money, you wouldn't have to suffer the inconvenience of being broke.

Hmmm...

 

I have a hard time trying to figure out how to justify what you say. Unless the person with money were about to fall into the hands of sadistic killer and it were necessary to kill the person before he were to suffer much much more, I dont really imagine what good reason there is to kill him. I dont think my interest in his money outweighs his interest in his own life and money.

 

What have I said that implies I would find it alright to kill people for their money?

 

This would beg the question--why not commit suicide to avoid the inconvenience of poverty.

Why not? If a person finds living in poverty to be so intolerable that they have no more rational* interest in continued existence, shouldnt they have that right to die? (That's a rhetorical question, and probably worthy of a whole new thread all together.)

 

* Additional clarifying information: I say "rational interest" because most people in suicidal state arent rational, and would be very upet about their own death if they were to approach the same thoughts in their rational state.

 

Of course, the way I see it there really isnt a reason that suicide should be an imperative, in fact there are lots of reasons why suicide isnt an imperative.

 

Also, there is the question of taking responsibility for one's actions. If one engages in sexual relations willingly, and either through carelessness or bad luck, becomes pregnant, do you think that there is a moral or ethical obligation to see it through?

No I dont.

 

Of course, taking responsiblities for your own actions isnt an absolute. If I'm outside in the rain, and either by own will / through carelessness / or bad luck I catch a cold, do you really think it is easy to justify telling me "no, you brought the condition on yourself, so you'll just have to see it through" - No, of course not, that would be unethical in itself.

 

Lots of behavior is risky and leads to consequences that we might not like. This isnt the same thing as saying we dont have to pay for damages of a car accident if we dont want to, just that all things being equal there are certain consequences that arent an imperative to see through.

 

In short, I think that there are times when taking a human life is perfectly justified, but that the threshold for justification should be a little higher than mere convenience.

I know, most people think its a little short-shrift to think convenience can possibly justify abortion, but in my humble opinion I think can be justified on a basis of equal consideration of interests.

 

So we would define self awareness and therefore rights by the development of part of the pre frontal cortex? On the basis that this is required for an internal monologue, which is required for self awareness? It all sounds a bit like the Nazis going around measuring peoples skulls for racial classification. Forgive me for being perjorative, but that does not sound like a rigourous scientific measurement, simply another baby step on the tortorous road to understanding consciousness.

Do you think suffering is morally relevant at all? And if you think there is something wrong with what I say, on what basis do you think rights should be granted?

 

For me, I am very egalitarian. I find suffering to be morally intolerable. All things being equal, I consider it less unethical to kill something that isnt rational, isnt sentient, isnt capable of suffering, and isnt capable of holding any kind of interest than killing something which is rational, sentient, capable of suffering, and has certain interests. How something suffers is usually one of the first tests of whether something is morally right or wrong - this isnt an irrational standard of ethics.

 

In fact it is an incredibly useful standard of ethics - most people would be very hard-pressed to construct a meaningful reason to explain the moral difference between killing germs on food and killing a person that didnt relate directly to whether people can suffer (sometimes, you might hear about "natural rights", but again it just isnt obvious why the rights of humans prevail over the rights of other things without appealing to whether things can suffer). Even when weighing the moral difference between slapping your own mother and having a cats eyes poked out, most people find that having a cats eyes poked out is much more unethical because it will undoubtedly suffer much much more.

 

I dont think species membership guarantees anyone any kind of right (this kind of prejudice is just as inappropriate as guaranteeing rights on a basis of gender, race, or skull size). All interests should be considered equally regardless of the sex, skin color, or species of the interest holder.

 

Note: I dont mean this in a negative way, but I am ignoring the parts of your post that seem to focus more on how we know things are conscious or whether they act instinctually - while I would usually be very happy to talk on and on about those things, to me they are red herring and not immediately relevant to abortion.

[Mart]

How do we know that a cat avoiding pain is acting consciously? I would strongly argue that avoiding pain is a deep rooted instinct that the cat unconsciously acts upon. It still all depends upon a clear defintion of consciousness or self awareness' date=' which i do not believe we are anywhere near producing.

/QUOTE']

 

A cat is a mammal. Humans are mammals. This is not an analogy but an identity - in the sense that we belong in the same group. Therefore we share certain features in common. We are mammals because . . . .

 

Consequently I believe I share with a cat the deeply rooted instinct to avoid INJURY. When there is damage to the body automatic processors do their stuff. But if the damage is severe enough then a message is sent to the non-instinctive part of the body (consciousness) to say damage - work in progress - take care . Consciousness, being non-instinctive and therefore not automatic has the task of how to respond to the message. This is a task that consciousness is repeatedly engaged in. It's no coincidence that we are very much more alert to deviations from the norm than we are to the norm itself. Consciousness deals with novelty.

 

So I think it easier to get a handle on consciousness if we can agree about what it does rather than what it is. This would lead to questions like "what sort of activities are dependent on consciousness?".

[Sayonara]

I have my suspicions that Sayonara³ is not conscious.

Then you must be some sort of idiot, and I think we can narrow that down further, can't we?

[Sayonara]

If you assume that animals have no[/b'] consciouness then you would you have to assume that consciousness is unique to humans and that there was a "big jump" in evolution that effectively seperated us from animals?

To fail to assume that a rabbit is conscious is not the same as assuming that no animals are conscious, so your premise is invalid.

 

Humans evolving consciousness does not necessarily require a "big jump" in evolution, nor can it be measured against other species, so your conclusion is a non sequitur.

[syntax252]

Hmmm...

 

I have a hard time trying to figure out how to justify what you say. Unless the person with money were about to fall into the hands of sadistic killer and it were necessary to kill the person before he were to suffer much much more' date=' I dont really imagine what good reason there is to kill him. I dont think my interest in his money outweighs his interest in his own life and money.

 

What have I said that implies I would find it alright to kill people for their money?

[/quote']

 

What you said is that since a pregnancy offers inconveince to the pregnant person that she is morally intitled to kill the fetus, even though you agree that the fetus is a baby human being. You justify it by saying that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain, and is not aware of himself.

 

If you shot a person through the back of the head without warning, he would feel no pain, nor would he be aware that he had been killed.

[JHAQ]

I think terminating the life of a non - sentient entity who has no capacity for anticipatory foreknowledge of what is about to happen to it is VASTLY different from when that entity KNOWS it is about to die . For this reason I am pro--choice .It is spurious to say a "right to life " has been denied because such a statement assumes a continiung concious awareness after death able to contemplate such a loss .

[Mart]

Then you must be some sort of idiot, and I think we can narrow that down further, can't we?

The ball's in your court. Read my private post. I would be grateful if you reciprocated my intention to keep it private.

[Mart]

To fail to assume that a rabbit is conscious is not the same as assuming that no animals are conscious, so your premise is invalid.

Agreed. But then which animals would you nominate?

Humans evolving consciousness does not necessarily require a "big jump" in evolution, nor can it be measured against other species, so your conclusion is a non sequitur.

If no animals apart from humans have any consciousness (which may be true) how would you explain this using evolutionary theory. I am asking for your expertise here since you have a degree in applied biology. Remember I'm not an expert but I'm not a complete idiot (but then you know that otherwise you wouldn't have bothered answering my post )

[atinymonkey]

If you shot a person through the back of the head without warning' date=' he would feel no pain, nor would he be aware that he had been killed.[/quote']

 

Your confusing a situation where society suffers a loss with an anthropomorphisation of a collection of cells. Society suffers no direct impact from an abortion in the early stages, just as it suffers no direct impact from the use of condoms.

[TimeTraveler]

My opinion is there is no right answer that everyone will agree on, instead of debating it maybe we should spend more time researching solutions.

 

Example of a solution (not sure how realistic) - A shot that could be administered at a young age to prevent pregnancy, then when a women is ready to have a child another shot could be administered to reverse the process.

 

I know that is seriously over simplifying it and wishing for things that may not be possible, but I think research into ideas along these lines may be the best way to come up with a solution.

[syntax252]

Your confusing a situation where society suffers a loss with an anthropomorphisation of a collection of cells. Society suffers no direct impact from an abortion in the early stages, just as it suffers no direct impact from the use of condoms.

 

There seems to be a rather large segment in society that would disagree that there has been no loss in the case of an abortion.

 

Do you think that the fetus is somehow inhuman? that it should hive absolutely no more rights to be protected by society than finger nail clippings?

[Mart]

Do you think that the fetus is somehow inhuman? /QUOTE]

The Nazis' first step in their final solution was to classify Jews (along with other "inferior" groups) as sub-human. This allowed them to justify the murder of millions. Some of the Nazis responsible for these crimes were sentenced as breakers of international law. If a person can convince themselves that a fetus is less than human (sub-human) and can be justly killed then what uniform are they wearing?