The Right to Choose Abortion

[kitkat]

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion. Abortion should be a woman's choice along with extensive education to prevent further unwanted pregnancies by using birth control. Abortion should not used as a birth control method and woman should be educated on the important of birth control and the emotional consequences that accompanies the decision of getting an abortion. For most woman it is one of the hardest decisions that they might have to make in their lifetime.

 

There will always be a small percentage of women who think nothing of it by using abortion as a birth control method and if there was some way they could be held accountable for their actions which is a slippery slope, a solution is needed in this area. Teen pregnancy is another issue that is most likely the biggest reason behind these anti abortion groups and I am unsure in this area if it should be the right of the teenager or her parents that is likely to be largely affected by this decision. The reality is you cannot prevent teenagers from having sex since this is a biological program of hormones raging that causes them to desire sex. I think teenage girls should be fitted with a birth control device whether they are sexually active or not since they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of raising babies. The unrealistic idea that parents can educate their children to abstain from sex goes against the biological grain of human nature.

 

On the other hand there are many childless couples that desperately want to adopt so I can understand their interests in that abortion be illegal. However this should not be the primary reason for the movement in the first place. I realize that I might be conflicting my beliefs by stating it should be a woman's choice on abortion while at the same time believing that teenager girls should be fitted with a birth control device. Something has to draw the line due to this being such a complicated issue. What do you think?

[Howl]

Hmmm you have rasied a rather interesting question. Abortion the way I see it is wrong to be honest, because the way I see it if you play with fire your going to get burned. So if you play around with sex your going to get STD"S or your going to get pregnet. I mean what is seX? Sex is our bodys way of reproducing if you know what I mean. Now I do understand things such as rape an forced sex but in the end the babys not the problem, because it didn't force its self to be. I understand your idea of it being the womens chose, but to be honest not really. If women got abortions that would give them the excuse to have sex and kill the baby if they got pregent. Not to mention that would give rise to massive amounts of new STD's that could be worst than ADD'S. I guess my point is if we allow abortion we'll only make a bigger problem for ourselfs in the future.

 

 

~Howl

 

 

[mississippichem]

If overpopuation is the problem, and you're willing to condone murder to solve the problem, why don't you start by ending your own life and relieving the world of its burdens of supporting you?

 

Logical fallacy: early victory. You've framed abortion as murder in your argument when the ethics of abortion is the topic at hand.

 

You've effectively stated that abortion is bad because abortion is bad.

 

Do you still beat your wife?

[Moontanman]

mississippichem, I'm betting he does or will at some point....

 

In the USA the main problem is that some people want to out law abortion and keep the knowledge of birth control from the very people who are having unwanted pregnancies, it's a catch 22 with profound repercussions, if you want to end the need for abortions then you need to teach something other than don't do "it" because believe it or not sex is fun and even if it weren't fun we are still programmed genetically to have sex, once past puberty our hormones scream SEX SEX SEX but society says NO NO NO, this is not helping anyone....

[Phi for All]

If overpopuation is the problem, and you're willing to condone murder to solve the problem, why don't you start by ending your own life and relieving the world of its burdens of supporting you?

!

Moderator Note

References to the personal commitment of an illegal activity are forbidden by our rules. Furthermore, for encouraging another to commit an illegal activity, a complaint is being filed with your ISP. It will be up to them whether to involve the local authorities.

[PhDwannabe]

Hmmm you have rasied a rather interesting question. Abortion the way I see it is wrong to be honest, because the way I see it if you play with fire your going to get burned. So if you play around with sex your going to get STD"S or your going to get pregnet. I mean what is seX? Sex is our bodys way of reproducing if you know what I mean. Now I do understand things such as rape an forced sex but in the end the babys not the problem, because it didn't force its self to be. I understand your idea of it being the womens chose, but to be honest not really. If women got abortions that would give them the excuse to have sex and kill the baby if they got pregent. Not to mention that would give rise to massive amounts of new STD's that could be worst than ADD'S. I guess my point is if we allow abortion we'll only make a bigger problem for ourselfs in the future.

 

 

~Howl

 

Howl, you look to be a teenager, and I give you kudos for spending some time on a site called Science Forums, and engaging yourself in ethical discussions. So don't take any kind of offense when I argue with you, because I think we all have a special responsibility to, well, challenge the youth. Because it's good for you, and if your teachers are anything like mine were, they're so happy you think about anything at all that they don't go the extra mile in really challenging you and forcing you to defend what you've put forward. With that in mind, I'm going to challenge you on your comments with a couple of questions:

 

1) The way you've framed it, abortion is wrong primarily because it allows individuals to somehow "get away with" the natural consequences of an action the freely participated in. (The free participation part seems to be the crucial bit for you, because it looks like you regard rape as a special case.) If that's true, since you mention STDs, why should we treat STDs? Doesn't it follow from your argument that we should withhold medical treatment from someone who has contracted an STD from unprotected sex? After all, they played with fire; they're going to get burned. Where are the limits of this rule? I choose to drive, for instance, which is a risk. If I crash my car, should people come help me? After all, if I didn't want to "get burned," I could always take the bus.

 

2) The second part of your argument seems to be an argument derived from the effects of legal abortion, posed hypothetically. But, we don't need to be hypothetical, because we already have legal abortion (although access to it has been increasingly restricted in many places.) Do you have evidence that we have created a "problem for ourselves" since Roe v. Wade? How do you think you could prove or demonstrate something like that?

[imatfaal]

snipped

 

Nice post PHDw - agree almost entirely.

 

Howl - almost everything that you hold to be certain can be questioned (and the same goes for the things I hold to be true). And more seriously, you will start to realise that much that you have been told is sacrosanct and unquestionable is, in fact, complete rubbish. This is the nature of dogma (from any perspective - ie not necessarily religious vs atheist) - question everything!

 

BTW when are you gonna stop being phdWannabe and start being phdCandidate ? Seen this for months now and very curious - I am in the process of sending off doctoral research proposals (and really scared about it) - so what point have you reached?

[JustinW]

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to pair abortion with population control. Next thing you know some government will make it mandatory.

This thread did bring a couple of questions to mind on the subject. Why is it that people say "women's right to chose"? I understand that it's a womans body that takes the punishment in childbirth but as they say, "it takes two to tango". Is it ethically right to exclude a possible father from the scenario. And further, would abortion be ethically right since the father is excluded from the decision making?

 

Abortion should not used as a birth control method and woman should be educated on the important of birth control and the emotional consequences that accompanies the decision of getting an abortion.

 

 

I belive women are educated on birth control. Having daughters I feel maybe a little too soon. But I also believe that it is a parents job to teach these things and instill the morality they want their children to base their decisions on. I don't agree with some but am still a believer.

 

 

1) The way you've framed it, abortion is wrong primarily because it allows individuals to somehow "get away with" the natural consequences of an action the freely participated in. (The free participation part seems to be the crucial bit for you, because it looks like you regard rape as a special case.) If that's true, since you mention STDs, why should we treat STDs? Doesn't it follow from your argument that we should withhold medical treatment from someone who has contracted an STD from unprotected sex? After all, they played with fire; they're going to get burned. Where are the limits of this rule? I choose to drive, for instance, which is a risk. If I crash my car, should people come help me? After all, if I didn't want to "get burned," I could always take the bus.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Looking at abortion as a treatment against pregnancy (something wrong), may be a bad analogy.

[Brainteaserfan]

Howl, you look to be a teenager, and I give you kudos for spending some time on a site called Science Forums, and engaging yourself in ethical discussions. So don't take any kind of offense when I argue with you, because I think we all have a special responsibility to, well, challenge the youth. Because it's good for you, and if your teachers are anything like mine were, they're so happy you think about anything at all that they don't go the extra mile in really challenging you and forcing you to defend what you've put forward. With that in mind, I'm going to challenge you on your comments with a couple of questions:

 

1) The way you've framed it, abortion is wrong primarily because it allows individuals to somehow "get away with" the natural consequences of an action the freely participated in. (The free participation part seems to be the crucial bit for you, because it looks like you regard rape as a special case.) If that's true, since you mention STDs, why should we treat STDs? Doesn't it follow from your argument that we should withhold medical treatment from someone who has contracted an STD from unprotected sex? After all, they played with fire; they're going to get burned. Where are the limits of this rule? I choose to drive, for instance, which is a risk. If I crash my car, should people come help me? After all, if I didn't want to "get burned," I could always take the bus.

 

2) The second part of your argument seems to be an argument derived from the effects of legal abortion, posed hypothetically. But, we don't need to be hypothetical, because we already have legal abortion (although access to it has been increasingly restricted in many places.) Do you have evidence that we have created a "problem for ourselves" since Roe v. Wade? How do you think you could prove or demonstrate something like that?

The major question, rather obviously, is whether the baby is a person. However, I'll see if I can stick with the Roe v Wade case guidelines

 

We would agree that 95% of babies are productive, and overall a net plus for the economy? If so, then with killing the baby, you are hurting the economy. Similarly, if you have an STD, and were not treated, you would likely not come to your full potential as a human, potentially wasting some of the resources invested in your schooling and care when you were younger. So, from an economic position, you would not want to allow abortions (unless mentally retarded; I don't see a good secular argument for that), and you would want to treat STD's. JMTC.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to pair abortion with population control. Next thing you know some government will make it mandatory.

This thread did bring a couple of questions to mind on the subject. Why is it that people say "women's right to chose"? I understand that it's a womans body that takes the punishment in childbirth but as they say, "it takes two to tango". Is it ethically right to exclude a possible father from the scenario. And further, would abortion be ethically right since the father is excluded from the decision making?

 

I belive women are educated on birth control. Having daughters I feel maybe a little too soon. But I also believe that it is a parents job to teach these things and instill the morality they want their children to base their decisions on. I don't agree with some but am still a believer.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Looking at abortion as a treatment against pregnancy (something wrong), may be a bad analogy.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.

[imatfaal]

The major question, rather obviously, is whether the baby is a person. However, I'll see if I can stick with the Roe v Wade case guidelines

I think the question is more - at which point of gestation do we consider that a foetus is a baby/person.

 

We would agree that 95% of babies are productive, and overall a net plus for the economy? If so, then with killing the baby, you are hurting the economy. Similarly, if you have an STD, and were not treated, you would likely not come to your full potential as a human, potentially wasting some of the resources invested in your schooling and care when you were younger. So, from an economic position, you would not want to allow abortions (unless mentally retarded; I don't see a good secular argument for that), and you would want to treat STD's. JMTC.

babies might be productive as a longterm investment - but as babies they are pretty much a drain on sleep, free time, and normal life (although there are benefits)

 

 

using phrases like "killing the baby" you are making it quite clear that your arguments are rooted in a much more emotional and ethical place than economics - so why not make the emotional and ethical argument. the economic argument fails in my opinion because I do not believe it to be correct that we should force women to carry children to full term for the good of the state

Edited November 3, 2011 by imatfaal

[jeskill]

Why is it that people say "women's right to chose"? I understand that it's a womans body that takes the punishment in childbirth but as they say, "it takes two to tango". Is it ethically right to exclude a possible father from the scenario. And further, would abortion be ethically right since the father is excluded from the decision making?

 

IMO, the ethics depend on the relationship between the woman and the man. If they are in a committed non-abusive relationship, I think it would be ethical to discuss and weigh the pros and cons together and try to come up with a concensus. Otherwise, I firmly support the concept that it's the woman's choice. My reason is simple: carrying a child to term not only "punishes the body", it can kill the woman.

 

I think the question is more - at which point of gestation do we consider that a foetus is a baby/person.

 

I agree.

Edited November 3, 2011 by jeskill

[Brainteaserfan]

I think the question is more - at which point of gestation do we consider that a fetus is a baby/person.

True, that is practically the same thing though, but I see how mine was slightly charged.

 

 

babies might be productive as a longterm investment - but as babies they are pretty much a drain on sleep, free time, and normal life (although there are benefits)

Right, although maybe you should define "normal life." Since when was having children abnormal?

 

using phrases like "killing the baby" you are making it quite clear that your arguments are rooted in a much more emotional and ethical place than economics - so why not make the emotional and ethical argument. the economic argument fails in my opinion because I do not believe it to be correct that we should force women to carry children to full term for the good of the state

 

I used some language that in retrospect probably should have been edited.

 

Why do you want me to make "the emotional and ethical argument"? By using language like that, you are also making it very clear that you would not be influenced in the slightest, and would probably post a reply which I would not want to read.

 

It doesn't "fail," it is still a valid argument, but I see what you are saying. It certainly still stands for treating STD's though, and why the two are different.

 

it can kill the woman.

Quite rarely.

[jeskill]

Quite rarely.

 

It's only rare if you sample a small sub-set of the entire world population that has access to good health care.

Edit to say:

I'm not arguing that abortion should be legal because of maternal mortality rates. Certainly, the evidence I've seen does not suggest that the availability of abortions decreases mortality rates in woman who want to carry to full term. I was merely arguing that from an ethical standpoint, since the woman is assuming all the risks, she should have the most to say in the decision.

Edited November 3, 2011 by jeskill

[JustinW]

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Looking at abortion as a treatment against pregnancy (something wrong), may be a bad analogy.

 

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.

 

I was just pointing out the fact that the analogy was putting pregnancy in the same category as STD's. Like a pregnancy was something to be medically treated as such. Even though I believe that was not the intention of that statement. My personal thoughts on the subject is that there is no good excuse for an abortion unless the mother is in a life threatening situation. Otherwise I see the act of abortion as selfish. To terminate a potential life because of uncomfortable circumstances or just because it is unwanted seems flat out self centered.

 

I also think that life starts at the point of conception. When a plant seed begins to sprout it would be considered a live plant wouldn't it? When something enters a condition of growth would be my personal definition of life. The human seed enters that condition at conception.

[PhDwannabe]

I also think that life starts at the point of conception. When a plant seed begins to sprout it would be considered a live plant wouldn't it? When something enters a condition of growth would be my personal definition of life. The human seed enters that condition at conception.

Life does indeed begin at conception. The fertilized zygote is living h. sapien which manages to fulfill all of the requisite conditions of life to nearly everyone's satisfaction. It's alive. Nobody can doubt that.

 

The issue, however, is not whether the zygote (or, often more relevantly, the fetus) is a living human being. The more substantive issue is whether or not it is a human person. Personhood may or may not be entirely contiguous with life. Suppose you removed my head entirely--decapitated me--and hooked my body up to a bunch of machines to keep it humming along. It would go on pumping blood and absorbing oxygen, metabolizing, even perhaps making some responses to tactile stimuli, since a few of them are controlled by the spinal cord. So, that body. It's alive. Clearly. Is it a person, though? Is it me? What if it were just my brain that was removed, so I still had a skull and face--would I still be a person then? Maybe personhood lies in the presence of a working brain. But then, what about the unfortunate kids with intractable epilepsy who get a complete hemispherectomy: are they half a person when the operation's over?

 

How would we know that these cases are "people", or if they aren't? The point here is not to make analogies to abortion. The point is to demonstrate that personhood is more complex than just a physical body, or some amalgamation of functioning h. sapien cells which approximates a physical body well enough, or might do so in the near, 9-month future. If you just define human personhood as the presence of a live physical body, you start running into problems. So when pro-life advocates say that life begins at conception, they're shooting over their opposition's shoulder--of course it does. That's simply not the point. Personhood is. Is the fetus a person? And if so, when is it one? What are the characteristics that define personhood, and when and how are they acquired?

 

Even if it's established that the fetus meets criteria for personhood such that it "qualifies" to be treated in accordance with human rights, there may be even yet more considerations. Suppose I'm on a battlefield; an enemy soldier is a human person in every possible way. He's consciously aware, he has hopes and dreams, he makes decisions, feels pain and suffers. But we don't regard it as wrong to kill him, typically, if he's firing at me and we are legitimate combatants in a legitimate conflict.

 

Once more: the point here is not to call a fetus an enemy soldier on a battlefield. This is not an argument by analogy. This is a demonstration of the fact that the right not to be killed with impunity is not fully contiguous with personhood. We very commonly accept that there are situations in which it is not. War might be one, capital punishment might be one. Nonmartial self-defense is almost always certainly one. Euthanasia, for many, might be another. Abortion might be another, for those on the pro-choice side who accept fetal personhood. To sum up:

 

1) You haven't demonstrated anything substantive by just saying the fetus is alive. Of course it is. That has relatively little to do with the moral status of abortion. You've got to establish that it's a human person.

2) You still haven't made your full case by arguing successfully that the fetus is a person. We accept that there are situations in which human people can be killed because of other interests. You have to defend its interests against those which compete.

 

Ain't that easy?

[Moontanman]

I was just pointing out the fact that the analogy was putting pregnancy in the same category as STD's. Like a pregnancy was something to be medically treated as such. Even though I believe that was not the intention of that statement. My personal thoughts on the subject is that there is no good excuse for an abortion unless the mother is in a life threatening situation. Otherwise I see the act of abortion as selfish. To terminate a potential life because of uncomfortable circumstances or just because it is unwanted seems flat out self centered.

 

I also think that life starts at the point of conception. When a plant seed begins to sprout it would be considered a live plant wouldn't it? When something enters a condition of growth would be my personal definition of life. The human seed enters that condition at conception.

 

 

I agree, abortion should, ideally, be a last resort type thing but why do the people who oppose abortion also seem to be the very people who want to outlaw birth control and limit access to information about birth control in the very people most likely to need it to prevent an abortion? makes no sense...

[JustinW]

How would we know that these cases are "people", or if they aren't? The point here is not to make analogies to abortion. The point is to demonstrate that personhood is more complex than just a physical body, or some amalgamation of functioning h. sapien cells which approximates a physical body well enough, or might do so in the near, 9-month future. If you just define human personhood as the presence of a live physical body, you start running into problems. So when pro-life advocates say that life begins at conception, they're shooting over their opposition's shoulder--of course it does. That's simply not the point. Personhood is. Is the fetus a person? And if so, when is it one? What are the characteristics that define personhood, and when and how are they acquired?

 

Brain activity is detected between the fifth and sixth week of gestation. So by point of brain activity constituting personality, the limit would be 5-6 weeks. Most abortions takeplace after that period of time. Using another analogy on the subject: If a random person went into a hospital room and smothered a patient who was brain dead would that be considered murder? If we allow brain activity to define personhood then someone who has lost brain function would no longer be a person. I think if life starts at conception and the outcome of that life is personhood, then why not define that life as being a person.

 

I agree, abortion should, ideally, be a last resort type thing but why do the people who oppose abortion also seem to be the very people who want to outlaw birth control and limit access to information about birth control in the very people most likely to need it to prevent an abortion? makes no sense...

 

Probably the majority of the people that argue against birth control do it for religious reasons. I know that catholics have a firm stance against birth control and i'm sure there are other religions that hold similar beliefs.

[PhDwannabe]

So by point of brain activity constituting personality

Brain activity = personality? This seems to be a pretty big non sequitur. Those are two different things in two different domains.

 

Using another analogy on the subject

Another analogy? Who used the first analogy? Did you think I was offering analogies? They were not analogies, and I said so, clearly. I am not making arguments by analogy. At any rate, you seem to be dispensing with the brain stuff and just sticking with this:

 

I think if life starts at conception and the outcome of that life is personhood, then why not define that life as being a person.

Do we habitually confer rights based on future states? A pile of building materials is not a house, even when workmen begin to turn it into one. It does not have legal status as a residence, even though we're almost certain it will be one soon. Aha, you might say; that's an inanimate object--we're talking about people. In 1923, Gerald Ford was 10 years old, and he was to be the future President of the United States, but nobody gave him powers commensurate with the Commander-in-Chief of our nation's armed forces. Aha, you might say, that's because nobody knew or could've known he'd be President--a couple of children currently living will be the President one day, but we don't know which ones. So it's a matter of certainty, perhaps? Well, nobody knows what zygotes or fetuses will become babies, either. Something like three-fourths of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and are expelled. Something like a third of implanted zygotes fail to even become embryos, because the body spontaneously aborts them. While the chances are certainly nonzero, they are far, far from 100%.

 

To your credit, you do seem to admit that personhood is not present within a fertilized egg, but it is life, and the "outcome of that life is personhood" (my emphasis). In that case, you have a further argument to make: why we should grant rights to something because it will maybe sometime soon display the characteristics which actually engender those rights. Particularly in light of the fact that the eventual earning of that status is not only far from certain, it is, at conception, far from likely.

[jeskill]

...

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I disagree that life begins at conception. Life, at least, the biological concept of life, continues in a different form at conception. The sperm and the egg are both alive before fertilization, and they are still alive after fertilization. I have a longer rant about this, but I've already posted it here, so I won't waste space in this thread.

[PhDwannabe]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I disagree that life begins at conception. Life, at least, the biological concept of life, continues in a different form at conception. The sperm and the egg are both alive before fertilization, and they are still alive after fertilization. I have a longer rant about this, but I've already posted it here, so I won't waste space in this thread.

I'll agree that things are kind of subtle. I certainly think that a zygote is "alive" in a way that the gametes which fuse to form it are not, as it in itself contains the full instructions and potential to create the adult organism. But the status of being alive is itself on more of a spectrum than we'd like it to be.

[kitkat]

In China, if a deformed child is born they live it in the streets to die. Chinese people will walk right by the baby and ignored it. I had a friend who was Doctor visiting China and he saw this child and brought it to the authorities and they said because he picked this child up it is now his responsibility. He had a hard time getting out of that. I do not know if abortion is legal or not and this probably does not have anything to do with this thread but wouldn't you think that terminating an early pregnancy is humane compared to the suffering that the child may endure after it is born?

Edited November 5, 2011 by kitkat

[jeskill]

Abortion is definitely legal in China.

[JustinW]

Brain activity = personality? This seems to be a pretty big non sequitur. Those are two different things in two different domains.

The issue, however, is not whether the zygote (or, often more relevantly, the fetus) is a living human being. The more substantive issue is whether or not it is a human person. Personhood may or may not be entirely contiguous with life. Suppose you removed my head entirely--decapitated me--and hooked my body up to a bunch of machines to keep it humming along. It would go on pumping blood and absorbing oxygen, metabolizing, even perhaps making some responses to tactile stimuli, since a few of them are controlled by the spinal cord. So, that body. It's alive. Clearly. Is it a person, though? Is it me? What if it were just my brain that was removed, so I still had a skull and face--would I still be a person then? Maybe personhood lies in the presence of a working brain. But then, what about the unfortunate kids with intractable epilepsy who get a complete hemispherectomy: are they half a person when the operation's over?

I believe this was the reason for me to attribute brain activity with personhood. It was an arguement you made. Although I am still not sure that personhood doesn't start before brain activity. When an embrio gets the chromosomes from both parents they have the building blocks that make it an individual. Wouldn't that individuality constitute personhood?

 

Do we habitually confer rights based on future states? A pile of building materials is not a house, even when workmen begin to turn it into one. It does not have legal status as a residence, even though we're almost certain it will be one soon. Aha, you might say; that's an inanimate object--we're talking about people. In 1923, Gerald Ford was 10 years old, and he was to be the future President of the United States, but nobody gave him powers commensurate with the Commander-in-Chief of our nation's armed forces. Aha, you might say, that's because nobody knew or could've known he'd be President--a couple of children currently living will be the President one day, but we don't know which ones. So it's a matter of certainty, perhaps? Well, nobody knows what zygotes or fetuses will become babies, either. Something like three-fourths of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and are expelled. Something like a third of implanted zygotes fail to even become embryos, because the body spontaneously aborts them. While the chances are certainly nonzero, they are far, far from 100%.

Another analogy? Who used the first analogy? Did you think I was offering analogies? They were not analogies, and I said so, clearly. I am not making arguments by analogy. At any rate, you seem to be dispensing with the brain stuff and just sticking with this:

 

Analogies? A pile of building material is not listed as a residence because it can still be built into something else. Ford could have chosen another career path. I doubt a fetus that is concieved by humans will be born anything but a human. Also, the natural abortion by the human body is different from a conscious choice to abort. I don't concider the conscious act of abortion to be natural since it is most likely a reason that could be construde as selfish.

 

China needs to get tougher on their abandonment laws. Abortion still isn't manditory in China to control population. No one can ever know for sure the outcome of a childs wellfare before it is born. So to argue that abortion is ethical on the grounds of eliminating the suffering of a child wouldn't work in my way of thinking.

Edited November 7, 2011 by JustinW

[jeskill]

Personhood is not a scientific concept -- it's a philosophical one. The concept of personhood will entirely depend on whether or not one believes that the fertilization process automatically creates a "soul" (we know it doesn't create consciousness) or whether or not a soul develops as consciousness develops, or even whether or not one believe a "soul" exists.

 

But I think that a calling a collection of diploid human cells a person is a bad idea, simply because there are so many different philosophies on the concept of "soul" and "personhood". That, and it automatically means a number of contraceptives are no longer morally appropriate, such as the pill.

[imatfaal]

Personhood is not a scientific concept -- it's a philosophical one. The concept of personhood will entirely depend on whether or not one believes that the fertilization process automatically creates a "soul" (we know it doesn't create consciousness) or whether or not a soul develops as consciousness develops, or even whether or not one believe a "soul" exists.

 

But I think that a calling a collection of diploid human cells a person is a bad idea, simply because there are so many different philosophies on the concept of "soul" and "personhood". That, and it automatically means a number of contraceptives are no longer morally appropriate, such as the pill.

 

Jeskill - I agree with you post almost entirely, but i have a pedantic point and as this is philosophy I thought I would raise it (highlight mine).

 

As we have no agreed concept of how consciousness arises how can we know that an ur-consciousness does not arrive with the joining of gametes. Now I do not believe this is the case - but I would struggle to prove/disprove it as there is precious little knowledge or experimental evidence either way. I do not believe in a soul (immortal or otherwise) but I also do not think that science can rule out the existence of something that is by definition supernatural - especially when we are still struggling to explain consciousness - the sine qua non of wishing/being able to explain anything.