I don't know if there is anyone purely scientific way to determine when life "starts".
Sure there is. We just need to define our terms more strictly. What matters more for determining if something is "alive:" the heartbeat or higher brain function? We can detect both in a fetus.
what I mean is that there is no "life-o-topes" that a for reals person emits which could be detected by a "life-o-meter" that a fetus does not so anything we use to define "life" as it pertains to a fetus is arbitrary (including classifying brain functions as "life-o-topes").
There is another reason I don't think higher brain functions are a bullet proof method; if a fetus is considered a person then it would be then subject to the wishes of whomever has power of attorney over it. The guardians of Terry Schiavo, who was in a persistent vegetative state with no higher brain functions, were determined to have the legal right to remove her feeding tube (removing the apparatus that was sustaining her life) and thus killing her but that hinged on the fact that there was no realistic expectation that she would ever improve, which cannot be said of all fetuses before higher brain functions occur.
again, I am NOT saying that abortion should be illegal, just that I don't know of a way to determine a point at which it is always moral.
On a similar note, while many people think it unethical, I think it's ok for parents to have a baby aborted if it's known to have congenital disorders even during the third trimester.
Emily's argument is fine now, but we'll eventually have test tube human growing tech which you could transplant as little as a fertilised egg into and produce a healthy baby.
Also, problem with the third trimester thing is working out what you consider to be acceptable cause. Should it be ethical to screen for gender like they do in China?
Also, many men I know have had children.
P.S. While I get what you mean, the role of men in child raising, even from the point of conception is an important one (With the obvious exception of lesbian couples.).
again, I am NOT saying that abortion should be illegal, just that I don't know of a way to determine a point at which it is always moral.
Well, since morality doesn't exist, we simply decide based on reasoning. We pick higher brain function because that's really the first point at which the organism in question could be self-aware and thus said to be a "person." Before that, it's literally just a parasitic sac.
also hinged on the fact that there was no realistic expectation that she would ever improve
No, their decision hinged on that fact. Their rights did not. There's a difference.
if a fetus is considered a person then it would be then subject to the wishes of whomever has power of attorney over it
Right, and the fetus is subject to the wishes of the mother, by default. It really can't be any other way.
Also, problem with the third trimester thing is working out what you consider to be acceptable cause. Should it be ethical to screen for gender like they do in China?
I say yes, only because a society that choices stupid things such as gender to screen for deserves the ensuing societial consequences of their actions. I.E. China, get ready for some unrest in your near future.
Also, problem with the third trimester thing is working out what you consider to be acceptable cause. Should it be ethical to screen for gender like they do in China?
I say yes, only because a society that choices stupid things such as gender to screen for deserves the ensuing society consequences of their actions.
No, just as children don't deserve to have alcoholic parents. If your society doesn't evolve to accept certain norms you will eventually die out or be constantly in flux and fall behind. (or destroy the world, which ever comes first)
also hinged on the fact that there was no realistic expectation that she would ever improve
No, their decision hinged on that fact. Their rights did not. There's a difference.
There were laws that prevented Terry Schiavo from being unplugged which were overturned because she had no hope of recovery. Her potential for recovery was the focal point of the entire case. It was only then that it was legal for her guardians to kill her.
I'm not a lawyer however so don't kill anyone based on anything I say.
again, I am NOT saying that abortion should be illegal, just that I don't know of a way to determine a point at which it is always moral.
Well, since morality doesn't exist, we simply decide based on reasoning. We pick higher brain function because that's really the first point at which the organism in question could be self-aware and thus said to be a "person." Before that, it's literally just a parasitic sac.
I don't think abortion can be litigated in any way that would prevent 100% of "bad" abortions without preventing a single "good" abortion and that is the reason I am against making it illegal. So I guess we agree enough.
That is an odd strain of apathy you have there but I'm not going to push you on that.
Well think about this. We run a full genetic screen on someone's fetus and find it's a girl. The family really wants a boy and they are only allowed or able to afford one child. (THIS FAMILY IS STUPID) However, Culturally it has always been advantageous to have a boy over a girl. They can before the third trimester just abort with no particular reason or come up with a dumb excuse. Most likely they will not be doing a third trimester abortion due to the gender because we would have already figured it out by then. So the fix is to try and change the traditions/culture/PR and make it not matter as much what the sex is by education, propaganda and increasing the standard of living. It is wrong (in my view) to chose to abort because of gender but people are going to do what they want to do. Laws governing this behavior would not be effective. Therefore making rules on what can or can not be aborted would be an empty gesture.
So the fix is to try and change the traditions/culture/PR and make it not matter as much what the sex is by education, propaganda and increasing the standard of living.
I took your previous posts to mean that sitting by and doing nothing was your chosen course of action.
I tend to stand with the Aristotelian definition of ensoulment (i.e. when a person becomes a person): the soul is developed at the quickening. In terms that I would use, Will to Power is developed at the quickening, I know that's Nietzsche, but whatever. No, not the one you're thinking of this one.
On that note, anyone want to see what Conservapedia has to say? Oh shit, I didn't know there was text here!
Well a majority of their page on Atheism is links to atheists who are also obese. Seriously. On a more on-topic note, It's kind of hard to find a non "Debate" article about that question.
As per usual, Pete wins the science. Alright, so let's say the embryo is alive. I still have no trouble killing it, because I would not yet call it a full human being.
I still have no trouble killing it, because I would not yet call it a full human being.
I concur, generally. Right around 7 months, though, premature birth is still survivable, so they're really not that far off from being a full human at that point.
I still have no trouble killing it, because I would not yet call it a full human being.
I concur, generally. Right around 7 months, though, premature birth is still survivable, so they're really not that far off from being a full human at that point.
Life begins when you read Catch-22 for the first time. It's possible that life begins when you complete your first paper on the Chancellorsville campaign. It's one of those three: xex, Catch-22, or Chancellorsville.
Who cares about "life"? Bacteria are alive, but rarely have I seen people pushing for the rights of bacteria. Consciousness is a far more relevant criterion.
Comments
There is another reason I don't think higher brain functions are a bullet proof method; if a fetus is considered a person then it would be then subject to the wishes of whomever has power of attorney over it. The guardians of Terry Schiavo, who was in a persistent vegetative state with no higher brain functions, were determined to have the legal right to remove her feeding tube (removing the apparatus that was sustaining her life) and thus killing her but that hinged on the fact that there was no realistic expectation that she would ever improve, which cannot be said of all fetuses before higher brain functions occur.
again, I am NOT saying that abortion should be illegal, just that I don't know of a way to determine a point at which it is always moral.
Also, problem with the third trimester thing is working out what you consider to be acceptable cause. Should it be ethical to screen for gender like they do in China?
Also, many men I know have had children.
P.S. While I get what you mean, the role of men in child raising, even from the point of conception is an important one (With the obvious exception of lesbian couples.).
EDIT: Wuss.
I'm not a lawyer however so don't kill anyone based on anything I say. I don't think abortion can be litigated in any way that would prevent 100% of "bad" abortions without preventing a single "good" abortion and that is the reason I am against making it illegal. So I guess we agree enough.
Thus the "Lead a horse to water" means do what you can to get them to do the positive behavior but you can't force them.
In my opinion it's up to the mother, but personally the only abortion I am against is partial birth abortion.
Consciousness is a far more relevant criterion.