Better Restated Abortion Question

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you stop laughing, you'll look around and see everyone else staring at you funny. If it isn't already obvious to you yet, your pro-choice stance, and the one that DS caricatured in his other post, is in the minority -- at least in the replies on this thread, and almost certainly in society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that DS and Stu's statements are far past caricatures. It's not the "hey, let's kill a baby today" that has women choosing an abortion it is variations of -
- I don't want to go through the pregnancy.
- I don't want to be a mother.
- I don't want the responsibility of raising a child.etc.

If we could offer a woman, " your fetus will be painlessly removed, it's DNA altered so it's not traceable to you and transplanted into a wealthy caring french women" do DS and Stu really believe that they'll be faced with "Hell no? Kill it now !" gimme a break.

The 'urge to kill something' claim is laughable ( if it wasn't so sad).

luckyme

[KipBond]

Here are some posts I made in another forum in regards to abortion:

================================================== ===========
================================================== ===========

I'd like to separate what I think is the single most important question in this debate: when does human personhood begin (and end)?

Now, let me get some definitions out of the way:

hu·man
n.
A member of the genus ho-mo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

life | a·live
n. / adj.
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

per·son
n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

So, to summarize:

Anything with human DNA is "human" (by the 2nd definition). Any living cell is "alive". A zygote, therefore, is a living human cell.

Since most arguments end up being over semantics, I'd like to clarify that I am asking about the 3rd definition of "person". Specifically, when *should* a human life be granted legal rights. Further, the 2nd definition of "person" is what is being debated -- "when does an individual person - a "self" begin".

Here are a few options that I have heard over the years:
1) when it leaves the mother's body
2) when it could be viable outside the mother's body
3) when it has 46 contiguous & unique (human) chromosomes.
4) when it will become a person under normal/natural conditions
5) when it can make choices
6) when it can think (measured by higher brain activity)

So, what criteria should we use to determine when personhood begins (and ends)?

================================================== ===========
================================================== ===========

Thought Experiments:

Scenario 1: Siamese twins are born -- the twins share a common pinky toe -- everything else is separate. 4 arms, 2 heads, 4 legs, 4 feet, 2 hearts, 4 lungs, etc... but only 19 toes (one is common to both). Does twin 1 have the right to cut off the head of twin 2? I'd say no. This is pretty evident to me... so I'll assume it's a common answer among everyone else too -- we can revisit this if necessary.

Scenario 2: Siamese twins are born, and share everything in common except for their heads. It's one body, but with 2 heads. Two separate brains, 2 separate personalities, but only one heart, 2 lungs, etc. Now, does twin 1 have the right to cut the other head off? Why or why not?

Scenario 3: Siamese "twins" are born with 2 of everything... but only 1 head. There are 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, etc... but only one head controls these things. Does the one head have the right to cut off 2 of the arms? Why or why not?

================================================== ===========
================================================== ===========

I had planned on outlining my argument for why I believe personhood(2) (the "self") is a property of or is contingent upon higher brain activity, and thus why personhood(3) (the right to life) should be given/identified when the human has higher brain activity (and ends when higher brain activity ceases). However, my argument is meaningless to those who just believe that personhood(2) begins at conception. My argument does not address their belief. I believe that the majority of the pro-life camp have this belief, whether it stem from religious indoctrination, or some other source(s), so my efforts would probably be better used addressing this belief, rather than outlining mine. So, I have some questions for those that believe that human personhood(2) begins at conception:

Scenario C1: A human ovum is fertilized, and begins travelling down the Fallopian tubes

Question C1a: If I were to destroy that zygote, how many people would I be killing?


Scenario C2: The embryo reaches the uterus and after several days, splits into two (identical twins); we will call them E1 & E2.

Question C2a: If I were to destroy both embryos, how many people would I be killing?
Question C2b: When did E1 begin being a person?
Question C2c: When did E2 begin being a person?
Question C2d: If they both began at conception, then why would I not be killing 2 persons in Scenario C1?
Question C2e: If one of them did not begin being a person at conception, then which one (remember, cells divide by making copies of themselves, and splitting in half -- there is no "parent" and "child" cell).
Question C2f: If one of them did not begin being a person at conception, then "personhood begins at conception" is wrong (at least in some cases); What criteria is being used to denote when personhood begins?

Lest I get ahead of myself, I should leave it there for now. I hope the people to whom I am addressing the questions will honestly think about and answer them. This is not a posturing game, or a debate to be won. For some, it is a matter of life and death. For others, it is a matter of basic human rights. I ask that you please treat this discussion with its proper respect, and not get caught up trying to "win" or make yourself look good. Your honest dialogue may very well play a part in abortions not being done. Thank you.

================================================== ===========
================================================== ===========

Scenario C2 follow-up:

Prior to the embryo splitting into 2 embryos, but knowing that it is going to (we somehow know), we can say that the embryo is on it's way to developing into 2 embryos, and eventually 2 babies (2 people). Therefore, the natural course of events will lead that single embryo into being 2 people. So..

Question C2g: If I were to destroy the single embryo, thus causing 2 people not to be born, how many people have I killed?


Scenario C3:

2 human eggs are fertilized by 2 sperm (non-identical twins). The two embryos (we'll call them Eb1 & Eb2) travel down the Fallopian tubes, and meet in the uterus. There they join into a single embryo (with 2 sets of DNA). This is a known biological condition known as "chimerism". (Google for "human chimera" to read all about it.) The embryo is completely joined, and will result in a single body being born (although the person will have 2 sets of DNA in different parts of their body).

Question C3a: Prior to joining, were the 2 embryos 1 person or 2?
Question C3b: After joining, is the embryo 1 person or 2? (I'll assume the answer is 1 for now.)
Question C3c: After joining, what happened to the 2 previous people (Eb1 & Eb2)? What happened to their "self" or "soul"? Did they die?
Question C3d: What about the new/joined embryo makes it 1 person and not 2, since it is a joining of the 2 previous people/embryos?

================================================== ===========
================================================== ===========

I will try to outline in detail, what I think personhood is, when personhood begins, and how this relates to abortion as well as PVS [Persistent Vegetative State] (e.g. Terri Schiavo).

What is a "person"? The 2nd definition of person is: "the composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self." What is the "self"? What characteristics make up my individual personality, my "person"? I don't think there is any objective way to answer this, but most people I know share the same subjective beliefs on what these criteria are.

If I lose my hair, am I the same person? What about my tonsils? Appendix? My toe? My hand? My legs? My arms? I would still be the same "me", because these things are not primary characteristics that make up my individual personality, my self. These are parts of my body, but who "I" am is only slightly impacted by these body parts.

So, what makes me, "me"? My personality. My likes, my desires, my fears, my memories, my emotions, my thoughts, my will. These things are what make me, "me". If you replace my heart with an artificial heart, these things aren't changed. Same for almost every part of my body. "I" can exist, without my body parts -- except for one: my brain. These things that make me "me", require my brain to be functioning. More specifically, science has shown that these characteristics are contingent upon (or emergent properties of) higher cerebral activity. Without higher brain activity, "I" cannot exist. I cannot have likes, desires, fears, memories, emotions, thoughts, or will. Without these things, there is no "me".

When Terri Schiavo lost her higher brain functions, "she" was no longer there. Her lower brain was still able to keep her body functioning, her heart pumping, her lungs breathing. But Terri, the person, was not there, and doctors maintained that there was no chance of her coming back.

Before a person is born, they do not exist. There is no "person" before that person is born. No prior memories, desires, likes, dislikes, fears, emotions, etc. are waiting to "reemerge" into consciousness. The "self" is born when the first spark of personhood is formed: the first thought, desire, emotion. Until that point, there is no person, only a potential person. Potential people may be valuable (to some people more than others), but they are not people.

The 3rd definition of 'person' begs the quesion, "at what point should a person be given rights"? I would suggest that all people be given rights as soon as they are born (the first spark of "self" or "personhood" emerges). This is before passing through the birth canal, but 5-6 months after conception.

If you look back at my hypothetical questions, and try to answer them using my view of personhood, you can see they are easy to answer. Siamese twins with 2 heads, have 2 brains, and 2 personalities: one head does not have the right to remove the other head (or any other body part that is shared between them). A siamese twin with 1 head, but 4 of everything else, is only one person, and has the right to remove any of his own body parts. The hypothetical "20 year old embryo" is no problem either, whereas it is a problem for a vague concept of "completeness at its stage of development" espoused by some.

This argument is more induction and common sense, really. When you ponder what makes you "you", isn't the answer consistent with my argument? Could "you" exist without your brain? What would you be like without a brain? Could you think, or feel, or fear, or like, or love, hate, or have memories, or a will? I know that these things are what make me "me". I think, therefore I am. No thinking, no brain functionality, means no "me".

My pro-choice abortion argument, would then be:

P1) Only people have the "right to life"(1).
P2) Personhood requires higher brain activity.
P3) A pre-5-month old fetus does not have higher brain activity.
C1) A pre-5-month old fetus is not a person. (P2 & P3)
C2) A pre-5-month old fetus does not have the "right to life". (P1 & C1)

----------------------------------
(1): "right to life" represents a societal ethic codified into law based on shared values, signifying a mutual agreement not to kill each other.

[David Sklansky]

Whoa. First of all I only postulated SOME woman feel that way. And others here seem to think that's OK. Meanwhile when you said

"If we could offer a woman, " your fetus will be painlessly removed, it's DNA altered so it's not traceable to you and transplanted into a wealthy caring french women" do DS and Stu really believe that they'll be faced with "Hell no? Kill it now !" gimme a break."

why did you include the part about not being traceable to you? If you need to add that in you are agreeing with me.

[KipBond]

Here are 2 very good articles that say everything I was trying to say, and more, better than I could say it:

Ethics and Personhood: Some Issues in Contemporary Neurological Science and Technology

The Mystery of Consciousness

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you stop laughing, you'll look around and see everyone else staring at you funny. If it isn't already obvious to you yet, your pro-choice stance, and the one that DS caricatured in his other post, is in the minority -- at least in the replies on this thread, and almost certainly in society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that DS and Stu's statements are far past caricatures. It's not the "hey, let's kill a baby today" that has women choosing an abortion it is variations of -
- I don't want to go through the pregnancy.
- I don't want to be a mother.
- I don't want the responsibility of raising a child.etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that's pretty much what Stu said:

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of abortion is to prevent a specific potential person from becoming a specific actual person. Women want abortions because they do not want to care for and raise a child. States allow women to get abortions because the do not want to care for and raise a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is viability the crux of the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it was? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What I asked was, can a fetus be considered to own itself in any meaningful way?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you stop laughing, you'll look around and see everyone else staring at you funny. If it isn't already obvious to you yet, your pro-choice stance, and the one that DS caricatured in his other post, is in the minority -- at least in the replies on this thread, and almost certainly in society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think that the majority of women want to have abortions to prevent that specific fetus from becoming a person? In other words, malicious abortions? This is ridiculous.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you stop laughing, you'll look around and see everyone else staring at you funny. If it isn't already obvious to you yet, your pro-choice stance, and the one that DS caricatured in his other post, is in the minority -- at least in the replies on this thread, and almost certainly in society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that DS and Stu's statements are far past caricatures. It's not the "hey, let's kill a baby today" that has women choosing an abortion it is variations of -
- I don't want to go through the pregnancy.
- I don't want to be a mother.
- I don't want the responsibility of raising a child.etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that's pretty much what Stu said:

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of abortion is to prevent a specific potential person from becoming a specific actual person. Women want abortions because they do not want to care for and raise a child. States allow women to get abortions because the do not want to care for and raise a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your child is kidnapped and the kidnappers tell you they'll have to kill her so she can't identify them. Using DS or Stu's reasoning "the kidnappers want to kill my child" it would never occur to you to offer to poke your childs eyes out to save her.
The 'women want to kill the fetus' claim is simply wrong-headed and misses the point in two directions. My 'untraceable fetus in Paris' example was meant to illustrate that aspect of the issue.

luckyme

[foal]

The original post scenario is not reasonable, because the woman would be paying them to terminate the embryo. They could remove the embryo from her and then refuse to kill it, but they couldn't then expect her to pay for the procedure. She would not be going in saying "get this thing out of me and we'll figure it out from there".

[foal]

Slansky,

[ QUOTE ]

My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are falsely characterising something as disingenous when it is valid. The statement "I don't want the baby to survive and I have the right to do what I want with my body, so I'm going to get an abortion" is consistent and makes sense, just as "I want to get high and I have the right to do what I want with my body, so I'm going to do drugs" is consistent.