Taking Mothers Out Of The "Abortion" Question

[David Sklansky]

Let's try to strip away the extranneous factors before answering the question I end this post with.

Assume a child can be conceived in a test tube and kept alive from the beginning, outside any womb.

I believe everyone would agree that until at least about 2 and a half years after conception, that entity cannot survive without lots of help, technlogical or otherwise, and that it cannot think or have an awareness of its own existence to the degree the smartest animals do.

On the other hand it would be wrong to think that the outside help is creating that child. Rather it is just assisting it to become the person it is destined to become (after those first few days where twinning is possible.)

After those two and a half years have elapsed, killing that child is almost universally considered equivalent to killing an adult. Or at least certainly much worse than killing a gorilla. But what about before then? At eighteen months after conception, no child can take care or itself or think like a gorilla. Granted it is more advanced than a three month old fetus, because it feels pain, etc. But that fact has nothing to do with why most people feel killing it is much worse than killing a gorilla. Neither does the fact that the baby has human parents. Few would condone killing an infant if it was an abandoned orphan in desolate surroundings.

Thus we see that most people are opposed to taking a human's future away from it more than they are opposed to taking a more highly developed animal's future away from it. Yet many people reverse themselves about this at a point up to a few months after conception. But how can this not be an artificially defined point? I can see that point being the day twinning is no longer possible, the day of conception, or the day that babies become more advanced than any animal. But why dates in between?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see that point being the day twinning is no longer possible,

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

(If you already answered this somewhere, please link to your answer.)

PS: I think I answered most of your questions, and a lot more, in the post I made in your other thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1

And to post this again:

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

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe everyone would agree that until at least about 2 and a half years after conception, that entity cannot survive without lots of help, technlogical or otherwise, and that it cannot think or have an awareness of its own existence to the degree the smartest animals do.

On the other hand it would be wrong to think that the outside help is creating that child. Rather it is just assisting it to become the person it is destined to become (after those first few days where twinning is possible.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Focus on the environment in which the life form is evolved to live. Zygotes and fetuses are life forms that must live in a human womb, or a simulated womb. A human is a life form that must live on terrestrial earth, or simulated terrestrial earth (it must live in specific earth climates, or simulations thereof as well).

An birthed infant may need help acquiring nourishment, but it still lives in the same environment an adult human does.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see that point being the day twinning is no longer possible, the day of conception, or the day that babies become more advanced than any animal. But why dates in between?

[/ QUOTE ]
until you move away from arbitary points in the sperm-person line (including your own personal favorites), you're never going to crack this.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see that point being the day twinning is no longer possible, the day of conception, or the day that babies become more advanced than any animal. But why dates in between?

[/ QUOTE ]
until you move away from arbitary points in the sperm-person line (including your own personal favorites), you're never going to crack this.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the question for DS is "why not days in between that have more relevance to 'personhood' than a sperm meeting an egg or a chemical coding identity quirk."? Something more related to 'vegetative state' issues, for example.
Not that we can ever get away from a good dose of arbitrariness no matter what.

luckyme

[Lestat]

At some point the test tube (or the womb), ceases to be sufficient means of support and this "child" needs a mother and/or father to take care of it. What it all comes down to is if there is a willing parent to nurture it. If there is, then it is wrong to kill it. If not...

You are trying to say that life itself (or it's future), is enough alone to take extraordinary measures to preserve it. I can certainly see myself in the minority here, but I disagree. I really don't see anything inherently wrong with infanticide. It's more natural and prevelent than you may think. It has also played more of a role in our survival than some think. An infant needs an acting parent or an orphanage to survive. Test tubes and wombs won't do it.

You can argue the morality of this subject forever. But the real issue is preventing unwanted pregnancies (or test tube babies). And/or finding people who care enough to ensure an infant's survival. But those people should then be willing to step up and provide that survival and not bitch about abortion issues. It's too late then.

[Duke]

It has to do with potential. The gorilla will only ever be a gorilla. The human could be the next Newton.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see that point being the day twinning is no longer possible, the day of conception, or the day that babies become more advanced than any animal. But why dates in between?

[/ QUOTE ]
until you move away from arbitary points in the sperm-person line (including your own personal favorites), you're never going to crack this.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the question for DS is "why not days in between that have more relevance to 'personhood' than a sperm meeting an egg or a chemical coding identity quirk."? Something more related to 'vegetative state' issues, for example.
Not that we can ever get away from a good dose of arbitrariness no matter what.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, the mistake is atributing objective significance to these arbitary points.

We don't discover when it matters, we dictate when it matters (though we may discover when we wish to dictate).

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
It has to do with potential. The gorilla will only ever be a gorilla. The human could be the next Newton.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're so worried potential, then why not mandate that no one within child bearing age may be executed, or die serving our country in war? Somewhere a soldier may have died before fathering the next Newton.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has to do with potential. The gorilla will only ever be a gorilla. The human could be the next Newton.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're so worried potential, then why not mandate that no one within child bearing age may be executed, or die serving our country in war? Somewhere a soldier may have died before fathering the next Newton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that most people that use this argument (and other's like it) to support their anti-abortion views, actually feel the real reason not to abort a fetus is that it's "playing God". At least around my neck of the woods, even though it's now sometimes unpopular to admit, people really have a strong distaste for anything they feel might be "playing God". I think that fuzzy, irrational thinking is somewhat ingrained into the psyches of even mostly rational people; they just haven't realized it.