|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 0:55:36 GMT -5
Thank you for that insight. It says a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 1:01:17 GMT -5
You're welcome. I don't see what it "explains." I pretty adequately explained why. It's absurd to consider an early fetus anything remotely resembling the moral value you give to a person, and we kill animals far more intelligent and cognitively aware than that without flinching for minor reasons. I don't consider human life, regardless of condition, sacred. Humans are animals.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 1:03:50 GMT -5
I think that your post indicated your lack of respect for human life. Thank you. It says a great deal about your personal moral/social/ethical standards when you put the life of a human fetus on par with that of a chicken.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 1:48:40 GMT -5
It's not a lack of respect for human life, it's a focus on the respect for thinking, feeling life. An anacephalic infant, born with no higher level brain function (just the stem) is a human life. It doesn't mean we ought to treat it like a person. That's absurd.
The idea of putting the early human fetus or embryo on par with the intrinsic moral worth of a chicken only seems repulsive because you have been acculturated to think, by your religion, that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected, simply for being human, regardless of the cognitive status of that human. Not true. Humans are, as I stated, animals. What is most valuable about humans is higher level cognition and the level of suffering, interests that come with that. It and the ability to suffer govern moral consideration. Given that embryos and early fetuses lack self-awareness and all higher level thought capacity, and given that through much of the first trimester a fetus cannot feel pain, giving it moral consideration on par with adults or children is patently ridiculous.
A monkey is deserving of more moral consideration precisely because it has far higher cognitive capacity, awareness, and suffering capacity.
If we followed your logic, we would have to weep over failed zygotes in invitro fertilization.
My ethics are Utilitarian. There are no such things as inalienable human rights or divine value. Moral consideration is a function of utility calculations.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 2:03:31 GMT -5
It's not a lack of respect for human life, it's a focus on the respect for thinking, feeling life. An anacephalic infant, born with no higher level brain function (just the stem) is a human life. It doesn't mean we ought to treat it like a person. That's absurd. The idea of putting the early human fetus or embryo on par with the intrinsic moral worth of a chicken only seems repulsive because you have been acculturated to think, by your religion, that all human life is inherently valuable and must be protected, simply for being human, regardless of the cognitive status of that human. Not true. Humans are, as I stated, animals. What is most valuable about humans is higher level cognition and the level of suffering, interests that come with that. It and the ability to suffer govern moral consideration. Given that embryos and early fetuses lack self-awareness and all higher level thought capacity, and given that through much of the first trimester a fetus cannot feel pain, giving it moral consideration on par with adults or children is patently ridiculous. A monkey is deserving of more moral consideration precisely because it has far higher cognitive capacity, awareness, and suffering capacity. If we followed your logic, we would have to weep over failed zygotes in invitro fertilization. My ethics are Utilitarian. There are no such things as inalienable human rights or divine value. Moral consideration is a function of utility calculations. So we can be nuanced in our analysis here but not in other threads?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 3:45:47 GMT -5
I view other animals as being the same as us. The only reason why we put humans above other animals is because we're human. Physically, as far as construction, we're inferior to most animals.
The more we can relate with an animal, the harder it is for us to kill it. A fetus is not something we can relate with very much until it really fully resembles a human.
These are the reasons why there are more moral issues about killing a fetus than a chicken--we can STILL relate to a fetus MORE than we can a chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 20, 2007 17:57:48 GMT -5
Treehugger, do you have a cut off date in which you think that abortion should be illegal? If so, what is that date?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 20, 2007 18:37:33 GMT -5
Hey Technocrat, does my last post on this subject (#50) veer close to what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 20, 2007 21:24:47 GMT -5
Treehugger, do you have a cut off date in which you think that abortion should be illegal? If so, what is that date? Personally, I think women should decide as early as possible (first 6-8 weeks)......however I would never advocate forcing any parameters by changing current laws. I believe we need to trust women to make sound decisions in this regard. Because an overwhelming majority do make sound decisions. Statistics (which I presented earlier in this thread) clearly show that 98.8% of women choose to have them early in their pregnancy. The remaining 1.2% includes abortions of medical necessity (although I haven't been able to dig up any stats that break up that 1.2%). Whatever the number, it is miniscule. That, combined with the fact that abortion has been on the steady decline for years now, tells me that we should simply allow women to make their choice - because the vast majority make that choice early, on their own. As the old saying goes (cliche bumper sticker alert): "If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?"
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 20, 2007 23:20:23 GMT -5
I'm confused by your answer I think. Are you saying that the cut-off shouldn't exist at all, or that you happen to feel the same way the law is written? Because I was asking when during (how many weeks into) a pregnancy YOU think the cut-off should be, or if you think 40 weeks into a pregnancy it should be legal to abort for birth control purposes. Medical reasons for either the baby (fetus) or mother aside for the purpose of this question, as I am trying to address the majority of abortions, and not the few. If you were to make the law, what would it be?
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 21, 2007 1:15:35 GMT -5
I'm confused by your answer I think. Are you saying that the cut-off shouldn't exist at all, or that you happen to feel the same way the law is written? Because I was asking when during (how many weeks into) a pregnancy YOU think the cut-off should be, or if you think 40 weeks into a pregnancy it should be legal to abort for birth control purposes. Medical reasons for either the baby (fetus) or mother aside for the purpose of this question, as I am trying to address the majority of abortions, and not the few. If you were to make the law, what would it be? Sorry about that, Hackfest. I should have been clearer. Bottom line is I don't advocate any kind of 'cut off' point, legally, for a woman not to be allowed to get an abortion. I believe those decisions should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor. My reasoning? Why make a law when the vast majority of women already make responsible decisions? Statistics show that 98.8% of women have their abortions early in their pregnancy. Statistics also show that only a miniscule number of abortion clinics will even perform the procedure past 18-20 weeks of gestation. Late-term abortion isn't very common.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 21, 2007 2:04:58 GMT -5
I think that's exactly how a lot of people think. You tend to have more empathy for something that is similar to yourself. Some people extend moral consideration based on the look of the animal. Personally, I don't. It's not really a factor for me how much the being looks like a human. It's the cognitive status: the mind, as well as the capacity to suffer. It's not that I don't think we ought to ignore any interests of the fetus. It can eventually experience pain; when it does, it deserves moral consideration, but not before. But even then, there are perfectly valid reasons to kill it anyway, even if it causes pain to it, because the hazards of pregnancy are very serious for the mother, and she has a far more mature cognitive status and can suffer more.
I give very little value to early fetuses, embryos, and zygotes before that. They have very immature cognition. I order organisms based on their capacity to think, feel. Personally, I think no fetus at any stage is worth the same moral consideration I would give to a 5, 10, 15, 60 year old, unless there were extreme circumstances. They have less to lose, they are less aware of what's going on, have far fewer, more limited preferences to thwart.
I don't think abortion should be outlawed at any stage completely, as I believe it should be up to the mother and the doctor. The idea of mothers running around getting late term abortions is a myth anyway. A very small group do, and often, it's for good reason. I especially think abortions should be allowed late term for euthanasia purposes if necessary.
Humans, I see them, are special because of their higher level cognition and ability to suffer. However, not all humans have these characteristics, either because they have not developed a cognitive status that allows it or because they were born defective or because something happened to reduce them to a lesser state. My ethics is based off of the actual characteristics of existent beings. If a being has the characteristic, its value is increased. If it lacks it, it is diminished respectively. Humans are inherently no more worthy of moral consideration than any hypothetical animal of equal intelligence, if it existed, because the fundamental basis for moral worth isn't based on the species, but the characteristics of the organism, which may or may not be present.
A baby born with only a brain stem is a human, just as a 15 year old is, but it would be absurd to consider the anacephalic infant (a baby born with only a brain stem) a person and give it greater intrinsic moral consideration than a fully functional bonobo chimpanzee. I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp. For humans who are on or less than the level of another non-human animal, there's really no intrinsic reason to treat it special just because it's human. It's just a hang-up society has because of Judeo-Christian morality and evolutionary group-morality.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 21, 2007 2:25:25 GMT -5
Okay, so you say that abortion should be acceptable even when the "fetus" as you so clinically refer to it, can survive on "its" own. You earlier claimed that a fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken. Crack an egg open and see if it squawks and flies away. When a "fetus" is aborted during your "anytime is the woman's right" time, I would have to say that your previous statement is indeed proven flawed. Also, by claiming that a woman "owns" her body, are you not also claiming that the same women "owns" the baby that could survive on his own, I mean, owns the fetus that could survive on its own? You say that you're against the death penalty due in part to the fact that some people are innocent. What is the baby guilty of? What right does a criminal have to leech millions of tax dollars off of me and others? I maintain that abortion is taken lightly to the point that there is ZERO accountability to the child. I mean, fetus.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 21, 2007 11:24:34 GMT -5
These are the reasons why there are more moral issues about killing a fetus than a chicken--we can STILL relate to a fetus MORE than we can a chicken. I disagree. We kill a chicken to EAT that chicken. Killing to eat is part of our nature. It is also part of many animal's nature. We don't eat babies; We can get our nutrition and protein elsewhere, therefore, killing a fetus/baby, is not the same as killing an animal, in concept or principle. I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp. Babies are not mentally impaired. The difference between a chimp and a baby/fetus, is that the baby grows and has a very wide potential to learn and become intelligent. A chimp is just a chimp. So if you would rather save a chimp because it is smarter, you may want to consider the growth and learning potentials that it doesn't have compared to a baby/fetus.
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Nov 21, 2007 12:15:30 GMT -5
Okay, so you say that abortion should be acceptable even when the "fetus" as you so clinically refer to it, can survive on "its" own. Not exactly. What I'm saying is there is no need for a law. Women don't have abortions so late in their gestation that the fetus can survive. Women don't do it and, besides, abortion clinics won't do 3rd trimester abortions anyway. There's no need to create a law where there's no major problem to begin with. Women have their abortions early......in overwhelming numbers. Again, women have their abortions early. The fetus cannot survive on it's own during the time 98.8% of women have their abortions. Yes, a woman owns her body. Whether she "owns" the body of the fetus is debatable. However, nobody/nothing has the right to take up residence in another's body against their will. If I have a strange, terminal illness and if feeding off your bodily resources would keep me alive, should a court mandate that you allow me to do this? Not hardly, huh? So why should a fetus have more rights than an already-born human being? What is the woman guilty of that she should be forced to open herself up to a plethora of potential conditions and ailments? What did the woman do that a court of law can force her to give birth against her will? Whether or not a woman remains pregnant is a private and personal choice that has no jurisdiction in a court of law. The criminal will leech millions of tax dollars either way. The death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison without parole. It's not taken lightly, Hackfest. Statistics show that. If it were taken lightly the majority of women would have had multiple abortions, abortion would be on the rise worldwide, and women would regularly have 3rd trimester abortions. None of this is true.....in fact, statistics show the exact opposite.
|
|