Abortion, Potential Persons and the Slipery Slope

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies...

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”....They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

This is the fundamental problem with the objection to abortion that foetus's are not "people" but are merely "potential". The argument can be used far too broadly and can justify the killing of a newborn child. So my question to those who use the "potential" argument, is how do you distinguish between a newborn and a foetus, keeping in mind that Oxford professors can't seem to manage it.

[Hutch Hogan]

Premise: The law should not act on the basis of subjective reasoning.

Every legislated law ever has just been invalidated. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You have ignored the rest of what I said.

[Hutch Hogan]

Your first premise undermines every legislated law.  I'm simply pointing out the fact that you destroy yourself from the outset.  I'm just trying to make your argument better for you. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You have made an assertion. Prove it.

 

Furthermore, even if the first section is wrong, it has no bearing on much of the rest. IE whether or not laws must be based on objective or subjective reasoning does not change whether or not the objective definition of a human being fits what I have described IE

 

Premise: The only objective definition of a human is that it is

A) An organism (as opposed to a tissue etc)

B) Has homo sapien DNA

C) Is alive (as defined by the MRS GREN system)

 

While it has a bearing on whether this objective system is used in the construction of a law, it has no bearing on its truth or falsehood of this description.

 

[Hutch Hogan]

You have made an assertion. Prove it.

Man, you need to chill.  I jumped into this debate to tell you and other gussy to define your terms and premises before getting all ragey, ragey, shouty, shouty.  Because when you're arguing about abortion, you're arguing almost always arguing about definitions. 

So you want me to prove my assertion? My assertion that is really just a critique of your unfounded premise?  Iiiiiiiirony~~!

Alright, I'll assume you haven't read Kant. 

When talking about the real world, you draw from your senses, primarily touch, sight, sound, etc. 

When you put forward a legislation, even one against murder of innocents, you are talking about things that cannot be independently verified without the use of your senses.  This means that there could be a very large chasm between what you perceive the world to be, and what the world is. 

Even if you discount the noumenon and phenomenon, which cannot be done and can only be sidelined, always lurking behind any argument not founded in the abstract.  The problem arises with laws that are simply subjective.  Speed limits are subjective for example, driving on one side of the road is subjective, the punishment for ""objective"" crimes is also arbitrary. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

When you put forward a legislation, even one against murder of innocents, you are talking about things that cannot be independently verified without the use of your senses.  This means that there could be a very large chasm between what you perceive the world to be, and what the world is.

 

You have made several steps back into deep philosphy for this to work as a criticism of my argument. If you hold this to be true, no argument you have ever made, or anyone else has ever made, can be remotely considered valid. Therefore, it can be dismissed for the purposes of making a functioning government.

 

Even if you discount the noumenon and phenomenon, which cannot be done and can only be sidelined, always lurking behind any argument not founded in the abstract.  The problem arises with laws that are simply subjective.  Speed limits are subjective for example, driving on one side of the road is subjective, the punishment for ""objective"" crimes is also arbitrary. 

 

Speed limits are not "arbitary". They are chosen with safety concerns in mind. Considerable research goes into them to make them as safe as possible. There will always be disagreements, but they are not "arbitary". There are SOME arbitary laws, like which side of the road to drive on, but these are in place because without them, certian aspects of our lives would become dangerous. If you want to prove that life and death, murder etc are arbitary in this fashion, the onus is on you to do so, however the existance of "arbitary" laws does not put an end to the fact that the fundimental aim of all laws is to be objectively effective.

[Hutch Hogan]

You have made several steps back into deep philosphy for this to work as a criticism of my argument. If you hold this to be true, no argument you have ever made, or anyone else has ever made, can be remotely considered valid. Therefore, it can be dismissed for the purposes of making a functioning government.

I have made no steps back.  As I said, I wasn't tangled in this debate in the first place.  You made an all encompassing premise that was demonstrably false.  I used Kant's noumenon/phenomenon to show that your premise can never be true when discussing society.  

This gives you two options: drop your premise as one that is flawed logically, or develop it further to fix those flaws (this is possible and it's not that hard). So put on your big boy pants and start philosophizing. 

Speed limits are not "arbitary". They are chosen with safety concerns in mind. Considerable research goes into them to make them as safe as possible. There will always be disagreements, but they are not "arbitary". There are SOME arbitary laws, like which side of the road to drive on, but these are in place because without them, certian aspects of our lives would become dangerous. If you want to prove that life and death, murder etc are arbitary in this fashion, the onus is on you to do so, however the existance of "arbitary" laws does not put an end to the fact that the fundimental aim of all laws is to be objectively effective.

Even if you cannot see speed limits as arbitrary (as speed limits depend much heavier on on driving ability of the driver than of the conditions of the road, causing some nations to enforce road safety through other means instead.  Such as with the autoban). 

But since you're willing to accept that SOME arbitrary laws should exist, then you are saying that some laws ought to be objective. 

I'm not asking for anything hard.  I'm asking for you to weaken the modality of your premise so that it better conforms to reality, or you ditch it. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

As far as legality, there is no way making abortion illegal could work. how would the law be enforced? I can't think of a way it could be enforced without breaching what I believe to be rights of privacy. so the abortion question is really a social moral question we are facing rather than a legal one.

You could make it illegal to run any institution that provides the service or advertise in any way, and investigate people offering abortions etc.

[Ari K.]

Developmental genetics have yet to be totally understood. Arguing that fetuses have 'homo sapien DNA' is accounting for 2% of our genome, much of which is still mysterious. And much of which does not get expressed until very late in development. Defining life is certainly difficult. However, the fetus is not capable of perceiving any stimuli at all until at least the second trimester, and even then responds much as a fungus moving from spore to reproductive state. This fetus is much like the male Anglerfish. Any attempt to define personhood will upset someone. And in the end, it is a woman risking her life for possibility. And this is not like potential energy. The first law of thermodynamics does not apply.

[Hutch Hogan]

I think you might be a little mistaken here. 

The sperm and egg are haploid cells that contain single copies of the human genome divided into 23 chromosomes.  At conception they fuse together forming a diploid cell with 46 chromosomes and a complete human genome. 

Genes do get turned on and off, but this does not change the genome itself.  Though this can result in diseases as well as how metabolize different substances, store fat and much, much more.  Though genes can turn on and off regularly throughout all stages of development, at least as far as I understand. 

If you would like to justify abortion, here are the pointers:

Set up your premise for what needs to happen to justify abortion as a moral option, or at least as something that should be legal, unregulated or regulated. 

Justify this through discussing what circumstances need to be present (this is most usually done through the personhood debate). 

Do not appeal to scientific ignorance (or mystery), this is the same problem as the "God of the Gaps" as the implication becomes this: "what happens when the gaps in knowledge are filled?", especially in the case where mystery isn't present as since the sequencing of the human genome with its completion of sequencing announced in 2000. 

While there are certainly things that have yet to be understood in the world of genetics, the fact that the human's genome is present in its full form from the moment of conception of the zygote, is well understood. 

I also don't understand why the first law of thermodynamics is involved with this debate, but it always applies, energy cannot be created or destroyed. 

[Ari K.]

I don't think I was completely clear.

The human's genome is in full form, and I did nothing to indicate otherwise. Any genes coding for distinctly human characteristics don't begin expression until two weeks into the pregnancy. What I am arguing is that the development process does not produce a viable "human" until much later in the pregnancy than many pro-life advocates would claim. I think in my attempt to be concise I sacrificed clarity. And I apologize. 

And I consider the First Law metaphorically. I don't think that the potential life of a fetus in early development is equal to that of a woman, and that the loss of a woman in pursuit of a pregnancy she does not wish to carry to term is worth it. 

[Hutch Hogan]

I don't think I was completely clear.

It's alright, misunderstandings are common on the internet. 

The human's genome is in full form, and I did nothing to indicate otherwise.

The 2% homo sapien DNA statement can be easily misinterpreted, I run it through with a few other Nerdfighters to see if I was the only one drawing the conclusion.  Though I assume that you mean 2% independently "homo sapien" DNA, as opposed to the parts of the genome which we share with other species. 

Any genes coding for distinctly human characteristics don't begin expression until two weeks into the pregnancy.

This is another statement to be careful with, perhaps it would be better to give examples of distinct developments and the rough stage of development where they occur.  I know about the gestational development, but this is just my advice for others that aren't versed well in biology. 

What I am arguing is that the development process does not produce a viable "human" until much later in the pregnancy than many pro-life advocates would claim.

There's actually a bit of a weasel word here in the term viable, just as a heads up.  Just be mindful that this definition can be disputed and people will point to premature births that survive through advances in medicine as humans becoming potentially more viable as hospitals are able to save the lives of lesser and lesser developed pre-mature births. 

This could also result in people arguing that later abortions would be unjustified as the fetus would be viable as well as having human characteristics later in gestation.  

I think in my attempt to be concise I sacrificed clarity. And I apologize. 

No worries, science is about constant refinement.  As we put forward our ideas to review and debate, we have to respond to criticism, we can't just dismiss it.  And if we are able to do that, we can develop our ideas and the presentation of our ideas. 

Understanding something amazing in science is only half the battle, the other half is being able to communicate it. 

And I consider the First Law metaphorically. I don't think that the potential life of a fetus in early development is equal to that of a woman, and that the loss of a woman in pursuit of a pregnancy she does not wish to carry to term is worth it. 

For here would be just not put forward thermodynamics.  You're not talking about the transfer of energy, nor are you correct someone who is creating or destroying energy.  Did someone try to argue with the first law earlier in the discussion? 

All in all, I'm not here to debate for or against your side, hopefully you can adapt my critique and refine your position further.