Nerdfighters

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.

Views: 958

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The thing is though, that the things that make humans exceptional compared to other living organisms, requires certain developements to have been met. Before that rather arbitrary stage there is nothing inherently special or sacred about our dna. Dna in itself doesn't reason, doesn't care, whether it's human or not.



But the thing is, it has the capacity to develop these things. To cut it off, while it is developing them, is unreasonable, because it has all the tools in place, you're just not letting it put them together. And while killing all the workmen and burying all the tools may not be the same literal thing as demolishing a house, the result is the same. There is no house. I really don't see why people don't view these as morally different. If I start a house building project, and then you hire goons to kill all my workmen and throw away all my tools etc, am I supposed to be less morally indignant than if I'd built the house, and you blew it up?

But the thing is, it has the capacity to develop these things. To cut it off, while it is developing them, is unreasonable, because it has all the tools in place, you're just not letting it put them together.

 

First of all the house is selfassembling and the person it will belong to if allowed to finish doesn't exist yet. Completely different from vandalizing a random persons property.

There are no lifeforms that exists without a body, unless you count spirits. So to me, the human body in itself is insignificant in determening the value of human life even if it's a requirement for achieving what's important. 

What's important is our strong sense of self, our ever growing collection of memories and our ability to see the future as a form of untapped resource. This isn't there in the womb because when a fetus lies in the womb it is not awake. That would be a tremendous waste of energy, not to mention increadibly boring. Except for sound there's not much to sense in there anyway. It has all the tools ready to begin constructing it's identity and self-awareness before it gets born, but what it lack is an environment to make use of them.

This doesn't mean I think fetuses are completely inactive. Their brains are operating and limbs are moving, but it's all determined subconsciously by the brain, doing whatever needs to be done at any given time. When we're born we have no idea what's going on or what we are. This we have to learn with the tools we have been given. We can't remember anything from we were infants because we had no idea what to make of what we were seeing at that time. 

I disagree. It is following the instructions in its genome. Trying its best to get everything done. Because that is what all biology is.

Do or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda

You're still anthropomorphising a blob of dividing and differentiating cells.

Also, if you're saying that biology is 'trying to get everything done' then you don't really have a properly defined concept of biology. Biology is mainly chemical interactions happening, not trying to happen, happening. If they aren't happening we're talking about pathology or just not biology.

You're now being reductionist to an absurd degree.

No, I'm a biologist and I know what the genome codes for, and that's proteins simple as that.

Shall we describe shooting someone in the head as being igniting an explosive set of chemicals to propel a metallic object of X weight at Y speed at a precise Z angle so that it comes into molecular contact with... you get the point. Yes it is building proteins, and how is it arranging those proteins? In the form of a brain, and a human being more broadly, ultimately.

The difference here is that the person shooting someone through the head has a predefined concept and acts to achieve a certain goal, assuming the person is rational. To answer the "why did the person shoot the other person through the head" we can use the 'how come' and the 'what for'? And we can be certain that the what for answer exists.

If we are to ask why the embryo does what it does, dividing cells and differentiating and later on forming organs etc., we can only answer this in a how come basis. The embryo or foetus doesn't have a predefined or predetermined concept of what it is supposed to be, it has no goal. No more than a tree has a predetermined concept of a goal which involves much tree-ness, it just grows in a certain direction in response to stimuli (light intensity)..

The arrangement of proteins isn't encoded by the genome, most of it happens by diffusion, some of it by active transport. Also, did you know that the brain is actually a huge blob of fat, so your head is in essence a big bowl of fat? It's actually the fattest organ in the body (the more you know). So it isn't arranging the proteins in the form of a brain. Did you know that pretty much all the (initial) development of our brain is by means of diffusion gradients? This means that we have a big tank of water and at one side protein W is poured in and thing X happens while at the other side protein Y is poured in and thing Z happens. Even the growth of axons and neurons is mainly protein diffusion, which just happens.

You're still using the teleologic argument that it is trying to become a human, but that's not the case. If a foetus is 'trying' anything at all, it is trying to retain homeostasis.

You're now being reductionist to an absurd degree. Shall we describe shooting someone in the head as being igniting an explosive set of chemicals to propel a metallic object of X weight at Y speed at a precise Z angle so that it comes into molecular contact with...

 


I disagree.  A zygote has no thought skill, whatsoever.  Even babies have begun to develop thinking skills in order to make attempts at communication of what they want and need, (even if that communication comes in the form of earsplitting shrieks occasionally), display attentiveness as to the world around them, and will soon grow into a person with opinions, cognitive thought, and a personality of its own.  A zygote, however, will do none of these things.  Therefore, I see your reductionist argument as invalid; Nachtelf was simply being realistic when saying 

And here is where you go wrong. You're anthropomorphising a tiny clump of dividing cells and you're looking at it with a teleologic lens. All it is doing is cell division, it is not "trying" or "doing its best".

I disagree.  A zygote has no thought skill, whatsoever.  Even babies have begun to develop thinking skills in order to make attempts at communication of what they want and need, (even if that communication comes in the form of earsplitting shrieks occasionally), display attentiveness as to the world around them, and will soon grow into a person with opinions, cognitive thought, and a personality of its own.  A zygote, however, will do none of these things.  Therefore, I see your reductionist argument as invalid; Nachtelf was simply being realistic when saying

 

A zyogte does not need thinking skill, it has the DNA to tell it how to do these things. It is the DNA that is in the process of attempting to complete its task, IE Grow the baby. Whether or not it has the capacity now isn't as relevent as whether it is attempting to develop the capacity, and is growing the full capacity.

And even if there was a "someone," it wouldn't matter.

I am a legal person; I don't think anybody doubts my moral standing as a human being.  And yet if I found a way to take up residence inside your body, you would not be required to keep me in there, even if evicting me meant I'd die.  Hell, we've got states in the U.S. where, if a person enters your HOME without your permission, you can shoot them.  And yet we think that the government should force women to keep embryos inside their BODIES against their will?  

I don't like abortions.  I wish they happened only when necessary to save a woman's life.  I think we should take positive action--more support for families, adoption reform, programs to make it easier for women to continue their education if they become pregnant--to reduce the abortion rate.  But, I don't believe for a moment that we should be granting embryos rights that nobody else has--the right to take up occupancy inside another person's body--and denying pregnant women rights that everybody else has--the right to determine whether you will or will not donate parts of your body to sustain another life.  If a person's child needs a bone marrow transplant to save their life, and the parent is the only possible donor, the parent is NOT legally required to donate that marrow.  Their refusal means their child will die, but they are still granted the bodily autonomy to make that choice.  Everybody has that right, except some people would like to take it away from pregnant women.

The question of the moral/legal standing of the embryo is philosophically interesting but, at this point, peripheral to the debate.  Until we can extract an embryo from a woman's body without killing it (at which point we'd need to decide if it should be up to the woman or parents to decide if it should live, or if it should have its life sustained regardless of their wishes), the moral standing of that embryo is not really of much practical relevance.

Hell, we've got states in the U.S. where, if a person enters your HOME without your permission, you can shoot them.  And yet we think that the government should force women to keep embryos inside their BODIES against their will? 

 

Ironically the same states who allow that are the ones who are most likely to ban abortion.

 

However, if I believed a growing fetus were sentiently aware and appreciative of it's life and suroundings I would actually be opposing casual abortion, even if it means taking away the woman's right to decide. I don't think it would be right to allow a healthy woman to make that decission, if the human inside her already had valuable life experience. I also think that if this were the case, very few women would actually choose to abort, just like very few women would like to smother their babies.

I don't know, actually.  Women from conservative religious traditions, who learn that embryos/fetuses are sentient persons, are just as if not more likely to have abortions than average women.  When it comes down to it, and a woman is pregnant when she really doesn't want to be, her theories about the nature of the embryo seem to go out the window.  (And, of course, the opposite is true.  I don't believe that embryos are sentient people but have continued an unplanned pregnancy, and many pro-choice women I know have carried unplanned pregnancies to term and raised the babies.  The fact that they didn't believe the embryo was a person didn't dissuade them from having the baby.)

Unfortunately, as long as there are unplanned pregnancies, there will be elective abortions.  Countries were abortion is illegal have abortion rates just as high if not higher than countries where it's legal.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/abortion-rates-highest...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/news/12iht-12abortion.7863868.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Legal restrictions against abortion simply don't work, and end up endangering the lives of women (so, two lives lost, instead of one).  And that's true regardless of how a given cultures views fetal life.

(And, before it's asked, if it turned out that laws against murder 1) didn't do anything to reduce the murder rate, 2) quite possibly led to higher rates of murder, and 3) led to a higher death rate overall because many people were killed as they committed murder, I think we needed to seriously rethink our laws against murder.  The point of laws against murder is primarily to protect life.  If they were demonstrably failing to do that, and were in fact endangering more lives, it probably would be time to find better ways to curb violence than legal prohibitions.)

I am a legal person; I don't think anybody doubts my moral standing as a human being.  And yet if I found a way to take up residence inside your body, you would not be required to keep me in there, even if evicting me meant I'd die.


There is another factor to consider though. You're scenerio sort of ignores the fact that the fetus was not put there because it wanted to be, but because it was put there. If I was forced to live in your home against my will and could quite literally do nothing to stop it, it is rather unfair to punish me, who has done nothing wrong, especially then since I am, if forced to leave, also forced to die, again through no fault of my own.

Fair or not, though, the law would not require me to put you up indefinitely.  If somebody left a baby in my house, I am not required to keep that baby in my home and care for it.  The fact that that baby didn't choose to be in my home and needs to be taken care of doesn't mean that I am required, by virtue of it being in my home, to provide that care myself.  

We just can't pretend like there is any other situation in which we'd even consider forcing another person to allow somebody to occupy their body against their will or to donate parts of their body to sustain life against their will.  If you think abortion should be illegal, you want to grant embryos rights that nobody else in society has, and you want to deny pregnant women rights that everybody else has.  If you think that should happen, then you think that should happen, but it can't be denied that that's what it comes down to.

On the original topic, I think I actually agree that newborn babies aren't persons in a meaningful sense.  I don't know, there's a point at which you just see a baby become aware of their surrounding, and aware of the people around them, and interactive with the world.  It's usually around about 6 weeks or so.  It's like they have developed a capacity for relationship, with others and with the world.  They go from being cute little things that just kind of lay there while you take care of them, to being people you have a genuine, two-way relationship with.

I have no problem with the idea that perhaps infants aren't human in some sort of full, meaningful sense until then.  I don't think that means we can or should have the right to kill them, at all.  I find that idea abhorrent.  But the idea that a newborn isn't a person in a meaningful sense really doesn't bother me, and I think it might have some truth to it.  But, again, I don't think abortion has anything to do with the personhood of the fetus but the personhood of the woman.  If a full-grown man were living in my uterus and depending on my body for sustenance, I think I would have every legal right to kick him out, whether that would be the right choice morally or not.  And if a person not living inside somebody's uterus never develops the capacity to relate to the world and others, and never becomes a person in a meaningful sense, I don't think that means it should be legally okay to end their life.

Fair or not, though, the law would not require me to put you up indefinitely.


I think they would if they had discovered that YOU were the one responsable for putting me in the condition that meant I could not leave your house without dying.

We just can't pretend like there is any other situation in which we'd even consider forcing another person to allow somebody to occupy their body against their will or to donate parts of their body to sustain life against their will.  If you think abortion should be illegal, you want to grant embryos rights that nobody else in society has, and you want to deny pregnant women rights that everybody else has.  If you think that should happen, then you think that should happen, but it can't be denied that that's what it comes down to.



I disagree. The embryo's situation is very specific, but it could be imagined. If persons X & Z takes person Y and cripples them to the point of not being able to leave place X (which belongs to person X) without dying, the state would have no option but to say that person X and Z must look after person Y in place X until such a time as they can leave.

Hm, this is getting kind of interesting. I agree with vertigo that a woman should have a legal obligation to sustain the child in the very unlikely scenario it acctually were a valid person. I don't believe that is the case though.

 

And if a person not living inside somebody's uterus never develops the capacity to relate to the world and others, and never becomes a person in a meaningful sense, I don't think that means it should be legally okay to end their life.

 

I think this is the most important criteria. If people really knew they were fully developed persons just like you and I, they would be more restrictive of themselves and make that sacrifice. I think however most people have an intuitive reasoning that this can not be.

Of course you raise a good point about how women just as often choose abortion regardless of what they believe is right or how accessible it is. But I wonder if not this might be more because having a baby ouside wedlock in societies where abortion is illegal is also highly frawned upon, and that they therefore are immidiately more afraid of the social stigma resulting from having a bastard child, than they are of eternal damnation. With abortion this problem goes away and they only have to struggle with their conscience without anybody knowing.

 

I disagree. The embryo's situation is very specific, but it could be imagined. If persons X & Z takes person Y and cripples them to the point of not being able to leave place X (which belongs to person X) without dying, the state would have no option but to say that person X and Z must look after person Y in place X until such a time as they can leave.

 

No they wouldn't. They would expropriate the house, take whatever remains of person Y into their own custody, and then throw X and Z in jail.

 

 

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service