Originally posted by wibWhy do you want to sterilize a woman that may have had nothing more than a lapse in judgement and one night of sex?
Why do you so desperately want to control the lives of other LH?
Why do you want to sterilize a woman that may have had nothing more than a lapse in judgement and one night of sex?
Your penalty for that is to take away her right to bear children for the rest of her life. That's appalling. Suppose it were your daughter or granddaughter? How would you ...[text shortened]... very woman that's ever read this message board.
Now go somewhere and be ashamed of yourself.
Huh?
Your penalty for that is to take away her right to bear children for the rest of her life.
Huh??!!
Exactly where are you getting this from? Where do I say anything about sterilization??
Originally posted by lucifershammeryou diden't, I did🙄
[b]Why do you want to sterilize a woman that may have had nothing more than a lapse in judgement and one night of sex?
Huh?
Your penalty for that is to take away her right to bear children for the rest of her life.
Huh??!!
Exactly where are you getting this from? Where do I say anything about sterilization??[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerOops. You're right LH. I was responding to you, but I uh... wasn't supposed to be.
[b]Why do you want to sterilize a woman that may have had nothing more than a lapse in judgement and one night of sex?
Huh?
Your penalty for that is to take away her right to bear children for the rest of her life.
Huh??!!
Exactly where are you getting this from? Where do I say anything about sterilization??[/b]
Sorry about that. My bad.
Originally posted by lucifershammerFirst, I think the distinction between capacity and potential is not all that clear-cut. A newborn baby has all the neurons necessary for rationality and self-consciousness, but those powers cannot be actualised until the necessary synapses are formed (which, IIRC, happens over the first 3 months).
Thanks for the clarification. Two points:
First, I think the distinction between capacity and potential is not all that clear-cut. A newborn baby has all the neurons necessary for rationality and self-consciousness, but those powers cannot be actualised until the necessary synapses are formed (which, IIRC, happens over the first 3 months).
Analo ...[text shortened]... points, I still cannot see how personhood can be permitted for a newborn but denied for a fetus.
The synaptic connections necessary for rudimentary rationality and self-consciousness are present in the third trimester. Prior to the third trimester, the causal infrastructure that undergirds these capacities is not in place. Prior to the third trimester, the fetus merely has the potential to develop these capacities.
Analogy: Do I have the "capacity" for a television set if I have all the electronic components (capacitors, resistors, inductances etc.) but not the circuit boards to connect them together?
No, you do not have the capacity, but merely the potential.
"Parts" are still missing for a newborn baby to develop rationality and self-consciousness. It has the potential for these powers, but there is no way for these powers to be "switched on" until the synapses are formed (and not just activated - they have to exist first). So, IMO, the distinction between "potential" and "capacity" seems illusory in this case.
Nope, this is incorrect.
Second, 'pain' is one of a number of defence mechanisms the body uses to avoid and treat physical tissue damage. Other defence mechanisms I can think of are the WBCs and blood-clotting elements (can't remember what they're called). The biological function of pain is for the brain to take corrective action which cannot be realised by these other mechanisms (e.g. to move a hand away from a hot iron). So one cannot functionally separate pain from these other defence mechanisms.
Irrelevant. I’m talking about the conscious experience of pain; the inner “ouchiness” of pain.
What's more, every living cell (even in multicellular organisms) will have its own defence mechanisms. I have no problems with capacity (or should it be potential?) for suffering being an essential attribute of personhood, but to identify 'suffering' with 'pain' (which is a concept true only of chordates) is to miss the biological function of pain.
Irrelevant. I’m not identifying suffering with pain, I’m construing the conscious experience of pain as a type of suffering.
Further, 'pain' and 'suffering' are not necessarily interchangeable. For instance, a masochist could be in pain, but not necessarily suffering. Finally, it is not impossible to imagine species (aliens?) that might have a completely different set of biological defence mechanisms that would not necessitate an analogue to pain as we know it.
Irrelevant, for the reason given above.
LucifersHammer: First, I think the distinction between capacity and potential is not all that clear-cut. A newborn baby has all the neurons necessary for rationality and self-consciousness, but those powers cannot be actualised until the necessary synapses are formed (which, IIRC, happens over the first 3 months).
Bbarr: The synaptic connections necessary for rudimentary rationality and self-consciousness are present in the third trimester. Prior to the third trimester, the causal infrastructure that undergirds these capacities is not in place. Prior to the third trimester, the fetus merely has the potential to develop these capacities.
LucifersHammer: Analogy: Do I have the "capacity" for a television set if I have all the electronic components (capacitors, resistors, inductances etc.) but not the circuit boards to connect them together?
Bbarr: No, you do not have the capacity, but merely the potential.
I was thinking about this, especially with the TV analogy.
The analogy is faulty, and I think this is why:
Bbarr does not opine that rights are conferred by 'being.' That is, he would argue that it is
arbitrary to say entity X has rights simply because it is of species A but entity Y does not
have rights simply because it is not of species A.
Instead, Bbarr opines that rights are conferred with (the ability for) 'doing.' That is, if entity X
has the capacity to do A, and so does entity Y, then they both have rights. If Y lacks that capacity,
then it, similarly, does not have rights.
So, a TV is a 'being' but displaying a picture is 'doing.' Having simply the components in various
piles means that the potential for displaying a picture is present, but not the capacity (it cannot
do it). However, a fully-assembled television set that is not near a power source has the capacity
to display a picture, but not the ability to do so.
I realize that, from a philophical standpoint, this is very crude. But, do I have this correct?
Nemesio
I dont see why you guys are so stubborn. I used to be in favour of abortion but I was conviced this is not right. Now this is how I see it:
Your life starts when your mothers egg is vurtilized by your fathers sperm so from this point you can die/be killed/murdered. Maybe its hard to grasp that you where once a tiny little fetus that could not even think, but it was you nonetheless.
Of course you could say:
But I couldn't think when I was a fetus so I could not object to my abortion yet so it must be ok.
This is also false because you cant think properly when your asleep or in a coma but we all agree that it is wrong to kill a sleeping man or a man in coma.
I use this example because in the case of the sleeping man/man in coma, we all feel the need to stand up for his rights when someone tries to kill him.
There is no difference between the sleeping man/ man in coma, and the fetus in that they are all unconcious and cant yet use reason, or stand up for themselves.
Then you could say:
But the fetus doesn't look like a human, I find it hard to stand up for such a small creature that looks nothing like a sleeping man.
-I understand this, but you must agree with me that the elephant man does not look much like a human either but this is no reason to kill him.
Maybe you could now say:
Those are all very good arguments and I understand them all but im still not yet sure about the abortion matter.
-I understand this, but when your unsure you should always take the safe road, and the safe road in this case does not lead to any deaths.
There really is no problem, if a woman does not want children she can choose:
- Not to have sex
- Have herself sterilised
- Make the guy wear a condom and/or take a pill herself.
This way the woman had her choice when she decided wo have sex and her child can have his/her choice when he grows up and has developed mental capacity. If he does not like life this is no problem because he can make the CHOICE to have euthanasia.
Best regards,
Maarten
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYou aren't reading Bbarr's argument carefully.
Of course you could say:
But I couldn't think when I was a fetus so I could not object to my abortion yet so it must be ok.
This is also false because you cant think properly when your asleep or in a coma but we all agree that it is wrong to kill a sleeping man or a man in coma.
I use this example because in the case of the sleeping man/man in coma, we all feel the need to stand up for his rights when someone tries to kill him.
A sleeping man, or a man in a coma has the capacity to
think, just not the ability.
A fetus does not have this capacity.
Do you eat beef or poultry? Those entities also have the capacity to
think. Do you feel it is murder? If not, why not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMy point was that:
You aren't reading Bbarr's argument carefully.
A sleeping man, or a man in a coma [b]has the capacity to
think, just not the ability.
A fetus does not have this capacity.
Do you eat beef or poultry? Those entities also have the capacity to
think. Do you feel it is murder? If not, why not?
Nemesio[/b]
-you wait a while the man in coma could think
-If you wait a while the fetus could also think.
Of course killing animals for food is murder, or am I wrong about that?
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYour life starts when your mothers egg is fertilized by your father’s sperm so from this point you can die/be killed/murdered.
I dont see why you guys are so stubborn. I used to be in favour of abortion but I was conviced this is not right. Now this is how I see it:
Your life starts when your mothers egg is vurtilized by your fathers sperm so from this point you can die/be killed/murdered. Maybe its hard to grasp that you where once a tiny little fetus that could not ev ...[text shortened]... his is no problem because he can make the CHOICE to have euthanasia.
Best regards,
Maarten
Well, this is one place where we disagree. My life didn’t start when the body I now inhabit was created, my life started when the person who is me came into existence, and that didn’t happen until the body I inhabit had sufficiently developed. Similarly, if the brain that currently undergirds my existence were destroyed, I would be destroyed, even though the body I inhabit could continue to live. In short, I think there are conclusive reasons to reject the claim that I am numerically identical with my body, and hence there is no good reason to think that I came into existence when my body came into existence.
Maybe its hard to grasp that you where once a tiny little fetus that could not even think, but it was you nonetheless.
No, this is an easy claim to grasp. I just think that this claim is false. I was never first or second trimester fetus. My body was once a first or second trimester fetus. I have always been a person, because I am essentially a person.
Of course you could say:
But I couldn't think when I was a fetus so I could not object to my abortion yet so it must be ok.
I could say this, but this is stupid, so I won’t.
There is no difference between the sleeping man/ man in coma, and the fetus in that they are all unconcious and cant yet use reason, or stand up for themselves.
Of course there is a difference. The sleeping person has the requisite psychological capacities for personhood. The fetus does not. The coma patient may or may not, depending of the extent of the damage. See Nemesio’s post above.
Then you could say:
But the fetus doesn't look like a human, I find it hard to stand up for such a small creature that looks nothing like a sleeping man.
But, again, this response is stupid. One wonders why you would even bring it up.
Maybe you could now say:
Those are all very good arguments and I understand them all but im still not yet sure about the abortion matter.
While I could say this, I think it’s better to say that your “arguments” are irrelevant to my actual view, and you have still failed to give me any reason to think that fetuses ought be accorded rights.
There really is no problem, if a woman does not want children she can choose:
- Not to have sex
- Have herself sterilised
- Make the guy wear a condom and/or take a pill herself.
Sure, she could also choose to have protected, responsible sex, and get an abortion if she gets pregnant.
In this way the woman had her choice when she decided wo have sex and her child can have his/her choice when he grows up and has developed mental capacity. If he does not like life this is no problem because he can make the CHOICE to have euthanasia.
Well, if a woman chooses to have sex, she does not thereby consent to get pregnant. When a woman uses protection during sex, she is explicitly not consenting to get pregnant.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYes, so what? Your point is irrelevant to my view. The coma patient (depending on the extent of the damage) still has the capacity to suffer, reason, and reflect. The coma may prevent temporarily the exercise of these capacities, but the capacities are possessed nonetheless. The fetus does not have these capacities, because the fetus lack the cognitive architecture that undergirds these capacities. So, that is the essential difference between these cases, as far as I'm concerned. The coma patient is still a person, the fetus was never a person. The fetus may become a person in time, if it is not aborted. But if a fetus is aborted, then no rights have been violated, because fetuses aren't persons.
My point was that:
-you wait a while the man in coma could think
-If you wait a while the fetus could also think.
Of course killing animals for food is murder, or am I wrong about that?
Originally posted by bbarrI understand that you think you have the right to kill a fetus that has not yet developed the capacity to suffer. But then the question becomes: where did you get this right? Where did you determine that this is moraly right? As I have already pointed out in the abortion thread; you cannot know what is moraly right or wrong so you must have based this right on some irrational belief. (since it can certainly not be justified with empathy)
Yes, so what? Your point is irrelevant to my view. The coma patient (depending on the extent of the damage) still has the capacity to suffer, reason, and reflect. The coma may prevent temporarily the exercise of these capacities, but the capacities are possessed nonetheless. The fetus does not have these capacities, because the fetus lack the cognitive arc ...[text shortened]... But if a fetus is aborted, then no rights have been violated, because fetuses aren't persons.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardAs i have also pointed out in the abortion thread, this issue needs to be looked at in context. There is no clear cut answer to the abortion debate. we may not ever know scientifically when consciousness begins and we're actually killing a person but a four cell blastocyst with less innate intelligence than an amoeba is unlikely to fit the definition. Conversely, a full term fetus one week away from birth may fit our definition and certainly makes us uncomfortable (to say the least) to abort. Consequently this leaves a large grey area in between and decisions regarding the grey area should be left to a woman and her doctor.
I understand that you think you have the right to kill a fetus that has not yet developed the capacity to suffer. But then the question becomes: where did you get this right? Where did you determine that this is moraly right? As I have already pointed out in the abortion thread; you cannot know what is moraly right or wrong so you must have based this right on some irrational belief. (since it can certainly not be justified with empathy)
but these points are all moot when compared to the larger societal question of our disastrously quick population growth. Until we find a viable alternative (perhaps enforced sterilization) all this blather about morality is pointless