Originally posted by bbarrLike I said, if your alive and respect other life you have the right to live. A fetus is alive and respects other life so it has the right to live. A virus is alive but does not respect other life so it does not have the right to live.
It makes no sense to say that viruses respect or fail to respect rights. Only creatures with minds can respect rights or fail to respect right. If you die of a viral infection, your rights have not been violated by the virus, becuase the virus doesn't have the capacity to recognize moral obligations like the obligation to respect the rights of another.
...[text shortened]... egg has that potential, and I'd bet you don't hold a little funeral each time you rub one out.
It is our duty to make sure that those who are incapable of respecting rights do not violate them.
Individual sperm does not have the potential to turn into a human being neither does an individual egg.
A fertilized eg does.
Originally posted by NemesioThanks for the clarification. Two points:
Lucifershammer:
I struggled following Bbarr's careful presentation of this material (which he has done
repeatedly).
The issue is 'capacity' not the 'ability to express the capacity.'
Capacity is not equivalent to 'potential' as I recall -- that is, a first-trimester fetus as the
potential to develop the capacity. But potential is not suffi ...[text shortened]... they help you, maybe they confuse you. You're welcome or sorry as the case may be.
Nemesio
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).
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
But, if we allow that the capacity for suffering does not necessitate a capacity for pain, then we have to allow that even single-cell organisms can "suffer" (in terms of biological reactions to physical damage).
Given these two points, I still cannot see how personhood can be permitted for a newborn but denied for a fetus.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardhow did you determine that a fetus respects other life?
Like I said, if your alive and respect other life you have the right to live. A fetus is alive and respects other life so it has the right to live. A virus is alive but does not respect other life so it does not have the right to live.
It is our duty to make sure that those who are incapable of respecting rights do not violate them.
Individu ...[text shortened]... he potential to turn into a human being neither does an individual egg.
A fertilized eg does.
Originally posted by Nemesiohow did you determine non viable fetuses have self awareness? You need to publish this research, as surely you shall win the nobel prize!
As I recall, viability and rights conferral are not concordant in Bbarr's framework.
As pointed out, there are lots of circumstances where an entity is not viable but
still have rights. Bbarr's stance relies on the entity's having a mind (the capacity
for rationale, self-awareness, and to suffer) which happens before viability.
Nemesio
Originally posted by helpmespockYou are not reading carefully.
how did you determine non viable fetuses have self awareness? You need to publish this research, as surely you shall win the nobel prize!
1) This is Bbarr's framework. I'm just trying to recall it, since I found it to be a
very compelling pro-Choice. I have studied it and have posted several responses.
I was trying to save time by outlining points that he had made with me in an effort
to focus the discussion (which has failed).
2) Why has it failed? Because you claim that 'I' somehow 'determined' that non-viable
fetuses have self-awareness. I (nor Bbarr) made no such expression. What he said --
and neurobiology supports -- is that a fetus (after a certain point) develops the capacity
for self-awareness. How does one know this? Because there are specific parts of the
brain which function to confer this self-awareness. Before this point they lack this capacity,
after that point they have it irrevocably (unless the brain becomes damaged, a la Terri
Schiavo). Bbarr went over this in excruciating detail with me when I was unclear as to the
details of his argument.
I look forward to Bbarr's response to Lucifershammer (and hope that Ivanhoe doesn't blow
his stack in the meantime).
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
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).
I have struggled with the difference between potential and capacity with Bbarr in the past.
I gave up trying to have the conversation with him because of deficiency on my part. I was
unable to cogently express myself and unable to respond to his intelligent questions with
anything logically intelligible.
I hope that he will respond, because I lack the ability to do so, and I hope that the two of
you will thrash this out a bit while I watch from the sidelines. I stand to benefit either way!
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.
You will note that I did not use the word 'pain.' Bbarr did above, though, in that an entity
cannot suffer if it cannot feel pain. And, he indicated that the entity which is a first-
trimester fetus cannot feel pain because the neurophysical network is not yet created. And,
while the individual cells which comprise this first trimester fetus may exhibit pain tropisms,
those individual cells are not entitled to rights consideration (just as a paramecium isn't).
Nemesio
P.S., My efforts to replicate Bbarr's argument represent my attempt to understand his point
of view. If I've misrepresented them, it's my own fault, not his.
Im in favour of legalising abortion because you cant prevent a mother from doing it herself and risking her own life in the proces. But I think that any woman who has an abortion and was not raped when she got pregant should be sterilised.
Just like a murderer should be permanently isolated form society to prevent him from doing it again.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardSperm and eggs have just as much potential as fertilized eggs to make life. They contain all the DNA and are just waiting for a sperm or egg to make a fetus with. Should children who can't have sex yet have less potential than adults since adults can have babies now but kids only have all the right equipment but wont be able to make use of them for years yet? The arguement doesnt make sense. A fertilized egg is just a cell like any other. It shouldnt have more rights than a skin cell or a liver cell.
Like I said, if your alive and respect other life you have the right to live. A fetus is alive and respects other life so it has the right to live. A virus is alive but does not respect other life so it does not have the right to live.
It is our duty to make sure that those who are incapable of respecting rights do not violate them.
Individu ...[text shortened]... he potential to turn into a human being neither does an individual egg.
A fertilized eg does.