Abortion

[Zetetic11235]

This is quite a bit like those games where the platforms fall out from underneath you as you walk foreward hoping you are taking the correct path to reach the end of the maze.

I don't think we will have a conclusive solution for this anytime soon if ever.

Frankly, I think that the current laws are sufficient until we can come up with a more rigorous grounds for the circumstances of the procedure.

Holiday, the argument has been used a lot, the problem is that we can't really measure 'will'. Some people might say 'when the brain is developed to X point' but the brain isn't even fully developed in humans until the age of 19-21, so this is a slippery slope as well. An infant is somewhat different in its physiology and brain function than a fully developed adult human, so how do you know where will starts? I see people everyday who seem to me asleep and incapable of utilizing their will to its full extent, but these people are still people, asleep perhaps, but not unhuman for it.

[Holiday20310401]

Will is like potential one has on another. There is little input/output of such with a fetus, and any is in the goal of giving birth anyways, such that abortion probably wouldn't happen.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

This is quite a bit like those games where the platforms fall out from underneath you as you walk foreward hoping you are taking the correct path to reach the end of the maze.

This isn't about a correct or an incorrect path. The fact is, quite plainly, that there is NOTHING hard and fast on which you can base a rigid moral about abortion. There are always factors that can make a moral seem ridiculous if it's held too rigidly.

While I don't agree with either of these points of view, the ones that make the most moral sense are the ideas that human moral life begins at either conception or birth, because these are fixed, unambiguous points. But because you can't apply all protections and rights of "full" humans to a fertilized egg (without even knowing when one exists or not), and because nothing magical happens to the brain in the moment before versus after birth, neither one of these moments seem even remotely useful as frameworks by which we can craft law.

But that's true with laws in general. Laws are NOT moral. Laws are compromises made by many people. Whether they are sufficient or insufficient is determined by the perception of individual voters over time.

the brain isn't even fully developed in humans until the age of 19-21

The brain is probably NEVER fully developed. It continually changes, long after that point.

[Holiday20310401]

Well can we distinguish a difference here, between that of an embryo and of a baby?

That is after all what I'm trying to do. I feel it is wrong to kill a baby perhaps because it is killing. An embryo is to be aborted, not killed because it is not living.

If we were to counter that then we'd have to question what living is. Maybe experience alone defines this. If one can experience they have life. If one can't or is so strictly limited like that of the unborn baby then they are not living so it becomes ok to abort.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Aedes

This isn't about a correct or an incorrect path. The fact is, quite plainly, that there is NOTHING hard and fast on which you can base a rigid moral about abortion. There are always factors that can make a moral seem ridiculous if it's held too rigidly.

While I don't agree with either of these points of view, the ones that make the most moral sense are the ideas that human moral life begins at either conception or birth, because these are fixed, unambiguous points. But because you can't apply all protections and rights of "full" humans to a fertilized egg (without even knowing when one exists or not), and because nothing magical happens to the brain in the moment before versus after birth, neither one of these moments seem even remotely useful as frameworks by which we can craft law.
.

The problem is that the view of the people is the view of the people, it might be ignorant, but the proper mode of correction for this is not authoritarian overtaking, but educational efforts. With time the moral atmosphere will change and so will laws.

For instance I think it insane that the bush administration is so anti sem cell research when so much good can come of it, and the more one learns about its implications, the more one favors its practice. On top of that there is the everpresent 'if you don't develop this we will, the box has been opened'. It is not even a strategically favorable stance. Of course there should be regulation, but that is standard fare for the medical field.

Originally Posted by Aedes;21690
But that's true with laws in general. Laws are NOT moral. Laws are [U

compromises[/u] made by many people. Whether they are sufficient or insufficient is determined by the perception of individual voters over time.
.

I made that point way back on page 9 or so and periodically since. This is why laws must always be revised, the moral atmosphere changes with time. That is actually the main point of first argument I had with ruthless logic, that law is subject to morality and morals are not black and white, though the letter of the law might be. He had morality confused with law, or at least so it seemed to me at the time. One is grey and one is black and white because one is tested by life and one has to remain abstract and rigid as it is necessarily an objective a tool.

Yes, in the end it comes down to a series of revisions based upon moral compromise and that is how it always has and will be. That doesn't mean it isn't somewhat fun to abstact and quip from different positions. Just don't get to taking it too seriously. I don't come into a thread expecting some grand resolution, maybe good conversation at best.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

An embryo is to be aborted, not killed because it is not living.

Embryos have metabolism, circulation, a central nervous system, heartbeats, etc. "Killed", when stripped of its moral intonation, is exactly what happens when you make anything that is alive no longer alive -- and embryos are most certainly alive, by every possible measure. They are not independent, but that's not a criterion you've offered. "Aborted", when stripped of its moral intonation, simply means "ended early" or "interrupted". This is true for a terminated pregnancy irrespective of your thoughts about the embryo or the fetus.

If one can experience they have life. If one can't or is so strictly limited like that of the unborn baby then they are not living so it becomes ok to abort.

So do you extend this idea to people who are permanently neurologically impaired? Is it ok to kill them, because they do not "experience"?

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

With time the moral atmosphere will change and so will laws.

Well, aside from our personal views, there isn't reason to think why the laws should change. Elective abortion is protected under a set of circumstances that is acceptable to a pretty hefty chunk of the American populace, and you'll notice that John McCain is not making abortion an issue in his campaign. And what this means is that people who study presidential politics do NOT think that a vociferously anti-abortion stance is an issue that has enough traction to help a candidate running for national office.

For instance I think it insane that the bush administration is so anti stem cell research...

And all it's done is drive scientists overseas and to the couple states (especially California) where scientists don't depend on federal funding. The science will happen anyway.

Yes, in the end it comes down to a series of revisions based upon moral compromise and that is how it always has and will be. That doesn't mean it isn't somewhat fun to abstact and quip from different positions. Just don't get to taking it too seriously.

Don't worry, I'm not. The only thing in THIS debate that I want to take seriously is the idea that a more general concept of womens' rights and protections needs to be taken into account, and I've had the unfortunate impression on this forum that there are a great many chauvanists with very low opinions of women (I speak entirely generally here, not with any reference to you). And I've been fortunate enough to know enough highly educated, powerful, accomplished, rational, professional, and admirable women that I think their point of view which is unfortunately unrepresented in this debate cannot be forgotten.

[Zetetic11235]

I agree with you.

I have also known many very well educated and politically powerful women, and feel that they deserve great respect regardless of their sex.

The problem one faces in representing the woman's view lies in the lack of women present on internet forums, much less the ones dealing with philosophy. I know there are a couple women on here, but they have remained silent on this topic. As long we lack a legitimate representation of the woman's(as if it were homogenous) view point, we can't really get too far before we start getting presumptious. It would be a welcome change to have more women on here giving their view points, especially on these social issues.

[Holiday20310401]

Why can't we look at the subjective differences between an embryo and babies. Aren't there any? I'm sorry but I'm sticking with the will stuff. It makes too much sense to me.

But all this objective stuff about the nervous system, functioning, and that, it doesn't matter.

Also, I completely agree with morals changing and so laws must.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Why can't we look at the subjective differences between an embryo and babies. Aren't there any?

Ok, but you're missing a rather large stage between embryo and baby, namely the fetus. The fetus is everything that follows the embryonic stage of fetal development, and many women don't even know they're pregnant during the embryonic stage. My son was born on April 5, but if he'd been born on April 6, would that mean that on April 5 you'd consider him a radically different sort of being just by virtue of not being born yet? Because the difference between those days is one of pure physiology, i.e. the transition from prenatal to post-natal physiology -- but the developmental milestones for a given gestational age, including cognitive milestones, are the same whether one is in utero or ex utero.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I'm sorry but I'm sticking with the will stuff. It makes too much sense to me....

It seems very contrived to me.

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

What about this.

The reason why I see it ok for a fetus to be aborted is because it is not part of the 'will' system of society, so to speak.

You have to make more of an effort to define the 'will system of society' before I can buy whether it makes any sense at all.

Nobody is directly using their will in purpose of virtue for the fetus.

You mean apart from prenatal care, ultrasounds, screening tests, vitamins / folate / iron supplementation, etc, avoiding alcohol, avoiding cocaine, avoiding tobacco, etc? These are common examples of how women (and the medical community) care for the unborn -- do they not potentiate the health and happiness of that child-to-be? As soft, wishy-washy, romantic, arcane, subjective, and illogical is the concept of "virtue", this basically cinches that people DO take great interest and make great effort in providing for a fetus' well-being. And in fact there are laws in society that mandate some of these things -- so this is the will of society at large, not just the will of advocates for children.

And if care is being given to the fetus then it is probably meaning that the abortion won't take place anyways, being that care is given.

That suggests that no one changes her mind. Be that as it may, here you're placing a condition on the moral position of an embryo or fetus -- its moral standing depends on how much care it's given according to this last statement.

Since a baby can't have reason or will itself to an end that he/she has great control over it is a greater crime to kill a innocent baby.

But a fetus has no connection to people's influence, nor can it have influence for its own means in order to be considered living. Living requires interaction with the environment

I disagree with your idea of "living" here (and trust me that I'm fully pro-choice, I just can't accept your argument). My 4 month old is wholly dependent on my wife's ability to produce milk, it comprises 100% of his nutritional and fluid intake. Yes, Enfamil etc make formula, but that is a medical invention of modernity so it cannot define being alive. Physiologic dependance can still exist between two DIFFERENT living beings. It's called symbiosis.

But that said, you could just as easily argue from your points here that the fetus is comparatively disenfranchised and therefore merits MORE protection.

[Zetetic11235]

I want to make a side comment here. I forgot to mention in my previous thread that I meant laws and moral atmosphere will change in the scope of human existence, not just short term/national interest.

As time goes on the laws shall change with the moral atmosphere of the society at large. The U.S. will probably be radically different (if it even exists) 150 years from now, but the laws will still (hopefully) be dependent on democratic compromise. There is either authoritarian law or law by compromise.

I personally think that the best justice we can do in this matter is to ensure the rights of those already living and indisputedly human. I have to say, the toughest thing in this is deciding how long you can wait and still abort because it is quite contingent on when the identity as human starts and as fetus or particulate matter ends.