Does Life Begin at Conception?
Options
Replies
-
Of course. This is the root of the debate between pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice. I believe it is a baby with human rights, but can't speak for itself. I don't believe mothers have the right to end their own child's life.And again, you say baby, I say fetus with potential to become a baby.
This creates a very slippery slope to grant an unborn child equal rights to that of a 'living' human. Do miscarried babies get death certificates? Should birth dates start at the date of conception since that's when their lives start? Should mothers of miscarried babies be subject to accusations of involuntary manslaughter or the miscarriage investigated since the life of a baby ended (i.e. a murder trial)?0 -
Actually, those eggs are not fertilized.
Yep, or eggs and chicken. They're not the same thing and I can't substitute chicken for eggs in a cake.So, kill your own child so you don't have to wonder what he or she is doing just because you got pregnant by mistake? Wouldn't want to burden yourself with that worry, huh?
If a woman aborts the pregnancy very early on, it's as much of a child as an acorn is a tree. It has the potential to become a child, but that's all.
0 -
Well, some people believe an unborn child has rights, too, one being the right to life. So, it isn't about taking away a woman's rights, but speaking up for those with no voice.
Funny, that's the way a lot of us who believe cows, pigs and chickens have rights feel (and they're sentient, living creatures). I can speak out against eating meat, or eggs, or whatever, and hope to plant the seeds of change in people, but I would never go so far as to make it illegal for people to choose what they do with their own bodies.
I feel very similarly about the abortion issue - you don't have to like it, and you are certainly allowed to deem me a terrible human being, but ultimately, I don't believe that anyone else has the right to choose what someone else is allowed to do or not do with their own body, which is why I am pro-choice in all matters, from abortion to suicide.0 -
Let us assume that establishing personhood is a waste of time. What determines a person? Nothing in contemporary thinking. It is a made up status based on a profound misunderstanding of the implications of our own internal experiences. Our brains do not imply a soul, they do not imply a cartesian mind, the do not imply a division between man and animal that requires a special title of “person.” A brain is just the genetic code locked up in its primal information, and then the opportunity to grow and experience stimuli, which it will do its whole life. What are you and I? Genetic potential partly realized. What is an embryo? Genetic potential less realized. So it is just a matter of degrees.
As such, to determine special rights for one age over another, if it is not based on specifically practical grounds (ie, I have used more resources on this one, or this other way is more useful for the support of the family), it is just special pleading. Why is a neonate more valuable than an embryo? Under those conditions it isn’t. Why is a five year old more valuable? You have already taught it to read, and bought it clothes, I suppose.
Most modern legal thinking uses the concept of agency, or the ability to act on choices in the world. Some grant partial agency to the unborn, all grant full agency to the born. Of course, as this is a matter of law and not of something transcendant, it means that agency can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You might lose agency by crossing a border. Frankly, agency, by those legal standards, should be granted based on practicality, such as suggested by Singer. Capacity would be the standard, with the degree of agency increasing with capability.
Following this line of argument, we could look to the evolutionary roots of abortion. The Paleolithic era humans were vulnerable to population changes, and especially to the difficulties of dealing with neonates. It is well recognized by anthropologists that neonaticide was rampant, with estimates varying between 5-50% of neonates being killed as a form of population control and family planning. It survives, for the most part, as abortion. (dont look at me, this is just extrapolated from Steve Pinker). So, what is it that makes neonaticide murder (now, in the western world, china, africa, and india don't seem to care), and abortion legal? Personhood is archaic, agency would imply a more pragmatic approach. Is it too messy? Is it simple sentiment, squeamishness? Is there a logical or legal reason that I am missing?0 -
For many, the only reason that they do not get one is because they were not issued a birth certificate. Thus, no point in a death certificate. However, most hospitals now recognize that the mourning process is not different than any other, and will assist allowing contact with the deceased, pictures, etc, to honor the parents loss. This, of course, is in reference to a later miscarriage, earlier ones are more difficult to grapple with.
This creates a very slippery slope to grant an unborn child equal rights to that of a 'living' human. Do miscarried babies get death certificates?
East Asians already do that.Should birth dates start at the date of conception since that's when their lives start?
Practically untenable, probably unenforceable, and forensically uninvestigateable, but that does not mean that it is without ethical merit.Should mothers of miscarried babies be subject to accusations of involuntary manslaughter or the miscarriage investigated since the life of a baby ended (i.e. a murder trial)?0 -
Imagine a man, a registered sex offender who first committed a crime as a young adult. He has been perpetually indigent and unemployed due to his need to register, and has supported himself through petty crime. He has also continued to reoffend, and is eventually incarcerated (for life) as a repeat offender of felony sexual assault. By all counts, he has not contributed to society, has in fact been a detriment to society, and now will be the responsibility of a publicly supported system in perpetuity.
While incarcerated, the man collapses, and becomes unresponsive. Per examination, he is suffering from cerebral edema without clear etiology. Without intervention, it will eventually be fatal. However, with simple surgery (a drain), and supportive measures (airway, feeding tube, etc) he will not only survive, but possibly recover. The process is expensive, labor intensive, but essentially simple. While the interventions are being placed, the man enters a moderately deep comatose state, and is only responsive to pain, but demonstrates typical fetal reflexive responses (common in this sort of thing).
Upon awakening from his comatose state, the patient is initially incapable of speech, or any of the daily activities he once was. Months of rehab are required, as it is clear that he has suffered a globally hypoxic incident that has left him with, to be colloquial, “brain damage.” In fact, the patient does seem to have lost language skills, many basic learned motor skills, and in fact, all autobiographical memories of any kind. However, rehab is very effective, the patient has rapid reprogramming of language and skills, and begins forming new memories of identity and personal narrative, though never appears to recall past events. At this point, he is sent back to prison to complete his sentence.
From this scenario, I would ask:
Was it ethically necessary for the prison to intervene to save the mans life?
Was the ever a moment when, as guardian and warden of the prisoner, either the public or the prison could have called for a cessation of life sustaining measures? What if, due to budgetary issues, it became profoundly burdensome to support him? Could the man, in fact, be actively terminated with an intentional overdose? Or, simply have had his tubes withdrawn until he perished?
Upon awakening, the man had no recall of the events that led to his incarceration. Was he still guilty? Even assume that he is not being dishonest. Is the perception of his guilt by others suffient to establish that identity still? What is it about identity that allows him to still be required to pay a penalty for a crime that he does not recall in his personal narrative?0 -
No one wants to try my awesome hypothetical situation? Well, here are the follow up questions:
Let me take the concept of 'narrative as identity' a step further. Presume he is released into the public, and now is a citizen. Presume further that he is able to find work, and purchases a home, gets married, has a child. At some point he relapses, and goes through the entire process again. After awakening, he recovers his memories of his prior life as a criminal, but has none of his from after his release.
Who is he? Is he married, does he have a mortgage?
Does he have a child, with legal rights to such, or financial obligations?
Should he, assuming he has not reoffended, be reincarcerated?
Are all of these separate issues of identity, and as such, we can say that each question can be answered with individual criteria? If so, does that mean that all do not have to be present, cumulatively, to create the status of 'identity'?0 -
Sorry but your hypothetical is so far out of the realm of likelihood that you might as well ask how I'd react if pigs started flying. Even if it did actually happen to 1 or 2 people I really don't much care what happens to someone who is that evil and IMO they could have let him go ahead and die and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.0
-
Sorry but your hypothetical is so far out of the realm of likelihood that you might as well ask how I'd react if pigs started flying. Even if it did actually happen to 1 or 2 people I really don't much care what happens to someone who is that evil and IMO they could have let him go ahead and die and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.
Is evil an inherent or permanent status? Unchangeable? If so, how, in a world of only material causes? Common sense? Cause you said so? What if he was framed?0 -
Honestly, folks, without some higher power to appeal to, this is how we grapple with bioethics, with questions of being and identity, human rights. There is no other means, unless you want to continue to appeal to fradulent common sense. To claim implausibility is to completely misunderstand the attempt to revisualize the process absent from its emotion ladel context.0
-
1. Don't know. Probably some of both depending on the person.Sorry but your hypothetical is so far out of the realm of likelihood that you might as well ask how I'd react if pigs started flying. Even if it did actually happen to 1 or 2 people I really don't much care what happens to someone who is that evil and IMO they could have let him go ahead and die and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.
Is evil an inherent or permanent status? Unchangeable? If so, how, in a world of only material causes? Common sense? Cause you said so? What if he was framed?
2. See 1
3. Not sure what you are asking.
4. Societal laws
5. See 4
6. Totally invalidates everything else.0 -
I will play your hypothetical game. The prison did the right thing. Whether he remembers his crime or not, he needs to serve his time.0
-
Interesting. The (very brusque, I admit) question on my part was still directed. My intent is to get at the source of identity. Evil is a status, and not a very scientific one, that is, we will never find a discrete mental state that directly correlates with "evil." Rather, it is a culmination of actions, statuses and judgements. All those things change, and (in materialism) all those changes are caused by clear physical causes. There is no way, in materialism, to stop the series of changes(that is the nature of determinism) that eventually sweep all statuses under the rug. Unless there is some other source of identity?
1. Don't know. Probably some of both depending on the person.Sorry but your hypothetical is so far out of the realm of likelihood that you might as well ask how I'd react if pigs started flying. Even if it did actually happen to 1 or 2 people I really don't much care what happens to someone who is that evil and IMO they could have let him go ahead and die and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.
Is evil an inherent or permanent status? Unchangeable? If so, how, in a world of only material causes? Common sense? Cause you said so? What if he was framed?
2. See 1
3. Not sure what you are asking.
4. Societal laws
5. See 4
6. Totally invalidates everything else.
The law can, in fact, curtail or grant agency. It cannot assign "evil' as a status.0 -
The point, if there is one, of my hypothetical scenario, is that the status of the unborn is not entirely unique. There are other possible scenarios across the lifespan that mimic most (if not all) of the conditions. Vulnerability, reduced agency, absent personal narrative, utter personal and/or physiological dependence are all present in my scenario, and, in fact, they are present in any number of persons (especially those with advanced dementia). However, per our innate sense, we never treat them as lacking identity, or even having an altered identity (merely experiencing an alteration in state or role).
At no point have I ever experienced a situation where I sensed that a person had becomes a truly new person. I have known people that have lost their personal memories (after catastrophic neurological incidents), had gender reassignment, reconstructive surgery, religious conversion. At no point did I say to myself “look at this new person that has supplanted the former.” No, I always said “look, so-and-so has changed quite a bit.” But it was still so-and-so.
This implies, to my mind, that we can undergo radical changes across the lifespan while still holding onto a constant meta-identity, or master identity. Frankly, I think to establish identity requires multiple (sometimes conflicting) criteria, and it is the culmination of these criteria that establishes our holistic impression of the person (and theirs). However, the loss of virtually any (or all) of these criteria does not alter the meta-identity. I can’t say where this identity is stored, or where it comes from, from a materialist perspective. Is it in DNA, or is it just a useful fiction (like numbers are considered)? Christians have other ideas, but that is not what is being discussed here.
Abortion laws discriminate across lifespan. That is a brute fact. Our laws regarding the death penalty discriminate in a different manner, but that is a separate issue. The oddity of abortion is that it requires special pleading; it requires us to look to some moment (birth, viability, etc.) and say that that moment is an establisher of identity. We cannot state precisely what the change is, or why it is metamorphic, but we plead to it. We also cannot point to another moment or incident in life that has a similar power.
At some point, I think we need to grapple with the reality that abortion is what it is. It is the intentional death of a being with some part of the identity that all of us have, and the entire identity content that some of us have. It is, in every regard, evolutionary, don’t mistake me. So was neonaticide. They are the same thing, though. If you have no problem with that, then dandy.0 -
This creates a very slippery slope to grant an unborn child equal rights to that of a 'living' human. Do miscarried babies get death certificates? Should birth dates start at the date of conception since that's when their lives start? Should mothers of miscarried babies be subject to accusations of involuntary manslaughter or the miscarriage investigated since the life of a baby ended (i.e. a murder trial)?
My cousin's baby did. Past a certain point they not only get birth certificates, but the mother has to give birth and a funeral has to be held. This was very much a wanted baby and my cousin and her husband were beyond devastated at having to have the abortion.
In regards to involuntary mansluaghter I think you'll find there are women who have been brought up on charges in America for that.
America is an evil Godless society in the way it treats it's women, it's poor and it's minorities. Women are made to go through hell to have an abortion. Of course, once they have that baby the same people who insist on it being born will do SFA to actually HELP that child. Then the mother is a 'welfare queen' and a drain on society. Most 'Christians' in America don't actually follow Christ's teachings. (the ones who speak loudest anyways)0 -
I would think that in your cousin's case it was a still birth and not a miscarriage. A miscarriage occurs within the first 20 weeks or so.This creates a very slippery slope to grant an unborn child equal rights to that of a 'living' human. Do miscarried babies get death certificates? Should birth dates start at the date of conception since that's when their lives start? Should mothers of miscarried babies be subject to accusations of involuntary manslaughter or the miscarriage investigated since the life of a baby ended (i.e. a murder trial)?
My cousin's baby did. Past a certain point they not only get birth certificates, but the mother has to give birth and a funeral has to be held. This was very much a wanted baby and my cousin and her husband were beyond devastated at having to have the abortion.
In regards to involuntary mansluaghter I think you'll find there are women who have been brought up on charges in America for that.
America is an evil Godless society in the way it treats it's women, it's poor and it's minorities. Women are made to go through hell to have an abortion. Of course, once they have that baby the same people who insist on it being born will do SFA to actually HELP that child. Then the mother is a 'welfare queen' and a drain on society. Most 'Christians' in America don't actually follow Christ's teachings. (the ones who speak loudest anyways)0 -
You know very different Americans than I do. You also know very different Christians than I do. Not sure what kind of "hell" we put our women through to have an abortion, or what you know about it. It's actually very easy to have an abortion in America. Do you have facts to support any of these claims?America is an evil Godless society in the way it treats it's women, it's poor and it's minorities. Women are made to go through hell to have an abortion. Of course, once they have that baby the same people who insist on it being born will do SFA to actually HELP that child. Then the mother is a 'welfare queen' and a drain on society. Most 'Christians' in America don't actually follow Christ's teachings. (the ones who speak loudest anyways)0 -
I would think that in your cousin's case it was a still birth and not a miscarriage. A miscarriage occurs within the first 20 weeks or so.
I think it was 22 weeks. It is done differently here.You know very different Americans than I do. You also know very different Christians than I do. Not sure what kind of "hell" we put our women through to have an abortion, or what you know about it. It's actually very easy to have an abortion in America. Do you have facts to support any of these claims?
The fact that there are maybe two or three abortion clinic's in entire states. That abortion provider's have to have heavy security either through the Christian terrorists that murder them or want to blow them up, or for the protester's out the front who scream abuse at the women going in there.
There are numerous 'personhood' bills in front of a number of states right now.
For the Christians you have Pat Robertson, the Hillsbro Baptist Church, the fact that you have political parties demonising people who need welfare yet claim they're Christian.0 -
The fact that there are maybe two or three abortion clinic's in entire states. That abortion provider's have to have heavy security either through the Christian terrorists that murder them or want to blow them up, or for the protester's out the front who scream abuse at the women going in there.
There are numerous 'personhood' bills in front of a number of states right now.
For the Christians you have Pat Robertson, the Hillsbro Baptist Church, the fact that you have political parties demonising people who need welfare yet claim they're Christian.
87% of counties in the US do not have an abortion provider, it is true. However, only 35% of women actually live in those areas. That is, most heavily populated areas do contain providers, and often an abundance of them. Part of the reason likely is that non-metropolitan areas tend to have higher proportions of both conservative and religious people, however (as is diffcult to remember about the US), it is also an issue of affordability and profitability.
While it is a legitmate line of discussion, to question the motives, compassion, and degree of hypocrisy in Christians, can you tell me how it relates to abortion? If some christians are hypocrites, is abortion automatically ethical? Does the identity, agency, or personhood of the unborn hinge on the earnestness of evangelical christians?0 -
This creates a very slippery slope to grant an unborn child equal rights to that of a 'living' human. Do miscarried babies get death certificates? Should birth dates start at the date of conception since that's when their lives start? Should mothers of miscarried babies be subject to accusations of involuntary manslaughter or the miscarriage investigated since the life of a baby ended (i.e. a murder trial)?
My cousin's baby did. Past a certain point they not only get birth certificates, but the mother has to give birth and a funeral has to be held. This was very much a wanted baby and my cousin and her husband were beyond devastated at having to have the abortion.
In regards to involuntary mansluaghter I think you'll find there are women who have been brought up on charges in America for that.
America is an evil Godless society in the way it treats it's women, it's poor and it's minorities. Women are made to go through hell to have an abortion. Of course, once they have that baby the same people who insist on it being born will do SFA to actually HELP that child. Then the mother is a 'welfare queen' and a drain on society. Most 'Christians' in America don't actually follow Christ's teachings. (the ones who speak loudest anyways)
Actually I think if America had less of God, we'd be better off!!! The reason that women, the poor, and minorities are often treated poorly are because of the large numbers of 'compassionate' Christian conservatives that have this "I don't want MY tax money going to help these people" who also want to outlaw abortion, cut off welfare, etc. Many of them talk out both sides of their mouths, saying how abortion is evil and the baby is sacred, but don't want their money going to help the girl who CHOSE to keep the baby because she "should have kept her legs shut."
I'd much rather see a society of humanists who support each other, rather than the religious right wanting to help the fetus but only until it's born.0
