Abortion: When is a fetus a human?

[LordsFire]

Regardless of whether it will stop abortionists, it is still necessary to figure out where the line is for people who do care about morality. So far, it seems personhood starting at conception is failing the arguments I pose to it, and starting at brain activity passes the arguments given to it.

It's not that personhood starting at conception is failing the arguments you pose to it, it's that some of us got sick of you asking the same question again and again like we hadn't answered it.

 

[Abhorsen]

The reason I kept asking the same question was that either hadn't been answered by that person and I didn't want to assume that they would have the same answer as someone else, or Ithat person didn't answer. Regardless, I'm not claiming that I'm right, just that so far the thread hasn't proven me wrong. I can't consider arguments that haven't been made. That might mean I'm going about this in the wrong way though, so I'll just put the full argument I was building to here.

Basically, the questions were leading up to the following:
Say we accept that a) a headless adult body is not a person, b) a zygote is a person, and c) life can begin at conception, but also can begin at other times.

If that embryo ends up developing into a headless fetus, at what point is the fetus considered dead? Is that particular embryo ever a person if its genetic destiny is to not develop a head?

In addition, how do we exclude a stem cell that can be turned into a zygote from being a person, but include a zygote as a human? Both require outside machinery to turn into a baby, but in the case of a zygote, the machinery is a womb. I'm not seeing the functional difference here.

 

[FriedCFour]

Personally I think one of the most interesting things to look at with abortion in the US is just how much it has impacted racial demographics. The sheer number of dead African American fetuses has knocked their proportion of population down by several percentage points even when you are assuming none of those dead fetuses would have kids of their own. The knock on effects of three or so generations of abortions are pretty damn staggering in just how much they have impacted the population. The biggest question I like to ask is do you care about the effects of abortion on the black population?

If that embryo ends up developing into a headless fetus, at what point is the fetus considered dead? Is that particular embryo ever a person if its genetic destiny is to not develop a head?

Never a person if it was born with that kind of defect. When the certainty hits 100% is when it’s no longer a person, just like you arent dead till you flatline.

In addition, how do we exclude a stem cell that can be turned into a zygote from being a person, but include a zygote as a human? Both require outside machinery to turn into a baby, but in the case of a zygote, the machinery is a womb. I'm not seeing the functional difference here.

you can extend that logic well into infancy. An infant requires external care to survive, therefore it is not a person and can be killed freely.

 

[Abhorsen]

Personally I think one of the most interesting things to look at with abortion in the US is just how much it has impacted racial demographics. The sheer number of dead African American fetuses has knocked their proportion of population down by several percentage points even when you are assuming none of those dead fetuses would have kids of their own. The knock on effects of three or so generations of abortions are pretty damn staggering in just how much they have impacted the population. The biggest question I like to ask is do you care about the effects of abortion on the black population?

Oh, it is a huge issue, and abortion is at least partially based in eugenics advocacy.

Never a person if it was born with that kind of defect. When the certainty hits 100% is when it’s no longer a person, just like you arent dead till you flatline.

This makes some sense, but raises other issues. First, what kind of defect is it that matters? Is it that it means there will be no brain, or is it that the defect is fatal?

you can extend that logic well into infancy. An infant requires external care to survive, therefore it is not a person and can be killed freely.

I totally agree, that's my issue with the argument. So are you saying that a stem cell that can become a zygote is a person?

 

[FriedCFour]

This makes some sense, but raises other issues. First, what kind of defect is it that matters? Is it that it means there will be no brain, or is it that the defect is fatal?

That it is fatal.

I totally agree, that's my issue with the argument. So are you saying that a stem cell that can become a zygote is a person?

Once it becomes a zygote that is fully viable. Before that it’s no different than an egg or a sperm. On its own it can do absolutely nothing.

 

[Abhorsen]

That it is fatal.

But that doesn't make sense. Just because you are going to die, that wouldn't make you no longer a person. What if the defect means that the baby will die shortly after a natural birth? What if all that is missing are the lungs, so that the baby could have thoughts and stuff, but would die once it was brought out of the womb?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the baby to stop being a person when it actually dies, not when it enters an irreversible point where it is doomed to die?

Once it becomes a zygote that is fully viable. Before that it’s no different than an egg or a sperm. On its own it can do absolutely nothing.

But what's special about the zygote that the stem cell doesn't have? Both the stem cell and zygote are cells that given outside machinery and assistance will develop into a human.

 

[FriedCFour]

But that doesn't make sense. Just because you are going to die, that wouldn't make you no longer a person. What if the defect means that the baby will die shortly after a natural birth? What if all that is missing are the lungs, so that the baby could have thoughts and stuff, but would die once it was brought out of the womb?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the baby to stop being a person when it actually dies, not when it enters an irreversible point where it is doomed to die?

Because it’s the potential that is important, not the current state it’s in, same with an infant. When a fetus loses potential to grow into a child and an adult is when it ceases to be a person. Said potential needs to be present without the actions of others. It’s why an egg has potential because it’s fertilized.

But what's special about the zygote that the stem cell doesn't have? Both the stem cell and zygote are cells that given outside machinery and assistance will develop into a human.

Because it’s had the action put in place to make it into a zygote and already is a unique being created at that point.

 

[LordsFire]

The reason I kept asking the same question was that either hadn't been answered by that person and I didn't want to assume that they would have the same answer as someone else, or Ithat person didn't answer. Regardless, I'm not claiming that I'm right, just that so far the thread hasn't proven me wrong. I can't consider arguments that haven't been made. That might mean I'm going about this in the wrong way though, so I'll just put the full argument I was building to here.

I'd say there's only one root problem with your position; it completely fails to account for the... religious, spiritual, theological, whichever term is appropriate.

The natural sciences don't actually infer any root value to human life. By purely materialistic perspective, human beings have no more value than their equivalent weight in carbon, water, etc, etc.

You must have a philosophical and religious starting point to infer any moral value to human beings, trying to found a moral argument without it is completely self-defeating.

 

[Abhorsen]

Because it’s the potential that is important, not the current state it’s in, same with an infant. When a fetus loses potential to grow into a child and an adult is when it ceases to be a person. Said potential needs to be present without the actions of others. It’s why an egg has potential because it’s fertilized.

So just to clarify, then:
There is something special about the womb which means that if one can't survive outside of it, one isn't a person? This sounds like an argument pro-choice people would use.

Because it’s had the action put in place to make it into a zygote and already is a unique being created at that point.

But what's so special about a zygote? The stem cell had action put into place to make it into a stem cell from whatever it was originally.

You must have a philosophical and religious starting point to infer any moral value to human beings, trying to found a moral argument without it is completely self-defeating.

I do, as I have stated before. There is a value inherent to human life/personhood. Each person, no matter their state, is equally valuable in this sense. And as best as I can tell, what makes something a person is the capacity to think. If I was religious, I would call this the creation of the soul. These are all philosophical/moral arguments, with no science.

 

[LordsFire]

I do, as I have stated before. There is a value inherent to human life/personhood. Each person, no matter their state, is equally valuable in this sense. And as best as I can tell, what makes something a person is the capacity to think. If I was religious, I would call this the creation of the soul. These are all philosophical/moral arguments, with no science.

Where does this value come from? Why is the capacity to think what bestows personhood?

How do you define 'thinking' in the first place?

 

[Abhorsen]

Where does this value come from? Why is the capacity to think what bestows personhood?

How do you define 'thinking' in the first place?

I don't know why humans are valuable. But let's say they aren't valuable. This still wouldn't affect the question of when human personhood begins, but just whether that question mattered significantly. Given the average spacebattlers love for the pedantic, I think that too would be a fine reason for a thread. So I think that is a question for another thread, as whether or not I am correct on this point, the question of 'When does personhood begin' is not affected.

The capacity to think bestows personhood because it is the thing that gives independent will to something. Similarly, it also would be the beginning of doghood or cathood for dogs and cats.

And thinking is defined as any instruction the brain gives, or scientifically as any electrical signal in the brain. This is an inclusive definition because it is possible that some electrical activity in the brain is not thought, but science doesn't have a way to tell the difference yet.

 

[LordsFire]

I don't know why humans are valuable. But let's say they aren't valuable. This still wouldn't affect the question of when human personhood begins, but just whether that question mattered significantly. Given the average spacebattlers love for the pedantic, I think that too would be a fine reason for a thread. So I think that is a question for another thread, as whether or not I am correct on this point, the question of 'When does personhood begin' is not affected.

The capacity to think bestows personhood because it is the thing that gives independent will to something. Similarly, it also would be the beginning of doghood or cathood for dogs and cats.

And thinking is defined as any instruction the brain gives, or scientifically as any electrical signal in the brain. This is an inclusive definition because it is possible that some electrical activity in the brain is not thought, but science doesn't have a way to tell the difference yet.

Personhood is an entirely moral, philosophical, and theological concept.

The idea that 'independent will' exists is based on certain philosophical and theological assumptions.

By what means do you justify the concept of personal volition existing?

 

[Abhorsen]

Personhood is an entirely moral, philosophical, and theological concept.

The idea that 'independent will' exists is based on certain philosophical and theological assumptions.

By what means do you justify the concept of personal volition existing?

I totally agree this is based on moral, philosophical, or theological concepts. Arguing free will vs. determinism is beyond my abilities, especially as I'm an atheist, so I can't cite God. And this is about as far back as I can go. But without free will, the question of whether this actions are moral becomes somewhat irrelevant, as we can no longer really be held responsible for anything we do, so I think it's fair to assume personal volition as a necessary assumption for moral behavior to happen.

 

[LordsFire]

I totally agree this is based on moral, philosophical, or theological concepts. Arguing free will vs. determinism is beyond my abilities, especially as I'm an atheist, so I can't cite God. And this is about as far back as I can go. But without free will, the question of whether this actions are moral becomes somewhat irrelevant, as we can no longer really be held responsible for anything we do, so I think it's fair to assume personal volition as a necessary assumption for moral behavior to happen.

Yes, personal volition is necessary for moral behavior to be a 'thing.'

You've basically just admitted though, that you're trying to construct a logical position on an issue, in which your worldview denies one of the core elements actually exists.

I'd say that's a pretty big problem with the argument you're trying to construct here.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, personal volition is necessary for moral behavior to be a 'thing.'

You've basically just admitted though, that you're trying to construct a logical position on an issue, in which your worldview denies one of the core elements actually exists.

I'd say that's a pretty big problem with the argument you're trying to construct here.

Um, no? I didn't say I don't believe in personal volition, I actually do. I just don't have enough knowledge right now to make a good argument for personal volition. I'm also not trying for a whole cohesive world view in this thread, but aiming to solve a simpler question: When does a fetus attain personhood? For these purposes, I'm quite fine taking personal volition as an axiom.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Um, no? I didn't say I don't believe in personal volition, I actually do. I just don't have enough knowledge right now to make a good argument for personal volition. I'm also not trying for a whole cohesive world view in this thread, but aiming to solve a simpler question: When does a fetus attain personhood? For these purposes, I'm quite fine taking personal volition as an axiom.

Personal my own ideas on the matter is simple, we all have faith and belief, especially when we claim we don't. We all believe in different things and may argue until the end of time on them, but it itself is a constant. Even a nihilist believes in the truth of his own nihilism, and if he lacks faith in it he is no longer a nihilist.

You have to believe in something you can't prove, and faith that they are true. So find the things that mean the most to you and work from there. This is not a call to ignore other beliefs or faiths, or to ignore scientific evidence, but recognizing that your truths are at least equal to anybodies else's even if yes, you change them over time, is the first step.

And for the record, I do believe that equality and the sanctity of human life is a universal Truth.

And as for the topic at hand....I'm finding myself changing, I used to be firmly pro-choice, now I find myself logically and philosophically moving towards pro-life. I keep telling myself that I need to read the best arguments for both sides and make an informed choice on the matter, but it keeps getting put on the back burner.

 

[Abhorsen]

Personal my own ideas on the matter is simple, we all have faith and belief, especially when we claim we don't. We all believe in different things and may argue until the end of time on them, but it itself is a constant. Even a nihilist believes in the truth of his own nihilism, and if he lacks faith in it he is no longer a nihilist.

I think this is a fair statement. My beliefs are generally limited to where I don't feel science can inform us. Eventually everything needs some axioms to build on. But I think it is important not to just have a large collection of assumptions, but instead work on assuming as little as possible to make a personal philosophy that is as complete and consistent as possible.

And as for the topic at hand....I'm finding myself changing, I used to be firmly pro-choice, now I find myself logically and philosophically moving towards pro-life. I keep telling myself that I need to read the best arguments for both sides and make an informed choice on the matter, but it keeps getting put on the back burner.

This was basically me a little while ago. Ben Shapiro had some very good arguments about why some benchmarks people use for life, like heartbeat or birth, aren't good. But I haven't seen him comment on the brain activity bar, and I came up with some objections to life beginning at conception. What is your current opinion, by the way, on when life begins?

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

I think this is a fair statement. My beliefs are generally limited to where I don't feel science can inform us. Eventually everything needs some axioms to build on. But I think it is important not to just have a large collection of assumptions, but instead work on assuming as little as possible to make a personal philosophy that is as complete and consistent as possible.

I also agree, but its important to consider that regardless of how well you may build that logical castle in your mind, the foundations are still made out of sponge cake. The same sponge cake everyone uses.

This was basically me a little while ago. Ben Shapiro had some very good arguments about why some benchmarks people use for life, like heartbeat or birth, aren't good. But I haven't seen him comment on the brain activity bar, and I came up with some objections to life beginning at conception. What is your current opinion, by the way, on when life begins?

Honestly? Not sure, its another thing to look into, but even if I come to the decision on where life begins might not really impact my position as much as it does someone else. There is plenty of other factors to consider, such as even if life begins at ______, then what value does the biological processes up to that point have? I find it weird to consider that only at the moment life begins means that magically now is the time the future of that person matters. Honestly at that point it seems to me like the term personhood becomes a political correct term for the human soul. That to me it seems to still ignores the actual demonstrable science that the fetus will invariable develop into a human being if factors continue to favor it.

A fetus is a fetus, its not a nail clipping, its not an egg or a sperm cell, and analogies along those lines are stupid and terrible.