This illustrates the slippery slope I was trying to point out for those of you who define personhood functionally and assign rights accordingly.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

This illustrates the slippery slope I was trying to point out for those of you who define personhood functionally and assign rights accordingly. [Post #211]

 

Interesting article and it raises some uncomfortable questions. Although I think your supposed solution or argument, that there is a person if not a soul present from the moment of conception which calls for the full protection of the law, is decidedly impractical for just one flaw of several. While in a perfect world there might be some justification for providing all the resources necessary for the survival of the embryo right from conception to death or at least birth, the fact of the matter is that is not. I wonder how you would handle what I would call the analogous situation of triage in a battlefield situation: with a limited number of resources hard decisions are frequently necessary.

 

And while individual cases might fall one side of the line or the other, it seems that some reasonable principles can be, if not must be, defined and applied. For instance, I see that one of the cases discussed is the Treacher-Collins genetic abnormality which is generally not detected until after birth:

 

One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10?000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.

 

While many of those afflicted by that and other conditions seem to develop into healthy and happy individuals, though maybe with the use of substantial social resources even if those are better used there than for an extra ICBM, I somehow doubt that is going to be true in all cases – for example in the mercy killing of Tracy Latimer by her father Robert. Seems to me that sometimes some people are selfishly more concerned about the pain that they suffer on thinking about killing those individuals than they are about the pain and torment that those individuals have to suffer because of some afflictions that society is simply not able to correct or even ameliorate.

 

But not an easy issue to define much less resolve.

Really? First this a BS philosophy piece that opines "what if". second this is already illegal, so no worries.

Really? First this a BS philosophy piece that opines "what if". second this is already illegal, so no worries. [Post #213]

 

You read the article from the editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics about the controversy surrounding the publication of the original paper? [“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”]

 

Here are some interesting comments, apparently from the “usual suspects”:

 

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

 

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

 

“I don‘t believe I’ve ever heard anything as vile as what these “people” are advocating. Truly, truly scary.”

 

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

 

Amazing number of people who think that putting their heads in the sand solves the problem.

Note to the Moderators: when I go to print this discussion the last entry shown is #165; all of the others – some 30 or 40 posts – after that do not show up in any printed output.

Really? First this a BS philosophy piece that opines "what if". second this is already illegal, so no worries.

It is just a logical progression of the stance many people on this board have taken on defining personhood.  Atheist and Princeton professor, Peter Singer, who I quoted and referenced in this thread, acknowledges it.


Ideas have consequences.  There's nothing wrong with asking "what if."  Plus, there are things that used to be illegal that are legal now...like abortion.

Interesting article and it raises some uncomfortable questions. Although I think your supposed solution or argument, that there is a person if not a soul present from the moment of conception which calls for the full protection of the law, is decidedly impractical for just one flaw of several. While in a perfect world there might be some justification for providing all the resources necessary for the survival of the embryo right from conception to death or at least birth, the fact of the matter is that is not. I wonder how you would handle what I would call the analogous situation of triage in a battlefield situation: with a limited number of resources hard decisions are frequently necessary.



You are demonstrating the very problem with this issue.  You are trying to define personhood by practicality or functionality and that is the slippery slope this article embodies.



Do you see your right to exist as impractical?



Everyone likes to emphasize the personal responsibility and tough decisions people must make after the fact, after conception, with respect to abortion, but most seem blind to actually emphasizing some personal responsibility and making tough decisions prior to conception.



As for battlefield triage, well, you know grandma is just using up too much of our resources staying in that nursing home, so let's just kill her.

It is just a logical progression of the stance many people on this board have taken on defining personhood. Atheist and Princeton professor, Peter Singer, who I quoted and referenced in this thread, acknowledges it.

 

I have yet to read anything from anyone on this board that supports killing a child after it is born. Please show me where many people on this board have supported this.

Ideas have consequences. There's nothing wrong with asking "what if." Plus, there are things that used to be illegal that are legal now...like abortion.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with saying "what if", philosophers do it all the time. However, I do not necessarily want to stem the free flow of ideas because I don't agree with them. Furthermore, ideas such as this cannot come to fruition in this society as we know it now. On abortion, I defer to actual people that have to have them. I respect their choice to control their body. I would never want to be in the position where I had to make that choice and I do not envy any woman that is.

You are demonstrating the very problem with this issue. You are trying to define personhood by practicality or functionality and that is the slippery slope this article embodies.

 

And you are defining it by emotion and religion. Same thing different metric.



Do you see your right to exist as impractical?

What exactly is my right to exist? What does that even mean? You are a fan of the slippery slope argument, so why not take it further and say that every egg woman has is a pontential child, so every month she ovulates without conception is another month she is deny a future child personhood.


Everyone likes to emphasize the personal responsibility and tough decisions people must make after the fact, after conception, with respect to abortion, but most seem blind to actually emphasizing some personal responsibility and making tough decisions prior to conception.

 

Some people end up pregnant despite those hard choices and taking responsibility. Do you think the government should be able to dictate when you should have a child?



As for battlefield triage, well, you know grandma is just using up too much of our resources staying in that nursing home, so let's just kill her.

 

First off that is not battlefield triage. Battlefield triage would be that grandma is so far gone that it would take up too many resources, that would be better spent on people that have a chance. And resources would not immediately be given to grandma. At no point does anyone put a gun to grannies head. Grannie may live or die she just won't get the resources at that time. And battlefield triage only applies on the battlefield.

Of course when people feel very strongly about an issue the reactions usually come from an emotional place. I still believe in the open exchange of information, if nothing else but to know what the nutty stuff out there is that you need to worry about.

I have yet to read anything from anyone on this board that supports killing a child after it is born. Please show me where many people on this board have supported this.

I didn't say people here support killing a child after it is born.  What I am saying is that the arguments offered by many here for why killing a fetus is not killing a person can also be used in making an argument for why killing a toddler is not killing a person.  In other words, the criteria they use to determine a fetus is not a child could also be used to show that a toddler is not a person.  Of course, they wouldn't think of killing a toddler, but their argument logically progresses to that.

OK. Can you please illustrate how that logic would flow?

Of course there is nothing wrong with saying "what if", philosophers do it all the time. However, I do not necessarily want to stem the free flow of ideas because I don't agree with them. Furthermore, ideas such as this cannot come to fruition in this society as we know it now. On abortion, I defer to actual people that have to have them. I respect their choice to control their body. I would never want to be in the position where I had to make that choice and I do not envy any woman that is.

Society as we know it now...well, society is not static.  And to say it cannot come to fruition?  Why not?

"...people that have to have them."  Have to have an abortion?

Abortion is controlling someone else's body.  It's killing someone else's body.  But if you want to say it's not controlling someone else's body, it is just a woman controlling her body, then why would you never want to be in that position to make that choice?  What would be so difficult about it if it were just some lump of cells?


I do not envy the position many women find themselves in.  Many times they are alone and feel like abortion is the only option.  Many times the father is nowhere to be found.  Irresponsible men is a big part of the problem.

And you are defining it by emotion and religion. Same thing different metric.


Actually, I'm not.  Science and logic.

What exactly is my right to exist? What does that even mean? You are a fan of the slippery slope argument, so why not take it further and say that every egg woman has is a pontential child, so every month she ovulates without conception is another month she is deny a future child personhood.


If I kill you, have I violated your rights?

The "potential child" argument is not mine.  That is what everyone else has used to argue against the personhood of a fetus. 

Some people end up pregnant despite those hard choices and taking responsibility. Do you think the government should be able to dictate when you should have a child?


I do realize that.  And no, the govt. should not dictate such a thing.  Nor do I think the govt. should allow persons to be killed b/c they are unwanted.

First off that is not battlefield triage. Battlefield triage would be that grandma is so far gone that it would take up too many resources, that would be better spent on people that have a chance. And resources would not immediately be given to grandma. At no point does anyone put a gun to grannies head. Grannie may live or die she just won't get the resources at that time. And battlefield triage only applies on the battlefield.


So abortion is all about killing babies that don't have a chance or couldn't live a "normal" life as determined by you, huh?

>the govt. should not dictate such a thing.  Nor do I think the govt. should allow persons to be killed b/c they are unwanted<
>abortion is all about killing babies that don't have a chance or couldn't live a "normal" life as determined by you?<
-------------

As a libertarian and naturalist, I believe that PARENTS should have primary say in the life-or-death status of their newborn or infant.  With regard to an unborn fetus, embryo, or egg, I believe the MOTHER should have final say.  With regard to an unborn sperm, they are a "dime a dozen" and have value only to their biological producers.

After birth, then and only then, should others step into the picture to "save" another's offspring.  If the newborn/infant is unwanted by their parents or cannot be taken care of due to medical or sociological reasons, then the government or other interested parties can take over, if they have the will and resources.  IMO, that is practical, as well as ethical.
BTW, that Medical Ethics piece was an interesting read!  Thanks for the reference.

What about the rights of the fetus/newborn/infant?  Well, my ethical view is that when they are able to survive independently without harm to others, then they have full rights as "adults".  As we probably agree, "minors" should not have full rights and should be protected when their "potential adult" status is likely to be realized (e.g., brain not in coma).  Minors should be nurtured primarily by parents with the help of government or other agencies.

My last sentence should have read:

"Viable minors should be nurtured primarily by parents & their families with the help of government or other agencies."

[Smoking & Abortion; Y120302]

 

You are demonstrating the very problem with this issue.  You are trying to define personhood by practicality or functionality and that is the slippery slope this article embodies.

I agreed that it was a slippery slope type issue. But you’re not dealing with the issue except to categorically state that there is a person in existence from the moment of conception and for which you have not given the slightest amount of proof. Seems it is predicated on a religious view of the soul being created at that point – and for which there is, again, not the slightest amount of proof or evidence.

 

But I’m curious: how do you feel about the death penalty? The Catholic philosopher of religion, Edward Feser, apparently has the same views as you do about abortion but is entirely supportive of the death penalty. Something doesn’t compute there.

 

Do you see your right to exist as impractical?

 

But I am, more or less, an autonomous and conscious individual, able to take care of my own needs and requirements for survival and am able to contribute to the commonwealth. Really not at all the case with the individuals that the article was talking about.

Everyone likes to emphasize the personal responsibility and tough decisions people must make after the fact, after conception, with respect to abortion, but most seem blind to actually emphasizing some personal responsibility and making tough decisions prior to conception.

I’ll agree with you on that point. While there are, no doubt, a great many cases of irresponsibility, it seems there are more than a few which aren’t. And in the former at least, maybe there would be fewer abortions, and less drain on the medical system, if people were obliged at least to pay for more the related financial costs.

As for battlefield triage, well, you know grandma is just using up too much of our resources staying in that nursing home, so let's just kill her.

 

Really not at all the same situations and conditions – suggesting they are the same really doesn’t do your argument or your credibility any good at all. Grandma has presumably contributed substantially to that commonwealth and has a few resources of her own, or of her kids, on which she can draw to maintain herself. When she gets to a “persistent vegetative state” then I would say that it would be an act of Christian mercy – which, at times, seems in rather short supply – to let her go, to kill her – particularly if she has left instructions to that effect.

I still believe in the open exchange of information, if nothing else but to know what the nutty stuff out there is that you need to worry about. [Post #220]

 

Yes, I quite agree. Really a big part of the reason I support free speech with few if any restrictions, particularly as it relates to the criticism of religion, even in spite of those who wish to make that a case of blasphemy. You might want to search YouTube for Christopher Hitchen’s take on that idea. Although Ibn Warraq in his Why I Am Not a Muslim [highly recommended] quotes John Stuart Mill to some good effect:

 

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error ... We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.