Abortion

[MacFall]

I would agree with that. The inherent moral value comes from personhood (being self-aware, and probably also part of society), not from the biological fact of life.

So the mentally incapable and comatose have no value? By your standards, they would seem to be un-persons.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So the mentally incapable and comatose have no value? By your standards, they would seem to be un-persons.

As a society, we often give the mentally incapable and those in comas/vegetative states/etc less legal value. Other family members can often be required to make decisions for them. For example, my grandmother has dementia, and therefore cannot make many decisions on her own. As a result of her condition, she has lost those rights and they have been passed on to my mother who now makes the decisions for her.

Does my grandmother have less intrinsic value as a human? Perhaps, and perhaps not - that depends on what you value her against. However, she certainly has less legal value as a person.

Note: I don't particularly like the use of the word 'value' her, because it has several connotations that I do not necessarily agree with. However, I'm sticking with it for the sake of making sense.

 

[MacFall]

But that does not make your grandmother less of a person. Your mother does not possess your grandmother's rights; she is merely their custodian. A person has the right as a self-owner to kill himself, but (self-defense aside) nobody has the right to kill another, even those in their custody. If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But that does not make your grandmother less of a person. Your mother does not possess your grandmother's rights; she is merely their custodian. A person has the right as a self-owner to kill himself, but (self-defense aside) nobody has the right to kill another, even those in their custody. If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?

You're assuming personhood. If the fetus isn't a person, then yes, she "owns" it in the same sense that she "owns" her fingernails.

For me, the establishment of brain waves is a somewhat non-arbitrary distinction between personhood and non personhood, since it's our brains that make us what we are. I haven't seen a good argument against this.

 

[MacFall]

Yes I am assuming personhood, because the combination of DNA - the literal creation of human life - is the only distinction that I believe is clear enough to establish it. There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities. Could they have been justly destroyed while their brain was not emitting signals?

 

[Beechwell]

So the mentally incapable and comatose have no value? By your standards, they would seem to be un-persons.

Not sure what you mean with mentally incapable. People with mental handicaps still are self aware for all I know. And since even the brain of a comatouse is still working in some way, self-awareness may still be there (certainly the case for someone in a vigil coma). And both are still part of society through their family and friends.

But I would say that a human being with no higher brain functions whatsoever living on its own does have no value as a human being.
And no, I don't think this is a slippery slope.

On the other hand, should (what I highly doubt) some machine, a supercomputer some day gain consciousness and be able to communicate with us, I would indeed grant to it the rights of personhood.

EDIT:

If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?

why does one need to own what they are killing? Do I need to take legal posession of a spider before I can kill it?

EDIT2:

There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities.

Are you certain of this? I never heard of such a case, and considered in impossible. Have any links?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I am assuming personhood, because the combination of DNA - the literal creation of human life - is the only distinction that I believe is clear enough to establish it. There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities. Could they have been justly destroyed while their brain was not emitting signals?

True brain death is irreversible. Please provide evidence that it is not.

 

[Belk]

I believe that human life is a good thing in and of itself, and that makes its needless ending wrong. It is a qualitative, not quantitative standard.

Kind of goes against your objectivist stance, no?

 

[IzzyPop]

Yes I am assuming personhood, because the combination of DNA - the literal creation of human life - is the only distinction that I believe is clear enough to establish it. There have been brain-dead people who have regained cognitive abilities. Could they have been justly destroyed while their brain was not emitting signals?

There are combinations of DNA that create children with no brain outside of the stem. Since it is a human life, should the mother be forced to carry it to term even though it will never acheive awareness and live outside the womb for a mere handful of days?

 

[_JJM]

Abortion is wrong.

 

[MacFall]

There are combinations of DNA that create children with no brain outside of the stem. Since it is a human life, should the mother be forced to carry it to term even though it will never acheive awareness and live outside the womb for a mere handful of days?

That's a really good point, but I would say that the lack of capacity for the development of cognition is different from the lack of cognition.

 

[MacFall]

Kind of goes against your objectivist stance, no?

No, not really. Or at all.

 

[Belk]

No, not really. Or at all.

So you believe something, but it is also an objective fact? Or am I missing something here?

 

[SithDoughnut]

But that does not make your grandmother less of a person. Your mother does not possess your grandmother's rights; she is merely their custodian. A person has the right as a self-owner to kill himself, but (self-defense aside) nobody has the right to kill another, even those in their custody. If mothers have the right to kill their unborn offspring, they must be said to own that which they are killing. Do you agree with the idea that a human life can be owned by another?

My arm is human life, so yes. Considering that a foetus for a large portion of time (I don't support abortion for the whole nine months) is inseparable from the mother, and has no individuality of its own, then it can be considered to be part of the mother's body. As result, she owns it.

 

[IzzyPop]

That's a really good point, but I would say that the lack of capacity for the development of cognition is different from the lack of cognition.

That would be moving the goal posts, sir. You stated the combination of DNA created something special and that it should be protected. Now we are adding cognition into the equation.

 

[yasic]

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion is not wrong.

Your turn.

 

[MacFall]

That would be moving the goal posts, sir. You stated the combination of DNA created something special and that it should be protected. Now we are adding cognition into the equation.

No, it's not moving the goal posts; it's a minor concession. A being without the capacity to develop cognition is in a different moral class than one that has such a capacity.

 

[A2SG]

I believe that human life is a good thing in and of itself, and that makes its needless ending wrong.

Beliefs are subjective, not objective.

It is a qualitative, not quantitative standard.

In other words, a subjective standard.

-- A2SG, as I said before.....

 

[A2SG]

No, it's not moving the goal posts; it's a minor concession. A being without the capacity to develop cognition is in a different moral class than one that has such a capacity.

What are these different moral "classes" and what is the criteria for each?

-- A2SG, never heard of a moral class ranking system before....

 

[MacFall]

A thing either has moral value or it does not. In order for it to do so it must have the capacity for moral agency. Moral agency requires decision-making; decision making requires cognition. A being that has no cognitive abilities yet will achieve them is, therefore, morally distinct from a being that never will achieve them. The first is a moral being, the second is not.