Difficult abortion thought experiments

[The Nihilist]

Personally, I don't really care when personhood is attained; it would not change my views on abortion.

Quick question; do dead humans have personhood?

I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?

 

[abc123xyz]

I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?

That's the first thing you've said that I can agree with you on.

 

[Skaloop]

So you're either a child pretending to be a middle aged adult or just making a silly little attempt at humor. I'm not going to bother with this.

Oh, I think you will.

What part were you addressing with that initial statement, anyway? The part about personhood not having a bearing on my views on abortion, or the part where I asked you a question?

Though an argument could be made to give them some rights, and thus personhood so as to not desecrate their bodies. Some belief systems allow for that.

I never said anything about rights or belief systems. I just asked if a dead human is a person. Some belief systems may allow for it, but most do not consider a dead human to be a person. Even when granted protections from desecration, a dead human still isn't a person; it's a dead human with certain protections. The fact that a dead human is generally not considered a person shows that equating human to person is faulty, and thus the whole "Homo sapiens = human = person" argument is faulty. Hence, incorrect, as I noted in my first response. And since whether it were correct or incorrect has no bearing on my views on abortion, I am not pointing out how it is incorrect just because it disagrees with my belief system, as you mistakenly asserted.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?

Of course. Gonna be hitting the pub tomorrow night with friends. If we can get in, of course; those places fill up fast for St. Paddy's Day, even on weeknights. That it's a Saturday this year probably means it will be a madhouse. We've got some fall-back options.

 

[The Nihilist]

Of course. Gonna be hitting the pub tomorrow night with friends. If we can get in, of course; those places fill up fast for St. Paddy's Day, even on weeknights. That it's a Saturday this year probably means it will be a madhouse. We've got some fall-back options.

Yeah, I can see how it'd be tough. You can only make igloos so big, so you probably can't fit that many people into an igloo-pub
I was going to go get some green beer here in a bit, but more or less everyone I work with is gone for the weekend for one reason or another, which is really too bad. I like green beer.

 

[DaisyDay]

Hello to all,

So this shall be my first post on this forum. I want to start off by saying these questions are meant for fellow Christians mainly, but anyone against abortion can answer.

Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.

Mr. Egnor has asked me a single question: What is a human embryo? Now, I must stop there because this is really two questions. The first is "What is an embryo?" I hope we can safely set aside the question of what an embryo is. Let's say a group of two or more dividing cells that, in placental mammals, is between the zygotic and fetal stages.

It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.

I don't believe it is the question Mr. Egnor wants answered though. That means there is something about that dangling modifier "human". That would make the second question "What is a human?" Now, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe this is the key question Mr. Egnor wants answered. If that is the question to be answered, why not simply ask that question outright? Only Mr. Egnor knows why.

So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.

This does not bode well for a good discussion.

So let me try rephrasing the question to better capture what I believe is being asked. "Is an embryo human?" That, is better, but I'm fairly certain that embryos associated with other animals aren't to be included, only those embryos undergoing gestation in an adult female of the species Homo sapien, commonly referred to as human. So lets use the word human in its common form to distinguish what class of embryos we are discussing. "Is a human embryo human?"

Well, this can't be right.

Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?

Instead of trying to prove the unborn is fully human, such a question simply assumes the proof is true.

Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".

This logical fallacy is called, of course, "begging the question". I'm sure such an outcome was unintentional. Now, some will say that I have significantly altered the question.

Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".

I disagree based on the potential answers offered (especially answer 5) and think that I have clarified the question to better get at what is really being asked.

Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.

If I offended anyone in doing so, I apologize.

What?

Perhaps it is better to move on and look at the possible answers.

Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.

<snip for brevity> So to clarify the present definitions:

Homo sapien - an individual, from the moment of fertilization on, with genomic content common to the hairless, social great ape originating on the planet Earth and endowed with certain rights by virtue of being a member of said species (2)
Human - see Homo sapien
Person(3) - see Human

You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.

<snipped for brevity>
Since life begins at fertilization ...

Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.

Thank you to all who wish to help.

Help you what? Your goal is not clear.

 

[abc123xyz]

Oh, I think you will.

What part were you addressing with that initial statement, anyway? The part about personhood not having a bearing on my views on abortion, or the part where I asked you a question?



I never said anything about rights or belief systems. I just asked if a dead human is a person. Some belief systems may allow for it, but most do not consider a dead human to be a person. Even when granted protections from desecration, a dead human still isn't a person; it's a dead human with certain protections. The fact that a dead human is generally not considered a person shows that equating human to person is faulty, and thus the whole "Homo sapiens = human = person" argument is faulty. Hence, incorrect, as I noted in my first response. And since whether it were correct or incorrect has no bearing on my views on abortion, I am not pointing out how it is incorrect just because it disagrees with my belief system, as you mistakenly asserted.

Like I said, it varies by belief system whether or not personhood is the same as human. A dead human is still a a human. It's simply dead. Once the body is decomposed, there would be no more rights, under such a belief system. Just because SOME belief systems don't have the "human = person" thing going on doesn't mean others don't.

I don't care what you believe. You shouldn't even care if I care. My opinion shouldn't matter to you, you need not justify anything to me.

----

"Some belief systems may allow for it, but most do not consider a dead human to be a person." --- It depends whether or not person is synonymous with being human. Then it depends whether or not we make a distinction between a human who is alive or not. It would be for purely sentimental value, in terms of respect for the dead, as that human's life is gone, and one of the main reasons humans/persons (in certain belief systems) have rights is because they are... alive. So it depends where you draw the line. It's not really as simple as you say.

 

[DaisyDay]

While I appreciate the fact that you took the time to reply I clearly stated at the beginning that I don't require you to do so as it is not only a waste of my time, but also yours (I fail to see why you'd care about a post that attempts to define what a human is specifically for the purposes of going against pro-choice beliefs).

Is it better to dismiss what you fail see or to discuss it until you can see?

Besides, the only rational belief for a pro-choice person is this one http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/ and After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Oh, that is certainly not the only rational belief - I don't know that anyone actually believes it at all. It's more of a combo devil's advocate and straw man.

You also contradict yourself as you first state there is no point in time when a fetus becomes a person then you also state we can make an "intelligent" decision even though according to you there is no point in time when this happens.

Do you understand the concept of not being able to determine a single point in time in a gradual process and being able to say approximately?

Now stop wasting both of our time with this because you clearly didn't take the time to read what I asked. This is not meant to be a discussion about abortion itself.

That's rude. I thought her points were interesting as yours.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't care what you believe. You shouldn't even care if I care. My opinion shouldn't matter to you, you need not justify anything to me.

What is the point of discussing then?

 

[abc123xyz]

What is the point of discussing then?

I don't care about his views on abortion. I replied with concerning personhood.

 

[abc123xyz]

Is it better to dismiss what you fail see or to discuss it until you can see?

Oh, that is certainly not the only rational belief - I don't know that anyone actually believes it at all. It's more of a combo devil's advocate and straw man.

Do you understand the concept of not being able to determine a single point in time in a gradual process and being able to say approximately?


That's rude. I thought her points were interesting as yours.

She didn't answer what I wanted answered. So I dismiss it. I don't care if it's rude. She didn't take the time to answer my question and simply went ahead for the topics that stir up emotions in everyone and never get resolved. She clearly didn't care about answering my question.

There has to be an objective time when personhood is to be given, whether gradually or all of a sudden. Just because we can't yet identify that point doesn't mean it's not possible. Here I am arguing on behalf of pro-choice. Nice.

It's a logical conclusion to say if a fetus isn't a person in the womb, then it's also not a person outside the womb. We kill because it's not a person. How would birth change anything regarding personhood and whatever criteria are given for personhood?

If I were pro choice I would not only believe that, but also in involuntary euthanasia, and anything else that is related. I see nothing wrong with it once you allow for one to be killed off. After all, it's all about what meets a certain definition of personhood.

This means giving more rights to adult chimps than a handicapped infant. It's all about the degree of consciousness and abilities, as that is what personism would imply. If pro-choicers don't agree, perhaps they should read Peter Singer's philosophy a bit more.

 

[abc123xyz]

Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.

It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.

So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.

This does not bode well for a good discussion.

Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?

Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".

Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".


Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.

What?
Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.

You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.

Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.

Help you what? Your goal is not clear.

I may not be able to control it, but I can ask people to not waste my time, respectfully. You can't control me asking that, either. I don't care if it's open for everyone. So what? I asked someone in particular to help me. I didn't say I would go to their house and shoot them if they did reply and were pro-choice.

Help me with finding a solution to those hypothetical situations. I thought I was being pretty clear.

 

[abc123xyz]

Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.

It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.

So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.

This does not bode well for a good discussion.

Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?

Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".

Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".


Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.

What?
Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.

You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.

Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.

Help you what? Your goal is not clear.

The sperm and the ova may be alive, but they are a part of the original two individuals. When fertilization occurs we have a new individual with unique DNA, etc.

 

[Skaloop]

She didn't answer what I wanted answered. So I dismiss it. I don't care if it's rude. She didn't take the time to answer my question and simply went ahead for the topics that stir up emotions in everyone and never get resolved. She clearly didn't care about answering my question.

There has to be an objective time when personhood is to be given, whether gradually or all of a sudden. Just because we can't yet identify that point doesn't mean it's not possible. Here I am arguing on behalf of pro-choice. Nice.

It's a logical conclusion to say if a fetus isn't a person in the womb, then it's also not a person outside the womb. We kill because it's not a person. How would birth change anything regarding personhood and whatever criteria are given for personhood?

If I were pro choice I would not only believe that, but also in involuntary euthanasia, and anything else that is related. I see nothing wrong with it once you allow for one to be killed off. After all, it's all about what meets a certain definition of personhood.

This means giving more rights to adult chimps than a handicapped infant. It's all about the degree of consciousness and abilities, as that is what personism would imply. If pro-choicers don't agree, perhaps they should read Peter Singer's philosophy a bit more.

Abortion isn't about killing anything; that is incidental. Abortion is about removing the fetus. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not provide a method of keeping said fetus alive outside the womb, so death occurs. But death is not the primary intent the way it is in the other things you mention. So your weak attempt to equate abortion with killing a newborn or euthanizing someone against their will has no basis in reality.

 

[abc123xyz]

Abortion isn't about killing anything; that is incidental. Abortion is about removing the fetus. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not provide a method of keeping said fetus alive outside the womb, so death occurs. But death is not the primary intent the way it is in the other things you mention. So your weak attempt to equate abortion with killing a newborn or euthanizing someone against their will has no basis in reality.

No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not. If the mother has the right to decide when to do so, as it is not a person, then how is it really any different if you do so after birth, when the criteria for personhood isn't met? It's about getting rid of something that's unwanted, whether through killing or not. Abort means terminate, by the way.

Since it doesn't matter how you do it, because the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of a fetus, it doesn't matter how you do it. It's about getting rid of the baby, which isn't given personhood status. If a mother feels more sad by yearning to have the baby back after adoption, her rights would be more important than that of a fetus who doesn't have personhood rights. It's about satisfying the mother (and father) by terminating the baby.

The same goes for euthanasia. Since the criteria for personhood isn't met in all humans, even if they are adults, euthanasia is also about getting rid of non-human persons. That's why abortion is allowed. Because they're not a "person" according to a particular definition of that term. It's about persons not having to suffer by being burdened by non-persons. When it's involuntary, that is. I'm not talking about voluntary euthanasia.

Again, people who don't meet the criteria for "personhood", their will doesn't matter, since the will of persons matters more. Persons have rights. That's what abortion relies on. Personism. You're just not willing to take it all the way, that's all. I actually have more respect (if you can call it that) for people like Peter Singer than pro choice people against involuntary euthanasia and after birth abortion. At least they're being honest not just with everyone else, but also with themselves.

 

[selfinflikted]

No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not.

Wrong. It is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that a fetus is destroyed is completely incidental.

Further, I would like to hear you answer Skaloop's question. Are dead humans persons?

 

[abc123xyz]

Wrong. It is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that a fetus is destroyed is completely incidental.

Further, I would like to hear you answer Skaloop's question. Are dead humans persons?

I already answered it. It depends by belief system.

Not wrong at all. Abortion is about getting rid of a burden, a non person burdening a person. It's about deciding who gets to live up to their POTENTIAL for personhood and who doesn't. You fail to see the big picture. The difference between a fetus and an adult human is supposedly whatever criteria for personhood is met or not being met. The reason for aborting is because it's a burden, or unwanted, to keep a non-person alive. The same reasoning thus can apply to infants and anyone else who doesn't meet personhood criteria. Perhaps the parents don't want to deal with having that infant live anymore all of a sudden. It's still not a person. It's still a burden on the parents.

This means an animal with more abilities which are criteria for personhood than a fetus or even an infant should have more rights. After all, it's not being human that gives you rights. It's being a person.

None of you seem to actually think about your position. You just keep giving the same old reasons everyone hears, rather than analyze the exact implications of personhood being used as the standard by which to kill or not kill, etc. You think it's all about the "mother being inconvenienced" and such nonsense. It's much more than that. You're basically saying persons have more value than non-persons. That's the only way to justify it. Otherwise, the only time you can say the mother can abort if personhood isn't the main reason, is if giving birth is a threat to the mother. That's a very small minority of abortions. Much of the time it's due to teen pregnancy, for example. So a person decides whether a non-person can live up to their potential based on how much of a burden they are to the person. Don't give me these standard non-sense arguments which aren't even thought through to their logical conclusion. It's much more than just the mother terminating a pregnancy. It's about having the right to terminate a non-person's life. This is why we kill bugs. They are not persons. Same with fetuses. Not persons. According to a certain definition of the term.

I would like to point out that I made a mistake, however, when I said, whether persons, or not. It's only if they are not a person. At least according to this belief system. I don't believe any of this, I simply follow out its reasoning to its logical conclusion.

 

[Skaloop]

No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not.

Abortion is about ending a pregnancy.

If the mother has the right to decide when to do so, as it is not a person, then how is it really any different if you do so after birth, when the criteria for personhood isn't met?

Who says the criteria for personhood is not met after birth? Anyway, the difference is that there is no other way to keep a fetus alive, other than in its mother's womb. If she doesn't want it there, there are no other options. After birth, a baby can be taken care of by any number of other possible people, so if the mother doesn't want it, there are options.

It's about getting rid of something that's unwanted, whether through killing or not. Abort means terminate, by the way.

Yes, it does mean that. Terminate as in "to end". Abortion ends (terminates) a pregnancy. The word terminate doesn't inherently have anything to do with killing.

Since it doesn't matter how you do it, because the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of a fetus, it doesn't matter how you do it. It's about getting rid of the baby, which isn't given personhood status. If a mother feels more sad by yearning to have the baby back after adoption, her rights would be more important than that of a fetus who doesn't have personhood rights. It's about satisfying the mother (and father) by terminating the baby.

Terminating the pregnancy. Like I said, the death of the fetus is incidental to that.

The same goes for euthanasia. Since the criteria for personhood isn't met in all humans,

Says who?

even if they are adults, euthanasia is also about getting rid of non-human persons. That's why abortion is allowed. Because they're not a "person" according to a particular definition of that term. It's about persons not having to suffer by being burdened by non-persons. When it's involuntary, that is. I'm not talking about voluntary euthanasia.

And again, the difference between the burdens is that one burden can be taken on by someone else, so euthanasia is not the only option for removing the unwanted burden, while the other burden requires the mother's involvement and cannot be shouldered by anyone or anything else.

Again, people who don't meet the criteria for "personhood", their will doesn't matter, since the will of persons matters more. Persons have rights. That's what abortion relies on. Personism.

False. I don't care if one considers a fetus to be fully and completely a person with personhood. Abortion would then be about the rights of one person outweighing the rights of another person.

You're just not willing to take it all the way, that's all. I actually have more respect (if you can call it that) for people like Peter Singer than pro choice people against involuntary euthanasia and after birth abortion. At least they're being honest not just with everyone else, but also with themselves.

I don't take it all the way because there are too many steps missing in going from "a fetus is not a person" to "a newborn or old/diseased human is not a person."

 

[selfinflikted]

I already answered it. It depends by belief system.

That's not really an answer. Tell us then, do you categorize a dead human as a person?

Not wrong at all. Abortion is about getting rid of a burden, a non person burdening a person. It's about deciding who gets to live up to their POTENTIAL for personhood and who doesn't.

I won't say that no abortion has ever been performed with the express intent to kill an unwanted "baby," but you are going to have an extremely difficult time trying to convince us that the reason for abortion is to kill a potential human, rather than end an unwanted pregnancy.

You fail to see the big picture.

This happens to me often in life. Tell me something I don't know.

The difference between a fetus and an adult human is supposedly whatever criteria for personhood is met or not being met.

Not really. There is a plethora of differences between a "fetus" and an "adult human." You have only named one difference, that of having personhood status. I could fill an entire book with the differences between a fetus and an adult human.

The reason for aborting is because it's a burden, or unwanted, to keep a non-person alive. The same reasoning thus can apply to infants and anyone else who doesn't meet personhood criteria. Perhaps the parents don't want to deal with having that infant live anymore all of a sudden. It's still not a person. It's still a burden on the parents.

And I still disagree and contend that the majority of abortions are performed to end a pregnancy. Do you know what is involved with nine months of pregnancy? Ever thought about it much? After all, if the pregnancy was a breeze, I would venture that most women would opt to have their baby then put him or her up for adoption. But we know this isn't the case, and I posit that it's because of the burden of the pregnancy itself.

 

[abc123xyz]

Abortion is about ending a pregnancy.



Who says the criteria for personhood is not met after birth? Anyway, the difference is that there is no other way to keep a fetus alive, other than in its mother's womb. If she doesn't want it there, there are no other options. After birth, a baby can be taken care of by any number of other possible people, so if the mother doesn't want it, there are options.



Yes, it does mean that. Terminate as in "to end". Abortion ends (terminates) a pregnancy. The word terminate doesn't inherently have anything to do with killing.



Terminating the pregnancy. Like I said, the death of the fetus is incidental to that.



Says who?



And again, the difference between the burdens is that one burden can be taken on by someone else, so euthanasia is not the only option for removing the unwanted burden, while the other burden requires the mother's involvement and cannot be shouldered by anyone or anything else.



False. I don't care if one considers a fetus to be fully and completely a person with personhood. Abortion would then be about the rights of one person outweighing the rights of another person.



I don't take it all the way because there are too many steps missing in going from "a fetus is not a person" to "a newborn or old/diseased human is not a person."

"Who says the criteria for personhood is not met after birth? Anyway, the difference is that there is no other way to keep a fetus alive, other than in its mother's womb. If she doesn't want it there, there are no other options. After birth, a baby can be taken care of by any number of other possible people, so if the mother doesn't want it, there are options."

The fetus can feel pain in the womb well before birth. So it's not just pain. Otherwise, you'd have to disallow us from killing any animals that feel pain. It's about being a "rational" human being, according to the most common theory of personhood used to justify abortion. I don't want person X to be alive. There are no other options. They have to be killed. They are a burden on me. Say they're my child. Say there is no orphanage, and no one else to take care of them. We've exhausted all other options. I can now kill them. My rights are more important.

"False. I don't care if one considers a fetus to be fully and completely a person with personhood. Abortion would then be about the rights of one person outweighing the rights of another person."

And you're saying the mother's "right to her body" trumps the fetus' right to LIFE? What's more important? LIFE or right to body? So... rights of one person above another. HA. NICE. So then I'll just say my right to be happy (rights are man-made things anyway, we make them up as we go) trumps your right to life. Same argument with the mother.

"I don't take it all the way because there are too many steps missing in going from "a fetus is not a person" to "a newborn or old/diseased human is not a person."

There are not steps missing. Justify how someone in a coma or PVS meets the criteria for personhood. Don't say they're not in the mother's womb, as that simply is another of saying they're a burden.

Also, what the heck do you mean, says who? You don't see a difference with regards to abilities between a coma patient and someone who is fully healthy?

"And again, the difference between the burdens is that one burden can be taken on by someone else, so euthanasia is not the only option for removing the unwanted burden, while the other burden requires the mother's involvement and cannot be shouldered by anyone or anything else."

AND IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE EXHAUSTED? THEN WHAT? You just pushed back the issue further, as euthanasia allows for a few other options. This changes NOTHING. They would still be a burden. So, again, there is no difference.