identity of the unborn

[muichimotsu]

Except the idea of a ghost in the machine and such deals in substance dualism, which isn't necessarily reflected in Christian theology if we're going with the idea of a resurrected body, which would imply, from what I recall of studies into theological investigations on that, that the soul and body are intertwined, they're not separate; what is separate is the spirit, the animating force of God's proverbial breath, which was what gave Adam life. But it didn't give him a soul, that was, as it were, a secondary thing that emerged, possibly inbuilt with however God "shaped" Adam from dust and all that, I can't say (because I don't take the soul concept seriously)

The ghost in the machine entails that one can fundamentally separate the soul from the body and that after death, even a Christian's soul is just floating around in the aether waiting for God to resurrect them into a body, like they had to wait for a new chassis to put the engine in for a car.

Trying to goalpost shift by saying it's self aware software is still ignoring the problem of the analogy, which is that the soul is different from the brain, hardware and software in how we can investigate the other 3

 

[holo]

The point is based on autonomy of a person, that you shouldn't be forced to have your body used against your will, which includes pregnancy in regards to gestating an unborn life, but extends to things like donating blood and organs, technically speaking

That assumes the unborn isn't a person in and of themselves, though. If "unborn" is the pivotal point, that would mean that the act of being born itself grants the baby personhood or rights. But I don't think that's what you mean. When does the unborn become a person, in your thinking?

Legally, you aren't a person in the sense that you are independent in existing (different from independent as in not being a legal dependent, which in a manner, I still am to my parents, technically), because you're not born yet, barring the situation where you are wanted by the woman carrying you, while situations where they do not means that legally, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy

I'm honestly not aware of any legal definition of person, and as far as I know we don't have such a thing in Norwegian law at least.

When it comes to abortion, the important issue is morality, not law. The law may define "person" as whatever, but if we're to take a moral stand, personhood is a philosophical concept. The debates on the morality of abortion often demonstrates that people don't have a clear or thought-through idea of what it really means to be a person. We can easily recognize a lot of persons, like newborns, but what exactly is it about them that makes them persons, people, human beings?

The point is that viability determines when the state has a vested interest in protecting said life BECAUSE it can survive on its own with basic care (which is not the same as saying a baby can fend for itself, viability is more about living in the innate sense versus quality of life).

But the issue isn't what's in the state's interest, but human rights. Abortion can be legal and morally defensible only if
a) only some people have human rights, or
b) the fetus isn't a human (or a person), or
c) not killing the fetus will undoubtedly cause more suffering (child doomed to a life of misery and pain).

 

[Robban]

That assumes the unborn isn't a person in and of themselves, though. If "unborn" is the pivotal point, that would mean that the act of being born itself grants the baby personhood or rights. But I don't think that's what you mean. When does the unborn become a person, in your thinking?

I'm honestly not aware of any legal definition of person, and as far as I know we don't have such a thing in Norwegian law at least.

When it comes to abortion, the important issue is morality, not law. The law may define "person" as whatever, but if we're to take a moral stand, personhood is a philosophical concept. The debates on the morality of abortion often demonstrates that people don't have a clear or thought-through idea of what it really means to be a person. We can easily recognize a lot of persons, like newborns, but what exactly is it about them that makes them persons, people, human beings?

But the issue isn't what's in the state's interest, but human rights. Abortion can be legal and morally defensible only if
a) only some people have human rights, or
b) the fetus isn't a human (or a person), or
c) not killing the fetus will undoubtedly cause more suffering (child doomed to a life of misery and pain).

We can throw into the mix;

Do not count your chickens before they are hatched.

Just a thought that came when you mentioned Norwegian law.
You have a person number,
me too,
But would anyone dare give a number to a nonperson.

So from the law of the land pov, it is so.

 

[muichimotsu]

That assumes the unborn isn't a person in and of themselves, though. If "unborn" is the pivotal point, that would mean that the act of being born itself grants the baby personhood or rights. But I don't think that's what you mean. When does the unborn become a person, in your thinking?

Person is seemingly used more in terms of legal consideration, but can be in regards to moral distinctions. The distinction made legally is that viability grants an unborn a status wherein the state has a vested interest in keeping them alive if the situation is ideal for that. That has the cutoff point at maybe halfway or a bit more into gestation, considering quality of life and the like as well.

I'm not making any expert claims here, I'm going with the legal consideration for person as a term, because otherwise this gets into needless quibbles on identity that don't apply reasonably to the millions of unborn miscarried and such, because if they have a soul, it means God just put it in them and then took it away

I'm honestly not aware of any legal definition of person, and as far as I know we don't have such a thing in Norwegian law at least.

That's for you to look into, it's not my business to argue those points in the first place, but the lack of your awareness is insufficient to defend whatever claim you're making

When it comes to abortion, the important issue is morality, not law. The law may define "person" as whatever, but if we're to take a moral stand, personhood is a philosophical concept. The debates on the morality of abortion often demonstrates that people don't have a clear or thought-through idea of what it really means to be a person. We can easily recognize a lot of persons, like newborns, but what exactly is it about them that makes them persons, people, human beings?

Morality and law both matter depending on the context, this isn't either/or, you're polarizing the situation as if the mere fallibility of laws to change means they cannot be trusted at all, rather than provisionally.

What makes an infant or unborn that is viable a person, legally AND morally speaking, is their capacity to interact meaningfully with the world, even if for an infant and such that's experiencing the world and developing, they can develop and learn, versus a zygote or embryo that doesn't have that capacity at all. An insect has more capacity, a kitten has more capacity versus early stage gestation of a human, that's the distinction I make and I've already answered other notions in other thread regarding supposed contradictions (comatose person is not the same as an unborn entity)

But the issue isn't what's in the state's interest, but human rights. Abortion can be legal and morally defensible only if
a) only some people have human rights, or
b) the fetus isn't a human (or a person), or
c) not killing the fetus will undoubtedly cause more suffering (child doomed to a life of misery and pain)

The fetus isn't a person to the point it cannot meaningfully survive at all, mostly because it cannot reasonably even engage with society in a way we'd associate to a person, versus our pets and such, which we treat humanely because not only are they important in a personal manner, but they have sentience and can understand suffering in a basic manner, distinct from humans.

And many would agree that given the constraint of resources and such in many countries, abortion is an ethical choice in terms of allowing for children that have been born and given up for adoption to have a better quality of life versus MORE unwanted children given up to a system that implicitly seems to discourage people from adopting because it takes so long.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

How on earth is the giant jigsaw ever to be completed
if some pieces are thrown in the bin.

One can wonder.

What jigsaw?

 

[Qwertyui0p]

No, I corrected that, you apparently didn't read that part of my post, because it would be inconvenient to strawmanning what my position is, which is not that independence=viability, but the capacity to function biologically in the basic sense, barring minor issues that can happen (jaundice)

Pretty sure no one would knowingly establish that standard for viability and that's not even what Roe v. Wade remotely used for viability, considering the cut off point back in the 60s

There're a lot of comments here and I can't tell what your position is, but this Unborn babies can see more than previously thought might be interesting.
Also, this is off-topic, but I have a question about Buddhism: if all existence is suffering, how do we know what suffering is? If I had only seen black and white all my life I wouldn't understand colour.

 

[Robban]

What jigsaw?

Jigsaw puzzle, or maybe you know all the answers.

 

[muichimotsu]

There're a lot of comments here and I can't tell what your position is, but this Unborn babies can see more than previously thought might be interesting.
Also, this is off-topic, but I have a question about Buddhism: if all existence is suffering, how do we know what suffering is? If I had only seen black and white all my life I wouldn't understand colour.

Taking science that supports some vague notion of ensoulment is intellectually dishonest and cherry picking. Such things don't arguably change the moral regard unless you basically ignore fundamental principles to play white knight for a "victim" that is killed regularly by God in regards to miscarriage if it indeed is sovereign over all things

My position is that the unborn have a nebulous identity even in regards to parents that are invested in their being born. But in the nominal sense, the unborn no more have an identity than my skin cells have an identity if we're talking merely their genetic uniqueness. And them being human and unique does not mean they can effectively be said to just be something women have to accept in regards to being pregnant, their autonomy includes bodily determination, particularly in regards to their reproduction

And I honestly can only say you vastly oversimplify Buddhism's principles if you take the simple translation of suffering in regards to dukkha, which is not what it remotely means. Unsatisfactoriness is far better as what it is qualifying: life has ups and downs, so to speak, but we tend to want permanence, perfection, etc, and that negatively affects us.

We can know the differences between what is bad and good based on fundamental considerations of harm and flourishing: me having an illness is bad, but recovering is the good from it, particularly in my immune system being stronger afterwards. And the inverse can apply as well in better understanding transience and how it can expand one's worldview: the good fortune one may have will inevitably pass, but that doesn't render it worthless, it means that our appreciation of it has to be modified in regards to whether we realistically can enjoy it and enrich our lives, or cling to some idealistic persistence in the afterlife and basically take this life for granted and focus on a future state

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Taking science that supports some vague notion of ensoulment is intellectually dishonest and cherry picking. Such things don't arguably change the moral regard unless you basically ignore fundamental principles to play white knight for a "victim" that is killed regularly by God in regards to miscarriage if it indeed is sovereign over all things

My position is that the unborn have a nebulous identity even in regards to parents that are invested in their being born. But in the nominal sense, the unborn no more have an identity than my skin cells have an identity if we're talking merely their genetic uniqueness. And them being human and unique does not mean they can effectively be said to just be something women have to accept in regards to being pregnant, their autonomy includes bodily determination, particularly in regards to their reproduction

My position is this: If you're not sure, don't run it over - Adam4d.com

And I honestly can only say you vastly oversimplify Buddhism's principles if you take the simple translation of suffering in regards to dukkha, which is not what it remotely means. Unsatisfactoriness is far better as what it is qualifying: life has ups and downs, so to speak, but we tend to want permanence, perfection, etc, and that negatively affects us.

We can know the differences between what is bad and good based on fundamental considerations of harm and flourishing: me having an illness is bad, but recovering is the good from it, particularly in my immune system being stronger afterwards. And the inverse can apply as well in better understanding transience and how it can expand one's worldview: the good fortune one may have will inevitably pass, but that doesn't render it worthless, it means that our appreciation of it has to be modified in regards to whether we realistically can enjoy it and enrich our lives, or cling to some idealistic persistence in the afterlife and basically take this life for granted and focus on a future state

Ahh.

 

[muichimotsu]

My position is this: If you're not sure, don't run it over - Adam4d.com

Ahh.

The analogy fails because it's situational in nature and also much more constrained in what is at stake, versus what is agreed upon by any honest medical professional, that there's not even a heartbeat in a basic sense until maybe 8 weeks, 6 if you're being more generous, supposedly, and that still doesn't mean it is worth protecting in the general sense. The distinction that constantly fails to come up is between individuals who want to have a child and would thus refer to the entity as having value versus individuals who don't and thus are not going to regard it as such, because they're not invested in it

If what you want is absolute certainty, of course you're going to think in black/white as to the moral permissibility of such an act that COULD involve a person in some nebulous philosophical or theological manner. But this deals in mere possibilities and that doesn't work realistically when we are fallible and limited beings in our capacity for knowledge in most situations.

I don't know what's going to happen today and my choosing to go to sleep now versus an hour later might affect things, but I cannot be certain. Does that mean my life is erratic and groundless? No, it means there's variation in my life and I can work to encourage particular habits that would have benefits that can be observed over time.

 

[timothyu]

Jesus and others in the Bible set the example of willingly putting the will of the Father ahead of their own. It was only then that anyone's lives could be led by God. They weren't doing His work. He was doing His work through them. His work would benefit others before self.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

The analogy fails because it's situational in nature and also much more constrained in what is at stake, versus what is agreed upon by any honest medical professional, that there's not even a heartbeat in a basic sense until maybe 8 weeks, 6 if you're being more generous, supposedly, and that still doesn't mean it is worth protecting in the general sense. The distinction that constantly fails to come up is between individuals who want to have a child and would thus refer to the entity as having value versus individuals who don't and thus are not going to regard it as such, because they're not invested in it

If what you want is absolute certainty, of course you're going to think in black/white as to the moral permissibility of such an act that COULD involve a person in some nebulous philosophical or theological manner. But this deals in mere possibilities and that doesn't work realistically when we are fallible and limited beings in our capacity for knowledge in most situations.

I don't know what's going to happen today and my choosing to go to sleep now versus an hour later might affect things, but I cannot be certain. Does that mean my life is erratic and groundless? No, it means there's variation in my life and I can work to encourage particular habits that would have benefits that can be observed over time.

I'm slightly confused, but, if we are fallible and limited beings in our capacity for knowledge in many situations, and we don't know when an unborn baby is human, so, we don't know if abortion is murder or not, then surely the default position isn't that abortion is fine.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm slightly confused, but, if we are fallible and limited beings in our capacity for knowledge in many situations, and we don't know when an unborn baby is human, so, we don't know if abortion is murder or not, then surely the default position isn't that abortion is fine.

We know when an unborn entity is human based on simple DNA, because human is not necessarily utilized the same way in a debate on abortion rights as in biological taxonomy. Personhood is more complicated, but a general idea is based 1) on viability outside of the womb and 2) the sentience and capacity of a member of the human species in particular, slight overlap between taxonomy and ontology.

I didn't say abortion was morally good, that's a false dichotomy in regards to the discussion: not all abortions occur remotely in the same frame of reference or stage of development. A woman who is irresponsible and wants to get an abortion is being more morally questionable in her actions versus one who gets pregnant while using birth control and aborts as soon as she can based on that understanding of the law and morally that the entity in question doesn't feel pain or have even remote sentience of an insect, so the removal is similarly inconsequential.

Abortions are morally complicated in the notion of harm principle, but we also have to factor in human autonomy, as well as the notion of personhood and sentience, which factors in with viability as Roe v. Wade brought up in terms of legal consideration. And I'd reasonably say viability as a qualifier can apply as well in terms of a moral discussion, since viability also factors in as one considers the value of life and its quality, because needless suffering or such that there is no way to relieve it like with babies born without even some basic organs by a birth defect, that it'd be better to put them out of their misery in a humane fashion

You seem to just be advocating for something overly cautious as to abortion and its morality, which borders on the notion that people shouldn't have sex unless they intend to have a child, which is both needlessly restrictive and simplistic as to sex's function and purpose (2 different things, one being demonstrable, the other more subjective). I'm not saying abortion should be the solution for accidental pregnancies, especially if we can properly educate as regards use of birth control (because improper use will lead to accidental pregnancies based on ignorance that could be prevented) and also, to a degree, note how sex, while pleasurable, is also about intimacy, and should not be entered into lightly, along with the consideration that pregnancy is a possibility (barring infertility or the like)

 

[muichimotsu]

Jesus and others in the Bible set the example of willingly putting the will of the Father ahead of their own. It was only then that anyone's lives could be led by God. They weren't doing His work. He was doing His work through them. His work would benefit others before self.

So basically surrender any notion of independence? Sounds awfully self deprecating, if not just misanthropic in the notion that becomes self loathing rather than just self deprecating

 

[Amittai]

So basically surrender any notion of independence? Sounds awfully self deprecating, if not just misanthropic in the notion that becomes self loathing rather than just self deprecating

I think this has been poorly stated by Timothy. I think our God desires the maturing of individuality within the plurality of religions (of whatever status - "God" being a job title like the name "Cook" in old big households) and no kow towing or pandering to anyone's power trips. Doormats can't be generous nor straightforward.

 

[FredVB]

I think that "person" is a vague term not adequately defined. It is unfortunately used in legal ways to distinguish those who will be treated as having a right to their lives, and who is excepted to that. Thus, gypsies, Jews, and others have been denied being considered persons, where they were exterminated. I have the experience in this current pandemic hearing from an acquaintance who I could have thought of as a friend telling me I, as one more vulnerable, should just die off so that others who are fit will go on living their lives better without those who are not as fit. This idea of distinguishing any, so that there will not be concern with killing those others off, wherever the line is drawn, flies against true morality that killing is just wrong. It is not to be whether they can talk or whether they can reason. It is really whether they can feel pain, and have a capacity to suffer. Killing in this case is just morally wrong.

 

[FredVB]

This being said from long ago still is valid and applies, the yet unborn babies, which they call fetuses, qualify as much for what this applies to.

Jeremy Bentham on the suffering
of non-human animals

"Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes... "
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

And the unborn babies that are at issue for recognition of rights are really human. Denial of that is only from ignorance of the relevant science.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It means you can't meaningfully be considered as such, but I kind of doubt you can present anything otherwise of this particular nature. Roe v. Wade investigated this aspect in terms of viability of the unborn and noted that once they're viable, they can reasonably be considered a person the state might have a vested interest in protecting, but the rhetoric used by pro lifers is to ignore viability and focus on superficial aspects like human DNA and such, ignoring the potential aspect and the limited nature of actually being able to meaningfully interact.

I'd just as much consider a baby born with no brain, rare as that is, as not being a person meaningfully and would argue they're a shell at best that has no quality of life. A fetus before viability is quite similar in that it will die outside of the womb and likely much quicker considering it wouldn't even have the developed organ systems or such

I think it does not matter when an embryo becomes a person. They are on their way to becoming a person if left alone, even if natural miscarriage rates are high. Why do you think we have the right to stop someone from becoming a person just becasue they are not a person yet once they are on that path? Once fertilized there is a chance for that fetus to become a person, before that there is no chance. Abortion at the very least is killing the chance for an embryo to become a person.

 

[timothyu]

Abortion at the very least is killing the chance for an embryo to become a person.

And then they are born into a society that tries to determine their lives for them by determining how they grow, unless they are born into the right family or circumstance to become one of those as minions of the Adversary who determine such things.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And then they are born into a society that tries to determine their lives for them by determining how they grow, unless they are born into the right family or circumstance to become one of those as minions of the Adversary who determine such things.

What are you trying to say?