A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Not quite, Warren. We are distinguishing human DNA from other DNA on our planet, and DNA is merely a placeholder for sentience and reasoning ability. We're talking chickens and humans at the moment. When it comes to other organisms that may demonstrate intelligence, I, like you, do not necessarily value human DNA above, say, dolphin DNA, as an objective matter. Intelligence and sentience is indeed a factor in moral codes, but what is being disregarded is POTENTIAL sentience that is a natural and known product of development of the fetus.

The potential is not being "disregarded." What is being acknowledged is the difference between the potential and the actual. They are two different things.

Sorry, but they are not two different things, they are the same thing at different stages of development. "Potential" is being hand-waved away as irrelevant because it suits the agenda of dehumanizing the fetus in order to construct an irrational moral edifice upon which abortion is ensconced as if it's some objective truth. "Potential" is not irrelevant in the least, and it cannot simply be dismissed in any rational, logical argument.

Iratus engages in nihilistic disregard of potential by attempting to stop the clock on development of intelligence at some arbitrary point he chooses in making a moral decision about killing an organism. This is not in the least bit rational. A lizard will never develop into anything but a lizard, with a lizard's level of intelligence. A human fetus, on the other hand, under normal circumstances will develop all of the attributes that all human moral codes recognize as worthy of respect and autonomy.

It's o.k. and moral to kill intelligent humans under certain circumstances. Intelligence is not the test, obviously, or there would be no death penalty or right to kill in perceived self-defense, or perceived defense of others.

Intelligence is not the ONLY test by which we determine UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES the killing of an organism might be allowed. We disallow the killing of wild game out of season for reasons of conservation. We disallow the torture killing of animals. What generally distinguishes a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable killing includes things like the nature of the organism, the needs to conserve or protect it, and what the organism has done by way of individual action that might make it moral to kill it. Killing in self-defense, of sentients and non-sentients is always predicated on hostile and potentially deadly acts by the organism being defended against. Sentience is simply the first and most fundamental characteristic upon which we base our moral codes regarding how another sentient is to be respected. In the case of the fetus, in the ordinary course of a pregnancy, the fetus does nothing to threaten the life of the mother than would justify invocation of lethal self defense. A young child might annoy a parent, or harass a parent, or even make a parent ill or depressed or fill them with heartache and regret, but none of that is a threat that justifies killing the child in "self-defense." The same rational applies to the fetus, which is innocent not only of lethal threat, but is innocent of any intent. On the other hand (to address the obvious next specious argument) if a fetus DOES threaten the life of the mother through some gestational abnormality, that DOES justify an abortion in self defense.

Intelligence alone, or even potential intelligence alone, is not the only test by which we can morally disrespect another individual organism's right to life, but it's the first and fundamental hurdle that must be overcome before we kill; "is this organism an intelligent sentient creature with moral value who is worthy of respect?" I extend that argument to the fetus because of the natural progression of development that normally leads to sentient intelligence, which makes it a moral wrong to terminate that life unnecessarily before it has an opportunity to develop.

Further, something that has the potential to become conscious or intelligent or sentient is not conscious or intelligent or sentient. A is A, and B is not A. So, a potential can be treated as what it is - not actual - until it actually becomes actual.

Sophistry. This fallaciously presumes that moral value can only be assigned to a fully conscious and intelligent organism and that potential may be disregarded merely because it is not "actual." This is circular reasoning. "potential intelligence is of no moral value because it is potential not actual." But the actual statement of truth is "a fetus is an organism in the process of developing full human sentient intelligence." The two are not remotely the same thing. "potential humans" might be classed as un-united sperm and ova, but a fetus, from the zygote stage to birth, is indisputably human, and it exists. It is no longer a "potential human being," it is a living human being. The only difference between a fetus and an adult is time and natural, ordinary biological processes. To say that a fetus is not human, or is not to have its life respected merely because it has not yet FULLY developed the intelligence that it will develop over time is to ignore "potential" merely for political reasons, not rational ones.

The argument you make is that any human can be killed at will if it fails at any time to display what you believe to be an adequate degree of intelligence. This means that, using your own metric of "B is not A," any comatose person, or even any person who happens to be asleep may be killed with impunity because at that instant they have only "potential" intelligence that they are not displaying. Your argument suggests that any time the brain takes a rest, or is rendered even partially inoperative, say through sedation, intelligence vanishes and becomes "potential," and that this changes the individual from a sentient intelligent being into a "clump of cells" that can be disposed of at will.

That's entirely illogical and irrational. A remains A even when intelligence is in abeyance, or when it has not yet fully developed. So a fetus is not actually a "potential" intelligent being, it is a "developing" intelligent being that exists. Time is the only thing that distinguishes a fetus from an adult, and you have provided no rational argument as to why time should be stopped and disregarded in analyzing the intelligence of an organism and what it will become if not killed.

Ignoring or evading the facts of developmental potential is simply an intellectually dishonest way of bolstering an irrational argument.

Stop that. Nobody has ignored or evaded, just posted a contrary argument. And, it is not intellectually dishonest to find that potential humans are not the same as actual humans. They aren't.

It is when the purpose of drawing such a distinction is to justify killing of a fetus merely because it is not yet fully developed. The very phrase you use "potential humans" versus "actual humans" demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about. Fetuses are not "potential humans," they are actual, living humans. They may not be fully developed organisms, but they are indisputably "actual humans." This rhetorical device of dehumanizing the fetus is precisely what I'm talking about. You cannot make your moral and ethical argument if you are forced to acknowledge that fetuses are human beings, so you have to dehumanize and find rhetorical tricks to redefine the nature of the organism in order to make the claims that you do.

Fetuses are living human beings. They are of human genetic origin, they are alive, and they have obtained the state of existence, or "being." That is the primary definition of "being." Simple logical and the rules of construction of language do not admit the fallacious construction that fetuses are "potential human beings" or that they are something other than entirely and completely living human organisms that exist. The question at the bar is solely whether, and at what point, society imbues such living human beings with a philosophical moral construct called "rights." It's a question of when, not if. There is no question that at some point the organism, in the ordinary course of development, will be imbued with moral value and "human rights." Logic and reason therefore dictate that one cannot redefine the organism in order to evade the moral implications of judging when, precisely, a living human being in or out of the uterus is imbued with rights. Human fetuses are not dogs, or fish, or birds, they are human.

Their potential for sentient intelligence is not in question. The nacent intelligence exists in every human zygote as a function of its DNA code. One can more properly say that the sentience and intelligence of the organism IS its DNA structure, which determines, in all living organisms, how much sentience and intelligence the organism will have when fully developed. A lizard will always develop only a lizard's intelligence. This is encoded into its DNA at conception. Likewise, a human being will fully develop human sentience and intelligence, and that intelligence is encoded into its DNA as well. Indeed, theoretically we could determine which components of DNA produce human intelligence and graft those into the genes of a lizard, or perhaps a gorilla, and human intelligence and sentience would develop in that organism as well.

So, it is fair to say that intelligence is at its core a function of one's DNA structure, and that is fixed at the instant that the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus at the formation of the zygote. At that instant, under normal conditions, the new living human being contains all of the genetic information, programming, if you will, it will ever have that determines the size, complexity and functioning of the brain. This programming never changes throughout the life of the organism. All that remains is neuronal complexity and data input. So, it is rational to say that the information (programming) that determines sentience exists at the formation of the zygote, and that what comes after is merely the incremental construction of the central processor and the data input. The design of that central processor, and it's precise functioning capacity, is fully realized at the formation of the zygote.

His entire argument is founded and constructed upon the false premises that a fetus has no moral worth

It is NOT based on that premise. The fetus has moral worth. That doesn't mean it can't be aborted.

That's not his argument. His argument is that a fetus, or even a born child up to about two that cannot pass the "mirror test" has no moral value and can be killed at will because it is not a sentient, intelligent being.

Dogs and cats have moral worth, but they can be killed when humans can't, and killing them is never considered murder. Cows have moral worth - we can eat them - but if someone had a cow on their property that they used for target practice with darts and started torturing it, they'd be arrested for animal cruelty. Just because something has moral worth doesn't mean it can't be killed, and just because it has less moral worth than a born human doesn't mean it has "no" moral worth.

I agree. You've just cited the obvious fact that moral value is set by society, not by any objective measure. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. What this means, however, is that society, which assigns moral value to many things, can set any moral value that it wishes to anything, and it can also set ultimate moral value on a zygote, thereby making it immoral to deliberately and knowingly kill it.

Moreover, a fetus is a potential, as you stated before. Therefore, under the principle that different things may be treated differently, a different rule on abortion than on homicide can be rationally created.

No, as I explain above, I disagree that a fetus is "potential" anything. I think, upon reflection (and thanks for stimulating me to consider the DNA issue I just explicated, it's a new thought ) that a fetus is not "potential" anything, rather it is a fully-programmed organism that has as a part of it's DNA all the information needed to construct the container and central processor that will eventually DISPLAY sentient intelligence. That requires only time, and not any fundamental change in the nature of the organism. It remains what it began as, and the instructions for assembly are built into every single cell of the organism. It never changes its fundamental nature, and its "potential" never changes from the instant of the zygote's formation to natural death. Only its form and complexity change.

because at any particular point in time it does not display adequate sentience to suit his personal metrics for "personhood." But that's a vacuous and sophistic argument because human fetuses develop into thinking, rational human beings in the ordinary course of things. To ignore this creates a fatal flaw in his reasoning.

It's neither vacuous nor sophistic. You use these terms to hand-wave away an argument.

Yes, human fetuses develop, sometimes, into thinking, rational human beings, but that means that they AREN'T thinking, rational human beings. QED.

Now you try to use abnormal development as a prop for dehumanizing the fetus. Can we at least stick to the normal course of fetal development rather than inserting red herring arguments that are only a distraction?

The fact that A is A, and B is B, means that A may be treated like A and B may be treated like B. Even if A may develop into B, we are not logically compelled to treat A like B until A actually develops into B.

You make no reasoned argument as to why this must be so. You merely assert that it can happen, which is obvious. The question here is whether it is MORAL to KILL A because it is not yet fully A, based on an entirely artificial and disingenuous distinction you choose to draw by dehumanizing the fetus. The fact is that A is B. The are the same organism at every moment in time from zygote to death, and your argument fails right there. A has everything fundamentally necessary to be complete A at the instant of it's formation. That it does not LOOK LIKE complete A, or that it is not as complex as complete A at some moment in time does not make it some alien organism unrelated to A. A does not become B. A is always A, just at a less complex stage of development.

The fetus is the adult in the most important aspect; it's genetic programming. It never changes its fundamental nature or genetic programming, it merely becomes more complex over time. There is no rational argument to be made that a less-complex organism that is programmed to become a more complex organism that will display the intelligence and sentience that is already inherent in the less-complex organism's genetic code has any less moral value than the more complex adult organism. Again, the only way that your argument works is by stopping time in its tracks and examining the organism at one particular and arbitrary instant to determine its moral value. Under that construction, the comatose, the sedated, the unconscious and the sleeping adult human is no longer sentient and can, according to your metric, be killed without a second thought.

And that's nonsense, along with the rest of the "dehumanizing" pro-abortion argument. There are certainly justifications for taking a human life at the fetal stage, but arguing that the fetus is not human is not among them.

[Seth]

Certainly if you tried to kill my 20 month old nephew on the premise that he cannot pass a "mirror test" to your satisfaction and is therefore not a sentient being worthy of respect, it would be you, or Peter Singer, who would end up pouring out your lifeblood on the floor.

I would note that lack of humanity is not carte blanche to kill beings. Your dog is not a human being, but I'd still be in the wrong to kill it, even if you are allowed to kill it yourself.

The distinction is, of course, the relative moral value between my nephew and my dog. I might beat the ever-loving crap out of you if you killed my dog, and I'd likely serve some time for doing so because the moral worth of my dog does not justify physical harm to a human being, no matter how much I love him, but nobody would question my using lethal force to protect my nephew. This reinforces the point I've been making all along that moral value is not an objective thing, it's subjectively based on the moral code of the society within which one exists.

Not quite, Warren. We are distinguishing human DNA from other DNA on our planet, and DNA is merely a placeholder for sentience and reasoning ability. We're talking chickens and humans at the moment. When it comes to other organisms that may demonstrate intelligence, I, like you, do not necessarily value human DNA above, say, dolphin DNA, as an objective matter. Intelligence and sentience is indeed a factor in moral codes, but what is being disregarded is POTENTIAL sentience that is a natural and known product of development of the fetus.

I think the "potential intelligence" argument is a much weaker argument from a logical standpoint than an "own species" argument. For now, though, let me ask a question. How do you reconcile this argument with your acceptance of the "morning after pill" preventing implantation? An unimplanted embryo still has the potential to develop into intelligent life.

This is a difficult moral question, particularly in light of my immediately previous post. I'm going to have to ponder it a while and reconsider my previous statement. Off the top of my head though, I'd say that it is a natural fact that zygotes often fail to attach to the uterine wall, and I see no moral implications to such natural processes. A drug that further reduces (but doesn't "prevent" in all cases) the chances of implantation does have moral consequences, but I'm not sure at this moment exactly what they are, although on superficial reconsideration ethical consistency would require me to reject this form of contraception right along with abortion.

I'll get back to you when I've pondered it a while.

[MiM]

My grandmother was a remarkable person, although not always very likable. One of her favorite proverbs was "för mycket och för litet skämmer allt", or in English "too much and too little spoils everything". In the context of a discussion like this that would translate to something like "those who argue the extremes will always fail."

Seth has clearly crushed Ranunculus' arguments about there being no difference between a human fetus and a lizard, as well as the arguments claiming that potential amounts to nothing. But while doing so he has put forward counterarguments that are just as insubstantiable. Clearly the claim that a fetus equals an adult human being and that the only difference (if any) is time is utter folly. The fetus will never become a fully grown human without the nurture of first its mother and later something alike a family. The brain of an adult is not predestined by the DNA, but a product of both DNA and the environment it has formed in. A crude comparison could be a piece of wood or stone that has the capacity to become a beautiful statue, but needs the hands and mind of the artist to do so.

The obvious stance is of course that the fetus has some value of its own but this value is greatly enhanced as the fetus matures into a child. The difference between a fetus and a fully grown human is more in degree than in essence. Then how are we to address the question of abortion in such a situation? First of all I think we need to go to the basics and ponder why killing of humans is bad in the first place.

Obviously this is not because "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", these are just modern representations of more or less ancient morals and cannot be taken as first principles in a discussion like this.

In the early days of human development, every individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species. This might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life, but surely this is not the case anymore. 6 billion humans is more than enough to assure the continuation of the line. Actually we have long ago passed the point where further proliferation diminishes the chances for the survival of our species, so this argument has reversed itself.

Another issue is the fear of a painful death, but this issue makes no sense when talking about early fetuses, which do not have a developed nervous system.

The most basic level at which I can start to ponder on this problem is reciprocal altruism (most famously expressed in the golden rule). The evolved ability of humans (and probably some other animals as well) to understand that what is not good for me is probably not good for you either (i.e. basic empathy) is one of the fundaments of all human interaction.

How does reciprocal altruism then pertain to killing other humans and especially abortions? Most of us feel strong existential distress with the thought of being ripped away from this life (even though atheists logically should not fear the blackness of death itself), so we project this existential distress strongly on other people as well. Furthermore, we feel similar distress when someone we are emotionally attached to dies. Especially the premature, sudden or violent death of a human incurs severe emotional pain and agony onto the family, friends and even the whole community. This extends the reach of the golden rule, so that we cannot simply ignore the whole issue e.g. by claiming that "what do the dead care anyway."

So how does this pertain to abortions? Firstly I would claim that most people (at least most non-megalomaniacs) do not feel anything close to the same level of distress when pondering the issue of never being born, neither does the level of distress rise significantly with the thought that one would once have been a mere fetus, but then nothing else. So the level of reciprocity we feel towards fetuses is much lower. Somebody already argued here that no real emotional attachment can develop before the birth of the child. I don't think this is completely correct as especially the mother can be deeply attached to the life growing inside her, as can be seen by the grief of women who have miscarried, but I am not talking about forced abortions here, so this issue can and should be left for the mother to decide. A naive application of the golden rule as in "I could never have an abortion, so she shouldn't either" is far too simplistic to even be considered here.

Thus far my arguments may seem rather beastly, but let's face it, humans are rather beastly creatures. Anyway we are not complete beasts, so we need to go further and tighten the loop around the rather arbitrary morals that surely would follow from the kind of speculations I have made above. The next step might be to look further on the outcome of our actions, and not see them as isolated but also take into account their further impact on human behavior and society. By doing this we might come up with some demand of consistency on our actions and rules (some loosely formulated Kant, maybe). That would compel us to forbid things like killing unloved babies at will, as it would be very difficult to distinguish between different cases, and allowing the killing of unloved babies would definitely jeopardize also other babies and bigger kids, probably leading to a much less stringent view on human life over all.

So, does the same rule pertain also to abortions? I don't think so, because there is a very clear and simple line we can draw at the birth of a child. We can use that line to break any slippery slope. Being born is widely recognized as a major milestone in human life (we do celebrate birthdays, not conception days nor mother-felt-the-first-movements days, after all). With today's medical practices, it feels rather natural to move the line to the time when the child can survive ex utero. And there are of course other considerations with late abortions, which I will not go into here, so please don't misunderstand me as propagating unlimited abortion all the way until the child is born.

So the bottom line becomes that if the above holds, one cannot directly call on the sanctity of human life to get a compelling reason to forbid unlimited abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. And as society in a case like this can merely take away from the freedoms of the individual, and does not grant any rights, the onus is on those who want to forbid abortions to find some other justification. And there still exists a plethora of good reasons for allowing abortions, which can be posed against any reasons for limitations.

This has been a rather quickly thought up idea on how to rationally tackle the issue of abortion. This does not even attempt to stand tight philosophical scrutiny for logic etc. (life seldom does). I am in no way claiming absolute truth on this one, you will probably find flaws or additional considerations, feel free to add or comment. I am happy if you have read this far.

[PsychoSerenity]

I am happy if you have read this far.

I did. Great post.

[Warren Dew]

Not quite, Warren. We are distinguishing human DNA from other DNA on our planet, and DNA is merely a placeholder for sentience and reasoning ability. We're talking chickens and humans at the moment. When it comes to other organisms that may demonstrate intelligence, I, like you, do not necessarily value human DNA above, say, dolphin DNA, as an objective matter. Intelligence and sentience is indeed a factor in moral codes, but what is being disregarded is POTENTIAL sentience that is a natural and known product of development of the fetus.

I think the "potential intelligence" argument is a much weaker argument from a logical standpoint than an "own species" argument. For now, though, let me ask a question. How do you reconcile this argument with your acceptance of the "morning after pill" preventing implantation? An unimplanted embryo still has the potential to develop into intelligent life.

This is a difficult moral question, particularly in light of my immediately previous post. I'm going to have to ponder it a while and reconsider my previous statement. Off the top of my head though, I'd say that it is a natural fact that zygotes often fail to attach to the uterine wall, and I see no moral implications to such natural processes. A drug that further reduces (but doesn't "prevent" in all cases) the chances of implantation does have moral consequences, but I'm not sure at this moment exactly what they are, although on superficial reconsideration ethical consistency would require me to reject this form of contraception right along with abortion.

I'll get back to you when I've pondered it a while.

To avoid the potential for ratcheting you back and forth, I should perhaps bring up a few other cases that might also be handled.

We now have computers with more computing power than the human brain. It seems likely that within a few decades, we'll have the software to make some of these computers truly intelligent in the human sense. If we're not being species centric, we should recognize such computers as having the same rights as humans, and I haven't a problem with that.

However, suppose by then anyone's personal computer is also powerful enough to load such software, as does not seem unlikely. Is it then wrong to destroy one's personal computer just because it has the potential to be truly intelligent? The "potential intelligence" argument suggests that we would be obligated to keep such computers around, and perhaps to load the relevant software onto them, even if without the software they aren't intelligent in the relevant sense.

With respect to the unimplanted embryos, certainly it's natural for many to fail to implant into the uterine wall, and it's likely that there are evolutionary reasons for that having to do with removal of embryos with genetic defects. It's also true that the majority of embryos that do implant also die naturally, resulting in what appear to be missed periods rather than something recognized as a pregnancy, and for similar reasons; that might be consistent with your previous position that seemed to accept the use of RU-486 to induce early miscarriages chemically.

However, later stage miscarriages are also often natural. For example, fetuses with trisomy of chromosome 22 normally miscarry before the second semester, while fetuses with trisomy 18 generally miscarry in the third trimester and often live for a few days after birth. If we're okay with doing what nature often does, does that mean we're okay with infanticide in the first few days after birth, given that nature often takes care of trisomy 18 that way? For that matter, since a fetus with trisomy 18 isn't likely to live long enough to reach the "intelligent human" stage that requires a few months or a few years of life, does that mean it isn't "potential intelligence" and thus can be aborted where other fetuses cannot? In either case, does it change the calculus that a very small proportion of trisomy 18 fetuses - less than 1% - may live for several years after birth? What if they live for several years after birth, but never actually reach our standards for a human level of intelligence?

Finally, there's the question of human cloning. Given that sheep and horses have been successfully cloned using the nuclei of somatic cells, it seems likely that humans will follow soon enough. Won't that put somatic cells in the same category as zygotes? They'll all be potential humans - all that will have to happen is a little more human intervention than is required to create a zygote.

And of course, there's the question of what to do with all the unimplanted embryos that were frozen in case an in vitro fertilization cycle failed, but were never needed. They're clearly "potential human life" as well. Would you differentiate between discarding them and preventing implantation by a "morning after pill", and why? If you don't differentiate, how do we select which women will be forced to bring them to term?

[Coito ergo sum]

Not quite, Warren. We are distinguishing human DNA from other DNA on our planet, and DNA is merely a placeholder for sentience and reasoning ability. We're talking chickens and humans at the moment. When it comes to other organisms that may demonstrate intelligence, I, like you, do not necessarily value human DNA above, say, dolphin DNA, as an objective matter. Intelligence and sentience is indeed a factor in moral codes, but what is being disregarded is POTENTIAL sentience that is a natural and known product of development of the fetus.

The potential is not being "disregarded." What is being acknowledged is the difference between the potential and the actual. They are two different things.

Sorry, but they are not two different things, they are the same thing at different stages of development. "Potential" is being hand-waved away as irrelevant because it suits the agenda of dehumanizing the fetus in order to construct an irrational moral edifice upon which abortion is ensconced as if it's some objective truth. "Potential" is not irrelevant in the least, and it cannot simply be dismissed in any rational, logical argument.

False. Completely and utterly false. One - they ARE two different things. Me as a baby is not me as an adult and me as an old man is not me as a young man. There are differences. An embryo is not a fetus is not a baby is not an old man is not a corpse. How they are treated is a function of a rational examination of their traits. Young children aren't allowed to drive - if they were "the same" as adults, then they'd be allowed to drive. 10 year olds aren't allowed to drink alcohol in the US - if they were the same as 21 year olds, then there would be no reason whatsoever to not allow them to drink. Old men can retire and get social security because of the differences between being old and being younger.

The potential of the embryo is not sufficient to warrant it not being aborted BY THE MOTHER because of the differences between embryos and babies, and because of the relationship between the mother and the embryo, and the mother's fundamental rights as a human being.

I never said potential was "irrelevant" - I made the ABSOLUTELY INDISPUTABLE POINT that "potential" is not "actual." A is A and P is not A.

[Warren Dew]

The distinction is, of course, the relative moral value between my nephew and my dog. I might beat the ever-loving crap out of you if you killed my dog, and I'd likely serve some time for doing so because the moral worth of my dog does not justify physical harm to a human being, no matter how much I love him, but nobody would question my using lethal force to protect my nephew.

I think that's a different distinction - if you killed me after I killed your nephew, you'd likely serve time too. The question then becomes whether you'd be justified physically harming me to protect your dog before it's killed. I think that you are; indeed, I agree with Texas law that permits even lethal force in some cases in defense of property.

People shouldn't confuse the willingness to let other people abort their fetuses with a belief that the fetuses are not worthy of respect. For example, one argument that's used against the "potential human life" position is a thought experiment where one gets a choice on which to save from a burning building: one child or 1,000 embryos due to be implanted shortly. The assumption is that everyone would choose to save the child. However, given I don't feel I'm obligated to save either, I personally might well choose to save the embryos - not because their "potential" makes them human enough to put a moral obligation on me, but because, having been through the IVF process myself, I understand just how much those embryos would mean to their parents.

Edit: or to put it as Coito just put it, "potential" does mean something - but it doesn't mean the same thing as "actual".

[Coito ergo sum]

Iratus engages in nihilistic disregard of potential by attempting to stop the clock on development of intelligence at some arbitrary point he chooses in making a moral decision about killing an organism. This is not in the least bit rational. A lizard will never develop into anything but a lizard, with a lizard's level of intelligence. A human fetus, on the other hand, under normal circumstances will develop all of the attributes that all human moral codes recognize as worthy of respect and autonomy.

It's o.k. and moral to kill intelligent humans under certain circumstances. Intelligence is not the test, obviously, or there would be no death penalty or right to kill in perceived self-defense, or perceived defense of others.

Intelligence is not the ONLY test by which we determine UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES the killing of an organism might be allowed. We disallow the killing of wild game out of season for reasons of conservation. We disallow the torture killing of animals. What generally distinguishes a justifiable killing from an unjustifiable killing includes things like the nature of the organism, the needs to conserve or protect it, and what the organism has done by way of individual action that might make it moral to kill it. Killing in self-defense, of sentients and non-sentients is always predicated on hostile and potentially deadly acts by the organism being defended against.

And, the different circumstances of the potentiality that is a fetus or an embryo, particularly it's relationship to the woman who hosts it and her fundamental liberties, rationally warrant that the woman has the right to abort. It's not EVERYONE'S right to kill the fetus or embryo. It's the woman's right.

And, self-defense is not by a long shot universally seen as moral reason to kill. I will point out that the Amish think not.

Sentience is simply the first and most fundamental characteristic upon which we base our moral codes regarding how another sentient is to be respected. In the case of the fetus, in the ordinary course of a pregnancy, the fetus does nothing to threaten the life of the mother than would justify invocation of lethal self defense.

On what basis do you claim that the threats to the mother are not sufficient to justify invocation of lethal self defense? What's your metric? Your own arbitrary opinion? Where do you acquire final arbitral authority on this issue? Ought not the woman have the same right to determine what threat is sufficient, especially given that you have apparently taken it upon yourself to exercise that right? Or, is it just the consensus of the legislative authority here on that issue - if the legislators agree that mothers face threats warranting self-defense action, then that opinion prevails, and if they agree with you then your opinion prevails?

Fetuses and embryos are not sentient, though. That much we can agree on. They potentially may become sentient. But, at the time of an abortion - they aren't. A is A and P is not A. So, if it's o.k. to generally kill un-sentient things, then it's o.k. to kill embryos and fetuses. QED.

A young child might annoy a parent, or harass a parent, or even make a parent ill or depressed or fill them with heartache and regret, but none of that is a threat that justifies killing the child in "self-defense." The same rational applies to the fetus, which is innocent not only of lethal threat, but is innocent of any intent. On the other hand (to address the obvious next specious argument) if a fetus DOES threaten the life of the mother through some gestational abnormality, that DOES justify an abortion in self defense.

That's a straw man. I know I never raised self-defense as an issue. You did. i don't base the right to an abortion on self-defense. I base it on the autonomy of the woman and her fundamental rights, and the different characteristics of the potentiality of the embryo or fetus that distinguish it from children. From my perspective, we can assume - without admitting - that there is no threat at all of any kind - and the woman would still have the right to abort.

Intelligence alone, or even potential intelligence alone, is not the only test by which we can morally disrespect another individual organism's right to life, but it's the first and fundamental hurdle that must be overcome before we kill; "is this organism an intelligent sentient creature with moral value who is worthy of respect?" I extend that argument to the fetus because of the natural progression of development that normally leads to sentient intelligence, which makes it a moral wrong to terminate that life unnecessarily before it has an opportunity to develop.

And, I do not extend the argument to the fetus because since it is, at that point in time, a potential only, and not an actually sentient being then it need not be treated as a sentient being. The law does not treat children like adults. A mother can be arrested for not helping her 10 year old child get food when it's hungry, and even be convicted of manslaughter or even murder if she allows the 10 year old to starve. She can't be so convicted if she does the same thing to her 21 year old child. Her 21 year old child can be neglected to death by the mother. The 10 year old can't. Why? Because the 21 year old is an actual adult. The 10 year old is a potential adult. We don't "extend the argument" that requires a mother to feed and shelter her 10 year old to the 21 year old. And we don't "extend the argument" that 21 year olds are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes to the 10 year old. A is A and P is not A.

Further, something that has the potential to become conscious or intelligent or sentient is not conscious or intelligent or sentient. A is A, and B is not A. So, a potential can be treated as what it is - not actual - until it actually becomes actual.

Sophistry.

Go right ahead and fuck off with this smug hand-waving away of arguments. It fucking damn well is NOT "sophistry." Look the word up in a dictionary before you use it.

This fallaciously presumes that moral value can only be assigned to a fully conscious and intelligent organism and that potential may be disregarded merely because it is not "actual."

No - it doesn't presume that at all. It presumes that a potential something is not the something. That's axiomatic. It also presumes that two things that are not the same need not be treated the same. That follows logically. It does not in the least presume that moral value can ONLY be assigned to fully conscious and intelligent organisms. Where people have property rights, moral value can be assigned to nonliving items. It's not right for person X to destroy person Y's computer. The computer doesn't need to be alive for that.

This is circular reasoning. "potential intelligence is of no moral value because it is potential not actual."

No - it isn't circular reasoning. jesus Christ, dude... I never said it had no moral value. Having moral value doesn't mean we can't kill something. Adults have moral value and we can kill them in war, in self-defense, capital punishment, etc. That doesn't mean the people killed have no moral value.

But the actual statement of truth is "a fetus is an organism in the process of developing full human sentient intelligence."

It is also true that a fetus is an organism that is not sentient, is not intelligent, has not been born, may not actually develop into a full human,may never actually be born, and is inside a living and breathing human being who has every right to do as she pleases with her own body.

The two are not remotely the same thing. "potential humans" might be classed as un-united sperm and ova, but a fetus, from the zygote stage to birth, is indisputably human, and it exists.

Why the zygote stage? Why not the blastocyst stage?

Yes - it is human. So is my appendix. And my appendix exists too. Being human doesn't mean it's immoral to abort it.

It is no longer a "potential human being," it is a living human being.

No, it is not a human BEING. It's a human zygote or fetus that potentially may become a human being.

The only difference between a fetus and an adult is time and natural, ordinary biological processes.

That's not the only difference. Not by a long shot. Do I need to list the differences between a fetus and an adult? It may be the only difference you believe to be relevant or important. But, it most certainly is not the only difference. I am sure that everyone here can list 100s of differences between fetuses and adult humans. A few are: sentience - consciousness - size - shape - breathing - drinking - eating - being attached to another human being by an umbilical cord, understanding the infield fly rule in baseball....the list goes on and on.

To say that a fetus is not human,

Straw man. It's a human fetus.

You object to sophistry, but engage in it endlessly.

or is not to have its life respected merely because it has not yet FULLY developed the intelligence that it will develop over time is to ignore "potential" merely for political reasons, not rational ones.

No - I haven't advanced a single political reason, only rational ones. Your suggestion that the potential of a human fetus to develop into a human being justifies depriving the mother of her right to do with her own body what she wills is simply an arbitrary decision on your part.

The argument you make is that any human can be killed at will if it fails at any time to display what you believe to be an adequate degree of intelligence.

Straw man. I never made such an argument and never would.

This means that, using your own metric of "B is not A," any comatose person, or even any person who happens to be asleep may be killed with impunity because at that instant they have only "potential" intelligence that they are not displaying. Your argument suggests that any time the brain takes a rest, or is rendered even partially inoperative, say through sedation, intelligence vanishes and becomes "potential," and that this changes the individual from a sentient intelligent being into a "clump of cells" that can be disposed of at will.

Straw man. I never made such arguments and never would. A sleeping or comatose human being is a sleeping or comatose human being.

That's entirely illogical and irrational.

Raising straw man arguments and attributing them to your opponent, and proceeding to knock down the arguments never made? Yeah - that's illogical and irrational - it's a fallacy. Stop doing it.

A remains A even when intelligence is in abeyance, or when it has not yet fully developed. So a fetus is not actually a "potential" intelligent being, it is a "developing" intelligent being that exists. Time is the only thing that distinguishes a fetus from an adult, and you have provided no rational argument as to why time should be stopped and disregarded in analyzing the intelligence of an organism and what it will become if not killed.

time is not the only thing that distinguishes a fetus from an adult. Time is one of the things that distinguishes it, but not the only thing.

[Gallstones]

http://www.rickgibson.net/freezedry.html

Foetus Ear-rings

I was given the two preserved human foetuses by a British anatomy professor. He told me that they had been preserved in formaldehyde twenty years ago but the liquid had evaporated so that the fetuses had dried out and shriveled.

Using a variety of techniques, I re-hydrated the specimens, freeze-dried them and turned them into a pair of foetus earrings.

[Hermit]

In the early days of human development, every individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species.This might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life...

That flies in the face of what we do know about the early days of human development. A huge number of individuals were actually killed by members of their own communities precisely because they had an unacceptably negative effect on the survival of the cohort.

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births, while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%. Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution. Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era. Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism. The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca. Link

I am guessing that infanticide gradually became less prevalent as abortion techniques were discovered and refined.

[MiM]

In the early days of human development, every individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species.This might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life...

That flies in the face of what we do know about the early days of human development. A huge number of individuals were actually killed by members of their own communities precisely because they had an unacceptably negative effect on the survival of the cohort.

OK, thanks for putting me straight on that one. Luckily that doesn't make too big a difference for the argument.

[Hermit]

In the early days of human development, every individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species.This might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life...

That flies in the face of what we do know about the early days of human development. A huge number of individuals were actually killed by members of their own communities precisely because they had an unacceptably negative effect on the survival of the cohort.

OK, thanks for putting me straight on that one. Luckily that doesn't make too big a difference for the argument.

No, it doesn't indeed, except for the following speculation that "this might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life", but that part of your post stuck out like a sore thumb, and you did ask for feedback.

[Ronja]

In the early days of human development, every individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species.This might explain some of the importance we still lend to continuation of life...

That flies in the face of what we do know about the early days of human development. A huge number of individuals were actually killed by members of their own communities precisely because they had an unacceptably negative effect on the survival of the cohort.
...
I am guessing that infanticide gradually became less prevalent as abortion techniques were discovered and refined.

What if we say "every strong and mature enough individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species" - ? In retrospect I realize that is the association I made from this part of the text, but of course the words did not say that.

The tendency to emotionally value and therefore support and defend individuals of one's own family/group/species is definitely a good evolutionary trick, and very likely so is the tendency to emotionally devalue and therefore let go of individuals who can contribute little and/or require a lot, especially in times of low resources. The groups / societies that found a working balance between these two tendencies most likely had a good chance of long-term survival.

Which leads to the question: is it possible for humans to discuss ethics / morality without our evolutionary past (our inbuilt emotional tendencies) influencing the discussion? But that subject is worth it's own thread - it would become a major derail here...

[MiM]

What if we say "every strong and mature enough individual might have had an essential positive effect on the survival of the species" - ? In retrospect I realize that is the association I made from this part of the text, but of course the words did not say that.

Nope. Or at least I don't think that one fits in my argumentation at all, as that is rather about to which degree we should save also those that cannot fend for themselves.

I think that paragraph should go out, or if one absolutely wants to save some of it, it should be turned around completely, into something like:

"In almost all time periods, humans have been producing more offspring than they can care for. Before the industrial revolution nature and cruel practices took care of the problem, as is still the case with other animals. Today, with the planet filled with 6 billion humans we might again be facing a situation where we reach a new limit that not even our technology can bridge in a sustainable way. Clearly further proliferation is not a good thing for the humanity of today..."

[Seth]

So, does the same rule pertain also to abortions? I don't think so, because there is a very clear and simple line we can draw at the birth of a child. We can use that line to break any slippery slope. Being born is widely recognized as a major milestone in human life (we do celebrate birthdays, not conception days nor mother-felt-the-first-movements days, after all). With today's medical practices, it feels rather natural to move the line to the time when the child can survive ex utero.

What fundamental change in the nature of the organism takes place at birth? Does it turn from one thing into another, or is it simply part of an ongoing developmental process in which, at birth, the physical location and attachment to the mother's uterus changes? Yes, it's a "milestone" in development, but it's really just a location change. Moral behavior ought to take more account than merely the location of the organism in deciding if it's to live or die, don't you think?

Similarly, as you admit, the organism is in a state of constant development, and is viable outside the womb, with the assistance of modern technology, months before natural birth. Therefore nothing changes in the organism that provides any sort of objective "milestone" upon which we can base such decisions. If the milestone you use is "viability," and "viability" is dependent upon the level of supportive medical technology available to a specific fetus, this isn't really a milestone at all. It's not biologically objective certainly. It's subjective in that a fetus that might be viable at Johns Hopkins Hospital would not be viable in rural Kentucky. This, therefore, is not a rational, objective scientifically-valid biological basis upon which society can rest such an important decision, is it?

And since the consequences to the fetus, which as I demonstrate above, may or may not be viable outside the womb depending NOT on its stage of biological development, but rather on it's proximity to advanced medical care, which is beyond its control, is death, and the normal consequence to the mother is far less severe, normally nothing but discomfort and some temporary pain, how is it then moral to say that a viable fetus in Kentucky may be aborted, while the same fetus, were it at Johns Hopkins, would be protected?

This does not appear to me to be "equal protection of the law" or either substantive or procedural due process. And the law is compelled to treat both "viable" fetuses the same. It may not infringe on the rights of a legally-protected fetus at Johns Hopkins, so it may not infringe on the rights of a fetus in rural Kentucky either.

Thus, rather than resolving a slippery slope, you merely increase the slope and reduce the coefficient of friction.

A rational, logical and objectively supportable "milestone" that applies to ALL fetuses, regardless of their physical location and access to medical care must therefore be established in order to provide equal protection for all similarly situated fetuses. As you imply, and I state, because fetuses are viable prior to natural delivery, natural birth has become an arbitrary milestone that is meaningless in terms of how moral value and rights attach to a fetus. A fetus two months premature, when delivered by C-section, has exactly the same legal status as a born infant; it is a human being and legal person under the law.

Therefore, if that fetus is a legal person, why is a fetus in utero of the same age not a legal person? What is different about the two fetuses other than the physical location and attachment of the placenta to the uterine wall, which is, as we have seen, merely an incidental attachment that is not inherently necessary at that stage of development because the fetus can live after being removed and the placenta disconnected?

There is no difference other than location, is there?

And if a fetus two months premature becomes a legal person when removed from the mother's uterus, what logic states that the same fetus, ten seconds before that removal, is NOT a legal person?

Likewise, if that fetus is a legal person ten seconds before removal from the uterus, then what logic state that ALL fetuses similarly situated are not legal persons?

The law REQUIRES that one fetus be given the same respect in law that another is given if it is similarly situated. And the law is but a reflection of society's morality.

Therefore, because all fetuses may, and indeed must be defined as legal persons because they are viable outside the womb, they are legal persons while still within the womb, and that means that they have rights, and the foremost among those rights is the right to life. And since the burden on the mother's right of privacy is minimal, and is certainly less burdensome than that imposed on a fetus by killing it through abortion, a balancing of the competing rights is required, and society can justifiably burden the mother with gestation, or I suppose with a C-section if she really doesn't want to carry the baby to term, and society can likewise morally and justifiably ban abortion after the fetus become viable outside the womb UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND CARE (like at Johns Hopkins Hospital) even if the mother doesn't have access to such advanced care.

So, an objective time after which an abortion is not a "right" of the mother, and the fetus's rights must be respected under the law is that time prior to normal birth at which ANY fetus ANYWHERE in the world has survived with the most advanced medical care and intervention available. And the earlier any such fetus survives removal from the mother's womb, the earlier the legal point of demarcation for the banning of voluntary abortion. The law would keep track of instances of premature birth or premature removal from the womb and the time of gestation of each instance and the law would be written to make "X many days/weeks" the legal cut-off point for an abortion not necessitated by a threat to the mother's life, and that time would coincide with the medical evidence that any fetus, anywhere in the world, survived removal from the mother at that stage of development.

I'm pretty comfortable with that reasoning. Are you?

So the bottom line becomes that if the above holds, one cannot directly call on the sanctity of human life to get a compelling reason to forbid unlimited abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. And as society in a case like this can merely take away from the freedoms of the individual, and does not grant any rights, the onus is on those who want to forbid abortions to find some other justification. And there still exists a plethora of good reasons for allowing abortions, which can be posed against any reasons for limitations.

I'm sorry, this seems quite like a "cart before the horse" argument. Since the punishment for not meeting the requirements of society insofar as being "granted rights" (which, by the way, society does NOT do) is death, how is it moral to make the presumption that death, without due process of law or consideration, should be the default situation? Moral behavior seen in literally every other aspect of human life requires that before death is dealt upon a human being, that some strong justification for killing it be presented BEFORE the killing is authorized. Again, the ONLY way that you can arrive at the argument that one must have a "compelling reason to forbid...abortions" is if you, as you do, first make the presumption that the living organism involved is not a human being and is without moral value.

This argument does not really hold because in general, and overall, the fetus is of overwhelming value even from the purely naturalistic perspective. The fetus is the next generation of the species. It has inherent moral value because it is the manifestation of evolution and organic processes by which the human species continues to exist. Using your argument, NO FETUS has any moral value and ANY FETUS may be killed without consideration. The logical extension of this argument is that ALL FETUSES may be killed without moral implication. If that is the case, that no fetus has any moral value, then this is in direct opposition to the laws of nature and the evolutionary processes by which the human species continues to exist.

The obvious extension of the argument that no fetus has moral value is that the human race, as a species, has no moral value, and that it would be perfectly morally acceptable to exterminate ever single future fetus, thus causing the extinction of the human species through natural attrition. And the extension of that argument is that if the human species as a whole has no moral value, then no component member of the species has any moral value, and therefore it is morally permissible to kill any human being at any time.

Either the human species, human life, has moral value, or it doesn't. That ought to be a fundamental premise of any argument about abortion.

If the human species has moral value, then perpetuation of the species becomes a moral imperative.

If perpetuation of the species is a moral imperative, then killing all the fetuses that perpetuate the species is a moral wrong.

If killing all the fetuses that perpetuate the species is a moral wrong, then killing any fetus that perpetuates the species is a moral wrong.

The only way around this logic is to say that killing only some fetuses is not a moral wrong.

But the problem with this argument is that it requires a particularized analysis of the killing of any particular fetus to determine why it is NOT a moral wrong to kill it. In other words, the logical inference must be that killing any fetus is a moral wrong unless there is a stronger moral justification for allowing that fetus to be killed than the presumptive moral imperative that it be kept alive.

And this is where the balance between the moral wrong of killing a fetus bumps up against the potential moral wrong of not permitting the mother to do so, which is what we're discussing.

My point, in regards to your statement, is that the moral imperative of preservation of the species through the protection of the fetus from being arbitrarily killed for insubstantial and immoral reasons must and logically can only be the default position. Which is to say that your assertion that we must find a compelling reason NOT to terminate a fetus has it completely ass-backwards.