Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

[Iacchus]

At what point, pre or post natal, does one develope sentience? Third trimester? 3 years old?

I would say pre-natal, since the baby is screeching at the top of its lungs and seems to be in a lot of pain.

 

[Yahzi]

All this falls apart if the fetus is person.

We've been over this, and no.

There is a bum right now on 54th street. He has no money, no family, and suffers from mental illness. Suppose he crawls in the window of your house. Can the government force you to let him live in your house, and feed him, for the rest of his life? Or even for the next nine months?

Now, suppose you are an atheist, and value human life more than people who think death is not the end. Does that mean you think the government should be allowed to force you to support the bum?

Why, no.

Case closed.

 

[toddjh]

There is a bum right now on 54th street. He has no money, no family, and suffers from mental illness. Suppose he crawls in the window of your house. Can the government force you to let him live in your house, and feed him, for the rest of his life? Or even for the next nine months?

As always, I disagree. If pregnancy happened of its own accord and didn't show itself until a baby popped out, then maybe. But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy, and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months, then yes, I think you have a non-zero amount of responsibility for the situation. You had plenty of chances to avoid and/or correct the problem, and you deliberately ignored them. That is implicit consent.

Of course, this only applies to late-term abortions. I have no problem with those that take place in the first trimester, before the fetus could possibly experience human-like consciousness.

Jeremy

 

[BillHoyt]

I would say pre-natal, since the baby is screeching at the top of its lungs and seems to be in a lot of pain.

Sperm screams? Eggs scream? Or is it the blastula that begins screaming, brainlacchus.

Get your terms straight.

 

[wittgenst3in]

Hey Gm

I've come into the thread late, so I'll just say my POV rather than comment on previous posts. What follows is my opinion and I'm not claiming it as absolute fact.

I'm an atheist and definitly believe that 'worm food' is the only outcome of death. (Although organ donation is a nice idea )

I don't know whether you can say some people value life more or less than other people, so I personally don't say that. There is a good essay that kind of relates to this called 'a religion guided missile' by Richard Dawkins, in which he makes the point that the sep 11 suicide attacks could only have been organised if you told people there was a afterlife awaiting them. (Not saying atheists can't be suicide bombers mind you, we can do anything we put our minds to, it's just a lot harder to convice us.)

My position on abortion is this:

1. Clearly individual sperm and egg cannot be counted as conscious, and therefore do not have the associated rights.

2. When the two combine into a zygote, it is hard to imagine that something smaller than a pinhead can have consciousness. (not a argument from incredulity, because there is no concievable way it can express consciousness)

3. A baby can be considered to have consciousness. (this is an assumption).

Clearly somewhere between 2 and 3 consciousness is obtained. Hopefully a nice, simple medical guideline can be obtained as to when this happens (brain waves, spinal chord development, etc.) but this may not be the case.

Assuming that a simple indiator of consciousness can be used:
(say for the sake of argument that it is 6 months).

Before this deadline the baby cannot be considered a person. Hence the parents are free to choose what to do.

After this deadline the baby must be considered a person, and any attempts to end it's life considered either murder or manslaughter.

(We had a incident in sydney where a 9 month pregnant woman in a car with her husband was rammed off the road and into a telegraph pole by a man in a 4wd who was upset at them going so slowly. The woman was pinned for a period of time and the unborn baby died. Technically she hadn't given birth yet so the man was only charged with manslaughter.)

A point that is often raised is 'Should victims of rape be allowed to abort?'. If there is a consciousness deadline (as I assumed before) then aborting before this is no problem. After this however would still be manslaughter. Hey I know they didn't ask for the baby, and they have had a crime commited against them but (if we hold that a baby is conscious) killing it does not make anything better.

If on the other hand no suitable indicator of consciousness can be found where we can draw the line, then any abortions should be considered manslaughter/murder. This may seem harsh, but the whole idea behind preventing conscious abortions is to stop innocent 'people' dying. We can't point to the actions of others (such as rapists or incompetent condom manufacturers) and say that because of them the killing is justified.

Note: Obviously if there is a either/or situation with the baby risking the mothers life then it should be allowed. No sense in them both dying if it's unsecessary.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

 

[toddjh]

Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

I have a memory of being in my crib and being annoyed I couldn't reach a toy to play with. I was probably two at the time.

Anyway, I'm not sure that's relevant, for two reasons:

1. Memory is not the same as consciousness. Young children can obviously think, reason (to a certain extent), and respond to their environment in an abstract way. Most of them can talk well before the point they'd actually remember as adults. It seems clear they are conscious in a uniquely human way even if their brains are still trying to figure out the memory deal. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

2. After birth, the situation becomes more complicated, because the child becomes part of the social contract. Society begins investing in his welfare, and thus has the expectation that he will be cared for. Apart from the strictly ethical issues, this is a large part of why murder is universally despised among adults, too.

Jeremy

 

[Radrook]

It is the potential, entelechy is it? That is the important fator here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

1. Memory is not the same as consciousness.

No, but it is a vital component to consciousness. Without memory, one cannot be conscious of what they are doing because.. they cannot remember it.

It seems clear they are conscious in a uniquely human way even if their brains are still trying to figure out the memory deal. They deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't agree, development of consciousness is still in progress and while that is happening, speech and other functions are still being programmed as well. A fetus is not a person, it is not conscious.


2. After birth, the situation becomes more complicated, because the child becomes part of the social contract.

Yes, that's why we aren't arguing infanticide.

 

[The GM]

Consciousness is not fully obtained by a human until way after birth. The human brain is not developed enough to have accessible memories. Who can remember the day that they were born? What is the earliest memory a person has? My earliest memories begin around 6 yrs old.

Hmm...This is interesting, and I have read your other comments in the thread. Here's the question then: If 'consciousness' is not achieved until well after birth (say in your case from age one day until age six years) then is it moral to commit infantcide because it's still the mother's choice? I would say the obvious answer is a firm 'no'.

When does consciousness start? Is it pre-birth? Is it age one month when a baby starts fumbling with it's own hands? Is it age three when speech has developed?

Addressing a different point, different poster: In rape cases it's typical for the victim to be offered a morning after pill to head off any possibility of pregnancy. This is standard proceedure after the medical exam has been made and any evidence has been collected. I can't imagine as a woman, not wanting to take advantage of that piece of technology and then wait a few months and get a potentially risky medical proceedure to terminate a pregnancy. Why prolong the healing (physical and mental) process any longer than neccesary?

EDIT: Oops.

 

[Gulliamo]

Addressing a different point, different poster: In rape cases it's typical for the victim to be offered a morning after pill to head off any possibility of pregnancy. This is standard procedure after the medical exam has been made and any evidence has been collected. I can't imagine as a woman, not wanting to take advantage of that piece of technology and then wait a few months and get a potentially risky medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. Why prolong the healing (physical and mental) process any longer than necessary?

While I have no personal experience with this I think it has something to do with many victims do not / will not admit that they are / were victims for some number of months afterward. I don't think this is the case with the standard "brick to the head in Central Park" modus operandi but it is often the case with "date rape" or "drunk-till-unconscious at a frat party rape".

 

[toddjh]

No, but it is a vital component to consciousness. Without memory, one cannot be conscious of what they are doing because.. they cannot remember it.

So if your memory were going to be damaged tomorrow, that means you're not a person today, and it would be acceptable to kill you? I don't buy that. All of us will lose our memories sooner or later, when we die. How is that difference anything more than a matter of degree?

I don't agree, development of consciousness is still in progress and while that is happening, speech and other functions are still being programmed as well. A fetus is not a person, it is not conscious.

I thought you were talking about after birth. I agree a fetus is not a person until it shows human-like brain activity. After that, I don't think the fact that its memories won't necessarily survive permanently makes a big difference.

Jeremy

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hmm...This is interesting, and I have read your other comments in the thread. Here's the question then: If 'consciousness' is not achieved until well after birth (say in your case from age one day until age six years) then is it moral to commit infantcide because it's still the mother's choice? I would say the obvious answer is a firm 'no'.

Correct, because at that point the baby is actually growing a consciousness.


When does consciousness start? Is it pre-birth? Is it age one month when a baby starts fumbling with it's own hands? Is it age three when speech has developed?

Not sure, but maybe a neurologist can answer the question. My theory is that it doesn't start until after birth because there is no outside influence to help program the life until then.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So if your memory were going to be damaged tomorrow, that means you're not a person today, and it would be acceptable to kill you? I don't buy that.

And I'm not saying it. An adult that loses memory still retains the brain function of consciousness, unless they are brain dead.

All of us will lose our memories sooner or later, when we die. How is that difference anything more than a matter of degree?

I don't understand the question.

 

[toddjh]

And I'm not saying it. An adult that loses memory still retains the brain function of consciousness, unless they are brain dead.

Then it seems like special pleading. A fetus that is conscious but has no memory is disposable, while an adult that is conscious but has no memory is not? You seem to be arguing that there's something else, besides memory, that makes late-term fetuses "less human" than adults. If that's what you're saying, that's fine, but you have to explain what it is.

I don't understand the question.

You argued (at least I think you did) that fetuses shouldn't be considered conscious because they most likely won't be accruing any permanent memories at that point. I am pointing out that, on a long enough scale, no memories are permanent, not even adults'. Therefore, why draw the distinction?

Jeremy

 

[The GM]

While I have no personal experience with this I think it has something to do with many victims do not / will not admit that they are / were victims for some number of months afterward. I don't think this is the case with the standard "brick to the head in Central Park" modus operandi but it is often the case with "date rape" or "drunk-till-unconscious at a frat party rape".

Ah. Okay.
I don't believe there's such a stigma attached to date rape any more, (ya know, the whole 'she shouldn't have worn that dress' arguement.) I believe that women (and men for that matter!) are more apt to report the kind of abuse you're talking about.

(Rant on.)
As far as the woman who 'Oops! I got too drunk and did something I shouldn't have' deal: As a woman, I firmly detest this excuse for bad decision making. My thinking, harsh though it may be, is suck it up honey. You knew while you were swilling down dead nazis and red headed whores that you were opening yourself up to a potential mess. You made a mistake, now take some freaking personal responsibility for it. You know, when a drunk gets behind the wheel and whacks someone in a car accident, the judge doesn't allow for a 'I got too tipsy and made a mistake' defense.
Having said that, I realize none of us are error free in our decision making, but god d@mn I hate the 'I got drunk' excuse. It's BS. You did what you did, consciously and intentionally, now be a friggin' adult about it instead of whinning.
(Rant off.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then it seems like special pleading. A fetus that is conscious but has no memory is disposable, while an adult that is conscious but has no memory is not?

False, I did not state this at all. Please don't assign arguments to me that I did not make.

You seem to be arguing that there's something else, besides memory, that makes late-term fetuses "less human" than adults. If that's what you're saying, that's fine, but you have to explain what it is.

Fetus's are human, but they are not people. Again, please don't assign arguments to me that I don't make.


You argued (at least I think you did) that fetuses shouldn't be considered conscious because they most likely won't be accruing any permanent memories at that point.

They have no programming to make them conscious. Maybe that will clear it up for you. They also don't have the physical capacity to have a consciousness, at that point.

I am pointing out that, on a long enough scale, no memories are permanent, not even adults'. Therefore, why draw the distinction?


It has to do with the traits that are involved in having consciousness, not just memory. Memory plays one fact, but without it, one cannot be conscious. A computer doesn't work without some RAM.

 

[Gulliamo]

As far as the woman who 'Oops! I got too drunk and did something I shouldn't have' deal:

I am not referring to the "got too drunk and did something" but more to the got too drunk, went to bed, got discovered unconscious by Mr. Lonely, and [edit: this is a family forum].

As a woman, I firmly detest this excuse for bad decision making.

I wasn't referring to bad decision making but rather being unable to participate in the decision making process.

So, what is your opinion on all of this? We have bared our souls [?] for the world to see. What do you believe? Or is the court still in deliberation?

 

[toddjh]

Fetus's are human, but they are not people. Again, please don't assign arguments to me that I don't make.

It's usually clear that, in an abortion context, "human" means "deserving of human rights." Please interpret it in that way.

They have no programming to make them conscious. Maybe that will clear it up for you. They also don't have the physical capacity to have a consciousness, at that point.

I don't think you're qualified to make that determination. A late-term fetus (say, a week prior to birth) has a brain identifiable as human, as well as human-like brain activity to go along with it. Unless you claim to have solved the mysteries of how the sentient mind operates, those few objective metrics we have point to at least the possibility that fetuses might experience some level of human-like consciousness. As I've said, that means they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It has to do with the traits that are involved in having consciousness, not just memory. Memory plays one fact, but without it, one cannot be conscious. A computer doesn't work without some RAM.

Just because young children can't build permanent memories doesn't mean they don't have any at all. You only have to watch an infant for a while to see that it learns from its mistakes and is able to make some associations. I'm guessing that you were even able to speak at an earlier age than you remember now. How were you able to build any kind of vocabulary, if you had no memory? If you insist on the computer metaphor, you might say that young children have RAM but no hard disk -- and a computer can run just fine that way, for limited purposes.

Jeremy

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's usually clear that, in an abortion context, "human" means "deserving of human rights." Please interpret it in that way.

I don't agree. Human and person are 2 different things. A person deserves rights, a human doesn't necessarily deserve rights.


I don't think you're qualified to make that determination. A late-term fetus (say, a week prior to birth) has a brain identifiable as human, as well as human-like brain activity to go along with it.

So who is qualified to make that determination then? Psychologists? Neurologists?

Unless you claim to have solved the mysteries of how the sentient mind operates, those few objective metrics we have point to at least the possibility that fetuses might experience some level of human-like consciousness. As I've said, that means they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't agree at all. You are appealing to ignorance here. Until a fetus can communicate to the world that it is conscious, I don't think we should assume that it is.


Just because young children can't build permanent memories doesn't mean they don't have any at all. You only have to watch an infant for a while to see that it learns from its mistakes and is able to make some associations. I'm guessing that you were even able to speak at an earlier age than you remember now. How were you able to build any kind of vocabulary, if you had no memory?

Obviously I did have a memory to start building a vocabulary. I was in process of gaining consciousness.


If you insist on the computer metaphor, you might say that young children have RAM but no hard disk -- and a computer can run just fine that way, for limited purposes.

But I don't agree that a fetus without a hard drive is a person. There isn't evidence to suggest that a fetus is conscious in a way that a person is conscious.