[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Kowani]

You are correct. However, the establishment of what is ethical is paramount. If an employer is paying his employee less money than he should, that is clearly unethical. Defrauding the government is clearly unethical. Abortion, however, is not the same.

I think that bears a lot of discussion, I don't think the arguments for abortion being unethical can be dismissed so easily.

Sure they can! Watch: Allowance of abortion is ethical.

[Vassenor]

You are correct. However, the establishment of what is ethical is paramount. If an employer is paying his employee less money than he should, that is clearly unethical. Defrauding the government is clearly unethical. Abortion, however, is not the same.

I think that bears a lot of discussion, I don't think the arguments for abortion being unethical can be dismissed so easily.

But it's perfectly ethical to tell a living breathing human being what they can or cannot do with their body purely for the sake of your feels.

[Northern Davincia]

I think that bears a lot of discussion, I don't think the arguments for abortion being unethical can be dismissed so easily.

But it's perfectly ethical to tell a living breathing human being what they can or cannot do with their body purely for the sake of your feels.

You'd have a point if we were discussing suicide or euthanasia, rather than a procedure that impedes on a separate body.

[Page]

You are correct. However, the establishment of what is ethical is paramount. If an employer is paying his employee less money than he should, that is clearly unethical. Defrauding the government is clearly unethical. Abortion, however, is not the same.

I think that bears a lot of discussion, I don't think the arguments for abortion being unethical can be dismissed so easily.

I have never heard a good argument against abortion in the first two trimesters, because until the third trimester, a fetus has literally no subjective experience. Meaning not only is it not sentient, but it doesn't even feel pain or anything else. I think late term abortion is an ethical concern in the same way animal welfare is an ethical concern, because at that point we are talking about a being that has subjective experience. But before that point? I think the anti-abortion side has a hard time making the case for demanding that something with less subjective experience than a fish be granted any rights.

[Northern Davincia]

I think that bears a lot of discussion, I don't think the arguments for abortion being unethical can be dismissed so easily.

I have never heard a good argument against abortion in the first two trimesters, because until the third trimester, a fetus has literally no subjective experience. Meaning not only is it not sentient, but it doesn't even feel pain or anything else. I think late term abortion is an ethical concern in the same way animal welfare is an ethical concern, because at that point we are talking about a being that has subjective experience. But before that point? I think the anti-abortion side has a hard time making the case for demanding that something with less subjective experience than a fish be granted any rights.

The lack of subjective experience is a temporary dilemma. Being put under anesthesia deprives a patient of subjective experience, but it is regained. A fetus eventually gains it.

[Dalermark]

I have never heard a good argument against abortion in the first two trimesters, because until the third trimester, a fetus has literally no subjective experience. Meaning not only is it not sentient, but it doesn't even feel pain or anything else. I think late term abortion is an ethical concern in the same way animal welfare is an ethical concern, because at that point we are talking about a being that has subjective experience. But before that point? I think the anti-abortion side has a hard time making the case for demanding that something with less subjective experience than a fish be granted any rights.

The lack of subjective experience is a temporary dilemma. Being put under anesthesia deprives a patient of subjective experience, but it is regained. A fetus eventually gains it.

Just something I wondered about, reading, that would help me understand, if I phrased it well enough.

Surely a non-sentient fetus that never has, (and if removed), never will be sentient, is a different thing? Is it the hypothetical development of the fetus that is the pro-life dilemma, or is it genuinely compared to “pulling the plug” of a patient under anesthesia?

[Northern Davincia]

The lack of subjective experience is a temporary dilemma. Being put under anesthesia deprives a patient of subjective experience, but it is regained. A fetus eventually gains it.

Just something I wondered about, reading, that would help me understand, if I phrased it well enough.

Surely a non-sentient fetus that never has, (and if removed), never will be sentient, is a different thing? Is it the hypothetical development of the fetus that is the pro-life dilemma, or is it genuinely compared to “pulling the plug” of a patient under anesthesia?

Pulling the plug on a patient under anesthesia would mean that they'd never be sentient again. The fact that sentience is not imbued upon conception does not really bother me, because it's granted over time.
Sentience itself is problematic because its limited form in newborns is similar to those of other animals, yet infanticide is rightly condemned, whereas killing animals can be done under a handful of circumstances.

[The New California Republic]

I have never heard a good argument against abortion in the first two trimesters, because until the third trimester, a fetus has literally no subjective experience. Meaning not only is it not sentient, but it doesn't even feel pain or anything else. I think late term abortion is an ethical concern in the same way animal welfare is an ethical concern, because at that point we are talking about a being that has subjective experience. But before that point? I think the anti-abortion side has a hard time making the case for demanding that something with less subjective experience than a fish be granted any rights.

The lack of subjective experience is a temporary dilemma. Being put under anesthesia deprives a patient of subjective experience, but it is regained. A fetus eventually gains it.

How far back do you want to take that argument? If potentiality is what is important here, then how far back could that be taken? You could start going further back, and say that even using contraception is preventing a potentially sentient being from being produced. And many religions do take that line.

[Northern Davincia]

The lack of subjective experience is a temporary dilemma. Being put under anesthesia deprives a patient of subjective experience, but it is regained. A fetus eventually gains it.

How far back do you want to take that argument? If potentiality is what is important here, then how far back could that be taken? You could start going further back, and say that even using contraception is preventing a potentially sentient being from being produced. And many religions do take that line.

Conception is the easiest starting point because at that point, the zygote is a unique human being with its own genetic code.

[Dogmeat]

How far back do you want to take that argument? If potentiality is what is important here, then how far back could that be taken? You could start going further back, and say that even using contraception is preventing a potentially sentient being from being produced. And many religions do take that line.

Conception is the easiest starting point because at that point, the zygote is a unique human being with its own genetic code.

Unless it has a twin. Or are twins one person?

Can I kill a twin and not be charged for murder as long as I don't kill the other one?

What about clones? Are they not people?

[The New California Republic]

How far back do you want to take that argument? If potentiality is what is important here, then how far back could that be taken? You could start going further back, and say that even using contraception is preventing a potentially sentient being from being produced. And many religions do take that line.

Conception is the easiest starting point because at that point, the zygote is a unique human being with its own genetic code.

A fetus has rarely, if ever, been considered a "human being".

[Northern Davincia]

Conception is the easiest starting point because at that point, the zygote is a unique human being with its own genetic code.

Unless it has a twin. Or are twins one person?

Can I kill a twin and not be charged for murder as long as I don't kill the other one?

What about clones? Are they not people?

Twins/clones eventually take on separate attributes, but you are still dealing with two human beings.

[Northern Davincia]

Conception is the easiest starting point because at that point, the zygote is a unique human being with its own genetic code.

A fetus has rarely, if ever, been considered a "human being".

If that were true, the pro-life crowd would not exist.

[Dogmeat]

Unless it has a twin. Or are twins one person?

Can I kill a twin and not be charged for murder as long as I don't kill the other one?

What about clones? Are they not people?

Twins/clones eventually take on separate attributes, but you are still dealing with two human beings.

Well you just said it's a unique genetic code that matters. Now you're saying it doesn't. Which is it?

[The New California Republic]

A fetus has rarely, if ever, been considered a "human being".

If that were true, the pro-life crowd would not exist.

Even the Catholic church often hasn't considered fetuses to be human beings as such. The Catholic position on this issue has been an inconsistent mess for centuries:

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

[Northern Davincia]

Twins/clones eventually take on separate attributes, but you are still dealing with two human beings.

Well you just said it's a unique genetic code that matters. Now you're saying it doesn't. Which is it?

The genetic code is very important because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus'. However, with twins, they are separate from each other in a more spatial sense, and the differences grow from there.

[The New California Republic]

Well you just said it's a unique genetic code that matters. Now you're saying it doesn't. Which is it?

The genetic code is very important because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus'. However, with twins, they are separate from each other in a more spatial sense, and the differences grow from there.

So now the crucial difference is that they are occupying different positions in space?

And what do you mean by "the differences grow from there"? Please elaborate.

[Northern Davincia]

The genetic code is very important because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus'. However, with twins, they are separate from each other in a more spatial sense, and the differences grow from there.

So now the crucial difference is that they are occupying different positions in space?

And what do you mean by "the differences grow from there"? Please elaborate.

Infants can develop their personalities in the womb, meaning they occupy their own respective existence from one another.
The occupation of different points in space is only the initial (and most obvious) distinction between two genetically-identical zygotes, among others.

[The New California Republic]

So now the crucial difference is that they are occupying different positions in space?

And what do you mean by "the differences grow from there"? Please elaborate.

Infants can develop their personalities in the womb, meaning they occupy their own respective existence from one another.
The occupation of different points in space is only the initial (and most obvious) distinction between two genetically-identical zygotes, among others.

The latter is discussing mutations that occur years after birth...

And do you have a source to the claim that fetuses develop their own personalities, before 24 weeks in particular (I'm using that as a benchmark as typically abortions are only allowed up to that point)?

And be careful with that terminology, as it isn't really considered an infant if it is still in the womb:

Infant: A young baby, from birth to 12 months of age.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... lekey=3966

[Northern Davincia]

Infants can develop their personalities in the womb, meaning they occupy their own respective existence from one another.
The occupation of different points in space is only the initial (and most obvious) distinction between two genetically-identical zygotes, among others.

The latter is discussing mutations that occur years after birth...

And do you have a source to the claim that fetuses develop their own personalities, before 24 weeks in particular (I'm using that as a benchmark as typically abortions are only allowed up to that point)?

And be careful with that terminology, as it isn't really considered an infant if it is still in the womb:

Infant: A young baby, from birth to 12 months of age.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... lekey=3966

I can't offer much certainty when it comes to personality before 24 weeks, although it does begin in the womb.
Point taken about terminology, but my article on twins does refer to fetal development:

To find out how often these mutations occur in early development, Li and her colleagues studied the genomes of 92 pairs of identical twins and searched hundreds of thousands of sites in their genomes for differences between twins in base pairs, which are represented by letters that make up DNA. For instance, one twin may carry an A at one point while another carries a C. The researchers could only detect differences that would occur very early in fetal development and would show up in most cells in the body.

[Neanderthaland]

Well you just said it's a unique genetic code that matters. Now you're saying it doesn't. Which is it?

The genetic code is very important because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus'. However, with twins, they are separate from each other in a more spatial sense, and the differences grow from there.

Right. So you're using the genetic code because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus. Not because it is actually important.

You don't think it is actually important, it only becomes so when you need an arbitrary tool to support your position.

[Northern Davincia]

The genetic code is very important because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus'. However, with twins, they are separate from each other in a more spatial sense, and the differences grow from there.

Right. So you're using the genetic code because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus. Not because it is actually important.

You don't think it is actually important, it only becomes so when you need an arbitrary tool to support your position.

The distinction itself is important. I agree to the principle that people should control their own bodies, but because a fetus' genetic code is unique, so is its body. It informs us that the fetus is a new individual.

[Neanderthaland]

Right. So you're using the genetic code because it distinguishes the mother's body from the fetus. Not because it is actually important.

You don't think it is actually important, it only becomes so when you need an arbitrary tool to support your position.

The distinction itself is important. I agree to the principle that people should control their own bodies, but because a fetus' genetic code is unique, so is its body. It informs us that the fetus is a new individual.

By that standard twins are not individuals. Genetics are only important when you need them to be. Otherwise they're not.

[Northern Davincia]

The distinction itself is important. I agree to the principle that people should control their own bodies, but because a fetus' genetic code is unique, so is its body. It informs us that the fetus is a new individual.

By that standard twins are not individuals. Genetics are only important when you need them to be. Otherwise they're not.

They are individuals in the sense that they are two entities (independent from each other) occupying separate points in space. I have to take multiple factors into consideration, not just one.

[Neanderthaland]

By that standard twins are not individuals. Genetics are only important when you need them to be. Otherwise they're not.

They are individuals in the sense that they are two entities (independent from each other) occupying separate points in space. I have to take multiple factors into consideration, not just one.

What you're doing is taking whatever factor happens to be convenient at the time into consideration.