(July 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Premise #4: Morality is not restricted to classification of species.

Throwing a kitten off a cliff for fun is often seen as wrongdoing, would you agree? Wanton cruelty toward other animals who don't have the same higher brain function but are nonetheless beings that appear to experience pain, fear and personal connection is often viewed as wrong. Now we can get bogged down into "is hunting for food immoral when you could be a vegan?" or "is experimenting on animals to find cures for human diseases wrong?" but my basic point is that we have moral consideration for non-humans.

Question: What's the distinction based on?

Why do we have moral obligations toward kittens and not trees? Or bacteria cells? All three are "alive", are they not?

Why do some people feel it's OK to pull the plug on a brain-dead chronically ill patient but not OK to execute a retarded person so they "won't be a burden"?

DeistPaladin Wrote:The classification of the species of what I'm looking at is irrelevant, for reasons already discussed in premise #4.

I like your post a lot, but I have an issue with your points starting here.

You say species is irrelevant, but I say it is not. The fact that there are people who look upon a fetus and see it as human will want this fetus to live because of that. They seek to preserve life, human life. There are even people in this thread who see the fetus as a human being and therefore do not want it to be killed, even if it's not self-aware.

Although I do agree with your post for he most part, the classification of a fetus as human is extraordinarily critical for a lot of people when it comes to this topic, therefore species is relevant to the discussion.

(July 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 30, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Slave Wrote: Based on what criteria would you classify this as not human, or more specifically not a human being?

I wouldn't. The classification of the species of what I'm looking at is irrelevant, for reasons already discussed in premise #4.

My question is does it have a function brain? Is there any reason to think it is self-aware, able to think, feel or experience pain?

By 20 weeks gestation no, a brain is present, however the ability to respond to external stimuli via the neocortex and not a reflex action of the spinal chord does not present itself until 23 weeks + and fetal awareness at 29 weeks or so. As far as functioning is concerned, I assume you mean functioning as in sentience as I detailed above?

Quote:You may have said and I may have missed it but can you tell me why?

Because when we talk about human rights, of which one I view to be the right to life, the level of development of the human brain is not a prerequisite (is not mentioned). It is simply if they are human. And since a human is a human from conception, they deserve the same rights as you and I do.

(July 30, 2013 at 2:51 pm)Slave Wrote: By 20 weeks gestation no, a brain is present, however the ability to respond to external stimuli via the neocortex and not a reflex action of the spinal chord does not present itself until 23 weeks + and fetal awareness at 29 weeks or so. As far as functioning is concerned, I assume you mean functioning as in sentience as I detailed above?

That's open for discussion.

Note that 90% of abortions occur during the first trimester. The laws on the books now prevent a woman from having a late term abortion unless her life was in danger. I'm open to debate on whether that cut-off should be week 21 instead of week 24 if that would settle the abortion issue once and for all.

Quote:Because when we talk about human rights, of which one I view to be the right to life, the level of development of the human brain is not a prerequisite (is not mentioned). It is simply if they are human. And since a human is a human from conception, they deserve the same rights as you and I do.

And I view right to life as being a function of the brain, not taxonomic classification. We may just agree to disagree on that point.

(July 30, 2013 at 3:37 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And I view right to life as being a function of the brain, not taxonomic classification. We may just agree to disagree on that point.

100% agree.

Specifically what kind of function of the brain are we talking about? Sentience, or self-awareness Paladin? And why?

Exactly what kind of brain function, and how much are we talking here, until a human gains 'personhood'?

(July 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Slave Wrote: Specifically what kind of function of the brain are we talking about? Sentience, or self-awareness Paladin? And why?

Exactly what kind of brain function, and how much are we talking here, until a human gains 'personhood'?

As I said, it's open to discussion. If I was charging into a burning building to save the life of a child or a cat, I would save the life of the child. Sometimes these rules have some grey area.

Since over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, well before any brain development happens, it's largely academic.

For now, I'm content with the week 24 rule, which is what we have now.

(July 30, 2013 at 4:54 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: As I said, it's open to discussion. If I was charging into a burning building to save the life of a child or a cat, I would save the life of the child. Sometimes these rules have some grey area.

Wouldn't a rational justification for this (superficially seen speciest) behaviour be the difference in potential for a more developed consciousness which the child has but the cat less so? And doesn't the unborn fetus have that same potential?

(July 31, 2013 at 7:35 am)littleendian Wrote:

(July 30, 2013 at 4:54 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: As I said, it's open to discussion. If I was charging into a burning building to save the life of a child or a cat, I would save the life of the child. Sometimes these rules have some grey area.

Wouldn't a rational justification for this (superficially seen speciest) behaviour be the difference in potential for a more developed consciousness which the child has but the cat less so? And doesn't the unborn fetus have that same potential?

Babble. While true our consciousness is a manifestation of biological processes, this has nothing at all to do with the bullshit arguments pro birthers use.

Bottom line for me is that if it is not your body and especially if you are not going to raise the kid, then it is none of your business.