Why I Am Pro-Life

[bladevalant546]

This argument I stumbled across today. I found it in the logic textbook I mentioned earlier. It was having me just analyze it for validity (not soundness) but I did find it somewhat compelling and it reflects my general inclinations on the abortion debate. I'm still fairly undecided on the matter but this line of reasoning is what I tend to lean towards.


All beings with a right to life are capable of desiring continued existence.
All beings capable of desiring continued existence have a concept of themselves as a continuing subject of experiences.
No human fetus has a concept of itself as a continuing subject of experiences.
Therefore, No human fetus has a right to life.

My analysis. The asterisks are left over from the "Star" analysis method of determining validity.
All B* is E
All E* is S
No F* is E*
Therefore, No F is B.

Valid.

Good argument, however defined "desire". Does this desire lean on the premise of sentience? If so then what about animals? If not then your agrument has merit.

[Rahul]

I also do not view this as a question of sentience. We still treat humans in a vegetative state with some measure of respect.

We should treat them with respect. After all it is the living remains of a person that used to exist, yet no longer exists. We should respectfully turn off the machines, and prepare their physical remains carefully in the manner we bury all of the dead.

It is NOT a human. That person is gone. When law enforcement finds a dead body they don't say they found the person. They say they found their "remains". For a reason.

Keeping their corpse artificially alive just for sentiment I find very insulting to their memory.

---

You cannot liken a tumour, a tonsil, nor any other body part with that of a growing fetus. A human life.

A growing fetus is not a person. This is the heart of what we are talking about. Its brain hasn't developed far enough for anything to fire on to make it a person. No higher brain functions.

This seems beside the point to you. Because it is a "human life".

What exactly is a "human life"? Is a brain dead corpse on life support a "human life"?

I believe we have to define what you mean there before I can grasp what you are thinking.

Actually this made me think of "The Walking Dead". So let's think about that scenario with "Walkers". Now that person used to exist. But they are gone inside. The person that used to inhabit that body is gone. Their DNA says they are human. But are you saying that person still exists because DNA says it is that person? Are you like that old farmer guy saying, "No, I know this person. They're just sick." or do you act like most of the characters and say, "No. That person is gone. Kill it."?

It seems like you would say they are humans and we should respect the Walkers because that's human life. Where I would just blow its brain out saying, "That person is dead. It's just an animated corpse."

[fr0d0]

Aren't you expressing your humanity to that ex person through your respect for what it was Rahul? Why kill it if you have no interest in it? Why not leave it (to suffer/carry on existing)?

If you didn't care about it/ felt no responsibility for it BECAUSE it lacked qualification as human why any interest in it at all?

How should posthumous consideration trump previous consideration?

"it's a life that will become a person" = OK to kill it without consideration
"it's a life that was a person" = we should consider it and kill it in respect for what it was

... these don't add up

Surely we should have some consideration of what we know is human and will become a person MORE than we should have consideration for something that is over.

Once more, no one is saying that zygote = person.

[Slave]

We should treat them with respect. After all it is the living remains of a person that used to exist, yet no longer exists. We should respectfully turn off the machines, and prepare their physical remains carefully in the manner we bury all of the dead.

Just as fr0d0 points out, why do you feel an obligation to treat a once living human with respect, but not a growing human? Does the qualifier that a brain dead person 'used' to have higher brain function, therefore is more of a human that a zygote, really make sense? Does it matter that the human on life support used to have a brain if it no longer does? Why?

That is you projecting the value of a human life onto something that does not. What makes you different from someone who is pro-life then, for the very same reason?

It is NOT a human. That person is gone. When law enforcement finds a dead body they don't say they found the person. They say they found their "remains". For a reason.

The brain dead person is a human, just as the growing fetus is. They are both members of the species homo sapiens. The term 'person' carries with it connotations of something more than just human. A person has personality. Feelings, thoughts, memories. A dead body is without personage. A zygote and a fetus are not dead bodies.

View it this way. You have person A on life support. Their higher brain function is absent from birth. However, there is a high probability that this person could have cognitive function in the future. Would you feel justified in killing this person because they are not a 'person' now, even though potential is there?

Keeping their corpse artificially alive just for sentiment I find very insulting to their memory.

I agree.

A growing fetus is not a person. This is the heart of what we are talking about. Its brain hasn't developed far enough for anything to fire on to make it a person. No higher brain functions.

A growing fetus is a person.

per·son
/ˈpərsən/
Noun
A human being regarded as an individual.
Used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual.

You seem to differentiate between person and human while they both mean the same thing, yet carry different connotations.

This seems beside the point to you. Because it is a "human life".

What exactly is a "human life"? Is a brain dead corpse on life support a "human life"?

They are both human, yes.

I believe we have to define what you mean there before I can grasp what you are thinking.

Actually this made me think of "The Walking Dead". So let's think about that scenario with "Walkers". Now that person used to exist. But they are gone inside. The person that used to inhabit that body is gone. Their DNA says they are human. But are you saying that person still exists because DNA says it is that person? Are you like that old farmer guy saying, "No, I know this person. They're just sick." or do you act like most of the characters and say, "No. That person is gone. Kill it."?

It seems like you would say they are humans and we should respect the Walkers because that's human life. Where I would just blow its brain out saying, "That person is dead. It's just an animated corpse."

I am able to discern between ending a growing life and ending a life that has already had the chance to grow into what you would call a 'person'. I can not logically justify the taking of a human life when that life has every potential for having a personage of it's own and has every right to life as we do. Just because a zygote is at a different stage of growth and development from you or I does not, in my view, give it less rights than us. As a society we are judged by how we protect the innocent and vulnerable. If you think that taking a life before it has had a chance to live and speak for itself, is more justifiable than taking the life of a human husk for sentimental reasons, then your argument is no better than mine and makes even less sense.

In your zombie scenario, I would not liken killing a zombie to terminating the life of a fetus, because the zombie is dead, but the fetus is not.

[Rahul]

Just as fr0d0 points out, why do you feel an obligation to treat a once living human with respect, but not a growing human?

Pure fucking empathy. Emotions. Not logic. I would treat that dead hunk of meat with respect because it used to house someone, a person, that people loved.

Completely illogical. It doesn't really matter in an intellectual sense. Not at all. When my parents die the mortician can treat their corpses like filth. And intellectually it doesn't matter. They can't hurt them.

But emotionally I identify those people with those physical forms. So if you mistreat those chunks of meat, I will become emotionally enraged. Even though you can't hurt a person that doesn't exist.

Humans are not logical creatures. We are animals that have the capacity to think logically. Most of the time we don't operate that way. We respond emotionally.

Does the qualifier that a brain dead person 'used' to have higher brain function, therefore is more of a human that a zygote, really make sense?

It's a not person. A NOT person. There's no person there. It only matters to the emotions of people that are. That's the only difference.

Does it matter that the human on life support used to have a brain if it no longer does? Why?

Emotion. Not logic. Just unreasonable, unsupportable by the facts emotion.

The brain dead person is a human, just as the growing fetus is.

What is a human? I don't think we agree on that definition. It's a human corpse. But it's not a human. It's not a person. It's just dead meat.

They are both members of the species homo sapiens.

DNA analysis would say that. But I wouldn't. Having human DNA doesn't make a thing human.

The term 'person' carries with it connotations of something more than just human. A person has personality. Feelings, thoughts, memories. A dead body is without personage. A zygote and a fetus are not dead bodies.

A zygote doesn't have a personality. A fetus doesn't have a personality. You can no more kill a zygote than you can kill a corpse. It's already not alive.

View it this way. You have person A on life support. Their higher brain function is absent from birth. However, there is a high probability that this person could have cognitive function in the future. Would you feel justified in killing this person because they are not a 'person' now, even though potential is there?

I would feel no moral guilt over ending it. None. I don't play the lottery. The odds are too great against you. That's just a failed, could have been, human. Living corpse.

A growing fetus is a person.

No it's not. It's a potential person. Up to 40% of fertilized eggs auto-abort biologically. Most without the woman even knowing anything happened. Manually aborting is the same. It's not a human yet.

I'm a family guy. I know you mentioned having a 10 month child. I'm a proud father of two beautiful little girls. Ages 8 & 9. I love them to death. Personally I would never want a woman I personally impregnated to abort my potential offspring.

It's her choice, and I would respect it. But she wouldn't be killing my child if she did so. She would be eliminating the possible child I might have had. Nothing more than that.

You seem to differentiate between person and human while they both mean the same thing, yet carry different connotations.

Actually I use the term human and person interchangeably as meaning a living being. An indivudual. I'll switch between the two. A fetus and a corpse is neither a human nor a person. It has no personality. No memory. No quirks. It's just a biological chunk of meat. No matter if machinery or a womb is keeping it biologically ticking, it's not a human/person.

They are both human, yes.

Biologically it is a human. What is a human to you? Do you know me? Think of the one person that you know more than anyone else in life. Maybe a spouse or a sibling. Now imagine them brain dead.

Is that person you know so well still there?

Fuck no it's not. It's left the house. It's just the empty remains. That person you loved is gone. No one home.

[fr0d0]

They are both members of the species homo sapiens.

DNA analysis would say that. But I wouldn't. Having human DNA doesn't make a thing human. (1)

The term 'person' carries with it connotations of something more than just human. A person has personality. Feelings, thoughts, memories. A dead body is without personage. A zygote and a fetus are not dead bodies.

A zygote doesn't have a personality. A fetus doesn't have a personality. You can no more kill a zygote than you can kill a corpse. It's already not alive. (2)

View it this way. You have person A on life support. Their higher brain function is absent from birth. However, there is a high probability that this person could have cognitive function in the future. Would you feel justified in killing this person because they are not a 'person' now, even though potential is there?

I would feel no moral guilt over ending it. None. I don't play the lottery. The odds are too great against you. That's just a failed, could have been, human. Living corpse.(3)

A growing fetus is a person.

No it's not. It's a potential person. Up to 40% of fertilized eggs auto-abort biologically. Most without the woman even knowing anything happened. Manually aborting is the same. It's not a human yet. (4)

1. DNA and science would say that a zygote+ is human. Your objection is anecdotal.
2. A zygote + is very much alive. The brain dead person is technically alive. Personality is not essential for life.
3. That's a shocking statement
4. It (zygote +) is very human. Precisely human, and alive.

It's very interesting that you are getting very emotional here when trying to make a point that we shouldn't treat this subject emotionally.

Would you expand on point 3? Slave said that there was a high probability that this human was going to be cognisant in the future. You seem to have assumed the opposite.

[Rahul]

1. DNA and science would say that a zygote+ is human. Your objection is anecdotal.
2. A zygote + is very much alive. The brain dead person is technically alive. Personality is not essential for life.
3. That's a shocking statement
4. It (zygote +) is very human. Precisely human, and alive.

It's very interesting that you are getting very emotional here when trying to make a point that we shouldn't treat this subject emotionally.

Would you expand on point 3? Slave said that there was a high probability that this human was going to be cognisant in the future. You seem to have assumed the opposite.

---

fr0d0, I'll be dirt honest. I like you. I like you as a person.

I think a lot of your ideas are total shit, but you are a rarely cool religitard, I'll take care of your fucktard ideas tomoorow when I'm stuck in my cubicle and I don't have any other options than what do to with my time.

Oh fuck I'm really drunk.

[Brian37]

They should change it to "pro birth", because they sure as hell don't give one fuck about the baby or it's family after it is born.

---

1. DNA and science would say that a zygote+ is human. Your objection is anecdotal.
2. A zygote + is very much alive. The brain dead person is technically alive. Personality is not essential for life.
3. That's a shocking statement
4. It (zygote +) is very human. Precisely human, and alive.

It's very interesting that you are getting very emotional here when trying to make a point that we shouldn't treat this subject emotionally.

Would you expand on point 3? Slave said that there was a high probability that this human was going to be cognisant in the future. You seem to have assumed the opposite.

---

fr0d0, I'll be dirt honest. I like you. I like you as a person.

I think a lot of your ideas are total shit, but you are a rarely cool religitard, I'll take care of your fucktard ideas tomoorow when I'm stuck in my cubicle and I don't have any other options than what do to with my time.

Oh fuck I'm really drunk.

I really hate to attack a fellow ABBA fan, but yea, what you said.

[Slave]

They should change it to "pro birth", because they sure as hell don't give one fuck about the baby or it's family after it is born.

Asinine comment. Why do you assume that all those who object to abortion from a logical standpoint don't care about what happens to the babies post birth? I care deeply about the lives of babies and children. I care that there are millions of homeless children in line for adoption because their parents either didn't care or were unfit to raise them in a loving home. I care about the welfare of those in need, and that includes people of all ages, from all walks of life. Regardless of what you might personally believe, it is possible to object to something like abortion, and be a humanist.

@Rahul: I can understand your point of view, and while I can sympathize with your sentiments regarding the issue, I can't have a debate/discussion where feelings and conjecture trump scientific rationale. Of course empathy and feeling are unequivocally important to have in these discussions and I am not saying otherwise. It's just that the only arguments I have seen against my position are a variation of "a fetus is not a person because no brain therefore abortion okay" and "it's a woman's right to choose", and neither of these stances are scientific. There's not much further we can go with this, if we are to argue outside of definitions. And technically speaking a zygote + (as fr0d0 uses) is a human being. Therefore I see this as a human rights issue and not an issue of when a fetus becomes a viable person (which is something I have already refuted anyway).

[orogenicman]

If I am ever in a vegetative state for whatever reason, just pull the friggin plug. Don't put my family through that awful anguish of dragging out the inevidible. I've been there, done that already with other family members and friends.