Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[answer-is-42]

@ the OP

Good point. Consciousness is the ethical question I see well defended by Peter Stringer. If our victim has the ability to sense pain then we are morally obliged to consider that. I think it's a successful argument.

I think Heywood has defended the potential human being argument very well here. I totally agree.

I am also, as a Christian, pro choice. The parents are the only ones in the position to consider their actions fully, and make that choice. Without choice you cannot make a moral or ethical judgement.

I may not have followed the entirety of you argument, so if I am mis-understanding, please feel free to correct me, but it seems to say that the ability to sense pain is a requirement for Consciousness/life?
Not sure I follow on that - there is a condition where a person cannot expierience any pain - are they not human? If i put a spinal block in and block all sensation are you no longer human?
I may have misunderstood the point, but that seems to be the ludricious conclusion that that line of reasoning leads to. Please correct me if i missed something.
Sorry just found Heywood's posts- I pretty much agree with him/her. Not sure what sensing pain has to do with any of it.
My only caveat is that I do not believe that consioucness is required for personhood. An anesthestized person is still a person - there is no resumption of person hood or restoration of person - they are and remain a person. Stopping life sustaining measures on a brain dead person is adhering to THEIR wishes as expressed by themselves prior to the event that rendered them unable to do so or assuming that their MPA is acting on their behalf in good faith. In other words we are doing what they would have wanted, not what we want to do. This true in the legal system - if you shoot a person in a persistent vegitative state - you have committed murder - personhood still exists.