Why I Am Pro-Life

[CleanShavenJesus]

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"?

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.

[Slave]

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?

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.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

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.

[Rahul]

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.

[Slave]

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'?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[Slave]

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.

That's the flaw in your thinking and this is where the sentience rationale is not logically consistent.

Brain development begins as early as 6-7 weeks. Would you then say that consciousness is what you're after, and that the absence of consciousness is a determiner of personhood?

It's not like the human brain starts growing and then 'poof', one day that fetus becomes a human being. The brain grows slowly. It is a gradual process. There is no magic cut off point to when a fetus has a functioning brain or not, and then you're getting into shaky ethics with the onus on you to prove at which precise point we should not abort babies due to lack of brain activity.

If 24 weeks is a decent cut off period for you, would it have been okay to kill this baby?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/6242735.stm

What about people who have been on life support and experienced a recovery of brain activity? What about people in a coma, or those who pass out from drinking too much? Technically, their higher brain function ends at such a point. Is it okay to kill them then, too?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23768436/ns/da...-accident/

I'll add this too, that previously women and blacks have been classed as less-human and given no human rights due to your brain argumentation, or more specifically that their brain function was not equal to their own and therefore they didn't deserve rights. What do you think about this?

"[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women--whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Garlton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that-the average mental power in man must be above that of women." (D. Appleton & Co.,1896, p.564)

Also, I want to add this. If we classify death as being brain dead, and therefore life begins when our brains begin to function, consider the following:

According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act written into the health and safety codes of each state, the deciding factor is not your current state of brain function, but your inherent state of brain function. For death to occur, there must be an "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Hence, the reversibly comatose are never classified as "non-persons" under our existing legal system despite their current lack of brain function.

Again, from the moment of conception the unborn entity has the inherent capacity to have a functioning brain. What it lacks is the current capacity. Hence, there is no ethical difference between it and the reversibly comatose, the momentarily unconscious, etc., who enjoy the protection of law despite their current inability to function as persons.

[littleendian]

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?

[Brian37]

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.

[Slave]

It's just impossible for me now to revert back to that kind of attitude, that of "woman's body, her right". I don't disagree that sometimes, abortion may be necessary. If the life of the mother is directly compromised by her pregnancy, or in a case such as this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...other.html, sometimes it is not so black and white. Life is not that simple, and neither is pregnancy.

However, you don't need to be pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-anything to see that there is an inherit problem with the way we so easily sign away death rights to growing human life before a particular cut-off point when it is not a clear cut decision to make. We're terminating millions of unborn babies' lives every year since Roe v Wade. And yet, Roe v Wade doesn't even address the issue of personhood, and openly admits that if personhood is found to be established in regards to the life of a fetus, then the decision can be overturned in line with the 14th amendment:

"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

This is America, of course, but consider the following for a moment, too:

The Act made abortion legal in the UK up to 28 weeks gestation. In 1990, the law was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so that abortion was no longer legal after 24 weeks except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the woman, there was evidence of extreme fetal abnormality, or there was a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman.
In May 2008, there was a parliamentary debate over whether the limit should be reduced from 24 to either 22 or 20 weeks but no changes were made.[4]
The Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, where abortion is illegal unless the doctor acts "only to save the life of the mother" or if continuing the pregnancy would result in the pregnant woman becoming a "physical or mental wreck."

For 23 years since the original act was passed, abortions were occurring past the point at which developing science of embryology put stress on the then current laws and to shorten the window of legality. Is this not then a clear indication that abortion isn't just about the rights of the mother, but that there is a clear and definitive ethical issue that arises when we are willingly terminating human life based on a premise not even grounded in science? What exactly constitutes a person? When do we really become a person; only when we are at a certain level of consciousness? What about the mentally disabled? The comatose?

If we decide just exactly how human we are based upon our utility, then we must also admit that perhaps the actions of the Nazis in war stricken Germany were justified. After all, they were proponents of eugenics. We already do the same when we willingly abort human fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome.

History has a funny way of revealing itself only in hindsight. Perhaps in 20, 40, 100 years time, the youth of a future generation will look back on our decisions regarding the act of abortion as the next great civil rights issue since the African American civil rights movement.

I guess the furthest I would go in green lighting abortion would be up to 6 weeks gestation. But beyond that, you're really struggling to form a compelling case that doesn't somehow contradict the way we protect other humans under law in the same regard.