Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[Heywood]

A person under general anesthesia isn't conscious either. Would it be okay for a scorned woman to kill her cheating husband while he is under general anesthesia? Of course not. Given time that person under general anesthesia will become conscious and live a life. A person under general anesthesia has a future expectation of person-hood and that is what we give moral protection. A brain dead person has no future expectation of person-hood which is why many don't find it immoral to simply pull the plug. A fetus on the other hand does have a future expectation of person-hood which is why it is wrong to kill it.

A person under anesthesia has a history of being, ya know, a person... with a personality... emotions, thoughts, memories, etc. etc.

A fetus does not.

Seriously, Christians come up with the most asinine comparisons to make their points. One even told me this week that abortion is worse than slavery.

Smh.

A brain dead person has a history of being too.....yet the reason you pull the plug has nothing to do with that history of person-hood but rather the lack of expectation of future person-hood....or future being. The fact that we pull the plug on brain dead people is evidence that a history of person-hood....a history of being....isn't what confers moral protection.

The OP is making the claim that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they are willing to pull the plug on an unconscious brain dead person but find it morally reprehensible to abort an unconscious fetus. I am showing that it isn't inconsistent....and in fact the opposite is true. When you take the position that future expectation of person-hood is what is deserving of moral protection everything makes sense. It is okay to pull the plug on a brain dead person because there is no expectation of future person-hood. It is wrong to kill an person under general anesthesia because there is a future expectation of person-hood.

The OP's fixation with consciousness actually causes inconsistencies. If it is okay to kill a fetus because it is unconscious.....why then is it wrong to kill unconscious sleeping human being?

[vorlon13]

No less an intellect than Pat Robertson noted Alzheimer's is akin to a 'living death' and he feels the section of the 'conventional' marriage vows regarding the 'till death us do part' is operable prior to physical death of the body.

Not sure it is much of an intellectual leap from there to euthanasia, but when it comes to Rev. Robertson, who the fuck knows what is going on in that amazing mind of his.


(and not to malign AF, but Pat Robertson has done more to advance atheism than almost anyone else I can think of. He needs a tribute thread here, if there isn't one already)

[Anomalocaris]

Well, I think the title of this post doesn't really explain what this post really is about.

Last night there was a HUGE debate about abortion between 2 atheists, a scientist who has no religious or anti religious views, and about 15 Christians. Go figure, right?

This debate was about abortion, obviously. The Christians views were that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg then it creates a life. I can understand that. BUT they did not want to take consciousness in to consideration. Consciousness was like a brand new curse word to them or something. They also used the term "life" and used that as a claim against abortion. So, I went on to explain my views.

My entire view point, in a whole on abortion, is that I am pro-choice. With stipulations but if you want to know, I have no problem telling you. Anyways, being pro-choice meant I had to have some sources and facts to back up what I was saying. Maybe this isn't a fact, I suppose it could be an opinion, but isn't consciousness, life? Or life = consciousness?

Think about it. When someone gets into a bad car wreck or dies then is brought back to life...say they don't "make" it. They're entirely brain dead. If there is no consciousness, their brain is dead then their body is not capable of functioning without the assistance of robots/machines. Correct? So, the majority of people "pull the plug" to end the bodies suffering and pain. So, why is this any different from abortion?

A fetus does not gain consciousness until 23 - 26 weeks of gestation. So, if the fetus does not have a conscious...does this mean it cannot detect its surroundings? Does this not mean that if it were born at that current moment, that it would die?

Anyways, just some thoughts. I would like to see what others feel on this.

Definitions:

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability

con·scious·ness [kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5.
concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.


life [lahyf] Show IPA
noun, plural lives [lahyvz] Show IPA .
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.
a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.
the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

A fetus at 26 weeks may have sensation of its surroundings. But I don' think it has been demonstrated to possess any other elements of consciousness.

In the end, whether it is right to terminate the possibility of existence or not is really an entirely practical issue. It has nothing fundamentally to do with whether the potential existence is already a life to not, whether it has consciousness or not. It has to do with whether whether it furthers the goal of the society, and whether or not any practice deriving from serving this is practically implementable, and practically adjudicatable, and made acceptable to the populus, or not.

[Esquilax]

A brain dead person has a history of being too.....yet the reason you pull the plug has nothing to do with that history of person-hood but rather the lack of expectation of future person-hood....or future being. The fact that we pull the plug on brain dead people is evidence that a history of person-hood....a history of being....isn't what confers moral protection.

The OP is making the claim that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they are willing to pull the plug on an unconscious brain dead person but find it morally reprehensible to abort an unconscious fetus. I am showing that it isn't inconsistent....and in fact the opposite is true. When you take the position that future expectation of person-hood is what is deserving of moral protection everything makes sense. It is okay to pull the plug on a brain dead person because there is no expectation of future person-hood. It is wrong to kill an person under general anesthesia because there is a future expectation of person-hood.

Uh, except that you're wrong: future personhood has nothing to do with it. If it did, the same moral protection would be extended to sperm, and any line you attempted to draw to make this not so would be entirely arbitrary.

In fact, the reason one pulls the plug on a brain dead person is because their brain is dead. We actually have a pretty good handle on the basics of neurology, and with a brain dead person we're able to furnish anyone who cares to listen with plenty of real, scientifically derived evidence that the brain is no longer functioning to such a degree that medicine cannot repair it. In the same way, we can produce the same level of evidence toward the fact that a zygote also doesn't have a functioning brain, and hence the same moral considerations can be applied to this.

Future personhood is patently ridiculous, as a method of deriving moral standards for life, as not only are the lines one would draw entirely arbitrary- the same argument could be used to preserve all sperm and eggs and, in fact, to broach the idea that women should remain pregnant all of the time. After all, they have a moral obligation to future persons that don't yet exist, but will if they're perpetually pregnant!- but one could easily make arguments against it. For one, personhood isn't assured even in pregnancies carried to term; complications and miscarriages do happen. It could easily be argued that the ultimate fate of any given fetus is just as probably death than life, and you would have no argument against that that doesn't rely on special pleading. Additionally, one could envision a scenario in which a woman looking for an abortion today would, upon being denied this due to "future personhood," be unable to further her career such that she has the resources available to have the multiple children she wants to have, because of the one child she was forced to have early on. In that circumstance- and don't even give me an excuse about how rare that is, because you don't know, and in fact hadn't even considered that in your argument- you've actually prevented children from being born that would have been, had the abortion taken place.

I could go on, but my point is clear: "future personhood," is an inapplicable argument.

The OP's fixation with consciousness actually causes inconsistencies. If it is okay to kill a fetus because it is unconscious.....why then is it wrong to kill unconscious sleeping human being?

It's only inconsistent if you refuse to acknowledge that a sleeping person's subconscious mind is still active. It's inconsistent, if you're somehow unable to comprehend the difference between "dormant mind," and "literal absence of even the physical structures which cause the mind." If you're willing to throw out all of modern medical science and even simple logic then yes, I guess it would be inconsistent.

[Losty]

In my opinion whether or not a fetus is conscious has no bearing on whether or not abortion is morally acceptable.

[Dystopia]

In my opinion whether or not a fetus is conscious has no bearing on whether or not abortion is morally acceptable.

Of course, that's up to every person to decide what's personhood and what's not

[Losty]

In my opinion whether or not a fetus is conscious has no bearing on whether or not abortion is morally acceptable.

Of course, that's up to every person to decide what's personhood and what's not

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

[Esquilax]

Of course, that's up to every person to decide what's personhood and what's not

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

Exactly right: if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to attach itself like a remora to another person to sustain their life, making personhood arguments moot from the get go.

[Dystopia]

Well, what I mean is that whether or not a fetus is a person is not the issue here.

Exactly right: if a fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to attach itself like a remora to another person to sustain their life, making personhood arguments moot from the get go.

Actually in my country if a fetus was a person legally they would have the right, since parents have the duty to provide for their children and not endanger their lives. But this is if the law considered a fetus a human person.

[Losty]

A fetus is never a child. Person or not, it isn't a child.