Wow, this is quickly reaching Wall-of-Text levels, at which debate will be nearly impossible. Anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisonlyi
A cell is not sentient.
A cluster of cells is not sentient.
A cluster of nerve cells is not sentient.
A somewhat organised collection of nerve cells is still nowhere near complex enogh to make the assertion.
...
If you don't accept that, you're making extreme suggestions as to how we should treat an enormous swathe of animals in the extreme lower orders and perhaps even parasites and diseases...
If you claim that there's something special about the DNA of our species, then you're making privilege assertions for molecules... Which is... interesting. (implications for the sentience of organs in transplants, etc.)
...
Basically, it seems to me, you're trying to materially rationalise the imparting of a soul upon conception. Be honest about that if you are, but there's no point in trying to look at cell development at 2 weeks post-fertilization or assertions about sentience in that endeavour.
I prefer my arguments to remain wholly and entirely in the known Universe.
...
Outside survivability is an issue, clearly, because if 100% of foetuses at 21 weeks could survive with reasonable outcomes, then there would be no justifiable position to abort rather than remove from the womb and gestate outside the womb. I should hope you'd be in favour of delivery rather than termination, right?
|
The problem is that there are inherent disagreements in society regarding the value of humans above other animals. You're pretty much making the assertion that humans are not more special than any other life form except for intelligence. Maybe this is our basic disconnect. It doesn't matter how mentally disabled a child is, they still rank above the sign language speaking gorillas. It's not about just our DNA, it's about humanity itself. We don't grant the same rights to corpses, or amputated limbs, or organs being transplanted.
Fundamentally, yes, I am discussing the "imparting of a soul", but on grounds that are not religious, and you don't even need to believe in a soul to agree with the argument. If you are being so impartial as to rank someone based on the number of synapses firing per second, fine, but that doesn't reflect our society at all. There are intrinsic elements and rights that we grant to human beings, ignoring history or race or disability.
My rationalization for the point I chose is that I see it as the beginning of a distinct individual, dependent, but separate. No longer a possible twin, and having the beginnings of a brain, even if no more complicated than circuit diagrams I could draw in a few hours. That might not be the right spot to choose, but that's my opinion.
Where do you put that point? Yes, I would always be for attempted delivery vs. termination, though with the same consideration taken as with turning off life support on people who will never wake up, etc.
---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozrael
Two: Cost-benefit analysis, taking #1 into effect. We could not have sex, and not risk an abortion. Or, we could have sex with the above protections, and risk an abortion. Apply a moral 'cost' to having an abortion. It would be quite high for me and my gf. Now, multiply it by .003 (chance of it occurring). Does that outweigh the benefits of several years of sex?
Three: It's a fetus, and while I am killing a potential life (where the murder aspect of it comes for me)...it's not actually a life yet. It won't understand what I'm doing to it. That makes it more impersonal, and more of a decision I'm able to live with. Could I have sex if I had a .003 chance of having to pull out a gun and shoot a living child (and not be punished for it?). I don't think so. So I guess all three of these rationalizations are needed for me to be ok with it  |
I can appreciate the logic of your process. The argument of personhood in your post after this one is interesting, and I don't entirely disagree with it.
What I want to throw in though, is that it's not an either/or dilemma.
No sex > abortion * 0.003 ; ok, sure, but I would put:
Cost of abortion > Cost of a few months pregnancy then giving the baby up for adoption
Why isn't that an option? It is a big deal, but basically you're trading what? Nine months of her life (less probably, a few of the months of pregnancy won't be that different from normal for most people) and a few months of your life, vs 78 years (average life expectancy in the US) for the baby. Yes, there's emotional toll on top of that, but I think you know which side I end up on.
Also, for the other posters, I never said anything about the decision to abort being flippant. I'm sure in most cases it's the hardest decision that woman has made, often with long lasting repercussions, even if I disagree about the right to make the decision.
Anyway, I appreciate the debate.
---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------
Jozrael: Was just thinking about it and thought it was funny; if you were an insurance company with the new legislation, you would be willing to pay a $32.25 monthly subscription to have sex with your girlfriend ($129k * 0.003 / 12)