trying to understand when a human person can be said to be a fully formed human. — Gregory

There are probably too many abortion threads but I'll give it a go.

I think a better question is when human life becomes a person. Unless I'm mistaken human life begins at the moment of conception. However, there are objective criteria for when something qualifies for personhood, such as sentience and consciousness. For much of a pregnancy a fetus possesses none of the criteria for personhood, despite being human life, and, thus, many believe it is okay to kill a fetus. This raises some questions, however: if it is okay to kill a fetus because it is not a person, then shouldn't it be okay to kill a person in a coma? And what about the potential for a valuable future for the fetus? Do they not own that? And what about the fact that if the status of the humanity of the embryo/fetus/child reaches all the way back to conception, and there is at no point a defining moment at which the status of the humanity of the embryo/fetus/child changes, then isn't the embryo/fetus/child as human as it is as a child as when it is an embryo/fetus?

I agree abortion seems wrong, but so does killing a primate. Unless we define exactly what is human life and then what exactly is personhood, the safe position seems to be vegetarianism to me

By primate, I meant a gorilla ect. Those beings

You misunderstand - I think abortion is not only permissible, but an ethical obligation sometimes. I just didn't feel like going over every tired argument. And yes, it seems wrong to kill anything that has the potential to have a happy life. But if one buys into the idea that it is always wrong to deprive potential beings of potential good lives, one is obligated to populate the earth with happy cows or some such easily pleased creature. And contraception and celibacy would be immoral.

And yes, veganism or vegetarianism seem to be the most ethical positions to me too.

I've always thought of the abortion issue as abjectly moronic. We have, as we speak, a wide variety of highly effective contraceptives, from rubbers to IUDs to pills. Use them wisely and abortion is no longer something we have to worry about. If putting out a fire is going to be a problem, the easiest, most reasonable, thing to do is not start one. Right!?

But if one buys into the idea that it is always wrong to deprive potential beings of potential good lives, one is obligated to populate the earth with happy cows or some such easily pleased creature — Aleph Numbers

:up: Good one!

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm? — Aleph Numbers

No! Genuine appreciation of a point well made.

Thanks. You too mate. People should use contraception as much as they can; I don't think at this point that it is even ethical to bring a child into the world.

Unless I'm mistaken human life begins at the moment of conception. — Aleph Numbers

Read again with a bit more care - care to re-express the thought? If it starts at conception, what is it before conception?

If putting out a fire is going to be a problem, the easiest, most reasonable, thing to do is not start one. Right!? — TheMadFool

What does reason have to do with it? Reason can hope to mediate, but that is against how almost all of us are made - the appeal to reason being, then, not very reasonable.

What does reason have to do with it? Reason can hope to mediate, but that is against how almost all of us are made - the appeal to reason being, then, not very reasonable. — tim wood

In my humble opinion, our passions are well-known causes of much misery - the emotional stress of aborting a baby being just one. They need a chaperone to keep us out of trouble and reason, allegedly, is the right person for the job.

All forms of life do not have the necessary attributes to form the necessary substances. In the case of abortion, you are comparing a human fetus with that of all forms of life to where there exists no attributes in comparison to say they are similar in substance. There are no factual correspondents that can be demonstrated in any actuality. To otherwise is almost solipsistic in nature.

To follow the argument to it's logical conclusion that all living things have the same attributes, thus are identical to each other in substance, we must also agree that all that is biotic, or alive, are identical in nature. And we so we continue this to ad infinitum that there are no important differences between skin cells and infant humans while making performative contradictions that demonstrate as evidence to the contrary.

To this point, we can make an interesting discernment between capacity and potential. There is a notable difference between the capacity for X and the potential for X. Because the latter has all necessary attributes to make a coherent argument for the formulation of a particular substance. A capacity for X is about as akin to nothingness being contained within a box; while it is something it does not contain necessary attributes to be some thing. This is why we have cut-off points in abortion. The biggest error I see with anti-abortion arguments seem to be on the basis of capacity fixation, such as a capsule that holds content, while ignoring the contents within the capsule are inconsistent with what is necessary to trigger the potential of a thing; and it's absence of necessary attributes to create potential for the formulation of particular substance.

The capacity to be alive is not merely enough to argue a potential for something to live, and so comparing simply something that is alive to something that has necessary attributes containing potential to be of a particular substance is irrational. Not only in the argument inherently reductionist to more complex forms of organisms, but actively blinding to their complex problems and dilemmas.

Do you think it's right to kill deer? Neanderthals? Silver-back gorillas? Aliens? Looking forward to your feedback — Gregory

I don't think this is framed correctly. It's not really a matter of whether or not it's right/wrong to kill a deer, but instead under what conditions that it occurs.

I think it is our duty to not cause or increase the suffering of an animal, and this includes that of humans. The most ethical solution is reducing the deer population, causing as little harm as possible if they become problematic.

chaperone..., reason, allegedly, is... right... for the job. — TheMadFool

Think that through a bit. Either we're reasonable or we're not. If reasonable, it hasn't been doing much of a job. If not reasonable, then reason hasn't been doing much of a job. Back to square one on the argument. There seems to have some good effect on newer generations from sex ed. in schools, and heightened awareness of health, well-being, and risk, which is to way education and fear - but these not quite the same things as reason. Education standing in for reason, fear against passion.

Sex can be neither banished nor controlled, which suggests to my mind that what people of every age need is excellent age-appropriate advice. Some young get a measure of that in school - but when ever did the rest of us?

Think that through a bit. Either we're reasonable or we're not. If reasonable, it hasn't been doing much of a job. If not reasonable, then reason hasn't been doing much of a job. Back to square one on the argument. There seems to have some good effect on newer generations from sex ed. in schools, and heightened awareness of health, well-being, and risk, which is to way education and fear - but these not quite the same things as reason. Education standing in for reason, fear against passion.

Sex can be neither banished nor controlled, which suggests to my mind that what people of every age need is excellent age-appropriate advice. Some young get a measure of that in school - but when ever did the rest of us? — tim wood

I have no idea what you're talking about. Stop thinking rationally for a day and let your passions rule; it won't be long before you find yourself in deep water. Am I wrong?

That cyst on your foot was alive; yet you had it removed.

How is a cyst in a womb different?

I think it's more likely a zygote is a person than a cyst. The cyst has my DNA. But point taken. I don't know when you can take life. I will continue to kill pimples, but I only kill bugs when it comes to fill creatures. Deer hunting sounds cruel to me.

I feel like your post was unnecessarily complex. If wombs were transparent, would you still feel the same way?

I think it's more likely a zygote is a person than a cyst. — Gregory

I had a blastocyst in mind; which is a cyst. So at best you would have to insist that a cyst is also a person. That's an awfully long stretch.

Now the women involved - remember her? Odd, how she gets left out of anti-abortion rhetoric - she is most certainly a person.

The woman who has the Blastocyst is the one who should decide what to do with it. There is no question that she is alive and able to make the decision.

All else is self-serving crap.

Being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. A cyst, of none.

Further, a blastocyst can only achieve personhood by inflicting its demands on a woman.

So for example, opposing the morning after pill is immoral because it denies the dignity of the woman involved. The cyst has no moral standing. Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It is in recognition of this dignity that a person had moral standing. A cluster of cells, not having any of the characteristics of human dignity, has no moral standing.

As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity. The woman involved in a pregnancy is fully entitled to be treated with dignity.

Pregnancies that threaten the dignity of the pregnant woman may be terminated up until such time as the dignity of the developing human becomes significant. That is, when the developing human shows significant sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

Thereafter pregnancies may be terminated if on balance the continuation of the pregnancy will result in a reduction human dignity. Generally, this will be around the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy.

When does a person become a person?

I am not sure when this happens. But women should take responsibility for their acts. "You don't bury someone who might be alive"

I am rather Gnostic when it comes to sex. I think generally it's a selfish act. Abortion is not just about babies. It's about people refusing to reach for the spirit and then denying someone continuance of life because of that choice. I am a materialist but believe in spiritual experiences

Good to see some thinking going on.

When does a person become a person? — Gregory

A woman is a person. A blastocyst is mere tissue. Somewhere between these two...

Do you think there has to be a particular point at which personhood occurs? The point at which the soul enters the body, perhaps? Superstition. What ever point you introduce will be somewhat arbitrary. Again, being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, and appetite and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. A cyst, of none.

You don't bury someone who might be alive — Gregory

My bolding; a blastocyst is not a someone.

...women should take responsibility for their acts — Gregory

Indeed, and sometimes this will involve deciding to have the cyst removed. (There's something misogynistic in and ...) What would be immoral would be to enforce carrying to term, to the detriment of mother and eventual child.

See Martha Nussbaum on Capabilities and Human Rights: The Basic Capabilities for a view I think well worth considering.

For a few seconds we can only be completely selfish, perhaps the most selfish possible. But that only means the rest of the time is an opportunity to be grateful, and kind. But why isn't the right to liberty as fundamental to a pregnant woman as the right to life is to all others? If the right to life is inalienable then execution is a violation of the founding authority of the state. A Jesuit religion instructor once explained the church's view about prophylactics, claiming that it interrupts the natural process. This he promoted as a conclusive argument because the reason the church opposes early stage abortion is that only the natural process of development distinguishes the zygote from the embryo and foetus, and that the person is already fixed into development upon conception. Well, that being as may be, if a prophylactic is as much an interruption of the natural process, and therefore not permissible, what about other natural processes, like an irresistible sexual urge? Shouldn't we engage in sex wherever and whenever nature calls? Remember, this is church doctrine! But there really is no justification for requiring a woman to sacrifice liberty for the unborn any more than the state can require someone to run into a burning building or dive into the sea to rescue another. The same instructor informed the class that in the case of a pregnant woman with a pregnancy that can only come to term at the cost of her life, or of the foetus, then she must sacrifice her life to give birth. You see, the mother has lived and been baptized, and so may go to heaven, but the unborn is unbaptized.The issue isn't the person-hood of the foetus, but the motherhood of the woman, and the collection of souls to send hereafter in good shape for whatever mystical fate their god is imagined to have in store. It's sort of a numbers game, the more souls shipped into paradise the better, so long as the church can get at them first. And life doesn't really mean anything but the ability of the church to arrange its style of passage from it.

Seriously? I'm misogynistic? I literally said that I believe abortion should be permissible.

But women should take responsibility for their acts. — Gregory

I woke up this morning and apparently it's the dark ages again. What happened?

How about actually letting women be responsible for their acts, rather than dictating to them what to do with their bodies.

Who's talking about responsibility? I thought the issue was access or prohibition. Under what circumstances are males denied liberty or required to sacrifice it for the sake of an other's life? It's not about morality or responsibility, it's a matter of legal requirement or proscription. Why should anyone have to look to government, not just for protection of liberty, but for permission to exercise it????

Men are required to raise children who otherwise would be aborted too. On the other hand women can abort a man's child without his consent. So the situation actually seems like sexism against men and women hating that they are women

Also, a zygote even has its own DNA. I don't see how someone can in conscience take the chance and kill that. I don't even see how someone can support abortion unless they are willing to perform one themselves