Attempt At A Mutually Respectful Abortion Discussion

[Aristotelian2]

First of all, how does mentioning God, bring the onus on me? It seems to me that the very concept of God proves his existence. Where does our concept of something infinitely greater than ourselves come from otherwise? But I shall overlook the manner in which you side-stepped a very direct question, and do you the courtesy of an answer. You have given the simple concept of a child playing on a playground. Are you saying that being able to play on a playground gives a child its value and identity? What about an elderly person who cannot play on a playground, because they haven’t the strength to do so? Or how about a child with a physical disability? Are either of these any less human because they cannot play on a playground?

 

[EmmaSowl]

The first one is a highly personal, individual attitude, subjective in nature. There can be no generic answer. The experience might be traumatic for one woman, and might a “ho-hum” for another. But to my best knowledge, no woman ever got pregnant just because she wanted to undergo an abortion. And while a “morning after pill” is just like taking an aspirin, going to a doctor for an intrusive curettage is very different.

Please correct me if I’m wrong in summing up your position: Your wish to have abortion be rare rests solely on the fact that it is an invasive surgical procedure. If all abortions could be accomplished by taking a pill, you would no longer care whether or not they are rare.

Please let me know if that’s an accurate statement of your position, and if it’s not, please elaborate on the points I’ve gotten wrong. I want to understand your actual position, not a false one which my aged brain cells have mushed together.

The second one makes me wonder, if you consider the distinction between “potential” and “actual” significant?

It depends on how each word is defined. Once we agree to definitions of each word, I’ll be able to see if there is/are any distinction(s) which I deem significant.

Even if you are not a thomist (I am NOT) this distinction is extremely pertinent.

I have no idea if I am a Thomist. Heard of him, haven’t studied him - which may be why I got a little lost in the rest of the paragraph. However, I’ll probably understand the rest better once we define and distinguish words.

Looking forward to learning whether or not I summarized your “rare” stance correctly and to hearing your suggestions for defining “potential” and “actual”.

 

[Ender]

I said: “not a PERSON!” I did not say: “not of human TISSUE”. And to be a person is much more involved than having a DNA, which is associated with human entities.

What is the biological distinction between person and human entity? Is there a biological definition of person?

The whole abortion debate should (and MUST) acknowledge these different stages of development. Otherwise we just keep on talking past each other.

You agree that human life begins at conception. Everything between that point and death it is in some stage of development with clear, biological differences. At no point is it not human yet abortionists claim the right to destroy it, so I’ll ask again: at what point in its development does it become a real human being as opposed to being a mere biologically human entity?

 

[Abrosz]

Please correct me if I’m wrong in summing up your position: Your wish to have abortion be rare rests solely on the fact that it is an invasive surgical procedure. If all abortions could be accomplished by taking a pill, you would no longer care whether or not they are rare.

Yes, it is correct. If a woman discovers that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry it to term, it is her own business. Or, let’s put it this way: it is between her and God, if she happens to be a believer.

It depends on how each word is defined. Once we agree to definitions of each word, I’ll be able to see if there is/are any distinction(s) which I deem significant.

Well, I gave several examples, which should be helpful. Of course, you might say that the zygote is the transitional form, and the blastocyst is the “final”, and then say that the blastocyst is transitional and the embryo is final… etc. In other words, you can look at a development process, and arbitrarily declare any point which you consider a provisional “end” for the process.

Example: the starting point for a physician is the entry into a medical school. Then the several years of training follows, but you can (arbitrarily) declare that each year represents a “stage”. Eventually the “basic” training is complete, and the student - at receiving the diploma - becomes a general practitioner. Of course if the aim is to become a specialist, then the general diploma is not the final point.

But when we talk about pregnancy, the natural “end-point” is the birth. That is when the fetus starts its biologically independent existence. Of course it still needs a lot of caring, but that caring can be provided by anyone, it does not depend on the bodily resources of the mother. That is when the proper denomination becomes a “baby” - colloquially speaking, of course. There are several legal consequences (registering the new birth, getting a birth certificate, maybe a Social Security number - if applicable), too, but legality can be modified at whim.

Naturally, I have some problems with late term abortions, but those never happen for frivolous reasons (to the best of my knowledge). It is inconceivable that a six month pregnant woman suddenly realizes her condition, and says: “Oops, I don’t really want to continue.”

So, to sum it up: I differentiate between the “pill-induced” or very early (chemical) abortions, and the late term surgical abortions - for the reasons stated above.

As before, I am here if there are still points need to be clarified.

 

[Abrosz]

What is the biological distinction between person and human entity ? Is there a biological definition of person?

It is a mixed “bag”. Partially biological - a working brain with a frontal lobe, and partially philosophical. Let’s put it this way: there may not be a purely biological definition of a person, but we still can say when some entity is NOT a person.

You agree that human life begins at conception. Everything between that point and death it is in some stage of development with clear, biological differences. At no point is it not human yet abortionists claim the right to destroy it, so I’ll ask again: at what point in its development does it become a real human being as opposed to being a mere biologically human entity?

At birth. Though, of course, your approach does not account for the existence of mutants. And there is another point. Maternal twins start their actual existence NOT at conception, rather when the zygote / blastocyst splits.

Now, I will go into some hypothetical scenario, which is technologically based. Every human cell contains the DNA - even a clipped fingernail. If the technology is sufficiently advanced, it is possible (theoretically) to implant that DNA into another cell, and “entice” that cell to grow into a new being. And if that happens, then every mail clipping becomes a “potential human”… which is absurd.

 

[Ender]

It is a mixed “bag”. Partially biological - a working brain with a frontal lobe, and partially philosophical. Let’s put it this way: there may not be a purely biological definition of a person, but we still can say when some entity is NOT a person.

Your original position was based on biology: “I present the argument based upon Biology 101.” Now you concede that “there may not be a purely biological definition of a person”, and that ones humanity may be a philosophical construct. This is precisely the problem. We have experience with situations where one can be defined as non-human (or less than human) by the State. Blacks, Chinese, Indians, Jews et al have first hand experience with this approach.

I would like to read your biological explanation of the distinction between person and non-person.

At birth.

The question was: “at what point in its development does it become a real human being…?” If such a point exists biologically it is assuredly not at birth. Birth is not a point of biological development; it is an external event.

You have claimed there exists a basic, biological distinction between a human entity that is fully human and one that is not, yet all you have provided are differences in functionality. This is not surprising in that such a biological distinction does not exist. That differentiation is entirely arbitrary.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Though, of course, your approach does not account for the existence of mutants.

I’m beginning to think you may not fully understand how scientists classify species via DNA. No human is a 100% match, but all humans share certain characteristic genes and properties of their DNA, which allows us to classify it as “human” or not. All people have mutations in their DNA. That doesn’t change one’s ability to identify that DNA as human because mutations are incredibly small changes.

 

[Abrosz]

Now you concede that “ there may not be a purely biological definition of a person ”, and that ones humanity may be a philosophical construct.

There is no contradiction here. I did not want to write a whole essay. Please read on.

I’m beginning to think you may not fully understand how scientists classify species via DNA. No human is a 100% match, but all humans share certain characteristic genes and properties of their DNA, which allows us to classify it as “human” or not.

And this “blueprint” is also “hazy”. We separate species based upon the ability to interbreed, which is also an arbitrary criterion.

…because mutations are incredibly small changes.

How would anyone know that? But many miniature mutations would (and do!) add up to some major differences. How many miniature changes (steps) are necessary to get to the top floor of a very tall building?

If we would ever discover an intelligent variant of dolphins (or any other non-human species) we shall have to accept them as persons, regardless of the genetic makeup. As good old “Forrest Gump” said (paraphrasing) “Person is as person does”.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

And this “blueprint” is also “hazy”. We separate species based upon the ability to interbreed, which is also an arbitrary criterion.

Ah, so science is arbitrary and you aren’t. Tell me again how you’re being scientific and reasonable.

we shall have to accept them as persons

Completely incorrect and random. Don’t see what this has to do with anything.

 

[Ender]

There is no contradiction here. I did not want to write a whole essay. Please read on.

First you said your position was basic biology, now you say the definition of a person may not in fact be purely biological. They can’t both be true. Pick one and stick to it.

Regarding DNA you claimed ‘…this “blueprint” is also “hazy”.’ Are you suggesting that science cannot even identify what is or is not human? If science cannot distinguish human from non-human how reasonable is it to claim it can easily (biology 101) distinguish that stage in development between fully human and not fully human?

 

[Abrosz]

Ah, so science is arbitrary and you aren’t.

Are you suggesting that science cannot even identify what is or is not human?

Biology is not an exact science. It is mostly descriptive, and the categorizations change.

But without a working brain there is no high level life. And without a working frontal lobe there is no personality. Time to move on.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Biology is not an exact science. It is mostly descriptive, and the categorizations change.

Then we aren’t even operating on the same basic assumption that science is concrete enough to be truth. You should have told us this before so we didn’t waste our time.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Yes, it is correct. If a woman discovers that she is pregnant and does not wish to carry it to term, it is her own business. Or, let’s put it this way: it is between her and God , if she happens to be a believer.

Glad I didn’t misunderstand. I guess in light of that position, I would ask why you take this stance:

Naturally, I have some problems with late term abortions

Why would you have a problem with them?

Also, I think you might have been mistakenly replying to someone else in the second half. I asked how we should define “potential” and “actual” in order to proceed with clarity, but neither word was in your answer.

How should we define those two words?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Ender]

But without a working brain there is no high level life. And without a working frontal lobe there is no personality. Time to move on.

The time to move on is when you have either supported your claim or acknowledged that you cannot. We’ve come a long way from “it’s biology 101” to “biology is not an exact science”. In fact your claim has no basis in science; it is an entirely social construct. Scientifically there is no phase in its development when a human entity is not a human being.

Naturally, I have some problems with late term abortions…

Earlier I asked: “at what point in its development does it become a real human being as opposed to being a mere biologically human entity?” Your reply was: “at birth”. If you believe that then why do you have a problem with late term abortions?

 

[Abrosz]

Why would you have a problem with them?

Pretty much for the same reason that I would object to torturing a dog, and have to problem with swatting a fly.

We “humans” are both sentient and sapient beings. A human in the earliest stages of development is neither sentient nor sapient, it is just a bunch of cells. Slowly, during the development process it gains sentience and later sapience. The more ability to sapience it gains, the closer it becomes to a “real” human being.

As for the “potential” and “actual”, the potential is in the stages of development, while actual is the “end product”. Remember the acorn vs. oak tree, and the egg vs. the chicken.

Scientifically there is no phase in its development when a human entity is not a human being.

Read my previous post to @EmmaSowl.

 

[Anscombe]

I think some clarification of terms would help here, specifically, differentiating between human and person. I think, Abrosz, it would benefit your clarity greatly in providing the distinction between the two, and clear up a lot of misunderstanding from earlier in this thread.

For many on the prolife side, they would argue a human organism is a person from the moment of conception. For many of the prochoice side, they would argue, as Abrosz has discusses, that a certain degree of sentience and sapience are required before an organism with human DNA inherits the title of personhood. I think ‘person’ is a more appropriate term than “‘real’ human being”, as the latter could lend itself to confusion.

Abrosz position on personhood is a common one in the philosophical literature for the prochoice side. Often, it is called the autonomous agency argument, and holds that, while a zygote may be unquestionably (as shown clearly by science) an individual and unique organism with human DNA, due to its lack of cognitive develop, it lacks enough sentience to be deemed a person. It does not have autonomous agency.

Incumbent for those who take up this line of argument is carefully distinguishing and defining then the criteria for what accords a human organism sufficient cognitive development, and thus sapience and sentience, to be deemed a person.

A number of dangers those who argue for the autonomous agency position should keep in mind in constructing their argument: there are many full grown human beings who lack certain amounts of sentience and sapience. For those with cognitive impairments, intellectual disabilities, or a pronounced inability to be autonomous, there is a danger that the criteria created for personhood could render many adult humans non-persons. Those who have suffered traumatic brain damage, those born with intellectual disability, and even young children are at risk for being left out of the definition of ‘persons’ when using autonomous agency (certain levels of sentience and sapience) as one’s differentiatin line between which human organisms are persons and which are non-persons.

I think of all the pro-choice arguments, the autonomous agency argument for personhood is the only one that has the slightest chance of providing any sort of coherent case. However, I have never encountered a pro-choice construal of personhood using autonomous agency that did not also result in relegating certain populations of adults or children as non-persons, who thus lose their right to life alongside the fetuses. This is a severe challenge for those backing the autonomous agency argument, unless they are content to bite this bullet.

 

[Abrosz]

A number of dangers those who argue for the autonomous agency position should keep in mind in constructing their argument: there are many full grown human beings who lack certain amounts of sentience and sapience. For those with cognitive impairments, intellectual disabilities, or a pronounced inability to be autonomous, there is a danger that the criteria created for personhood could render many adult humans non-persons. Those who have suffered traumatic brain damage, those born with intellectual disability, and even young children are at risk for being left out of the definition of ‘persons’ when using autonomous agency (certain levels of sentience and sapience) as one’s differentiatin line between which human organisms are persons and which are non-persons.

What is wrong with that? We can consider these individuals as seriously impaired, and treat them with compassion. I will repeat the paraphrased version of Forrest Gump: “person is as person does”.

 

[Anscombe]

What’s wrong with it is if you justify the killing of fetuses because they are not persons, if you hold that abortion is morally acceptable because it is not the killing of persons, then by that same argument it is equally permissible that these other humans, should they also be undesired or become inconvenient, may be killed off. Though you’re right, some people don’t have a problem with the above consequences, just most do.

 

[Abrosz]

What’s wrong with it is if you justify the killing of fetuses because they are not persons, if you hold that abortion is morally acceptable because it is not the killing of persons, then by that same argument it is equally permissible that these other humans, should they also be undesired or become inconvenient, may be killed off. Though you’re right, some people don’t have a problem with the above consequences, just most do.

Well, so do I. But that is not absolute (nothing is) but subject to the circumstances. And before you misunderstand me, we live in a reality with scarce resources, and thus we must choose who will live and who will die.

 

[Anscombe]

I don’t fully understand your meaning. Do you mean the right to life of humans considered non-persons is subject to circumstances, such as the relative amount of resources? Would you consider it wrong to say that this perspective creates a ranking of sorts between greater and lesser human beings?
I think this line of thinking (with greater and lesser human beings, scarcity of resources allowing for disposing of non-persons) also risks greatly corroding notions of inalienable human rights prevalent in democratic societies. Although again, some people are quite content to say that human rights are just a social construct created for convenience and that humans have no rights except what we decide to give them, so this might not be that objectionable a consequence to some.