Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[Oscarthecat]

It is possible to determine the rationality of others by examining the front of their brain, where logical thought stems from.

I assume you are specifically talking about the prefrontal cortext, which is the seat of complex cognitive behaviors, moral decision making, social behavior, future orientation, and aspects of one’s personality. You may also be talking about the frontal lobe in general, which includes the prefrontal cortex and manages conscious thought and voluntary behaviors.

You didn’t say what you would be examining this area of the brain for, or how you’d be doing it, so I’ll fill in a few blanks for you. Some psychological tests are believed to test particular aspects of the frontal lobe, such as those described above. That wouldn’t apply here because such tests rely on a responsive subject-you can’t really interview a fetus or a person in a coma. Another way to examine the prefrontal cortex is to do it with an electroencephalogram (EEG). These are effective in determining the level and type of activity in various parts of the brain by measuing their associated wave type and pattern. EEGs can measure everything from complex brain function to basic things like pain sensation.

An EEG on an infant can demonstrate that an infant’s prefrontal cortex is indeed functional and active. The level and type of activity is, of course, different than an adults, but then again, so would a teenager and an adult.

Similarly, EEGs can be performed on unborn babies too. Interestingly enough, they show brain activity at about 8 weeks- but it is unclear as to whether the 8 week mark is a measure of first activity, or a limitation of our technology to measure activity earlier. EEGs of the unborn have demonstrated that they can feel emotions and physical sensations, including pain. They have also shown that newborns respond to external sensory stimulation such as sound- and that they respond more to their mother’s voice than to other sounds.

EEGs of newborns and unborn full term children are both able to demonstrate whether brain activity is developing normally.
But hold that thought through the next quote…

No, no, not at all. A human being, in the normal state, is a rational being. If, temporarily, they go through a period where they cannot express their rationality, there is still no reason to initiate aggressive action against them unless they violate your rights.

Quick correction- what I actually said was that people may go through a period where they “lose the capacity for rational thought,” not simply that they “cannot express their rationality.”
I’m assuming you meant what I said, but just reworded it inaccurately.

Anyway, here you agree that a human person who is temporarily lacking their capacity for rational thought retains their human rights because of the fact that their condition is temporary. I guess you are trying to say that these people don’t lose their status as human persons because they have the potential, but not the capacity, for rational thought.

So here’s my point- In the first quote, you said that examination of the “front part of the brain” can reveal rationality. In the second quote, you clarify that rationality does not need to exist as a present condition, but only as a potential future condition, in for a human to qualify for human rights.

But, as I explained earlier, examination of an unborn child’s EEG can demonstrate the potential for rationality.

Therefore, after all that, why is it that you recognize the rights of an adult who lacks the capacity for rationality due to low or no function in the prefrontal cortex, but who has the potential to regain that function, yet you do not recognize the rights of an unborn child despite scientific evidence that their frontal cortex also has the potential for rationality?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oscarthecat:

When you say “non-rational being” are you also referring to adults who have temporarily lost their capacity for rational thought? Because earlier you said that those people retained their human rights.

Is murdering a non-rational human who retains the potential for rationality a bad thing?

Oscarthecat:

I assume you are specifically talking about the prefrontal cortext, which is the seat of complex cognitive behaviors, moral decision making, social behavior, future orientation, and aspects of one’s personality. You may also be talking about the frontal lobe in general, which includes the prefrontal cortex and manages conscious thought and voluntary behaviors.

You didn’t say what you would be examining this area of the brain for, or how you’d be doing it, so I’ll fill in a few blanks for you. Some psychological tests are believed to test particular aspects of the frontal lobe, such as those described above. That wouldn’t apply here because such tests rely on a responsive subject-you can’t really interview a fetus or a person in a coma. Another way to examine the prefrontal cortex is to do it with an electroencephalogram (EEG). These are effective in determining the level and type of activity in various parts of the brain by measuing their associated wave type and pattern. EEGs can measure everything from complex brain function to basic things like pain sensation.

An EEG on an infant can demonstrate that an infant’s prefrontal cortex is indeed functional and active. The level and type of activity is, of course, different than an adults, but then again, so would a teenager and an adult.

Similarly, EEGs can be performed on unborn babies too. Interestingly enough, they show brain activity at about 8 weeks- but it is unclear as to whether the 8 week mark is a measure of first activity, or a limitation of our technology to measure activity earlier. EEGs of the unborn have demonstrated that they can feel emotions and physical sensations, including pain. They have also shown that newborns respond to external sensory stimulation such as sound- and that they respond more to their mother’s voice than to other sounds.

EEGs of newborns and unborn full term children are both able to demonstrate whether brain activity is developing normally.
But hold that thought through the next quote…

Quick correction- what I actually said was that people may go through a period where they “lose the capacity for rational thought,” not simply that they “cannot express their rationality.”
I’m assuming you meant what I said, but just reworded it inaccurately.

Anyway, here you agree that a human person who is temporarily lacking their capacity for rational thought retains their human rights because of the fact that their condition is temporary. I guess you are trying to say that these people don’t lose their status as human persons because they have the potential, but not the capacity, for rational thought.

So here’s my point- In the first quote, you said that examination of the “front part of the brain” can reveal rationality. In the second quote, you clarify that rationality does not need to exist as a present condition, but only as a potential future condition, in for a human to qualify for human rights.

But, as I explained earlier, examination of an unborn child’s EEG can demonstrate the potential for rationality.

Therefore, after all that, why is it that you recognize the rights of an adult who lacks the capacity for rationality due to low or no function in the prefrontal cortex, but who has the potential to regain that function, yet you do not recognize the rights of an unborn child despite scientific evidence that their frontal cortex also has the potential for rationality?

Actually, you make a fair argument. If a being will become rational, and thus deserves protection, why would this not apply in all situations? If it applies to a sleeping person, or a comatose patient who has a chance of regaining consciousness, then it should apply to a fetus, as the two differ in degree, but not in kind.

So - fair enough. The rationality of the fetus is not the main question at hand here (although it may be hard for the average person to look at a small blob of cells and accord it rights - good thing we’re using objective, consistent logic rather than what we simply feel!).

Now, here’s what I would think to be the main point. Does the fetus have a right to be in the mother’s womb, or does the mother own her own womb?

I would assert that the mother owns her own womb, as she does every part of her body. Essentially, rights begin at the individual, and proceed outwards. I have every right to my body. You have every right to yours. A stranger does not have the right to eat your leg to survive. A stranger does not have the right to remain inside my body without my permission.

Oscarthecat:

For example, as a man, I have rights to my own body, right? Tell me how I could defend myself in court for 1st degree murder by arguing that my rights to my own body supercede another’s right to life.

You could not really justify that in court, as you do not have the right to violate another’s rights.

 

[strngrnrth]

Lifeboat ethics apply.
I spend most of my life making a beautiful, graceful lifeboat that is just right for me, with elegant hooks on which to hang tiny water stills and grain buoys, fill the buoys and stock it with a watertight first-aid kit and a few basic tools, strap waist packs to myself filled with all my jewelry and money in the world, family photos and other things I wouldn’t want to lose, and go on a cruise.
The ship sinks. Rather than use one of their boats, I use my beautiful lifeboat, of course.
A newborn infant somehow winds up on my boat, weighing it down, needing my food and water, taking up space I can’t easily spare. The boat is mine, part of who I am. The child is damaging it.
The child has nowhere else to go. I cannot tell this child not to get on my boat. I didn’t pay attention and now she is there and we are at sea alone. I have no means of signaling for help and won’t for seven months at least.
The only way to regain my lifeboat and get the baby off it is to kill the baby. I can throw the baby overboard, drowning her in salt water, which will burn and suffocate her. I can kill her in another way first and then get rid of the body. But if she goes she dies and if she stays I give something up.
I maintain that there is no circumstance in which I have the right to throw the baby overboard. None at all.
Even if she arrived as a result of a crime in which I was the victim, I would have no business killing her. If pirates surrounded my boat, beat me, took my packs of jewelry and other precious things, stole most of the food and water and accidentally left a kidnapped infant on the boat as they sped off, I would have no right to drown her. She didn’t do anything.
Even if I had very little to eat, I would have no right to starve her. She would need me and I would be her only hope, and it would not be her fault she was there.

 

[Ghoti]

Why are you people even talking to Shredderbeam?

The world’s problems do not go away by being ignored.

You’re one of the world’s problems, now?

 

[Ghoti]

What about cases of conjoined twins? Who owns what?

 

[Shredderbeam]

strngrnrth:

Lifeboat ethics apply.
I spend most of my life making a beautiful, graceful lifeboat that is just right for me, with elegant hooks on which to hang tiny water stills and grain buoys, fill the buoys and stock it with a watertight first-aid kit and a few basic tools, strap waist packs to myself filled with all my jewelry and money in the world, family photos and other things I wouldn’t want to lose, and go on a cruise.
The ship sinks. Rather than use one of their boats, I use my beautiful lifeboat, of course.
A newborn infant somehow winds up on my boat, weighing it down, needing my food and water, taking up space I can’t easily spare. The boat is mine, part of who I am. The child is damaging it.
The child has nowhere else to go. I cannot tell this child not to get on my boat. I didn’t pay attention and now she is there and we are at sea alone. I have no means of signaling for help and won’t for seven months at least.
The only way to regain my lifeboat and get the baby off it is to kill the baby. I can throw the baby overboard, drowning her in salt water, which will burn and suffocate her. I can kill her in another way first and then get rid of the body. But if she goes she dies and if she stays I give something up.
I maintain that there is no circumstance in which I have the right to throw the baby overboard. None at all.
Even if she arrived as a result of a crime in which I was the victim, I would have no business killing her. If pirates surrounded my boat, beat me, took my packs of jewelry and other precious things, stole most of the food and water and accidentally left a kidnapped infant on the boat as they sped off, I would have no right to drown her. She didn’t do anything.
Even if I had very little to eat, I would have no right to starve her. She would need me and I would be her only hope, and it would not be her fault she was there.

If you were coldhearted enough, you’d have a right to kill her (although this is the ugly extreme of self-ownership logic). It’s your lifeboat, after all.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Ghoti:

You’re one of the world’s problems, now?

Haha, it was just an odd spot of humor. My point was that ignoring your problems will not make them disappear.

Ghoti:

What about cases of conjoined twins? Who owns what?

Believe it or not, I actually had a lengthy discussion about situations like this on another forum. I reached the tentative conclusion that two perfectly joined twins who shared everything below the neck would have “dual ownership” of the body - that is to say, they would each have 50% ownership of it - similar to a husband and wife owning a home together.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Actually, you make a fair argument. If a being will become rational, and thus deserves protection, why would this not apply in all situations? If it applies to a sleeping person, or a comatose patient who has a chance of regaining consciousness, then it should apply to a fetus, as the two differ in degree, but not in kind.

So - fair enough. The rationality of the fetus is not the main question at hand here (although it may be hard for the average person to look at a small blob of cells and accord it rights - good thing we’re using objective, consistent logic rather than what we simply feel!).

Now, here’s what I would think to be the main point. Does the fetus have a right to be in the mother’s womb, or does the mother own her own womb?

So, when did fetal property rights enter into the debate? I thought the main point was rationality? Well, OK, I can play that game too

I would assert that the mother owns her own womb, as she does every part of her body. Essentially, rights begin at the individual, and proceed outwards. I have every right to my body. You have every right to yours. A stranger does not have the right to eat your leg to survive. A stranger does not have the right to remain inside my body without my permission.

Let me explain something about rights and responsibilities in the contractual slanguage you seem to be playing with. My parents concieved me prior to securing a contract with me. Therefore,their behavior directly resulted in locating me in my mothers womb without my expressed consent, and also caused my condition to be temporarily dependant upon the continuation of that arrangement for a set period of time after which I would have the ability to vacate my mother’s womb. If your actions cause someone to be incapacitated and displaced onto you own property against their will or without their consent, you do not retain the right to use lethal force to remove them from your property.

Furthermore, if someone is made to be unable to care for themself as a direct result of your actions, intentional or not, you have an obligation to make restitution to them by providing the means for them to recover from the condition you caused. Therefore, the mother may not want the child in her womb, but as her actions were partly to blame (the other part being the father) she must make restitution in a manner acceptable to the injured party, the fetus.

It makes no sense to say you could justifiably relocate someone to your property without their consent, cause them to depend upon you as their only possible source of food, water, and oygen without their consent, and then claaim to have the right to remove these conditions, resulting in their death, on the basis that you do not consent to their continued presence in your property.

You could not really justify that in court, as you do not have the right to violate another’s rights.

But you said my right to my body cansupercede anothers right to life.
Which is it?

 

[Oscarthecat]

If you were coldhearted enough, you’d have a right to kill her (although this is the ugly extreme of self-ownership logic). It’s your lifeboat, after all.

So if I wasn’t coldhearted enough I wouldn’t have that right?
Are you adding a new condition to the list?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oscarthecat:

So if I wasn’t coldhearted enough I wouldn’t have that right?
Are you adding a new condition to the list?

Oh, haha, sorry.

You do have the right, though I have a feeling most people wouldn’t exercise it.

 

[Sair]

Given the wording of the poll options, I found it quite difficult to assent to any of them. For example, I feel that abortion should be legal, but not in most conditions - if the mother’s life is deemed to be endangered by childbirth, abortion under safe, hygenic conditions should be an option. I don’t think that constitutes ‘most’ conditions, however.

Also, I think it is quite inappropriate to couple infanticide and euthanasia in the same question. They are vastly different things. An infant does not have the ability to make decisions for itself under any circumstances, and unless it is incapable of surviving without life-support, I don’t believe it is right for the parents to decide that it should die. On the other hand, a terminally-ill adult may choose euthanasia for themselves, if they are of sound mind. My feeling is that if a person makes a rational choice to end their life in such circumstances, it ought to be legally acceptable.

 

[mapleoak]

Given the wording of the poll options, I found it quite difficult to assent to any of them. For example, I feel that abortion should be legal, but not in most conditions

Why not? If it is okay sometimes, why not anytime for any reason?

• if the mother’s life is deemed to be endangered by childbirth, abortion under safe, hygenic conditions should be an option. I don’t think that constitutes ‘most’ conditions, however.

If killing innocent life is okay during these ‘conditions’ why not anytime? Is there something wrong with killing innocent life that it should be limited by ‘most conditions’?

Also, I think it is quite inappropriate to couple infanticide and euthanasia in the same question. They are vastly different things.

In what way? Infanticide is the killing of an innocent human being as is euthanasia. That is the matter of these actions. Everything else attributed to them are subtleties.

An infant does not have the ability to make decisions for itself under any circumstances, and unless it is incapable of surviving without life-support, I don’t believe it is right for the parents to decide that it should die.

Even if an infant could make such decisions and decided it wanted to die and told its parents thus, should the parents kill it?

On the other hand, a terminally-ill adult may choose euthanasia for themselves, if they are of sound mind. My feeling is that if a person makes a rational choice to end their life in such circumstances, it ought to be legally acceptable.

Same as the infant telling its parents to kill it.

 

[vz71]

Advocacy of murder based upon the inability to communicate.

I don’t see how the murder of a non-rational being is really a bad thing.

And it is finally admitted.

Murder based on the inability to communicate.

There is no precedant for this unless we want to look to the atrocious dictators of the 20th century. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc…

This is fine company you keep.

 

[vz71]

A woman’s rights to her own body naturally would supersede another’s right to life,

You could not really justify that in court, as you do not have the right to violate another’s rights.

My head is spinning here.

One moment, the unborn has rights…as referenced these rights when explaining the extent of a women’s rights.
The next moment not…as we do not have the right to violate other people’s rights.

Come now, make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.
And this will make yet another change of position.

 

[mapleoak]

And it is finally admitted.

Murder based on the inability to communicate.

And then we can also finaggle the definition of inability to communicate. We can say inability to communcate is comprised of any of the following, lack of appropriate vocal motor skills, not knowing the audience’s language, forced inability to communicate, refusal of audience to listen (someone cannot communicate with someone unwilling to listen), etc. Inability to communcate can further be said to mean inability to convey ones ideas to someone else who doesn’t want those ideas conveyed to them. Can’t tell someone what they don’t want to hear. Therefore the thinking would go “If someone says something you don’t like, you can kill them.”

 

[vz71]

Now, here’s what I would think to be the main point. Does the fetus have a right to be in the mother’s womb, or does the mother own her own womb?

The mother owns her womb, but she has given up the right to dictate that a child can reside there once she has acted in an appropriate manner to bring about this child.

In other words, the decision has ended once she decides to have sex.

 

[ellammcg]

OP poll question,
I do not think the barrier contraception is immoral because it does not have an abortifacient effect.

I am against the killing of anyone pre- or post-born.

You can call me simplistic but I believe only God has the right to end a life (as pertains to abotion, euthanasia, et al.). Before I became a Christian I believed exactly the opposite (pure survival of the fittest/social Darwinism). But now, the closer I get to the Lord, the more pro-life I become.

 

[Sair]

Why not? If it is okay sometimes, why not anytime for any reason?

Because there is a big difference between an abortion performed to save the life of the mother, and an abortion performed because the baby would be inconvenient. Just like there is a difference between premeditated murder and killing a person in an act of self-defence. The difference is one of intention, and even when you see the world in black and white, intent counts.

If killing innocent life is okay during these ‘conditions’ why not anytime? Is there something wrong with killing innocent life that it should be limited by ‘most conditions’?

I wonder why you put ‘conditions’ in quote marks here - do you think that it is okay for the mother to die in the act of giving birth? Is the baby’s life more important than the mother’s? If so, why? Oh, yeah, that’s right - mothers are defined by self-sacrifice. Sorry, forgot that for a moment.

In any case, and sarcasm aside, you’re forgetting the heirarchy of needs - if the life of an unborn child is forfeited, it had better be for a good reason, and I would think the preservation of a mother’s life constitutes a good reason. Interfering with the mother’s lifestyle does not.

Infanticide is the killing of an innocent human being as is euthanasia. That is the matter of these actions. Everything else attributed to them are subtleties.

So you think the ability to exercise rational thought and make decisions is a subtlety, huh? The word ‘innocent’ is often misapplied in these circumstances. It may well be that the terminally-ill adult has led an entirely blameless life, but that’s not the same kind of innocence that consists in being incapable of comprehending the world and your place in it, in fact incapable of anything other than acting on instinct. That’s why animals are innocent.

To put it another way, the terminally-ill adult has had a chance at life, a chance to contribute to the world - in short, they’ve run their race, and with any luck, they’re happy with their performance. That is absolutely different to the circumstances of an infant who can’t defend itself, even speak for itself, and hasn’t had a chance to contribute to the world yet.

Even if an infant could make such decisions and decided it wanted to die and told its parents thus, should the parents kill it?

Now you’re just indulging in pointless conjecture. That would never happen in real life. If you want to base your morality upon fantasy, why even bother to discuss it?

 

[mapleoak]

Because there is a big difference between an abortion performed to save the life of the mother, and an abortion performed because the baby would be inconvenient.

First you have to determine why it is even wrong to kill an unborn baby. If it is wrong to kill it because it is an innocent human being, then it is always wrong to kill it. No exceptions.

Just like there is a difference between premeditated murder and killing a person in an act of self-defence.

Since self defense is not at issue here, it is a moot point.

The difference is one of intention, and even when you see the world in black and white, intent counts.

One can never intend to kill an innocent human being, under any circumstances.

I wonder why you put ‘conditions’ in quote marks here

To emphasize that I was using your term.

• do you think that it is okay for the mother to die in the act of giving birth?

Do you think it is okay for anyone to die? Ever?

Is the baby’s life more important than the mother’s?

No.

If so, why?

Therefore, no answer to the ‘why’ is needed.

Oh, yeah, that’s right - mothers are defined by self-sacrifice. Sorry, forgot that for a moment.

Say what?

In any case, and sarcasm aside, you’re forgetting the heirarchy of needs - if the life of an unborn child is forfeited, it had better be for a good reason,

Why? If you are going to decide to forfeit someone elses life, why do you need a good reason? Their life has already been determined to be forfeitable.

and I would think the preservation of a mother’s life constitutes a good reason. Interfering with the mother’s lifestyle does not.

There is never a good reason to kill an innocent human being.

So you think the ability to exercise rational thought and make decisions is a subtlety, huh?

No, the differences between killing an infant and an adult are subtleties. The intrinsic action is the extinguishing of innocent human life, in which there is no real difference except the victims age.

The word ‘innocent’ is often misapplied in these circumstances.

‘Innocent’ here refers to the fact that the victim is free of guilt punishable by death.

It may well be that the terminally-ill adult has led an entirely blameless life, but that’s not the same kind of innocence that consists in being incapable of comprehending the world and your place in it, in fact incapable of anything other than acting on instinct.

Incomprehension of the world does not define innocence.

That’s why animals are innocent.

animals are not innocent. They do not have immortal souls capable of rejecting God.

To put it another way, the terminally-ill adult has had a chance at life, a chance to contribute to the world - in short, they’ve run their race, and with any luck, they’re happy with their performance. That is absolutely different to the circumstances of an infant who can’t defend itself, even speak for itself, and hasn’t had a chance to contribute to the world yet.

Whether one has made a contribution to society or not does not determine whether they deserve to be put to death.

Now you’re just indulging in pointless conjecture. That would never happen in real life. If you want to base your morality upon fantasy, why even bother to discuss it?

It is as pointless as saying

An infant does not have the ability to make decisions for itself under any circumstances, and unless it is incapable of surviving without life-support, I don’t believe it is right for the parents to decide that it should die.

Since the child having the ability to make decisions or not does not determine whether the parents can decide whether to kill it, it would make no difference if the baby were able to say it wanted to die. Further, being incapable of surviving without life-support is also not permission to kill it.

 

[vz71]

And then we can also finaggle the definition of inability to communicate.

Well, you won’t find me doing so as murder is wrong.
However, I can already see the stage being set for that particular battle.