The basis of secular values and ethics?

[Bagheera]

polytropos:

This is not a very convincing distinction. A breastfeeding child is biologically dependent by any sensible definition of the words. And a fetus is “biologically dependent” just because it obtains its nutrition from its mother. There is not actually the distinction that you are speaking of.

Breastfeeding is not a biological necessity. Anyone can provide the necessary nutrient from a bottle. However (at least for the time being) there is no substitute for womb. As technology advances, this may change.

polytropos:

This is not true. I have not appealed to a DNA-based definition, nor am I committed to it, since a cell can have human DNA and not be a human person. It is a zygote which has been individuated and is on the normal course for human development that is a human person (since it grows into what is undeniably a human person, and there is no individuation event after conception, with the exception perhaps of twinning, a zygote must be a human person).

Very well. So you add the potential of growing into a human being to the DNA. The trouble is that this is not a perfect method either. The DNA may be so distorted that the person will be unable to procreate with an “accepted” human, and as such will need to be classified as a new race. Also, a female egg can be exposed to some mechanical or chemical stimulus, and it will grow into a replica of the mother. There are already successful experiments of cloning. There is no theoretical argument against cloning from any arbitrary human cell, and if that method becomes possible, then any human cell would become a potential human being – given the proper environment. And then what?

polytropos:

You and I aren’t wasps.

Come on. It was just an analogy. However, it could become reality in the case of a rape, IF the woman would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, against her wishes. Then she would be a carrier of a “larva”, nothing more.

polytropos:

So someone who needs someone else’s kidney can take it against their wishes, but a fetus cannot be sustained by the normal biological processes which led to its involuntary creation?

I guess you misread what I wrote. I said exactly the opposite.

Today, someone whose life is contingent upon getting a kidney transplant cannot look around and obtain someone’s kidney against their wishes, even though one can have a healthy life with one kidney.

polytropos:

No implicit desire necessary. Regardless of a person’s “desire” to be alive, one is not permitted to kill him or her.

Again, your argument would be more convincing, if you would not reject the “morning after pill”, which does not “kill”, it merely prevents the implantation. Just like the person who cannot be forced to give up a kidney or blood.

 

[polytropos]

Breastfeeding is not a biological necessity. Anyone can provide the necessary nutrient from a bottle. However (at least for the time being) there is no substitute for womb. As technology advances, this may change.

However, breastfeeding may be a biological necessity; say, when formula is not available. Does your ethical theory allow that, if formula becomes unavailable, and an infant is biologically dependent on its mother for nutrition, the mother is permitted to kill the infant?

This is the problem if you let a plastic construction of biological necessity determine whether or not a child can be killed. If you respond that an unavailability of formula does not justify killing the child, then the unavailability of artificial wombs should not justify killing a fetus, so long that an artificial womb is conceivably possible. So the alternative would be to allow the killing of infants in cases where they are biologically dependent on their mothers.

So you add the potential of growing into a human being to the DNA.
…
Also, a female egg can be exposed to some mechanical or chemical stimulus, and it will grow into a replica of the mother. There are already successful experiments of cloning. There is no theoretical argument against cloning from any arbitrary human cell, and if that method becomes possible, then any human cell would become a potential human being – given the proper environment. And then what?

The DNA is not even really the important part. The point is that if a zygote has a reasonable chance of becoming a human under normal conditions, it would constitute murder to actively interrupt that process. The fact that biologists might be able to take a cotton swab to someone’s cheek and construct a new human out of that does not mean that all of the DNA in my mouth has the same human dignity of a zygote.

The trouble is that this is not a perfect method either. The DNA may be so distorted that the person will be unable to procreate with an “accepted” human, and as such will need to be classified as a new race.

This just seems to be a consequence of cladism, which is a flawed species concept (although it is useful for biological inquiry). I am not committed to denying personhood to those who cannot reproduce; one certainly does not become a non-person by getting a vasectomy (whether or not the act is moral), nor does one become a non-person by developing with a defect that prevents normal reproduction.

Come on. It was just an analogy. However, it could become reality in the case of a rape, IF the woman would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, against her wishes. Then she would be a carrier of a “larva”, nothing more.

I don’t think we can say that a fetus is a “‘larva’, nothing more.” In any case, I am guessing from your description - “the larva eats its way out against the ‘implicit’ wishes of the ‘surrogate’ mother” - that the situation is not really analogous at all, if the normal end of what you are describing is the death of the mother. Pregnancy and gestation are normal biological processes, which provide biological benefits under normal circumstances, while premature abortions lead to biological abnormalities (ie. increased risk of cervical/breast cancer). There is really no way the fetus can be depicted as “eat[ing] its way out,” even if the mother doesn’t want to raise it.

Today, someone whose life is contingent upon getting a kidney transplant cannot look around and obtain someone’s kidney against their wishes, even though one can have a healthy life with one kidney.

I took the word “Today” to be an implication that it would be better if someone were able to obtain someone else’s kidney against their wishes. If that was not your meaning, I apologize.

In any case, the situations are not analogous (if you are using the obtaining of another person’s kidney against their wishes as analogous to pregnancy). An analogy would be for someone to give their kidney and then take it back by killing the other person.

Again, your argument would be more convincing, if you would not reject the “morning after pill”, which does not “kill”, it merely prevents the implantation. Just like the person who cannot be forced to give up a kidney or blood.

But the immorality of abortion does not mean that we can take other immoral means to avoid it. This discussion, of course, is about secular ethics, not religious ethics, so my reasons for objecting to contraception are irrelevant, and I am not committed to supporting contraception by opposing abortion. (Not to mention that contraception does not actually prevent abortion, and in teenagers seems to lead to higher rates of STDs and pregnancy.)

 

[Bagheera]

polytropos:

However, breastfeeding may be a biological necessity; say, when formula is not available. Does your ethical theory allow that, if formula becomes unavailable, and an infant is biologically dependent on its mother for nutrition, the mother is permitted to kill the infant?

Even that does not constitute a personal, biological necessity. It is possible to cook some soup, or find another woman to feed the child. But there might be an extreme case, when there is absolutely no way to feed that child, an in that case I find it more humane to administer a quick mercy killing rather than let the “natural”, but slow starvation do the “job”.

Of course none of this is pertinent to the case of a zygote or fetus.

polytropos:

The DNA is not even really the important part. The point is that if a zygote has a reasonable chance of becoming a human under normal conditions, it would constitute murder to actively interrupt that process.

What is reasonable chance? What are normal conditions? And be careful. Murder is a legal term.

polytropos:

The fact that biologists might be able to take a cotton swab to someone’s cheek and construct a new human out of that does not mean that all of the DNA in my mouth has the same human dignity of a zygote.

So what is the “deciding factor”? It is not the DNA, and it is not that it can become a human if some circumstances are met?

polytropos:

This just seems to be a consequence of cladism, which is a flawed species concept (although it is useful for biological inquiry). I am not committed to denying personhood to those who cannot reproduce; one certainly does not become a non-person by getting a vasectomy (whether or not the act is moral), nor does one become a non-person by developing with a defect that prevents normal reproduction.

I agree with you here. Looks like we also agreed that “personhood” status should be granted to all sentient beings. And since a zygote is not sentient, or a very young fetus (before the brain develops) is not sentient either… well?

polytropos:

But the immorality of abortion does not mean that we can take other immoral means to avoid it.

My secular morality sees nothing wrong with preventing conception or preventing the zygote’s implantation into the uterus.

polytropos:

I took the word “Today” to be an implication that it would be better if someone were able to obtain someone else’s kidney against their wishes. If that was not your meaning, I apologize.

It was not what I meant, but there is no need to apologize.

Probably one of Larry Niven’s (a famous sci-fi writer) books was “hovering” on the edges of my consciousness. In that world, where organ transplants are the norm, and “good, law-abiding citizens” want the flow of available transplants to be uninterrupted, there are draconian laws, like speeding three times or cheating on taxes carries a death penalty. I think this would be a horrible world, but that would be only my personal distaste.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not clear, at least not to me, why an “express desire” of one human being should trump the essential interests of another, whether or not those interests are the objects of express desires or not.

A person in a coma, say for nine months, may have no “express desires,” perhaps not even thoughts or feelings about the property they own. Does that entail it is moral and rational to think the “express desire” of the next of kin to have that property should trump the interests of the mere “biological activity” (aka comatose human being) in the hospital bed?"

Morally reprehensible is the term that comes to mind, as it does when speaking of the “express desires” of an adult over the interests of a child in the womb.

Convenience and sentience trump equality and justice…

 

[polytropos]

Even that does not constitute a personal, biological necessity. It is possible to cook some soup, or find another woman to feed the child. But there might be an extreme case, when there is absolutely no way to feed that child, an in that case I find it more humane to administer a quick mercy killing rather than let the “natural”, but slow starvation do the “job”.

This is not the situation that I posed. I am saying: Suppose an infant depends on its mother for nutrition through breastfeeding. The child requires either breast milk or formula - but no formula is available. There is not another woman available to breastfeed, and the child is too young to eat other food for extended periods. This makes the infant’s survival biologically dependent on the mother. If the mother does not want to breastfeed, is she allowed to kill the child?

Of course none of this is pertinent to the case of a zygote or fetus.

Of course it is. It would mean that the argument by viability is inconsistent and arbitrary, and one would have to find alternative means for justifying abortion.

What is reasonable chance? What are normal conditions? And be careful. Murder is a legal term.

The conception and gestation process are well-defined by the specialized science of biology. If - as is normal - a conceptus arises from sexual intercourse, then it is an individual which would, uninterfered, proceed on the usual course of human development. Whether it might die naturally along the way is irrelevant.

So what is the “deciding factor”? It is not the DNA, and it is not that it can become a human if some circumstances are met?

It is being a distinct, individual human organism. As Elizabeth Anscombe wrote, “For a person is a substantial individual being with his own identity, which he has as an individual of a particular species. In our case the species is ‘human being’…A human being is a person because the kind to which he belongs is characterized by a rational nature.”

I agree with you here. Looks like we also agreed that “personhood” status should be granted to all sentient beings. And since a zygote is not sentient, or a very young fetus (before the brain develops) is not sentient either… well?

I never said that personhood should be granted to all sentient beings or that sentience was a necessary condition of personhood. (That said, “sentience” is very broad and would tend to include many non-human animals.)

My secular morality sees nothing wrong with preventing conception or preventing the zygote’s implantation into the uterus.

I’m not arguing against contraception in particular right now, although if I can argue that abortion is immoral, and if contraceptive sex does not absolutely prevent pregnancy (and arguably, as my previous citation implies, increases the rate of pregnancy), then contraception could at the very least be said to lead to abortion/murder.