A Critique on Block on Abortion

[Selene]

Ted:

Understood. I thought you would be consistent. I am comfortable with the rough area where you chose to draw the "bright line" of quickening.

Thanks

Adam

[anthony]

Ted:

IF, scientific experiments in the future were able to establish that there was "a coordinated mental system" at six (6) weeks, but we had been unable to measure it prior to this future set of experiments, you would modify your position, correct?

"At one month, an individual human fetus has no coordinated mental system. It can be destroyed without compunction for its rights because it has not yet attained personhood. The same applies for actually brain dead adults. The question is a scientific one, and not one to be taken lightly."

Adam

Adam,

I'm not wanting to trivialize a good and valid question by over-philosophizing it, but yes, definitely.

As we know things to be, so we should respond, morally.

(By the way, Ayn Rand, I believe, had a wonderful - and also confusing, but ultimately endearing - talent to see both the "is" and the "should", simultaneously.)

"Not to be taken lightly", Ted says, and this is the basis for all my thinking about abortion.

Approximately, for now, this is where I stand:

Rights; these are objectively self-evident, and I don't think have to be covered over and over. With the proviso that having the right, does not always mean it must always be enforced.

Morality; as I said above.

Personal and subjective; this is covered by morality, mostly, with this addition - After being satisfied with rights and morality, can I live with my decision?

Tony

[kiaer.ts]

My parents have a house in the suburbs with oaks as the main overcanopy. They rake up the acorns every year, and put them in a plastic leaf-bag in the can for the trashman. I liberate the acorns, taking them to the woods nearby and strewing them across the soil, where, if they do not survive to germinate, at least they feed the squirrels.

I leave spiders alone, and gently escort beetles and stink bugs outside.

I kill roaches without remorse.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Ted Keer

[BaalChatzaf]

Ted:

IF, scientific experiments in the future were able to establish that there was "a coordinated mental system" at six (6) weeks, but we had been unable to measure it prior to this future set of experiments, you would modify your position, correct?

IF your grandmother had balls, would you modify your position on whether she is your grandfather?

Or as we say in Yiddish: az die bobbe hat baytzim sollst geveyn ihr a zade?

There is nothing so useless as a counterfactual definite.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 11, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

My parents have a house in the suburbs with oaks as the main overcanopy. They rake up the acorns every year, and put them in a plastic leaf-bag in the can for the trashman. I liberate the acorns, taking them to the woods nearby and strewing them across the soil, where, if they do not survive to germinate, at least they feed the squirrels.

I leave spiders alone, and gently escort beetles and stink bugs outside.

I kill roaches without remorse.

That is one beautiful piece of writing - a pastoral, Updikeish, tone.

Up to the menacing conclusion.

Equating abortion with pest control...?

[Selene]

Ted:

IF, scientific experiments in the future were able to establish that there was "a coordinated mental system" at six (6) weeks, but we had been unable to measure it prior to this future set of experiments, you would modify your position, correct?

IF your grandmother had balls, would you modify your position on whether she is your grandfather?

Or as we say in Yiddish: az die bobbe hat baytzim sollst geveyn ihr a zade?

There is nothing so useless as a counterfactual definite.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert:

Language can be an awkward vehicle for expressing a conditional issue.

Your example does not work. You know what I was asking Ted.

Ted understood what I was asking.

Therefore it was, although an awkward construction, the communication was effective enough.

Tony understood where and what my inquiry was about.

You understood it also.

Abortion, life [when it starts] and the application of legal rights to a "person" [personhood] are extremely difficult issues, at least for me.

Therefore, I just wanted to clarify, as in artfully as you perceived my "counterfactual definite," precisely what Ted was arguing.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

My parents have a house in the suburbs with oaks as the main overcanopy. They rake up the acorns every year, and put them in a plastic leaf-bag in the can for the trashman. I liberate the acorns, taking them to the woods nearby and strewing them across the soil, where, if they do not survive to germinate, at least they feed the squirrels.

I leave spiders alone, and gently escort beetles and stink bugs outside.

I kill roaches without remorse.

That is one beautiful piece of writing - a pastoral, Updikeish, tone.

Up to the menacing conclusion.

Equating abortion with pest control...?

Oh, no, how horrible. No analogy with abortion was meant. Pests like roaches are mindless drones that actively wage war on us. These invaders deserve as much sympathy as ticks and syphilis spirochetes.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted:

IF, scientific experiments in the future were able to establish that there was "a coordinated mental system" at six (6) weeks, but we had been unable to measure it prior to this future set of experiments, you would modify your position, correct?

IF your grandmother had balls, would you modify your position on whether she is your grandfather?

Or as we say in Yiddish: az die bobbe hat baytzim sollst geveyn ihr a zade?

There is nothing so useless as a counterfactual definite.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert:

Language can be an awkward vehicle for expressing a conditional issue.

Your example does not work. You know what I was asking Ted.

Ted understood what I was asking.

Therefore it was, although an awkward construction, the communication was effective enough.

Tony understood where and what my inquiry was about.

You understood it also.

Abortion, life [when it starts] and the application of legal rights to a "person" [personhood] are extremely difficult issues, at least for me.

Therefore, I just wanted to clarify, as in artfully as you perceived my "counterfactual definite," precisely what Ted was arguing.

Adam

This is what I mean when I call Bob a contrarian.

[equality72521]

When we are sleeping persons we are sleeping persons. Your question, are we not human, is bizarre.

The words human, individual, person, and living are all separate. At no point is a sperm, an egg, or an individual not living. All are human if they are a member of our species. An egg is an individual egg, a sperm an individual sperm, and an individual zygote, from conception to death, is an individual zygote. A person is a being with the capacity for autonomous consciousness. A person par excellence is an autonomous conceptual mind. Since consciousness is a complex, graded phenomenon, borderlines exist where things like adult apes are more persons than developing embryos. We speak of pets as having personalities. How we wish to treat non-human creatures is a moral question, if not a political one. But we can draw lines distinct enough to distinguish between mindless embryos and premies.

The abortion question requires us to draw lines. We do not extend political rights to non-humans because non-humans do not respect our rights. If we do not condone the murder of newborns, it is illogical to hold that killing late term children in the womb is acceptable due to some sort of issue of independence. A newborn baby is utterly dependent, do we hold, like the Romans, that we have the right to kill it? But before the onset of coordinated neural activity, there is no person - no autonomous mind - whose rights can be taken away. There is a human organism, but not yet a human person.

At one month, an individual human fetus has no coordinated mental system. It can be destroyed without compunction for its rights because it has not yet attained personhood. The same applies for actually brain dead adults. The question is a scientific one, and not one to be taken lightly.

From my understanding of the subject, there is no possibility of the existence of a person prior to quickening. That provides a comfortably demarcation before which no person is destroyed and after which there may a person to be destroyed by an abortion. Since the child is an innocent party, I err in its favor once the stage of quickening has been reached.

Hereis my only problem with your definition of personhood. The questions arise from this news story was the man ever brain dead to begin with? Besides that we simply do not know enough about the human brain or the development of the mind to begin with.

Further I have a problem with (and you did not address this) once we start using personhood it is a very short hop to narrowing down who qualifies as a person. If an individual only has the brain activity of an ape (ie they are outside the normal perimeters of Human brain functions) do we have the right to destroy them? why do we grant a human with the mental capacity of an animal more of a right to live than an ape? Further why don't we limit Person to include rational as part of the definition?

[kiaer.ts]

When we are sleeping persons we are sleeping persons. Your question, are we not human, is bizarre.

The words human, individual, person, and living are all separate. At no point is a sperm, an egg, or an individual not living. All are human if they are a member of our species. An egg is an individual egg, a sperm an individual sperm, and an individual zygote, from conception to death, is an individual zygote. A person is a being with the capacity for autonomous consciousness. A person par excellence is an autonomous conceptual mind. Since consciousness is a complex, graded phenomenon, borderlines exist where things like adult apes are more persons than developing embryos. We speak of pets as having personalities. How we wish to treat non-human creatures is a moral question, if not a political one. But we can draw lines distinct enough to distinguish between mindless embryos and premies.

The abortion question requires us to draw lines. We do not extend political rights to non-humans because non-humans do not respect our rights. If we do not condone the murder of newborns, it is illogical to hold that killing late term children in the womb is acceptable due to some sort of issue of independence. A newborn baby is utterly dependent, do we hold, like the Romans, that we have the right to kill it? But before the onset of coordinated neural activity, there is no person - no autonomous mind - whose rights can be taken away. There is a human organism, but not yet a human person.

At one month, an individual human fetus has no coordinated mental system. It can be destroyed without compunction for its rights because it has not yet attained personhood. The same applies for actually brain dead adults. The question is a scientific one, and not one to be taken lightly.

From my understanding of the subject, there is no possibility of the existence of a person prior to quickening. That provides a comfortably demarcation before which no person is destroyed and after which there may a person to be destroyed by an abortion. Since the child is an innocent party, I err in its favor once the stage of quickening has been reached.

Hereis my only problem with your definition of personhood. The questions arise from this news story was the man ever brain dead to begin with? Besides that we simply do not know enough about the human brain or the development of the mind to begin with.

Further I have a problem with (and you did not address this) once we start using personhood it is a very short hop to narrowing down who qualifies as a person. If an individual only has the brain activity of an ape (ie they are outside the normal perimeters of Human brain functions) do we have the right to destroy them? why do we grant a human with the mental capacity of an animal more of a right to live than an ape? Further why don't we limit Person to include rational as part of the definition?

I agree it is problematic. I hold that Terri Schiavo was murdered.

[Selene]

Ted and Alan:

I agree. Strangely enough, the original Rollerball movie with James Caen, the remake sucked, provided the Pathos proof for me:

The later incidents cited by Alan and other sources just solidified my position for me.

[equality72521]

I agree it is problematic. I hold that Terri Schiavo was murdered.

From what I know of the Schiavo case you are correct. I will try to find the guys name but its jim something or other if i can remember correctly argues that 'post natal' abortions are ethical and moral on the grounds that the child is not self aware. the child he argues is not a person therefore. According to what has been said thus far in the debate if we conclude that personhood is the quantitative/initiator of rights then we must assume this ethics chair is right. While the child surely has brain functions the child is not selfaware. The child being born tabula rasa must acquire a certain amount of data, and sort and file that data, before they can become aware.

The largest problem with this debate is that abortion advocates want to use clean and sterile words. Anyone who knows about soldiers and what they do or about special ops guys knows that they use a specific vocabulary which "dehumanizes" the "target". In not so many words they are trained to think of the enemy as something less than human because of the psychological toll it takes to kill another human. Very few men are able to kill even justly without any psychological harm. I would suggest that everyone interested in this topic or not read "Words that Work".

As to specific application to this topic I want to everyone to notice the emphasis on the word "Fetus" this is a distancing word why choose fetus over unborn child, or child or baby. Children and even mothers refer to the fetus as a "baby" yet when a woman has an abortion it is a fetus. why? The word baby encompasses both a fetus and an infant, yet you will never hear an abortion advocate refer to a fetus as a baby (unless they or the person who they are referring too wants the baby). you would never hear a mother tell her child "come feel the fetus in mom's belly its kicking". nor would you hear another adult correct the mother for saying "the baby is kicking".

Every genocide in history has been justified by this separation language which redefines those being murdered as "non-human" or "not a person", which is why I am so against abortion. I have read Nazi propaganda and propaganda from around the world which does exactly that. Whites are superior to blacks because blacks are just one step above apes in fact they are apes more advanced apes but apes none the less, they can use human speech but a monkey that can speak is none the less a monkey. Just look at "black" culture violent, and animalistic.

As a Capitalist absolutely abhor racism. When I was younger I would actually debate racists on the topic but it was all useless. They knew what they knew and what they knew was that anyone who was not white, or black, or Hispanic, and in one case Native American 'is not human or a person'. When you begin to draw lines such as when abortion is acceptable and when it is not there are very serious problems, the Overton Window is very easy to move when you draw that line. I want you to consider that it is almost now a given that in cases of rape and incest abortions should be acceptable, politicians and others who are "pro-life"(notice the words) are attacked if they say in cases of rape and incest that abortion is not acceptable. Logically if they are to be consistent we know that they must hold this position yet they are demonized for it. and why are they demonized? because those who favor abortion know that once someone concedes abortion in rape and incest cases the next logical step, the next question which must be asked is "well if its okay in A and B why not in C or D".

I want to make my point as clearly as I can so I want you to consider the following statements.

1)Sarah went to the hospital today and had an abortion.

2)Sarah went to the hospital today and aborted a fetus.

3)Sarah went to the hospital today and eliminated a baby.

4)Sarah went to the hospital today and killed a baby.

5)Sarah went to the hospital today and killed a human.

Notice all five statements say exactly the same thing and all of them refer to the exact same subject.

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

[BaalChatzaf]

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I don't have time for a long answer. Basically, I am using the term human in opposition to the words canine or avian or bovine. Aliens, robots, chimp-human hybrids, and, in a sense, higher animals might be described as persons. A fertilized egg my be human and an individual, but it is not yet a person, and does not yet have rights. Personhood cannot exist prior to quickening.

[kiaer.ts]

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things?

[Selene]

Director of the

Office of Science and Technology Policy

"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.^[10][21] "

[equality72521]

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things?

Ba'al

By the gods and what they stand for what they hell is wrong with you. Your statement also assumes that children are the property of their parents. children are not property.

As to Ted.

I have got my answer from you and I respect you sticking to your guns, I always do as I say however. Quickening does not occur until the agent becomes self aware. Because electrical impulses move a muscle does not mean quickening, putting a 9v battery to a frogs leg does not make it alive even if it twitches. It is only rational consciousness which qualifies as personhood and the extent to which an animal possesses a rational consciousness is the level of its personhood. A one month old is not a rational being, because it has not reached the state of awareness there is no reason why we should hold that it is a person as "person" means a distinct identifiable identity of which the one month old has not yet developed.

the professor Is not jim something its Peter Singer. # Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; Oxford University Press, New York, 1986; Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994. ISBN 0192177451

[Selene]

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things?

Ba'al

By the gods and what they stand for what they hell is wrong with you. Your statement also assumes that children are the property of their parents. children are not property.

As to Ted.

I have got my answer from you and I respect you sticking to your guns, I always do as I say however. Quickening does not occur until the agent becomes self aware. Because electrical impulses move a muscle does not mean quickening, putting a 9v battery to a frogs leg does not make it alive even if it twitches. It is only rational consciousness which qualifies as personhood and the extent to which an animal possesses a rational consciousness is the level of its personhood. A one month old is not a rational being, because it has not reached the state of awareness there is no reason why we should hold that it is a person as "person" means a distinct identifiable identity of which the one month old has not yet developed.

the professor Is not jim something its Peter Singer. # Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; Oxford University Press, New York, 1986; Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994. ISBN 0192177451

"Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take

innocent

human life.

Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.

Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

[15]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize[sic] that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

[16]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[18]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.

Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".^[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.^[20]"

The personhood argument is made by Singer.

[equality72521]

"Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take

innocent

human life.

Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.

Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

[15]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize[sic] that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

[16]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[18]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.

Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".^[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.^[20]"

The personhood argument is made by Singer.

This is the position which with modification I am now putting forth seriously(I am not arguing this out of spite or out of satire). If Ted or others want to insist on personhood than I will oblige them, I will concede to the personhood argument but I insist that we carry it to its full and logical conclusion.

[kiaer.ts]

Singer is so full of holes he amounts to one big hole.

Animals have preferences. Criminals have preferences. We don't speak of their rights as such. We don't weight the murderer's wishes with his victim's.

Politically, all human persons are granted rights by default. We don't require the victim to prove he possesses rights. Fetuses simply aren't persons, yet. Other living humans are considered persons with rights until the opposite is found through due process.

[equality72521]

Singer is so full of holes he amounts to one big hole.

Animals have preferences. Criminals have preferences. We don't speak of their rights as such. We don't weight the murderer's wishes with his victim's.

Politically, all human persons are granted rights by default. We don't require the victim to prove he possesses rights. Fetuses simply aren't persons, yet. Other living humans are considered persons with rights until the opposite is found through due process.

I am not arguing wishes nor am I arguing peter singer (though he does provide some of the foundation) as you said he has flaws in his theory. What I am saying is that personhood does not begin until quickening which I am saying begins with self awareness not at 15 weeks. Personhood denotes identity of which a one month old does not have. imposition of identity from a third party does not make identity. There is no Joe, Charlie, or Sue until Joe, Charlie, or Sue has identity which is not possible until self awareness.

[anonrobt]

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things?

Ba'al

By the gods and what they stand for what they hell is wrong with you. Your statement also assumes that children are the property of their parents. children are not property.

As to Ted.

I have got my answer from you and I respect you sticking to your guns, I always do as I say however. Quickening does not occur until the agent becomes self aware. Because electrical impulses move a muscle does not mean quickening, putting a 9v battery to a frogs leg does not make it alive even if it twitches. It is only rational consciousness which qualifies as personhood and the extent to which an animal possesses a rational consciousness is the level of its personhood. A one month old is not a rational being, because it has not reached the state of awareness there is no reason why we should hold that it is a person as "person" means a distinct identifiable identity of which the one month old has not yet developed.

the professor Is not jim something its Peter Singer. # Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; Oxford University Press, New York, 1986; Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994. ISBN 0192177451

"Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take

innocent

human life.

Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.

Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

[15]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize[sic] that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

[16]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[18]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.

Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".^[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.^[20]"

The personhood argument is made by Singer.

The error lies in presuming the newborn is (1) no different from the fetus before birth, and (2)that there is no self awareness possible, nor any manner of rationality when first born... in the context of this, one has to remember that while reason is necessitated in order to survive as a human, it has to be learned, and the means of such learning does not kick in until birth because that is when the being becomes self actualizing, when all its systems kick into gear freed from any of the mother's... from the time of birth, however, there is an automatic applying of the means of achieving the rationality to the point where the conscious choosing then can determine how much and how extensive it is to become - but this does not nor can take place while still a fetus, because only when is freed from the imputes of the mother,and exposed to breathing on its own, bringing in the outside air of life to the lungs, which in turn to the brain and the thus awareness of living, however elementary, the means of switching on its 'self' can proceed, resulting in the living being...

[Selene]

Robert:

This is an assumption which may or may not be true.

this does not nor can take place while still a fetus, because only when is freed from the imputes of the mother,and exposed to breathing on its own, bringing in the outside air of life to the lungs, which in turn to the brain and the thus awareness of living, however elementary, the means of switching on its 'self' can proceed, resulting in the living being...

Here is another of my conditional what if questions...:

If there is a degree of self awareness in the already observed electrochemical activity of the fetus at six (6) months, would you modify your position?

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

[Selene]

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted:

I am willing to stipulate that for this argument, that is why I am putting the line at six (6) months. It is addressed to Robert's statement.

Adam