Good point ora. Unsurprisingly I have limited expertise in this area, but I believe that it is not from conception, but from the first day of the last normal menstrual period. It is, as you imply, commonly regarded as a pretty inaccurate measure. In the context of this debate that does add some uncertainty to line drawing. The first pass, however, is deciding if any line should be drawn at all.

I suspect everyone thinks a lone should be drawn. And there are surprisingly few who belive it should be before conception(ie those who read the biblical story of Onan, and think 'spilling your seed on the dusty ground' is inherently sinful) and few who believe it should be after birth (ie those bio-ethicists refered to in this snopes article snopes.com/after-birth-abortion - though they refute any claim that their work should be used as a basis for policy)

So where should we draw the line? It is at least clear that the woman has rights to bodily autonomy and should have a say. In most examples where her life is at risk (ectopic pregnancies, for example) i can see no reason to put any timeline limited mesical procedure to save her life. But i likewise can see no reason to force her into making a decision which will save her life at the cost of her pregnancy. Every pregnancy has risks, just as every surgery. We still allow informed consent to make these decisions.

Beig pro-choice does not mean taking an anti-life stance. It means supporting the person in the best position to make a decision for their own life; ie the woman.

And if you listen to the bio-ethicists, they (most likely) support the position that only one person is involved.

So i guess it comes down to what you consider the defining features of a person.

How do you determine any categorical definitions? Is a baseball player still a baseball player if they lose their pitching arm? What qualities define whether a things fits into a given category?

(When it comes to discussing after-birth personhood; we should remember that humans are typically born premature - our massive heads and narrow hips force short pregnancies, as compared with other mammals of our size. We only survive due to social support, and communities which make caring fo a basically useless offspring possible)

My personal opinion is that anything with a pulse and Brain activity is alive. If it's alive, and it's human, it is entitled to human rights. I think it falls in the "duh" category, logically speaking.

And if logic and human rights were the only issue, it IS in the "duh" category. But people try to run their argument in reverse. They start out with the presumption that they have to defend and uphold abortion. If THAT IS where you start, you end up with false logic arguments about "viability." And, of course, those viability arguments fall apart in the end. You end up with horrific and intolerable outcomes if you apply those viability standards to the very old, the very sick, or the hospitalized.

Thus, in the end, defenders of abortion of any fetus after it has a pulse and brain activity are truly hanging their argument on: "it can't speak for itself to advocate for its rights and I can; it's small and weak and cant stop me; and it needs my help, so I can do whatever I want to it." If we treated other human beings this way, we'd be called tyrants and bullies. If we realized that tyrants and bullies is EXACTLY what abortionits are being, this debate would be over tomorrow.

-Eric Grinnell

The phrase 'abortionist' seems to be imply someone who supports abortions.

You do realise that the opposite position of governmental bans on abortion is mandatory government abortions, right? (Sure we can license parenthood, loke we do car, but nobody would have the right to raise a child without proving they can do it safely first... )

That would be a great place to use the phrase abortionist. But first you should find me a person advocating this view, and i will glady condemn them with you.

As to the logic of your position. Please refer to the two bio-ethicists who, as professional philosophers spend a lot of their time thinking about these issues, and tell me again how everyone should agree with your simplistic logic.

I'm genuinely curious as to when it was that we ceased using arguments designed to convince differently thinking people to adopt our point of view, and switched instead to arguments designed to make us appear superior to them...

^^ so true.

"I'm genuinely curious as to when it was that we ceased using arguments designed to convince differently thinking people to adopt our point of view, and switched instead to arguments designed to make us appear superior to them."
I wish that were an unusual circumstance, though I generally enjoy the forum discussions here because that sort of argument has, I think, a lower-percentage presence here than it does in most places on (and off) the internet. Sometimes a superior tone CAN be warranted -- but I'm not sure I could articulate a careful argument on how to determine when those times occur.

But in answer to your question, I'm not sure if this happens when we decide, in the words of the great Westley of Princess Bride fame, that "clearly we are at an impasse" or when we decide that we can't be bothered to think up something cogent and sustainable in response to someone we disagree with. I suppose that both happen, and it depends on the circumstance which one manifests itself.

It might also be when there was Hitler. But on the bright side, Godwin's Law has (mostly?) remained inapplicable in this discussion.

I was quite a fan of the guy who sidestepped my whole position, criticized me for using a word he didn't like, waved some alleged expert in my face, and walked away.

To be blunt.... you're an intellectual midget. And yes, that's ad hominem. Sometimes, ad hominem is true.

Ad homine doesn't make your arguement valid though.

As to waving an expert in your face. The fact that you're not interested in exploring what others have said speaks volumes to your intellectual integrity.

If I skipped the step where i tell you what i think, and go right on to citing my sources. Then i am at least guilt of one thing. But your simple-mindedness isn't the one.

Your 'duh' category shows a huge failure to grasp how awesome life actually is. Need i refresh you on the existance of billion* head of cattle who die each year to feed your insatiable desire for meat?

They have brains and heart beats and those brains are much more complicated than your average 1 year old. So what is your last criteria, other than homo-centrism.

I don't need to listen to any expert who is going to equivocate about whether a pulse and brainwaves equals life. The fact that you are willing to sows that you are one of the people I described: somsone who starts out with the presumption that abortion needs to be defended, and then looks for any argument to justify their opinion. A million "experts" could tell me that a pulse and and brainwaves don't equate to life. It doesn't make the premise any less offensive. But, hey..... your argument is invalid, and requires deliberate and calculated refusal to accept that fact. I'd say I don't blame you for that... but I do. These are people. And they are being killed. And the reason they are being killed is because perpetuating it a necessity to a political platform. We';re killing people over politics. And you're willing to keep doing it. It's callous. It's atrocious. This isn't 1973. We know so much more about the fetus and its development than we did in 1973. The 1973 decision would NEVER have gone the way it did in 1973, if they had present science. But people who support no change in abortion laws don't care about the science. don't carte about the facts. don't care about the fetuses being aborted. Their "rights" are more important to them than the fundamental HUMAN "rights" of their victims. When your "rights" requires that you have the right to kill other human beings because they are inconvenient to you ---- that is moral bankruptcy. Which is exactly where we are.

The fact that you want to equate the lives of cows to the lives of human beings, by the way.... is repugnant. And it shows the roots of your shitty logic: you're a misanthrope. If you don't think that a human being should be weighed differently than a goddam cow..... you're not worth talking to. And honestly.... you're not. But, hey.... keep saying you have the right to keep killing babies because I eat hamburgers. A stupid ass argument like that proves my point as readily as any other argument possibly could.

@Atheos
"The 1973 decision would NEVER have gone the way it did in 1973, if they had present science."
I think it might well have, to be honest. As you've said, the whole position is driven by other priorities that rank about the preservation of certain kinds of human life, so the words might have been different but the general effect of the decision would, I suspect, not have been markedly different.

"If you don't think that a human being should be weighed differently than a goddam cow..... you're not worth talking to. And honestly.... you're not."
This is probably NOT one of those moments where superiority is wanted or warranted.

"But, hey.... keep saying you have the right to keep killing babies because I eat hamburgers."
Did he......say that?

@orathaic
"So what is your last criteria, other than homo-centrism."
That criterion suffices for me. (Why) do you find it lacking?

OutsideSmoker, I'd say humans aren't too amazingly defined. There's a lot of grey area, including fetuses, genetic splicing, etc. It's an imperfect criterion for the precise reason this thread still exists - we can't quite decide when it's human and thus worthy of special protection.

I myself am pretty homo-centric. I prioritize human lives over those of other animals, and I have more concern for mammals and neurologically advanced animals than I do for insects and such. My concern comes from the fact that I understand humans very well, and other animals less so. I can still identify emotion and elements of reason on various mammals, but less so on other creatures, and can see behavior resembling humans in many intelligent animals. As such, I don't see why I should be particularly concerned about fetuses, who do not appear to have any particular emotional or reasoning capabilities, and are a part of the body of a person, which gives that person the right to dispense with it within reasonable bounds.

They have to be able to interact with, entertain, and amuse phil; and demonstrate enough outward emotion and activity to meet his arbitrary standard of "personhood" --- or phil gets to kill them arbitrarily and capriciously. Because, apparently, he cnt differentiate them from cows.

Everyone, listen up: keep your newborn infants away from phil. Especially the sleeping ones.

Honestly, phil.... you just tried to sound so damned science-savvy with your pile of faces post, so... if you're do damned scientific, why isn't their DNA good 3nough to identify them as human?

I would like to respond to your posts, or your arguments, but I am having trouble understanding either. I will respond to that which I can respond to, and ask questions later.

I never said I am willing to kill things according to these criteria. I said I don't care if they die. There is a difference here, though it is one you appear to have ignored before, during the argument about your "abortionist" word.

I can differentiate between species, using your precious DNA. I don't see why I should care. Why should DNA matter to me? It's just a protein production manual. What matters is consciousness. This also responds to your last question - DNA is largely meaningless. It is handy for identification, but you have not explained why them being human fetuses makes them worth preserving against the wishes of the mother. Who exactly is harmed by the abortion? You and God are not valid responses, as one of them doesn't exist in a meaningful way, and the other has no relation to the incident itself, or valid knowledge of it for that matter.

I am also against child slaughter without a damn good reason (child would be in pain for the rest of its 15 minute lifespan etc). I don't see where in my post you got the idea that I am in favor.

Onto my question. What is a pile of faces and how does it relate to my post? In case you meant pile of faeces (or feces), then I would appreciate if you explained exactly in which ways my post resembles a pile of shit.

I didn't read your lengthy self-justifying post. The second I read "I don't care if they die," your opinions became irrelevant. But.... I appreciate your confession to moral bankruptcy. The honesty is refreshing.

@ Atheos: "The second I read "I don't care if they die," [phil's] opinions became irrelevant."

Why?

Because a debate about the value of human life with a person who has declared he doesn't care about it... is an utter waste of time.

So, you're publicly admitting that you do not care to debate with someone who does not share your opinion? The real utter waste of time seems to me to be to only "discuss" things with people who already agree with you. Surely, since they already agree with you, there is no value in convincing them, so the only possible reason you could want to do so is to wallow in the sense of superiority that comes from living in an echo chamber. Such intellectual stagnancy is astounding.

If you believe that my stance makes me morally bankrupt, explain how. What makes humans special, that they have such rights, when animals have only a tiny subsection? I have explained my position on this issue, you have yet to do so, I believe. Perhaps that would lead to mutual understanding, though probably not agreement.

"A million "experts" could tell me that a pulse and and brainwaves don't equate to life. It doesn't make the premise any less offensive." - that just demonstrates that you are not capable of being flexible with your ideas. Your are fixed in you ways of thinking and this are the one not worth having in the conversaion.

I can just copy and paste your views each time i post. They add noting more

@Outside smoker, you said: " (i said)"So what is your last criteria, other than homo-centrism."
That criterion suffices for me. (Why) do you find it lacking?"

The position is refering to brain activities. And cows have that. So the question returns to you, why is it ok to kill cows for food? Is it merely cultural custom - this justification was used for keeping slaves.

Is it because you were born human? That is exactly the reason rich discriminate against the poor, or people born as christian think it is normal and thus muslims must be something less. And yet their only crime is being born into a culture where being Muslim is the norm.

Similar with discriminating against those born outside of our borders. Why is a human life in India or China any less important than one of a citizen born in the US?

Now i took a specific example of comparing adult cows to the average 1 year old human. Part of that is because we know a bit about the neuroscience of human brains, and how they take over 20 years to fully develop. And how adult cows have a greater sense of suffering, concept of others (theory of mind develops in humans between 3-5)

I don't know when humans develop to the point that they are more cognitively complex than cows. But i do know it is probably some time after the human is 1. Definitely after the point of birth (which is rather early in humans compare to similarily sized mammals.)

If we reject the basic assumption that humans are somehow superior to other animals, then we can still come up with a system of morality. We can look at the qualities of a things. I would make the claim tha we should not cause unnecessary suffering. Thus i do not in principle have a problem with killing a cow (for meat) if it can be done in a way that causes no suffering; meanwhile i have a huge problem with factory farming techniques which lead to lives of nothing but suffering (never mind the disease and amount of anti-biotics which needs to be pumped into their feed to keep them health living in such cramped conditions)

Does this mean we should ignore the suffering of new borns? No.

Of course not. But that is not somethig i advocate.

DNA, just a collection of letter.

Guess what, a cow has all the same letters as you. Made of the same atoms and molecules. If DNA is all that matters, please explain why identical twins are both protected from being killed, they have identical DNA sequences, so one is basically a backup of the other. Or is in fact DNA sequence no the reason we protect human life?

orathaic,

I don't think anybody was saying DNA was the reason to protect human life; they were saying it sufficed to identify human life.

Letters are not the reason to value Hamlet, but you can tell if a book is Hamlet by looking at its letters.

@smeck, yes i agree that there are other reasons to value human life.

But these are based, in my mind, on the qualities that make us human. Some of which we share with cattle.

M point is, you can't just look at DNA and say: 'this is human DNA, and that is cow DNA' because they are the same letter, packaged differently, for sure. But even how the letters are packed away ( the chromsones, or chapters ) are not something which makes us uniquely deserving of life.

If it is other things, than using DNA is like using colour to discriminate against slaves. Ie just an excuse.

The qualities of what makes us human are important. That we feel, that we are self-aware, that we are capable of compassion and empathy. That we grow and learn from our mistakes, our consciences. All of these things are important.

Do you take the position that a 1 year old baby has more of these than an adult cow?

Two points, one for the sake of clarity and one for the sake of intellectual sensibilities:

First:
I'd like to plead with everyone to AVOID conflating the questions of 1) "is a fetus human?" 2) "is a fetus a living person?" and especially 3) "do humans have more rights than non-humans, and why or why not?"

The DNA argument is only appropriate to address #1, and I think it's quite clear that it's quite relevant there. If you want to make a "yes" answer to #1 default into a "yes" answer to #2, you need a lot more reasons to do it than just "but DNA!" Otherwise, the argument about hair and nail clippings will stump you. I don't think anyone is necessarily meaning to argue that DNA of itself answers #2 in the affirmative, but I could be wrong. On the other hand, it seems very silly to argue that a fetus is not human when the DNA clearly indicates that it is. I don't suppose anyone MEANS to be arguing that (what you're actually arguing, it seems to me, is that a fetus is not a living person, i.e. #2 rather than #1), but the use of language doesn't always make that abundantly clear.

Second:
"I didn't read your lengthy self-justifying post. The second I read 'I don't care if they die,' your opinions became irrelevant." (Atheos) The second I read "your opinions became irrelevant" it became virtually impossible to take you seriously. (Actually, I had already reached that position since you are obviously posting in this thread neither to educate nor to inform nor to persuade but perhaps only to troll.) You have a good deal of enthusiasm and a fair amount of insight, but a modicum of dialogue with phil's ideas wouldn't go amiss, nor would a healthy dose of the maxim "your opponent's worthiness to be heard is NOT necessarily inversely proportional to the degree of agreement between you."

As I tell my students, you may think what you're reading is silly, ridiculous, and wrong, but you can't just dismiss it or misinterpret it because you think it's wrong. You have to understand what it says and then push back against THAT.

With those two points out of the way, I will proceed to actually say something related to the question(s) at issue.

Good points, Smoker.

@orathaic

"M point is, you can't just look at DNA and say: 'this is human DNA, and that is cow DNA' because they are the same letter, packaged differently, for sure."

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. Give some of both to any self-respecting analysis lab and they'll be able to tell you easily whether it came from a human organism or a bovine. As Smoker points out, that doesn't say anything at all about rights; but IF one holds that human organisms are always entitled to more rights, then DNA certainly suffices to identify with certainty whether something is human.

What you're saying is like arguing that one can't tell a copy of Hamlet from a copy of Twilight by looking at the texts, because they both use the same letters.

"The qualities of what makes us human are important. That we feel, that we are self-aware, that we are capable of compassion and empathy. That we grow and learn from our mistakes, our consciences. All of these things are important.

"Do you take the position that a 1 year old baby has more of these than an adult cow?"

I take the position that you have not correctly identified the morally relevant properties. Even if one were to take your approach, I believe that potential should enter the analysis and would be decisive. In any event, though, I don't accept a property-driven morality. Killing humans is wrong because they are humans, made in the image of God.

@phil
"As such, I don't see why I should be particularly concerned about fetuses, who do not appear to have any particular emotional or reasoning capabilities, and are a part of the body of a person, which gives that person the right to dispense with it within reasonable bounds."
Careful with the fetus-as-a-part-of-the-woman's-body argument, as it's factually inaccurate. The DNA argument holds VERY strongly here, as, whatever the fetus is, it's most assuredly NOT a part of the woman's body. Transplants are perhaps the closest other analogy (different DNA, but functioning as part of the same body), but even they aren't a very good analogy, since a transplant is a) given up to the woman by the foreign-DNA host under informed consent (unless there's some unethical chicanery going on), something which is obviously untrue of a fetus, and b) a PART (however important) of the foreign-DNA host rather than, as a fetus is, the TOTALITY of the foreign-DNA host.

I might also point out that, if a fetus were physiologically and/or anatomically part of the woman's body, it would obvious why the woman's body doesn't ordinarily reject the fetus. As it is, however, the reason for this failure to reject is (or was as of 2012) a point of current scientific inquiry. (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/maternal_fetal_bond_why_doesn_t_a_pregnant_woman_s_immune_system_attack_the_fetus_.html

As to your point about "emotional or reasoning capacities," I happen to think those are off-topic when it comes to determining when human rights attach (and, at later stages of life, detach). But then you already knew that. I do wonder, though, how you reconcile this position with a duty to care for the mentally incapacitated. I seem to remember you making a rather less forward argument some time back about your exact reasoning for when human rights attach, and I wonder if it's perhaps closer to your actual position? (OK, I went back and looked it up. It's on p. 3 of this thread: "I have chosen to put it at the development of a partly sophisticated nervous system, because that is the part of humanity I care most about anyway.")

@orathaic
You said (to Atheos), "[Cows] have brains and heart beats and those brains are much more complicated than your average 1 year old. So what is your last criteria [for privileging human life over animal life], other than homo-centrism."
I said, "That criterion suffices for me. (Why) do you find it lacking?"
You responded, "The position is refering to brain activities. And cows have that. So the question returns to you, why is it ok to kill cows for food?"
With respect, it actually doesn't. Homo-centrism suffices for me to explain why it's ok to kill cows for food. If it doesn't suffice for you (and I think it doesn't), it remains an open question as to why it doesn't, eh?

In fairness, you did go on to provide something of an answer later, viz. "you can't just look at DNA and say: 'this is human DNA, and that is cow DNA' because they are the same letter, packaged differently, for sure. But even how the letters are packed away ( the chromsones, or chapters ) are not something which makes us uniquely deserving of life.

If it is other things, than using DNA is like using colour to discriminate against slaves. Ie just an excuse."

With regard to "how the letters are packed away," I certainly don't think there's some amazing quality in the human vs. bovine DNA sequencing itself that confers additional special rights on humans and comparatively few on the cattle (i.e. Question #3 from my prior post). Where the regular difference in DNA coding has significance is that it allows us to distinguish humans from non-humans (i.e. Question #1 from my prior post). And if, under homo-centrism, humans DO have an elevated/expansive spectrum of rights that they deserve, and that cows do NOT deserve, it is quite important to know who is human and who is not.

As for the question of what actually privileges humans, I was a little surprised to see you come around to the position that humans actually do deserve special privileges: "The qualities of what makes us human are important. That we feel, that we are self-aware, that we are capable of compassion and empathy. That we grow and learn from our mistakes, our consciences. All of these things are important.

Do you take the position that a 1 year old baby has more of these than an adult cow?"
While all of these things may be important, I can't see why they are important other than that they make us different from non-humans (and this position itself is, I think, potentially dubious). Why do you think they make us uniquely deserving of life and care?

As for my own reasons for homo-centrism, I will go with the same response I gave to pangloss back on p. 4 of this thread:
Homo sapiens is a select species with dignity and rights that do not inhere in any other species. Membership in the species is sufficient to confer these dignity and rights without additional appurtenances such as self-awareness and rationality (as traditionally understood) [and, I would add here, compassion, empathy, and neighborliness] being necessary. Other species, meanwhile, are quite literally sub-human.

My reasoning stems from Genesis 1.26 "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

[On the point of the morality of eating meat in general, there's Genesis 9.3: "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." I don't think this can be read to suggest that all methods of producing meat are necessarily moral, but it does at least point out that using animals for the purposes of feeding ourselves is very much within the pale.]

Does the link I tried to include work if I post it like this?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/maternal_fetal_bond_why_doesn_t_a_pregnant_woman_s_immune_system_attack_the_fetus_.html

Nope.