Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Viability and Abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I'd be interested to see whether you could, even after numerous threads on the topic, explain my position and the rationale for that position with any sort of accuracy. Pretty sure that's a prerequisite to passing any legitimate judgment.
    Oh good - you don't support abortion! You are pro life then?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      But it's not true for all times. It's not even necessarily true for any time. It's certainly conceivable but it's not actual.
      I suspect I'm not communicating the thought well.
      Let me use an analogy.
      Suppose I have an acorn today. It has the capacity to become an oak tree.
      Thus I would say that today it is true that the acorn has the capacity to become an oak tree.
      Then it's as if you said back to me, no that's not true today, for it isn't (and will not be) actually an oak tree today.

      In which case it would seem you have in mind a different proposition than the one I'm trying to communicate.
      There's a difference between:
      1) Today it is true that the acorn has the capacity to become an oak tree.
      and
      2) It is true that the acorn has the capacity to "become an oak tree today".

      You would seem to be denying the latter, while I am affirming the former.
      In the case of the former I'm talking about a potentiality that actually exists today.
      The potentiality can actually exist today, even if it is a potentiality for X, such that X cannot happen today (e.g. given one is restricted to today's technology).

      The argument about viability isn't an argument about absolute kinds or forms. It's an argument regarding feasibility. Legal personhood is given to individuals that can attain some degree of self-sufficiency. Obviously, such a determination is fluid and non-absolute but the idea is that neonates that cannot survive outside of the womb (for the purposes here, natural or artificial) are not considered developed enough to be such persons....People who are still arguing on the basis of viability are not going to be persuaded by an argument about potentials, any road.
      If the proponents of the viability argument are not referring to kinds, then they are making an irrelevant argument, and I in this thread have only erred in interpreting their argument more charitably than the way in which they intend it. In which case I would fall back to my previous arguments showing that their intended sense is irrelevant.

      They may disregard potentials, but not coherently, because vi-able inherently refers to a potential.

      No one, I think, is particularly satisfied with this somewhat ad-hoc framework
      But I keep encountering people who say they think viability is the main/sole dividing line.

      and I believe that fetal consciousness will eventually replace it as the delineation between a non-person fetus and a person-fetus.
      Perhaps. And that suggestion makes for an interesting discussion too.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        I suspect I'm not communicating the thought well.
        Let me use an analogy.
        Suppose I have an acorn today. It has the capacity to become an oak tree.
        Thus I would say that today it is true that the acorn has the capacity to become an oak tree.
        Then it's as if you said back to me, no that's not true today, for it isn't (and will not be) actually an oak tree today.

        In which case it would seem you have in mind a different proposition than the one I'm trying to communicate.
        There's a difference between:
        1) Today it is true that the acorn has the capacity to become an oak tree.
        and
        2) It is true that the acorn has the capacity to "become an oak tree today".

        You would seem to be denying the latter, while I am affirming the former.
        In the case of the former I'm talking about a potentiality that actually exists today.
        The potentiality can actually exist today, even if it is a potentiality for X, such that X cannot happen today (e.g. given one is restricted to today's technology).
        Yes, I understood that you're making an argument based on capacity or potential. My counterpoint is that this is not synonymous with the term "absolute" or, more relevant to this discussion, I think, the term "actual." Something that is absolute is undiminished, complete. A potential expression of a form is almost by definition not the absolute expression of that form. So while we would agree that a zygote or embryo or fetus has the potential to become a fully-formed human or has the potential to be a person, we cannot say that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a fully-formed human or even a person in the absolute sense.

        For some, the mere essence of potentiality is sufficient to categorize an embryo as a person. I have never bought into the potentiality argument, however. Treating potentials as actuals is a category error and leads to a good many problems.


        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        If the proponents of the viability argument are not referring to kinds, then they are making an irrelevant argument, and I in this thread have only erred in interpreting their argument more charitably than the way in which they intend it. In which case I would fall back to my previous arguments showing that their intended sense is irrelevant.

        They may disregard potentials, but not coherently, because vi-able inherently refers to a potential.
        Viable refers to the probabilistic ability of neonates to survive outside the womb. That's not making an argument regarding the potential for a particular fetus' ability to survive outside of the womb but rather the ability for neonates in general to survive. It's based on actual empirical data rather than philosophical potential.

        You can argue that viability is irrelevant if it's not referring to philosophical kinds or forms but I personally find that unpersuasive — I don't know why such a restriction would be warranted in this discussion. It's not a restriction that is used in end-of-life care: everyone agrees that a 95 year-old man with Stage 4 metastatic cancer is an actual, fully-formed human person but the decision to withhold care is still made nevertheless. Unless one assumes the premise that a fetus with no higher-function brain processes is a "person," the question of kinds may be considered subordinate or irrelevant to other determining factors. And if that's the case, as it is with the viability argument, one first has to demonstrate that an appeal to kinds is necessary.

        I happen to think that an appeal to categorization (i.e., person/non-person) is vitally important. But other value paradigms do not necessitate such a categorization.


        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        But I keep encountering people who say they think viability is the main/sole dividing line.
        That may well be the case for them, even after deep reflection (though I don't meet many people who give these arguments very much thought, personally) — but even if someone retains the concept of viability as being the main or sole dividing line, that doesn't mean they're necessarily comfortable with it. Viability might simply be seen as the least bad dividing line.


        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        Perhaps. And that suggestion makes for an interesting discussion too.
        It does get into some complicated and cool science. Trying to be as conservative as possible with definitions, it seems that ~24 weeks is the earliest we can attribute the building blocks of sentience to be in place.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #34
          The ancient Romans and other people often abandoned new babies. Today, people in comas could be killed by denying them water and food. I would judge these two kinds of action equally as murder.

          As for the case of fetuses/embryos/blastocysts/zygotes, is there a difference morally with abandoning new babies? I don't see any.

          This, I would concede, is not a complete and compelling argument.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            The ancient Romans and other people often abandoned new babies. Today, people in comas could be killed by denying them water and food. I would judge these two kinds of action equally as murder.

            As for the case of fetuses/embryos/blastocysts/zygotes, is there a difference morally with abandoning new babies? I don't see any.

            This, I would concede, is not a complete and compelling argument.
            Well there is one big difference. In the case of comas, the only thing keeping them alive is technology, otherwise they would die a natural death. In the case of abortion, the only thing killing them is technology and interference from man. Left alone they would live and develop into a full term baby.

            And also in the case of comas, it is usually only done in the case of brain death (not always but most of the time) - to me, if someone is brain dead and only being kept alive by artificial means, then withholding those artificial means and letting nature take it's course is not murder. They are already dead. If there is any doubt, then I think as fellow human beings we are obligated to keep them alive and give them a chance. To just unplug someone in a regular coma (not brain dead) would be murder.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Yes, I understood that you're making an argument based on capacity or potential. My counterpoint is that this is not synonymous with the term "absolute" or, more relevant to this discussion, I think, the term "actual." Something that is absolute is undiminished, complete.
              Maybe "absolute" was not the right choice of word. Perhaps "unqualified" would have been better. In particular, unqualified by the arbitrary restriction to the technological knowledge on a particular date.

              A potential expression of a form is almost by definition not the absolute expression of that form.
              But I'm not talking about a potential expression of the 'form'. The 'form' (if you like) that I'm talking about is a potentiality ("potentially able"). And it actually exists.

              To give an idea of the distinction, an acorn actually has the capacity to become an oak tree. A rock does not. The 'form' of the 'capacity' is as actually present as it can be, in the acorn.

              Treating potentials as actuals is a category error and leads to a good many problems.
              Yes, of course. I am not making that error. I am distinguishing them.
              That is, for example, the acorn is a potential tree, but is not an actual tree.
              But it does actually have the capacity to become a tree. And if the thing I am talking about is that capacity, then yes, that is actual in the acorn.


              (Moreover: The capacity to become a tree is actually present in the acorn, but not present in the tree, since it doesn't make sense to speak of something changing while not changing. On the other hand, if we were to speak of the capacity to be a tree, that is present in both the acorn and the tree.)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Well there is one big difference. In the case of comas, the only thing keeping them alive is technology, otherwise they would die a natural death. In the case of abortion, the only thing killing them is technology and interference from man. Left alone they would live and develop into a full term baby.

                And also in the case of comas, it is usually only done in the case of brain death (not always but most of the time) - to me, if someone is brain dead and only being kept alive by artificial means, then withholding those artificial means and letting nature take it's course is not murder. They are already dead. If there is any doubt, then I think as fellow human beings we are obligated to keep them alive and give them a chance. To just unplug someone in a regular coma (not brain dead) would be murder.
                My post needed to be more specific. For one thing, I did not think of brain-dead people.



                If there is any doubt, then I think as fellow human beings we are obligated to keep them alive and give them a chance.
                Oh! I had not thought of applying the Good Samaritan commandment to the abortion problem before. I wonder if one can build on the commandment a case for Christians to oppose abortion. And I think many non-Christians would be also led to oppose it.
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  . . . snip . . . "If there is any doubt, then I think as fellow human beings we are obligated to keep them alive and give them a chance." . . . snip . . .
                  There have been a few cases where people declared brain dead have actually revived. This tells me there is always doubt.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    There have been a few cases where people declared brain dead have actually revived. This tells me there is always doubt.
                    Such patients were misdiagnosed. They were in comas and not brain dead. There's no coming back from brain death.
                    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Ytrium View Post
                      Such patients were misdiagnosed. They were in comas and not brain dead. There's no coming back from brain death.
                      This is necessarily false. The truth is that there is no definitive 'brain death'. Each state - sometimes each hospital - defines brain death for themselves. As a result of the fractured definitions it is false to make absolute statements about the category.

                      The fact is that some legitimate brain death cases have recovered.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        This is necessarily false. The truth is that there is no definitive 'brain death'. Each state - sometimes each hospital - defines brain death for themselves. As a result of the fractured definitions it is false to make absolute statements about the category.

                        The fact is that some legitimate brain death cases have recovered.
                        That's quite a fascinating response. I'm interested to hear what you think of this CNN article on the subject. I've seen a lot of controversy surrounding recent brain death cases, and I always like to understand what's causing the controversy.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          Maybe "absolute" was not the right choice of word. Perhaps "unqualified" would have been better. In particular, unqualified by the arbitrary restriction to the technological knowledge on a particular date.


                          But I'm not talking about a potential expression of the 'form'. The 'form' (if you like) that I'm talking about is a potentiality ("potentially able"). And it actually exists.

                          To give an idea of the distinction, an acorn actually has the capacity to become an oak tree. A rock does not. The 'form' of the 'capacity' is as actually present as it can be, in the acorn.


                          Yes, of course. I am not making that error. I am distinguishing them.
                          That is, for example, the acorn is a potential tree, but is not an actual tree.
                          But it does actually have the capacity to become a tree. And if the thing I am talking about is that capacity, then yes, that is actual in the acorn.


                          (Moreover: The capacity to become a tree is actually present in the acorn, but not present in the tree, since it doesn't make sense to speak of something changing while not changing. On the other hand, if we were to speak of the capacity to be a tree, that is present in both the acorn and the tree.)
                          I think you run into the same problem with the term "unqualified" — using your example of an acorn, the acorn has the capacity to become a tree, though it is not a tree. That capacity is itself a qualification: we can say the acorn is a tree only in the qualified sense.

                          But this seems to be very much the argument from potential — which some find very persuasive. But when we're talking about a non-actualized capacity, we are (by definition, I think) talking about something that might be yet is not. And I think that's a crucial, possibly insurmountable, distinction. We either have to resolve that conflict or admit that we're making a subjective distinction that does not stand on its own legs. And if that's the case, the moral absolutism of personhood that finds its way into most pro-life arguments has to go.

                          Not sure if the capacity to become a tree is lost upon growth, at least when we're talking Platonic forms. Since no tree ever matches the perfect form, all trees are either becoming closer to the perfect form or falling away from it in decay. All material things are in a state of becoming or decaying and nothing simply is. Personhood may be inalienable from a zygote if we're following a brand of Aristotelian essentialism (saying that a human zygote essentially carries the property "person"), which might be more in line with how you're using the "absolute" and "unqualified" terms.

                          But this gets us into some serious reverse-Theseus' Paradox problems: I think to hold the claim, one would necessarily have to posit something that is essentially a soul and essentially immaterial that is present at least from the moment of conception. Not a huge reach for a lot of people, certainly, but also not fundamentally strong position on which to base moral or ethical imperatives in a secular society.
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                            Such patients were misdiagnosed. They were in comas and not brain dead. There's no coming back from brain death.
                            Exactly! A diagnosis of brain death is basically a misdiagnosis.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              Exactly! A diagnosis of brain death is basically a misdiagnosis.
                              Strange that the medical community hasn't realized this yet. Have you provided them your medical research detailing proper diagnosis techniques?
                              Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                                Strange that the medical community hasn't realized this yet. Have you provided them your medical research detailing proper diagnosis techniques?
                                "It's too difficult, too costly, or too medically invasive to make a firm judgment, so I'm going to go with my mental X-ray projection" isn't something that most medical professional organizations are going either to admit to or defend, but I'm going to guess that it's a very common mental shortcut.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                269 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X