Originally posted by Sam
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Viability and Abortion
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostBut 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.
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.
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
and I believe that fetal consciousness will eventually replace it as the delineation between a non-person fetus and a person-fetus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostI 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).
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 PostIf 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.
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 PostBut I keep encountering people who say they think viability is the main/sole dividing line.
Originally posted by Joel View PostPerhaps. And that suggestion makes for an interesting discussion too."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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostThe 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYes, 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.
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWell 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.
If there is any doubt, then I think as fellow human beings we are obligated to keep them alive and give them a chance.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
-
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 . . .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
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThere have been a few cases where people declared brain dead have actually revived. This tells me there is always doubt.Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ytrium View PostSuch patients were misdiagnosed. They were in comas and not brain dead. There's no coming back from brain death.
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
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThis 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.Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostMaybe "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.)
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
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostSuch patients were misdiagnosed. They were in comas and not brain dead. There's no coming back from brain death.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
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostExactly! A diagnosis of brain death is basically a misdiagnosis.Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostStrange that the medical community hasn't realized this yet. Have you provided them your medical research detailing proper diagnosis techniques?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 05:11 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
|
32 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 07:48 PM
|
||
Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:25 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
|
52 responses
269 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 03:05 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
|
77 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 05:50 PM |
Comment