 |
Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
 Posted: 09.28.2003 12:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hmm... I may be wrong, but I think it's older children who have been orphaned that have trouble getting adopted, not necessarily newborns.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, well, I think it varies place to place...I'm not very knowledgeable on the topic.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
As above, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, since I don't have a concrete opinion on some of these matters. (Primarily, I'm interested in the gray areas, not agendas.)
| the night watchman wrote: | | Well, that?s not to say an embryo is not more alive than a corpse, but a human being, I think we?ll agree, is more than just biology. ?Being? is the operative word here. We are beings of past and potential, of personality and capability, of thought and emotion, and of unique perspective. Neither an embryo nor a corpse possesses all of these necessary qualities. |
Yet a corpse at least had the opportunity to experience those necessary qualities. An embryo, if allowed to follow nature's course unfettered, will also attain those same qualities. I'm not necessarily suggesting that life begins at conception--I remain undetermined--but it might be a logical default answer. If not at conception, then when? Many of those "necessary" characteristics you listed are not instantly attained upon birth. Some are developed earlier, others later.
| the night watchman wrote: | | Well, that point of view seems to suggest that anyone unwilling to try for conception at every available opportunity is just as guilty of enacting an artificial intervention as someone who gets an abortion ? or uses a condom. Each ovum and sperm is a potential human, after all. I realize pro-lifers don?t see it this way, but that?s why I think their position is self-contradictory. |
Are, indeed, each ovum and sperm a potential human being? Left unfertilized, neither will ever evolve. I would argue instead that each merely contains ingredients necessary to create a potential human being, and that potential is set into motion upon fertilization. Unlike individual ovum or sperm, fertilized cells will naturally evolve into human beings as we typically think of them.
| the night watchman wrote: | | To tolerate abortion for one reason and not another is, at best, a political maneuver. |
I agree. That's exactly what it is. This helps explain why some pro-lifers make no exceptions under any circumstances. That position, however, is politically unpopular; hence the revised position.
| the night watchman wrote: | | By ?better,? I think I?m suggesting that some choices are more emotionally rewarding than others. I know women who have gotten abortions and then experienced a deep and unrelieved guilt for ever afterwards. There is no moral fabric to the cosmos, but there are choices we make as individuals that we have to live with. |
I certainly didn't mean to imply moral quicksand on your part; I included myself in the indictment. I tend to agree with your statement here, and think it applies well to this particular topic. One thing I'd like to add is that I'm always rather uncomfortable discussing this subject, because, as a man (or boy, or jerk, depending on your POV), I can't possibly comprehend fully the emotional corridors that exist for women facing this decision. You are correct, I think, in asserting that those emotional and psychological aspects must be considered as well, next to the biological, theological, and moral aspects.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: |
Yet a corpse at least had the opportunity to experience those necessary qualities. An embryo, if allowed to follow nature's course unfettered, will also attain those same qualities. I'm not necessarily suggesting that life begins at conception--I remain undetermined--but it might be a logical default answer. If not at conception, then when? Many of those "necessary" characteristics you listed are not instantly attained upon birth. Some are developed earlier, others later. |
Well, cells can't think or feel or experience anything. One has to have the correct parts -- a nervous system -- and those parts have to be hooked up. That doesn't occur until after the first trimester, which is what I would take as a sort of "grace period" before we get into sticky philosophical questions.
Also, while an infant does continue to develop after birth, it is a viable being, no longer biologically dependent on the mother. I think those necessary characteristic I listed do start at birth, and we have to have a starting place somewhere. Is that an arbitrary line to draw? Maybe. I will say that I'm a little sketchy on how I feel about fetal abortion, since a fetus is pretty much "complete" and "hooked up." It cannot, however, survive outside the womb. Perhaps I should have listed viability as a necessary trait as well.
| beltmann wrote: |
Are, indeed, each ovum and sperm a potential human being? Left unfertilized, neither will ever evolve. I would argue instead that each merely contains ingredients necessary to create a potential human being, and that potential is set into motion upon fertilization. Unlike individual ovum or sperm, fertilized cells will naturally evolve into human beings as we typically think of them. |
That to me is neither here nor there. What might be, or what might have been, is not the same as what is. Like I said, there is no potential if the woman is unwilling to carry it through to its potential. It is, while its germinating, a part of her, don't you think?
| beltmann wrote: |
I certainly didn't mean to imply moral quicksand on your part; I included myself in the indictment. |
I know, that's why I placed the laughing smilie. I just wasn't expecting that question, and it took me by surprise. I'm actually glad you posed it. 
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some excellent, thoughtful points, Night Watchman.
Lessee here... ah yes, here's my "devil's advocate" cap... :twisted:
I'm not convinced that birth initiates "viability" or biological independence. Left unattended, how long will a newborn survive? If one of our "necessary" traits is self-sufficiency (or independence), then I doubt that newborns qualify. Whether the mother provides support in or out of the womb strikes me as irrelevant. If viability and self-reliance are necessary traits, perhaps we can continue to abort through, say, age 1?
This raises the issue of when to assign human status. In terms of "personality and capability, of thought and emotion, and of unique perspective," is there a significant difference between a baby five seconds before birth, and one five seconds after birth? In those ten seconds, what has significantly changed, other than location?
Taking off the cap. I definitely do not believe a fetus gains human status in those ten seconds--which raises the central question I posed in my first post: When, exactly, does human life begin? I agree that we have to have a starting point somewhere, and I think it definitely occurs sometime prior to birth. But how early? After the first trimester may be reasonable, but I'm still open to the possibility that conception may be the most inclusionary, least arbitrary definition.
Replacing the cap. Why must viability be linked to biological independence? If we reduce viability to its most basic definition--"able to live"--shouldn't we then consider a growing, living embryo as a "viable" human being? It is viable because it is living in exactly the way that nature intended. Also, if "thinking, feeling, and capability" are necessary human traits, what do we do with the comatose, the braindead, the severely cognitively disabled, or those on life support? No longer human? (Okay, that's a stretch. But my point is that we must be very cautious when deciding what "traits" are required before we can assign human status. I'm willing to consider abstract principles, such as natural potential, as possible traits, and I'm also willing to consider that abstract traits may outweigh biological traits such as a nervous system.)
| Quote: | | What might be, or what might have been, is not the same as what is. |
True, but what is and what might be is not the same as what certainly will be, if biology is allowed to take its natural course unfettered.
| Quote: | | Like I said, there is no potential if the woman is unwilling to carry it through to its potential. |
I'm not sure. Surely the potential is there, up until the point the woman intervenes with nature? This also seems like a rationalization for irresponsibility. There is also no potential if parents decide to abandon a newborn. There is also no potential if parents decide to starve their child six months later. Willingness on the part of a parent shouldn't play a role in determining the value of an embryo, fetus, or infant. Potential is always there, until the parent intentionally intervenes. To me, the question is whether the parent has the right to intervene.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: |
I'm not convinced that birth initiates "viability" or biological independence. Left unattended, how long will a newborn survive? If one of our "necessary" traits is self-sufficiency (or independence), then I doubt that newborns qualify. Whether the mother provides support in or out of the womb strikes me as irrelevant. If viability and self-reliance are necessary traits, perhaps we can continue to abort through, say, age 1? |
Certainly a newborn is a viable being. It is still physically dependent on the parents since it can't defend itself or feed itself or whatnot. But a fetus, up until the last few weeks, is biologically, literally parasitically dependent on the mother. This complete dependency seems like a good place to draw a line, if it must be drawn so late. Mind you, I am uncomfortable with abortion after the first trimester, but I'm just as uncomfortable with restricting a woman's biological rights.
| beltmann wrote: | | This raises the issue of when to assign human status. In terms of "personality and capability, of thought and emotion, and of unique perspective," is there a significant difference between a baby five seconds before birth, and one five seconds after birth? In those ten seconds, what has significantly changed, other than location? |
Taking into consideration most people do not get what might be called "convenience abortions" so late along, the question about the difference between a baby "5-seconds before or after" seems a bit moot, but I understand what you're getting at: We should try to be less arbitrary. So in answer to your question about assigning human status, I'd say at least viability, i.e. biological independence.
| beltmann wrote: | | Taking off the cap. I definitely do not believe a fetus gains human status in those ten seconds--which raises the central question I posed in my first post: When, exactly, does human life begin? I agree that we have to have a starting point somewhere, and I think it definitely occurs sometime prior to birth. But how early? After the first trimester may be reasonable, but I'm still open to the possibility that conception may be the most inclusionary, least arbitrary definition. |
Well, okay. But I just have to place the rights of the mother ahead of the rights of a clump of cells.
| beltmann wrote: | | Replacing the cap. Why must viability be linked to biological independence? If we reduce viability to its most basic definition--"able to live"--shouldn't we then consider a growing, living embryo as a "viable" human being? It is viable because it is living in exactly the way that nature intended. |
I think I answered this above. If not, let me know.
| beltmann wrote: | | Also, if "thinking, feeling, and capability" are necessary human traits, what do we do with the comatose, the braindead, the severely cognitively disabled, or those on life support? No longer human? (Okay, that's a stretch. But my point is that we must be very cautious when deciding what "traits" are required before we can assign human status. I'm willing to consider abstract principles, such as natural potential, as possible traits, and I'm also willing to consider that abstract traits may outweigh biological traits such as a nervous system.) |
I think this a different issue all together. I also wouldn't couple the severly cognitively disabled with complete vegetables, but I would still consider them all human beings. If you are asking "What should be done with them?" well, I suppose that's a situational issue dependent on decisions made by the individual while still healthy and his or her family.
| beltmann wrote: | | True, but what is and what might be is not the same as what certainly will be, if biology is allowed to take its natural course unfettered. |
I think you lost me. :oops:
| beltmann wrote: | | There is also no potential if parents decide to abandon a newborn. There is also no potential if parents decide to starve their child six months later. Willingness on the part of a parent shouldn't play a role in determining the value of an embryo, fetus, or infant. Potential is always there, until the parent intentionally intervenes. To me, the question is whether the parent has the right to intervene. |
I guess this comes back to the viability issue. A newborn is a human being, not a potential anything. As such it deserves the same rights as a toddler, child, teenager, or adult.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
No mas? 
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Night Watchman, thanks for indulging my "devil's advocate" questions. This is a topic that has always fascinated me, partially because it has such profound social implications, partially because so many people are so confident in their position while I am not, and partially because I've always been able to simultaneously sympathize with both perspectives.
I wanted to explore three significant, interconnected, questions: When do we assign human status? What traits are necessary for human status, and how do we select them? What constitutes viability?
As for placing "the rights of the mother ahead of the rights of a clump of cells," if it's conceivable that the cells are actually human life in its earliest form, then it becomes an issue of two human beings with equal rights. It may require abstract logic to arrive at that conclusion, but I'm open to the possibility that personhood occurs even prior to those cells taking the "shape" of humanity as we typically think of it. Just like a newborn, an embryo/fetus may be a human being in young form--merely the earliest stages of a natural process--and therefore not a "potential anything."
I don't have answers that completely satisfy my own inquiries. Like you, I am currently uncomfortable with late-term abortion, and definitely oppose partial-birth abortion. I also know that I'm skeptical about assigning human status at birth--which strikes me as arbitrary, both in terms of biology and viability--but I'm also unconvinced that viability is linked solely to biological, parasitical dependency. I think my doubts are directly related to my uncertainty about which traits are necessary for personhood.
Yet these questions must be answered before we can discuss the rights of mothers. Some may argue (and please don't confuse this with my personal opinion) that terminating a pregnancy is murder, not a matter of choice, and that the choice comes in deciding whether to have sex or not. Once that decision is made, then individuals must be prepared to responsibly deal with the potential consequences of that action.
Personally, I think that's overly simplistic and not a particularly practical nor realistic position, but it illustrates that even the issue of "reproductive rights" depends heavily upon my questions above. At this point I'm not at all comfortable assigning or denying reproductive rights to any woman, but I would prefer the debate remained within medical, biological, and moral arenas rather than philosophical and political ones. That's tricky, though, isn't it?
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | No mas? |
Yeah, my wife and I were watching a movie! (Holes, if you were wondering. Not bad.)
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I loved Holes.  Definitely will be adding it
to my collection.
| beltmann wrote: | | At this point I'm not at all comfortable assigning or denying reproductive rights to any woman, but I would prefer the debate remained within medical, biological, and moral arenas rather than philosophical and political ones. That's tricky, though, isn't it? |
I'd prefer that too, and, yeah, it's tricky all right.
Here are my responses to your questions. While these are more than tentative, I'm fully open to reconsidering them:
When do we assign human status?
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to do this, but on a practical level, I have to say that human status arrives when a fetus -- as I've put it before -- has developed all the parts needed to experience life. In extenuating circumstances, I'd place it at birth.
What traits are necessary for human status, and how do we select them?
Trait necessary: The ability to experience life: emotions, stimuli, even thoughts or something akin to them. In short, brainwaves. In extenuating circumstances, viability. How we select them: It seems resonable to assume that an organism that lacks the necessary components to experience life does not experience it. An organism such as this, though it maybe technically alive and genetically human, is not necessarily a person. Thus, the termination of the develpment of such an organsim is not the extinguishing of a person, because no person exists yet.
What constitutes viability?
Here are some definitions form dictionary.com:
vi?a?ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.
viability
\Vi`a*bil"i*ty\, n. The quality or state of being viable. Specifically: (a) (Law) The capacity of living after birth. --Bouvier. (b) The capacity of living, or being distributed, over wide geographical limits; as, the viability of a species.
viability
n 1: (of living things) capable of normal growth and development 2: capable of become practical and useful
| beltmann wrote: | | As for placing "the rights of the mother ahead of the rights of a clump of cells," if it's conceivable that the cells are actually human life in its earliest form, then it becomes an issue of two human beings with equal rights. It may require abstract logic to arrive at that conclusion, but I'm open to the possibility that personhood occurs even prior to those cells taking the "shape" of humanity as we typically think of it. Just like a newborn, an embryo/fetus may be a human being in young form--merely the earliest stages of a natural process--and therefore not a "potential anything." |
I see exactly where you are coming from, but maybe because I'm essentially a materialist, it seems to me that pondering whether a form with no brain, no sense organs, and no volition is a human being or not is an idealistic rather than pragmatic consideration -- and I mean that in the best way. If there was no such thing as unwanted pregnancy, I'd be right there with you.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg
Last edited by the night watchman on 09.28.2003 7:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, just so you know I just got off work (I've been responding during down-time) and probably won't get back till tomorrow evening.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Third M?n
Studio Exec
Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | c) die before your birthdate.
I would pick the third. There are many, many variables to take in account for, one of the biggest is location. That's why socitiety as a whole (putting religion and ethics beside) will never be able to decide as a whole. |
So basically you are assuming that life isn't worth living unless you have lots of money and can afford it. How very wrong. Life still remains a privilege and a right, no matter the way you live it, its value never changes.
Last edited by The Third M?n on 09.28.2003 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, religion is constituted--proving that this is more of a religious and personal issue than a political or ethical one.
As Eric said, there are some who would rather take the death penalty then spend a whole life in jail (I am one of them, in fact). There are other's that would prefer life. While that is a completely other issue, for those people did something wrong (I'm for the death penalty), the two are relateable. Since I take no part in any type of religion or other thing that would influence me the other wayo, I do feel that death before birth is better than living a life of poverty and desperate conditions, with few ways to work yourself up in the rankings. Would you rather live no life or an agonizing one, is the question. I would, again, prefer the former.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So it boils down to whether viability is a necessary trait for personhood, and if so, what constitutes viability? Both are philosophical questions, I think, which helps explain why science hasn't been able to satisfactorily resolve this debate.
| the night watchman wrote: |
Here are some definitions form dictionary.com:
vi?a?ble
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy.
viability
\Vi`a*bil"i*ty\, n. The quality or state of being viable. Specifically: (a) (Law) The capacity of living after birth. --Bouvier. (b) The capacity of living, or being distributed, over wide geographical limits; as, the viability of a species.
viability
n 1: (of living things) capable of normal growth and development 2: capable of become practical and useful |
What I find interesting is that several definitions would support the philosophical position of assigning viable status at birth, while others would support viability from conception ("capable of normal growth and development;" "capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions"). Again, the philosophical disagreement--which is certainly colored by idealism, as you indicated--seems predicated upon whether viable status must be coupled with complete biological independence.
| the night watchman wrote: | | It seems to me that pondering whether a form with no brain, no sense organs, and no volition is a human being or not is an idealistic rather than pragmatic consideration -- and I mean that in the best way. If there was no such thing as unwanted pregnancy, I'd be right there with you. |
But certainly idealism is required when determining such answers? The notion of "unwanted pregnancy" seems relevant to the issue of reproductive rights, but not to the issue of when human life begins. I don't think the wants, desires, hopes, and willingness of parents--factors that are influenced by selfish motivations as much as pragmatic or moral ones--have any bearing on when human life is scientifically assigned, or when viable status is achieved. If they did, it's conceivable that each embryo/fetus/infant might become human/viable at different times, which doesn't seem medically sound.
"Unwanted," I think, is irrelevant to when human life begins (and therefore irrelevant to the medical or philosophical morality of abortion). Yet I agree that "unwanted" certainly has pragmatic significance, and relates to social morality. For example, if society somehow agreed that human life begins prior to birth, then "unwanted" plays a role in determining whether society will tolerate abortions anyway.
Eric
Last edited by beltmann on 09.28.2003 2:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 09.28.2003 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | Would you rather live no life or an agonizing one, is the question. I would, again, prefer the former. |
Replacing the devil's advocate cap... I think that's acceptable, but I fail to see how it relates to the issue of abortion. I think many pro-lifers would respond with this: In your scenario, you make the determination for yourself, while in the case of abortion, someone else makes the determination for you. Your desire to express a personal preference for yourself reveals a respect for the human will--self-ownership--that is denied to victims of abortion. If indeed a fetus is a human being, then doesn't that fetus have the right, like you, to first experience life and then decide for itself, as you did, whether it prefers no life or an agonizing one? What's agonizing to one may be acceptable to another, and who are we to decide for others what qualifies? And if there's a chance at a rewarding life--no matter how slight--doesn't a fetus have the right to make a go at it? History is littered with great individuals who rose from "agonizing" conditions.
Taking off the cap...I guess I'm uncomfortable saying that abortion is acceptable because it "rescues" babies from the awfulness of life. That's a mighty slippery slope with subjective definitions at its core. Perhaps an affluent family may decide to abort because they want to "rescue" their baby from ever having to experience the "agony" of growing pains or college entrance exams, or the "agonizing" pressure of the adult rat race?
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
