Thread: 'House of Horrors' abortion clinic uncovered

mr e: there is no question that a baby is not a person. a baby is not a person, by any reasonable or philosophical definition of the word. "human with brain function" is not a workable definition of person, even if it might be a colloquial one.

sycld has raised the real interesting point, although his own personal answer to it is a little disappointing. the question is: given that (hopefully) none of us fall victim to the "potential" argument (lest we decry contraception, as well as any man/woman who is not constantly having procreative sex), is there a relevant philosophical difference between a late term foetus and a baby? well, intrinsically, no. a one-day-old baby is no more developed mentally than a foetus one day from birth. it's also no more aware or sentient or "feeling" than, say, a crab. but crab-killing is not nearly as fraught with controversy. poor crabs.

Originally Posted by sycld

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion after brain activity has started.

and when/if brain-scanning technology gets more and more sophistocated and finds brain activity starting in miniscule amounts earlier and earlier?

Originally Posted by sycld

Either late term abortion is not okay, or infanticide at least in the first few weeks post-birth is just external abortion.

a false dichotomy relying on the assumption (and it is one) that intrinsic qualities of the individual infant are the only things to take into consideration. other things involved are

-the effect on the mother (not just on her health, which is less contentious, but on her "freedom"; ie. freedom to not have a baby in her belly)
-relationships forged with outside world
-status as dependent/independent
...etc

it's also a false dichotomy on the assumption that birth and abortion-via-foetus-killing are the only options

one compromise is to say a woman may elect to have a foetus removed from her at any point, but can't decide to kill it (in other words she can have it yanked out whenever she wants, but if it can be kept alive by other means then it must be)

to respond to the question posed at the top of this post -- i would say that the real relevant difference between a baby and a foetus (and a crab, for that matter) is its connection and importance to persons. i'm not saying i've solved it, but it's the best answer i have.



edit: on topic, the biggest shame in this story is that it will probably used to negatively paint abortion by anti-abortionist assholes.

sycld, your ideas about brain function are dependent, it seems, on our current understanding of brain function. now, you may be absolutely correct, and there's stuff we know about how the brain works sufficiently that we can be sure we won't be proven wrong by future evidence. but i wouldn't bank on it.

Originally Posted by sycld

Huh? When does a baby become a person then?

good question. i don't know. but any real definition of "personhood" rules out baby. there's a definition i like which relies on the ability to have preferences -- high-functioning apes have demonstrated some ability in this, but other than humans that's it. preferences aren't just like "want food" or "would prefer not to be poked with stick"; they're more significant, demonstrating an understanding of consequences and long-term ideas and prioritising and so on. to be honest it's been so long since i've dipped into this discussion that i can't go into much more detail than that without bringing out my coursework on the subject from three years ago.

edit: the utilitarian position that follows this idea of having preferences is to maximise "preference satisfaction" rather than "happiness", just as a point of interest.

Originally Posted by sycld

Also, it was once thought that babies were just crying, eating machines. It's now known that their mental functions are more complicated than that.

certainly not as complicated as high-functioning apes, that's for damn sure.

Originally Posted by sycld

What does this argument have to do with contraception? I think you're a little confused here.

the potential argument (ie. a foetus/baby is precious because it has the potential to be a person) leads to thinking negatively of contraception; "every sperm is sacred" stuff. i'm not confused. there's no leap there.

Originally Posted by sycld

Gwahir, if you want to know why I get so annoyed with you when we debate, it's in large part because you're so willing to pull "facts" like this one out of your ass. This is totally untrue.

well, perhaps not a crab. perhaps a dog, or cow. the point is that there are animals with higher brain functions than babies, and we're kind of okay with killing animals (assuming we're not denting their species, and causing them much pain or distress). either there is an arbitrary and speciesist double standard at play, or there's something extrinsic (ie. not to do with brain functions) that makes babies less okay to kill than dolphins, saint bernards, grizzly bears, and so on.

Originally Posted by simonj

Well, as Mr. E pointed out, a dolphon or a Saint Bernard is not going to ever become a person with whatever it is you define as a large enough amount of brain function to qualify as a 'person'

a zygote has that potential. a just-fertilised egg has that potential. EVERY SPERM HAS THAT POTENTIAL. that's the problem with the "potential" argument.

Originally Posted by simonj

Of course there's a leap. Not many people equate sperm with actual people. That's usually associated with religious beliefs anyway.

it's a religious belief for a reason. because religious scholars correctly went "ah, hang on -- if we're against killing people because of souls, and we don't know when a soul gets there, we have to be against baby killing, even if it's in the womb, because it might have a soul, and if it doesn't, it has the potential to have one. in fact, every fertilised egg has that potential. uh oh! no abortions for us!"

if you argue from potential, you have to argue for the protection at the VERY LEAST of every fertilised egg. but then you have to rationalise away why you don't think every single sperm is sacred by saying something like "well, not everything that has the potential needs to be cultivated, but to actually get in the way of that potential is not okay".