Thread: Bush vs. Kerry

Not proven beyond doubt. If you're assuming this view, then your're clearly adopting a religious stance. Certainly a stance that rejects materialist, certain fatalistic religions, and deistic religions where God knows the complete future. You're really constraining yourself to a narrow segment of the population here.

No no no, i'm not adopting a religious stance!

The number of hypothetical genetically distinct individuals will be a huge huge number. (Each sperm a man produces could hypothetically fertilise any female egg) but environment also plays a role, which means you need to factor that in too, which is where the numbers just get stupid.

(Edit: I think you're trying to apply hard determinism, that doesn't work, and it violates quantum theory anyway - see the final paragraph).

There are two differences between a fetus and a plausible fetus: a fetus is a human being, and without extraordinary outside intervention will be a human person

I don't think a fetus is necessarily a "being", as its nervous system develops i think you might be able to call it that, but the ethical weight behind the words "human" being depend on the "human" being more aware/conscious/intelligent than every other form of life (why else would a "human being" be more important than a "rodent being"?) that doesn't apply to the fetus.

50% of fetuses miscarry, so it may not develop into a human person.

Why that matters, I think, is that the potentional argument measures capability along a timescale, presumably only several months. So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential. Now we simply don't know what this potential is measured by, some will believe genes, others will believe fate. On the other hand, a nonexistent fetus, without existing, doesn't exist at the time the argument is applied, and doesn't have potential. You can't argue using a nonexistent entity

This argument doesn't work, both you and darkness see something special happening at the point of fertilisation but it's impossible to justify that point of view without appealing to religious ideas, or using arbitrary qualifiers.

You can apply this:

So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential

To a sperm/egg pair, and say:

"So, while a sperm/egg pair don't appear to be what we would call a person,they do have the qualities in the form of potential"

Consider the moment before fertilisation, a sperm is just about to fertilise an egg, the moment after it has, and the first time the fertilised egg divides.

In all 3 scenarios, a person does not exist, in all 3 scenarios a person might exist at some point in the future (in fact, a multitude of different people might exist, given different conditions in the womb, and even differenty experiences in later life). After fertilisation we have a diploid cell, before hand we have two haploid cells, but what is the significance of that?

Infact let me rephrase this in terms of multidudes of people (even if you don't agree with me, this will make you think).

First i will state that i'm assuming that a person is defined by their genes and their environment (for simplicity i will broadly equate environment to experiences).

Let us imagine ten years have passed and I have written down the history of everything that happened to me over those 10 years. Now from this point in the present the number of hypothetical future histories is a stupidly large number, encompassing every possible permutation that could occur in that time (of course some of these histories will be cut short, because i'll die). Each potential future history will result in a different potential future me.

So right now there are zillion different potential 34 year old Clyde's, and with each moment that passes a multitude of them cease to be possible.

With that in mind let us return to the topic at hand.

For simplicities sake let us start with the point of copulation (we could go further back but it would get more complicated).

There are ca. 250 million sperm released, so initially there are 250 million possible genetic blue prints for our potential human beings. The best case scenario is that a sperm manages to reach the egg and fertilise it, our potential population is instantly reduced to a 250 millionth of its size, as pregnancy progress various somatic mutations occur (or don't occur) again wiping out countless billions of potentials. (Again we will assume the best case scenario in which case the fetus does not miscarry). The chemical makeup of the womb is dependant upon the mother's diet and state of mind and with each minute variation more and more potential people will be cast aside as potential variables turn into actual characteristics. After 9 months a child is born, of course there are still more potential human adults arising from this single baby than the entire population on Earth, that number is forever decreasing as the baby turns into a child, the child grows to be a man, and only the instant before death are there no more potential people left.

As i said we could go back before copulation, infact every instant as we wipe out large numbers of out potential future selves we wipe out even larger numbers of our potential future children, and yet larger numbers of out potential future grandchildren.

My point is simply that in our journey from potential to real there is nothing significant about fertilisation it's just another branching point in the tree diagram of of our potential population.

(I should really talk a bit about determinism here, but it doesn't really effect the outcome of the argument, if one favours free will then it is valid to talk about the potential future, quantum indeterminancy means that from a physics point of view its ONLY valid to talk about the potential future, and even if one takes the view of the now defunct Laplacian determinism one does not rescue the case for abortion since all distinction between human action vs. as would happen "naturally" cease to exist).

Edit:

There's a certain point where it's just not pragmatic to do that anymore, and I think you've hit it with the sperm thing

If we are drawing the line on pragmatic grounds surely the current system is fine.

Edit2:

Ooh my first negative feedback.

I didn't give you the negative feedback. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, I just tend to say "the other side of the story" in discussions, even if the "other side" is the side I wouldn't normally take a stance on.

Oh i wasn't accusing anyone, and i think that's probably an admirable trait.

Potential is different from possibilities in that potential is owned by an object, and this object will, unhindered, cash this potential. From this perspective the sperm and egg, together, have the potential to create a human being. But their potential is clearly owned by the male and the female, just as they have reproductive rights. Hence, as owner of their potential, they can both do as they please. But the fetus, like a baby, owns his or her potential to become a person. Beaching this ownership, while not done to a currently existing human person, is done to a biological human being.

A murder, nevertheless, kills someone, taking away a victim's life. But when the murder is tried the victim is a corpse. For whose life has been taken as passed away, society must look into the past, for only then was a living person. Now I don't argue after the fact: that now, when there is neither person nor human being, no one's right is violated. In the case of abortion, however, society must look into the future, imposing a considerable problem. Because a fetus will eventually grow into a person, I believe the person not yet formed has every right to exist as a fetus as a preson. If I was murdered as a one-year-old, I wouldn't exist, and I'd think that this event, murdering me as a one-year-old, kills my existence on this world; otherwise, killing me as a one-year-old would only kill some instantaneous period of my existence.

Potential is different from possibilities in that potential is owned by an object, and this object will, unhindered, cash this potential

If you want to think of it that way you could claim that possibilities are 'owned' by an object / collection of objects. I'm not seeing a real difference between the two.

From this perspective the sperm and egg, together, have the potential to create a human being. But their potential is clearly owned by the male and the female, just as they have reproductive rights

Your concept of ownership is an entirely arbitrary qualifier:

A sperm and egg have the potential to create a human being, but arbitrarely you ascribe the "ownership" to the parent bodies, a sperm and and egg stuck together have the potential to create a human being but arbitrarely you don't ascribe the "ownership" to the parent bodies.

But the fetus, like a baby, owns his or her potential to become a person

But you are the one desciding ownership! I could equally claim "But the fetus, like the sperm/egg, does not own it's potrential to become a person that is owned by the parents".

Because a fetus will eventually grow into a person

50% self abort. A foetus developing into a person is merely possibility.

If I was murdered as a one-year-old, I wouldn't exist, and I'd think that this event, murdering me as a one-year-old, kills my existence on this world; otherwise, killing me as a one-year-old would only kill some instantaneous period of my existence

But a persons future existence, is not an existence at all, its just a possibility, nothing more. Your life is not possibility its a reality.

As i said in the post above, there are zillions of possibile future people, every action that we make eliminate absurd amounts of them. Simply by choosing not to have a baby tommorow 'kills' its future existence, you arbitrarely ascribe ownership to me in that instance, but i could equally ascribe ownership to the sperm/eggs.

Edit:

If you wish to invoke the concept of ownership surely it makes more sense to extend our current concept of ownership, so i "own" my body including my sperm, my g/f owns her body including her eggs, correspondingly my g/f would own the foetus.

Note i don't really agree with this ownership idea, i don't think abortion should be allowed because the woman "owns" the foetus i think abortion should be allowed because a foetus is not a person (and indeed at earlier stages nothing more than a collection of cells), IF a foetus was as aware as you or me, I would be against it.

If you want to think of it that way you could claim that possibilities are 'owned' by an object / collection of objects. I'm not seeing a real difference between the two.

I'm thinking of potential like how we use "potential energy." Of course, ownership of this potential is an ethical concept. All people own their potential to reproduce; otherwise, society would allow rape. Neither is this concept arbitrary, because all human beings own their personhood; otherwise, unjustly taking away a human being's right to their personhood, through abuse or neglect, would be wrong. (I don't consider babies fully developed person's, having defined a person as able to speakor communicate and be a member of society.)

Possiblities, unlike potential, suggest capabilties aren't an inherent property of the object. Life clearly is an inherent property of the fetus, being that without an abortion the fetus' natural path is to continue living.

50% self abort. A foetus developing into a person is merely possibility.

You're citing a statistic you've found somewhere, but no one knows the exact cound. I've never heard anyone give an *estimate* of 50%. In fact, I've heard estimates about as low as 10%. Where does this number come from? Depending on the age of the fetus, the chance of a successful birth ought to be quite high.

But a persons future existence, is not an existence at all, its just a possibility, nothing more. Your life is not possibility its a reality.

Killing me, it could be argued, kills neither my past nor my future but only that instant. Because I cannot do too much in an instant, where is the ethical justication for killing being wrong? You said before that you believe murder is wrong because persons are capable of enjoying life. But without delving into the future, I'm uncertain how, using this logic, murder is wrong.

I'm thinking of potential like how we use "potential energy."

I don't think that's a good example because whilst it's called "potential" energy it is actually a genuine form of energy. A potential person is not a person at all, its not a form of a person it is simply a possible future person, a maybe (which doesn't apply to PE at all).

Of course, ownership of this potential is an ethical concept. All people own their potential to reproduce; otherwise, society would allow rape

If you really want to invoke ownership, then ownership of our own bodies is enough to rule out rape.

Neither is this concept arbitrary, because all human beings own their personhood; otherwise, unjustly taking away a human being's right to their personhood, through abuse or neglect, would be wrong

Your usuage is arbitrary for the reason i layed out in the post above.

You arbitrarly ascribe "ownership of potential" to a fertilised egg, or a collection of cells in a fetus but not to a sperm/egg.

Furthermore one need not base ethics entirely on the concept of ownership, people suffer when raped, people suffer when abused or neglected that is enough to justify their ethical status on utilitarian grounds.

You're citing a statistic you've found somewhere, but no one knows the exact cound. I've never heard anyone give an *estimate* of 50%. In fact, I've heard estimates about as low as 10%. Where does this number come from? Depending on the age of the fetus, the chance of a successful birth ought to be quite high.

It is the standard figure i've heard quoted, i can't recall where i heard it first probably biology A-level but i'm sure the medics i lived with mentioned before.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp

This site gives the reference in the scientific literature.

In anycase even if we pretend that it is 10% (which its almost guarateed not to be), that doesn't alter the argument in the slightest, a fetus is NEVER guaranteed to become a person it is a possible person nothing more.

Killing me, it could be argued, kills neither my past nor my future but only that instant. Because I cannot do too much in an instant, where is the ethical justication for killing being wrong? You said before that you believe murder is wrong because persons are capable of enjoying life. But without delving into the future, I'm uncertain how, using this logic, murder is wrong.

If we accept your overall "potential" premise then the only conclusion is that we encourage, nay force, all women to start having children the instant they reach reproductive maturity and only stop when their dead. That way you will reduce the number of potential people being "killed" (and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond). No answer i give to the question you pose will alter that conclusion.

The way out of the apparent ethical dilemma you present is to consider ethical 'theory' as we are doing but also to consider what and why ethics are.

Ethics evolved as a social code that enables humans to cooperate successfully in a society. One of the key cornerstones involves killing, all cultures have ethical constraints (in some form or another) around death for this very reason.

What i'm saying is that random murder is a moral "known", similarly randomly making someone suffer is also a moral "known".

Issues of abortion (or indeed almost any modern ethical debate) fall outside core ethical principles and so we must appeal to some kind of theoretical treatment to resolve them.

There is other way of looking at the question, which again delves into the practical nature of ethics.

From a utilitarian perspective we can justify murder as wrong because most people have loved ones who will suffer if they are killed. One could propose a thought experiment where our victim does not have any loved ones, but such a thought experiment is meaningless because (atleast statistically) in the real world we wouldn't know that.

and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond

Nice...

> and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond

I'd like a link to back up this figure, please.

Originally Posted by B0bDole

God is

If 'man is made in Gods image' then surely he isn't.

I've been trying to resist saying maddox's point of view, but I can't help it.

"I'm against abortion, but I am for killing babies"

WHEW, NOW I FEEL BETTER...please feel free to rank me down.

I don't think that's a good example because whilst it's called "potential" energy it is actually a genuine form of energy. A potential person is not a person at all, its not a form of a person it is simply a possible future person, a maybe (which doesn't apply to PE at all).

Ok, more like amortized analysis. Because potential energy is only called energy to have the conservation of energy hold, there shouldn't be any problem using potential here. A potential person, whether a fetus or a baby, owns their potential to become a person. Stopping that potential, allowing the baby to become feral is wrong. Now this abuse is done to a baby, a human being, but not a fully developed person. Are babies persons by your definition?

If you really want to invoke ownership, then ownership of our own bodies is enough to rule out rape.

Yes, and I'd think those cells are a part of our bodies.

Your usuage is arbitrary for the reason i layed out in the post above.
You arbitrarly ascribe "ownership of potential" to a fertilised egg, or a collection of cells in a fetus but not to a sperm/egg.

The ethical concept of ownership can apply to the fetus because the fetus is a human being. The sperm and the egg are human cells, but not human beings. They don't have any ethical considerations in of themselves.

Why doesn't this concept apply to the sperm and the egg? Well, the sperm and egg's potential is owned by the respective human beings; their potential cannot have two owners. Of course, the cells could own their own potential without their human counterparts owning them.

Furthermore one need not base ethics entirely on the concept of ownership, people suffer when raped, people suffer when abused or neglected that is enough to justify their ethical status on utilitarian grounds.

Basing ethics on a slice such as ethical ownership is easier than using a mix of values. Moreover, every ethical decision can be based by ownership, given that society owns certain unlawful freedoms. Of course, ethical laws are different from what's moral, which must be based upon love or higher principle. Obviously someone can avoid criminal behavior while also being wicked. But our laws are to protect the people, first and foremost, while not becoming impractical.

It is the standard figure i've heard quoted, i can't recall where i heard it first probably biology A-level but i'm sure the medics i lived with mentioned before.

No, there's no standard figure. They're all based upon estimates. But there was recently a new technique--actually predicting greater spontaneous abortions than had previously been indicated--but I'm not knowledgeble enough to evaluate it. In any case, when the fetus as reached a certain point of development, when most of the deformed fetuses have died, then I'd say the odds are pretty good for success.

If we accept your overall "potential" premise then the only conclusion is that we encourage, nay force, all women to start having children the instant they reach reproductive maturity and only stop when their dead.

No, as I mentioned before, these women have reproductive rights, and they can choose whether to have sex or not. In other words, the potential they have to reproduce is owned by them. They don't, however, have the right to kill another human being, because each human being owns their ethical potential to become a person. Furthermore, ownership of potential doesn't mean fulfilling the potential is necessarily a good thing, only that whoever owns the potential has the right to do as they please.

Issues of abortion (or indeed almost any modern ethical debate) fall outside core ethical principles and so we must appeal to some kind of theoretical treatment to resolve them.

No, I don't think so. Abortions are well attested to as being wrong in early literature. The Didache banned abortions, associating it with infanticide, and I'm aware of an early Christian authors to have used abortion (as one of many issues) to attack pagan roman culture. Presumably the author believed the roman he was arguing against had similar thoughts upon abortions. Zorastrians, too, wrote against abortions. For these authors, however, their ethical systems were more based upon gut-feelings, along with their perception of natural order. ( ie., they could reason that God created the fetus, and taking the fetus' life was wrong. )

From a utilitarian perspective we can justify murder as wrong because most people have loved ones who will suffer if they are killed. One could propose a thought experiment where our victim does not have any loved ones, but such a thought experiment is meaningless because (atleast statistically) in the real world we wouldn't know that.

Well, not only is that thought experiment valid but someone could go and kill everyone, eliminating all loved ones.

Well, I had wanted to stay away from this argument, but...

The ethical concept of ownership can apply to the fetus because the fetus is a human being. The sperm and the egg are human cells, but not human beings. They don't have any ethical considerations in of themselves.

...and...

Why doesn't this concept apply to the sperm and the egg? Well, the sperm and egg's potential is owned by the respective human beings; their potential cannot have two owners. Of course, the cells could own their own potential without their human counterparts owning them.

The distinction you have made here is completely arbitrary. Why does the fetus 'own its potential' and the sperm and the egg do not? What is inherently different about it that the containing organism (the mother) does not own it (a part of her body) any more. At early stages, the fetus does not have any cognitive ability. Rather, instead of being just a couple cells, it is now a slightly bigger ball of cells.

Basing ethics on a slice such as ethical ownership is easier than using a mix of values. Moreover, every ethical decision can be based by ownership, given that society owns certain unlawful freedoms.

'Society owns certain unlawful freedoms'? Wouldn't it suffice to have each individual own a set of rights (or freedoms, or whatever you want to call them)? The idea being that anyone infringing upon anothers rights is acting unlawfully, instead of saying that society 'owns' rights to remove liberty.

No, as I mentioned before, these women have reproductive rights, and they can choose whether to have sex or not. In other words, the potential they have to reproduce is owned by them. They don't, however, have the right to kill another human being, because each human being owns their ethical potential to become a person. Furthermore, ownership of potential doesn't mean fulfilling the potential is necessarily a good thing, only that whoever owns the potential has the right to do as they please.

Your going into abstractions without fully defining the set of axioms you base your statements upon. Sure, a woman's ability to reproduce is owned by her. But then why not is a mass of cells which have no cognitive ability? Does a tumor 'own its right to fulfill its potential'? How do you draw the line of what is and is not a person?

My thought is this: The fetus, before it has a developed cognitive system does not display enough 'human-like' characteristics to have a higher priority than the organism to which it is biologically attached (the mother). So, it's mother is the one responsible for it and what gets done to it.

The distinction you have made here is completely arbitrary. Why does the fetus 'own its potential' and the sperm and the egg do not?

If the sperm and egg owned their potential to create life, then a doctor could, without the patient's consent, manage to create another human being using a patient's cells.

What is inherently different about it that the containing organism (the mother) does not own it (a part of her body) any more.

Biologically, the fetus is another human being, not part of the mother. Consequently, the dna of the fetus is different from the mother's dna.

At early stages, the fetus does not have any cognitive ability. Rather, instead of being just a couple cells, it is now a slightly bigger ball of cells.

Many fetus' do have cognitive ability, and these, too, are being destroyed by abortion. Cognitive ability, if just certain brain cells communicating with each other, isn't a radical difference because a fetus' cells are also communicating with each other.

Does a tumor 'own its right to fulfill its potential'? How do you draw the line of what is and is not a person?

Ethically, I assume that only human beings can hold ethical ownership of potential. Sure, a tumor has potential to fully develop, killing the victim. But the tumor is not a human being, and cannot ethically own this potential.

Furthermore, a human being has a biological definition as an entity capable of holding potential exists from conception to death. In this respect, when full personhood is acheived, the human being can be said to own its personhood, for before the human being owned its potential to become a person.

For a person, however, I've defined as someone capable of communicating and functioning in society. In effect, a human being with the cognitive awareness and faculties and identity that we observe in society. ( Babies don't appear to be fully developed persons, and for that matter a fetus, two seconds before conception, wouldn't be a fully developed persons. )

Nevertheless, I've never said that murder was only of a person, because there are cases, such as feral children, where a human being's personhood is robbed from them. These children often never fully develop into what we call a person--instead developing into an animal entity. In fact, in some cases these children were raised by animals.

Ethically, forcing a child into a condition that robs them of their personhood is wrong by natural law. The crime, neverthless, doesn't harm, existing person, but rather a human being. And so, using Clyde's ethical system, isn't wrong.