Courts: A woman addicted to glue-sniffing was five months pregnant with her fourth child. Two of her previous children had been born permanently disabled as a result of her addiction and were made permanent wards of the state. There was concern that her continuing addiction would permanently damage the nervous system of her fetus. A court ordered that she be placed in the custody of the director of Child and Family Services and detained in a health centre for addiction treatment until the child was born. The court acknowledged that its inherent right to protect children had never been exercised on behalf of an unborn child but decided to do so in this case. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1562/index.do U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm Medical Ethics: Nurses who have concerns about a fetus because of the pregnant womans behaviour should educate themselves about any applicable policy or practice approved by their employer or licensing body. Provincial /territorial legislation or local initiatives may provide a way to involve a social worker or work with the womans pre-existing case worker. A concerned nurse, acting in good faith, may contact the local child welfare authority (for example, the Childrens Aid Society), which may have a system to keep track of pregnant women at risk... http://www.cnps.ca/
Struck down by the SC. YOU said EVERY court and ALL medical ethics. You gave two instances of courts. Your example of medical ethics says nothing about fetal rights. It is up to YOU to prove YOUR claim of EVERY court and EVERY medical ethics guidelines.
What does that have to do with me correcting you on abortion not being murder? Fifty-one percent of abortion patients had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).[5] 5. Jones RK, Frohwirth L and Moore AM, More than poverty: disruptive events among women having abortions in the USA, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 39(1):36–43. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states So? Women are not broodmares for the barren. We don't owe anyone a child. Why don't YOU gestate a bunch for them?
I didn't say fetal rights. I said protections. I've inquired nothing about rights and only about protections from my very first post in this forum. I offered three fairly substantive examples of a court and two major organizations describing protections. One of the organizations (the U.N.) has fairly large influence on lawmaking decisions in countries. I also hold firm to my statement when I said they just don't know exactly what to do about it. In response, you offer large bold letters and lots of repeated words. As I said, I have the sense that it is semantic why you might disagree so strongly with what I inquire about. Or, perhaps, you're unwilling to discuss anything with any substance. You most certainly are willing to pick specific words and ignore all the others when trying to engage in discussion.
I find your posts are very insightful and thought-provoking. I never (knowingly) read Sir Roger Penrose, but I would probably agree that we do not currently know enough to simulate a conscious, self-aware, machine with true understanding. I am not, however, convinced it is impossible. I do believe some gorillas are capable of behavior that appears to be love and nurturing of smaller creatures (or even a doll). Is that the same as the love we experience? That is unclear to me. Elephants, I am told, experience grief when another elephant dies. Maybe that is just as deep as the love we humans experience. I don't know if an elephant would experience grief over killing a human. I would need more data. I would suggest that the primitive brain stem operates the animal (whether human or gorilla) and the cerebrum operates the person (or whatever you want to call the layer that is above the animal. The gorilla brain is generally not successful at overcoming the primitive, instinct-driven, brain stem so perhaps it is appropriate that we default to treating every gorilla as a non-person. On the other hand, the human brain is generally able to overcome the hard-wired programming of the human animal, so we default to treating every human as a person. In the case of the gorilla, we may notice an individual like Koko who deserves provisional person-hood. In the case of the human, we may notice an individual who deserves to be treated as a non-person (i.e. the death penalty for extremely in-human behavior). I think we only accept every homo sapiens as a person because we don't really stop to think about what we are really doing. When an individual human is mentally disabled, we go into stewardship. When an individual human is extremely in-human toward others, we (society/government) may agree to kill that individual. We do not, however, judge the human based on physical appearance (well... hopefully not in an enlightened society). We judge the human based on how he or she behaves. You could argue that this is a combination of the animal brain and the "human" brain, but I would say we all have the same basic animal brain and our behavior is really a function of how well our "human" brain can override the animal brain. Can biology interfere? I believe so. Can nurture (or lack thereof) interfere? I would agree (whether gorilla or human). In primitive times we (society) did not necessarily take either factor into account. Now, I think we try to discriminate between the factors that a person cannot control, and the factors that a person should logically be able to control. I consider that a more enlightened approach, so I think we should have more empathy for each other. Should we condemn bad behavior? I think it should initiate a dialog. Bad behavior represents a conflict between what two people think is appropriate. Maybe you learn to tolerate the behavior when you understand the source, or maybe the other person learns to adjust that behavior upon learning the effect it has on others. I think this all reflects on the moment of person-hood in that we have no real control over the physical body (the vehicle) that we find ourselves inhabiting as a newborn (plus or minus a couple of weeks?). At first we know nothing (or if we had awareness as spiritual beings, that awareness is for some reason withheld from us) and we begin to be aware of stimuli (light and sound that have no meaning, but we soon learn to associate with sensations we like or dislike). Hunger does not feel good. Getting fed feels good. The primitive brain stem may inform us when we are hungry, but the cerebrum organizes the stimuli and soon figures out which actions might lead to comfort and which actions do not. I consider that to be the beginning of the person who will eventually become Joe (or Jane).
You said legal status and legal protection. Legal status would indicate rights. BTW, you still have not proven your contention that EVERY court and medical ethics agree with you.
For the record: I said, "The odd thing is that no one disputes that a fetus deserves a legal-status and legal protections but everyone seems to have issue when discussing it. I tend to think it must be semantics or their own moral-interests." You stated that you don't care about either. A "status" is a legal position held in regard to the rest of the community and not by an act of law and not by the consensual act of the parties. So I guess from now on a "fetus" shall be called "the entity formerly known as the fetus". "Legal protections" would mean similar to the info I provided about what nurses do to track and report behavior to child protective services that is harmful to a "fetus". So the nurse has a legal authority, and the government agency has a legal authority. Ya see? Legal, not rights. I suppose I could say it is a nurse's "right" to report to the government agency that has the "right" to track behavior. But it's not exactly a right. I also don't think doctors would be acting ethically to abort a fetus without justification in week 28. Do you? I think ethical guidelines would put them in serious conflict with established ethical norms. You say, "a woman's right to abort up until birth". I say, "doctor's follow standard ethical medical practices and they would not abort unless justified". So is that really a "right" when a woman has to rely on a doctor who could refuse? Docs don't do unethical things or they expose themselves to serious legal risk. Ya see...there's another legal issue. Therefore, I accept that you don't want government child services that include concern for the health and behavior of the mother of an unborn child, nor medical ethics guidelines that require a woman to obtain an abortion from a certified doctor who will make decisions based on standardized ethical practices. I still do not think any court would agree with you. I suppose you could challenge the constitutionality of governmental child services and find out. Maybe take it up with the U.N. ?
Your mind definitely keeps mine searching for deeper understanding. So thanks for all your words. I too have noticed that gorillas nurture. I've watched a few documentaries and read quite a bit on Koko. I think it can be sometimes difficult to know for sure how to interpret animal behavior, but I certainly think that behavior is correctly interpreted. The latest on computers and A.I. is quantum computers. There is a Canadian company called D-Wave that has developed a computer system that is absolutely incredible. Lockheed, Google, NASA all use them. I'd definitely suggest looking in to it if you haven't. https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/dash/physics/quail/ I really have no idea if AI can ever have a consciousness. I wonder if it can only go thru the motions of consciousness but not really have genuine emotion, what a human might consider an "inner life". I'm just not sure. I do think that human senses might be "fooled" by an Ai in to thinking that there is an inner life. But consider art and music and poetry and love. Can you imagine a heart broken machine? I have a very difficult time imagining simulations and computations feeling anything.
Why can't you address my post? You have not proven your contention of EVERY court and EVERY medical ethic. I do understand your need to divert since you can't prove it, however I am done.
It's not a divert at all. Your argument is binary when it is a question of degree. It's also an issue of semantics as I said earlier. You also have no depth to your arguments or ability to provide any insight. Lots of capital letters and repeat words, though. I will accept that you concede. Every court disagrees with you and every medical ethic disagrees with you. In fact, it could be further argued that it is immoral to choose to have a baby....to choose to have a baby is the moral equivalent of running in to a burning house to save a toy teddy bear while leaving an actual born child in the corner to burn. There are actual children suffering and dying every day in the world, therefore, it could be argued that every potential child should be aborted so as to allocate resources to save actual live suffering human children.
Like I said, just because something is legal does not make it right. Slaves were considered property thus they could be whipped, raped, or killed at their masters whims because they were not considered human. Since a pregnancy is not considered a child, the mother can kill the child just because she wants too. [/QUOTE]Fifty-one percent of abortion patients had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).[5] 5. Jones RK, Frohwirth L and Moore AM, More than poverty: disruptive events among women having abortions in the USA, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 39(1):3643. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states [/QUOTE] 54% of women having abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use. There is no contraceptive method that can prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. 46% percent of women who have abortion had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex. 8% of women who have abortion have never used a method of birth control; non-use is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated. About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past. http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html So basically 76% of those women that used contraceptives, did not use them correctly or consistently. [/QUOTE]So? Women are not broodmares for the barren. We don't owe anyone a child. Why don't YOU gestate a bunch for them?[/QUOTE] It always boils down to emotions and shouting over those that disagree with you. Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you. I answered yours with respect and no name calling. Are you anti death penalty? Do you think that guns should be banned because 36K people lose their lives to firearms a year? Are you anti cigarette but pro marijuana? Are you vegan and believe no-one should eat meat?
Fifty-one percent of abortion patients had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).[5] 5. Jones RK, Frohwirth L and Moore AM, More than poverty: disruptive events among women having abortions in the USA, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 39(1):3643. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states [/QUOTE] 54% of women having abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use. There is no contraceptive method that can prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. 46% percent of women who have abortion had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex. 8% of women who have abortion have never used a method of birth control; non-use is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated. About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past. http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_stats.html So basically 76% of those women that used contraceptives, did not use them correctly or consistently. [/QUOTE]So? Women are not broodmares for the barren. We don't owe anyone a child. Why don't YOU gestate a bunch for them?[/QUOTE] It always boils down to emotions and shouting over those that disagree with you. Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you. I answered yours with respect and no name calling. Are you anti death penalty? Do you think that guns should be banned because 36K people lose their lives to firearms a year? Are you anti cigarette but pro marijuana? Are you vegan and believe no-one should eat meat?[/QUOTE] Could you please repost this with proper quoting so I can make it out and respond? Thanks! (even my "reply with quote" screwed it up and it is all a jumble to me)
Using the words "inconvenient" and "convenient" to refer to abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, or child rearing is wrong. Those words are meant to trivialize pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing, none of which are "convenient" in the best of circumstances and often are disastrous for a woman. A responsible adult will choose abortion when she knows she cannot provide a good life for a child or when pregnancy endangers her life in a physical or social way.
I find quantum computers interesting, but have not had the time (or the need) to figure out how to program one. I deal with more mundane problems that do not require that level of complexity. To understand if a computer could have inner feelings, we might have to figure out why the words in a book can make a human being cry (or feel joy). If we can feel sad for Romeo and Juliet based on reading a few words on paper, why couldn't a computer become just as sad?
For what it's worth, I think Zeffy has a valid argument *IF* we all agreed that the fetus has rights equal to any other citizen. If you wake up to find somebody in your home, you do not have to wait for them to stab you or shoot you or harm you in any way. If you fear that an intruder might cause harm to you, or your family, you would be justified in shooting that intruder. I think this exchange might be getting hung up over absolutes (e.g. every court and every medical ethic). For example, we know some doctors are willing to perform abortions at 32 weeks. If the doctor believes the moment of person-hood is birth, then the pregnant woman is his only actual patient and he is ethically bound to consider only her life and long-term health. We know that some courts (e.g. Canadian court) allow that the pregnant woman has the right to an abortion at any point in the pregnancy. It would be incorrect to state a position for every court and/or every medical ethic.
I think the context from which the statement I gave that "no one disputes there should be a legal status and that there should be some legal protections for the fetus", the context from which it arose was that no one chooses to whom they are born or by whom they are aborted, lead me to feel I was justified in using the absolutes "every court" and "every medical ethic". I did very quickly concede that even in this context of practice there is no concensus of what to do about it. I then went on to give three examples of courts and ethical practices that expressed the needs of a fetus, which in my view, reinforced my view that no court so easily dismisses a fetus as "nothing to concern oneself about" as Zeffy's response indicated. Hence why I said "every court and medical ethic disagrees". In truth and practice, there is an identifiably independent being defined as a fetus that everyone acknowledges which gives it its legal status. People couldn't wrangle over it in courts if there was no fetus. And I described a few different methods that legal protections are provided to a fetus with examples of monitoring pregnant women who exhibit questionable behavior. Considering the overall context of "no moment of personhood" thread, I felt justified in being absolute in this case. I normally wouldn't because it is such a complex question. I agree that absolutes tend to end the ability to discuss, therefore I also used that position to justify my use of the words "every court and medical ethic". With regards to courts deciding abortion, its very clear that Canadian courts have consistently placed the autonomy of the woman above the interest of the fetus, as it should be. I highly doubt anyone (yes another absolute "anyone") would dispute that it shouldn't be that way. Hence why there is always provisions for the "life of the woman" even when elective abortion isn't legal. Zeffy, of course, is welcome to respond.
You did a good job (given limited space) in covering some of the basics of "personhood" I think it was Socrates who coined the phrase "I think therefor I am" Monte Python "I drink therefore I am" I would then argue that without this capacity - the capacity for self realization- realizing one's own existence - there is no personhood. We can go further in this definition and say that this self realization needs to include the basic qualities that we value in humanity. Memories, ability to form social bonds, the ability to have respect for others and so on. I would go as far as to claim that a living human serial killer - falls outside my definition of "a personhood" - and therefore should be killed as one might kill a rabid dog. Another example is someone who is clinically brain dead. While this person is alive, this is the point where the doctor pulls the plug and we bury the patient. The question then is when does the fetus become self aware ? or have what is referred to as "significant brain function". While the fetal brain is developing quite early (obviously a zygote is not a person as it has no brain) the wiring does not get connected until much later roughly 22-26 weeks. It is then similar to turning on a light switch. When the wiring is complete the brain turns on. This "significant brain function" can be measured and quantified. This is the point where I would argue - personhood begins.
So if you cannot "provide a good life" for a child then you should just kill the child? Talk about trivializing life.
